Deval Patrick Governor Timothy Murray Lieutenant Governor

Document Sample
Deval Patrick Governor Timothy Murray Lieutenant Governor Powered By Docstoc
					                             The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
                                 Department of Public Safety
                                            Architectural Access Board
                                           One Ashburton Place, Room 1310
    Deval L. Patrick                      Boston, Massachusetts 02108-1618                                Thomas G. Gatzunis, P.E.
                                                 Phone 617-727-0660                                           Commissioner

  Timothy P. Murray
  Lieutenant Governor                             Fax 617-727-0665                                          Thomas P. Hopkins

Mary Elizabeth Heffernan                                                                          

                                            Board Meeting – May 9, 2011

                                           21st Floor – Conference Room 1

   Present Board Members:
          - Donald Lang, Chair (DL)
          - Walter White, Executive Office of Public Safety Designee (WW)
          - Richard Flippin, Executive Office of Elder Affairs Designee (RF)
          - Mark Trivett, Member (MT)
          - Andrew Bedar, Member (AB)


             -     Thomas Hopkins, Executive Director (TH)
             -     Kate Sutton, Program Coordinator/Clerk for Proceedings (KS)

   Members Not Present:
        - Myra Berloff, Massachusetts Office on Disability Designee
        - Diane McLeod, Vice Chair
        - Carol Steinberg, Member
        - Gerald LeBlanc, Member

   1) Discussion: Cases of the Day
   DL     - Becky D’s has been avoiding compliance for month

   TH        - they had constructed the ramp at the rear, and with the installation of the lift would create access to
             both levels
             - the affidavit from Ouimet clarified that the policy for allowance of the rear ramp to access the space
             was not in place and that use of the ramp was actually discouraged

   DL        - the bathrooms were supposed to have bathrooms done by 2009 and the lift was supposed to be installed

                                               Meeting Minutes 5/9/11 – Page 1
TH    - response to the fine hearing notice was another set of plans from the architect

DL    - they should be closed
      - hearing should be short and to the point

TH    - no extension request, no document submittal
      - don’t have enough staff to chase people
      - newest plan shows a ramp, never submitted before, but the Board already ordered the installation of a
      - plan for ramp would eliminate too much space at the interior

DL    - AAB27 of the packet, we granted on the condition that plan submitted
      - (TAPE)
      - AAB45, reiterates same as previous decision, never submitted plans

*Diane McLeod, Vice Chair – Present (DM)*

DL    - outstanding deadlines were not met and nothing sent to the Board
      - January 9, 2010, deadline set, did not receive plans, and bathrooms not done

DM    - too many opportunities given to comply

AB    - seem to be banking on continuing to submit alternative plans

DL    - Framingham case?
      - Town of Framingham owns the building

TH    - Monday, started to receive emails that Town Officials were not going to attend the hearing

*Carol Steinberg, Member – Present (CS)*

TH    - the Town has submitted plans for compliance

DL    - concerned with reference that working with a lot of people, but no letters of support

TH    - applicant is required to submit variance applications to the local parties prior to submitting the
      application to the Board
      - it is not often that the ILC’s are involved


2) Incoming Discussion: Norwood Theater, 109 Central St., Norwood ()
TH     - Submittal from Petitioners
                                        Meeting Minutes 5/9/11 – Page 2
       - seeking one more variance
       - three inch rise, allow 1:10-1:12; Green Room is going to be a 4 inch rise
       - EXHIBIT - Plan SK-43A and SK-43B
       - 6’11” ceiling

       DM     - GRANT
       WW     - Second - Carries

3) Incoming: Commercial Building, 17 Canton Ave, Milton (V11-085)
TH     - EXHIBIT – variance application
       - two story existing building, undergoing renovation and two-story addition
       - over 30%, full compliance required
       - seeking variance to 25.1 for one entrance, and propose to use a LULA to provide access to the second
       floor of the building
       - neighborhood is opposed to ramping at the front entrance
       - Letter of support from Milton Historical Society

       DM     - Hearing
              - withdrawn

       CS     - ask for cost of the front entrance ramp, because have to prove impracticable
       MT     - Second –
              - withdrawn

       DM     - Deny the variance for 25.1
       WW     - Second - Carries

       CS     - Grant use of LULA
       MT     - Second – Carries

4) Incoming: North Works Building, 104-110 Grove St., Worcester (V11-087)
TH     - EXHIBIT – variance application
       - reconstruction of existing ramp
       - want to rebuild new ramp
       - request relief between the handrails
       - jurisdiction 3.1a, work performed
       - proposing 38 ¼” between handrails

       DM     - Grant
       CS     - Second - carries

5) Discussion: McMillan Pier at Commercial Wharf, Provincetown (V99-245, C10-105, and V11-015)
TH     - Hearing held in March of 2011
       - received letter from engineering firm regarding request for ramp gangway slopes during tidal swings
                                        Meeting Minutes 5/9/11 – Page 3
       DM      - grant as proposed
       CS      - Second – both withdrawn

       DM      - Accept the proposed slopes of the gangway
       CS      - Second – carries

6) Discussion: Synergy Building, 151 Beach Rd., Vineyard Haven (V02-038 and C10-005)
TH     - letter from Complainant forwarded to the Board because of praise from the letter submitted
       - although letter stated that the second floor was still open, contrary to Petitioners testimony,
       Complainant did not ask for any further action
       - lift is now installed and inspected, hearing was held because building official had previously granted
       the permit for the installation of the lift, when the State Elevator Inspector is required to inspect

7) Discussion: Armory Bldg, 191 Highland Ave., Somerville (V09-197, C10-059)
TH     - submittal from Petitioners
       - seeking more time to comply, until June 15, 2011
       - need to do more work to bring the ramp slopes into compliance

       CS      - grant extension until June 15, 2011
       DM      - Second – carries

8) Discussion: Basha Café, 26-48 New St., Cambridge (C09-058 and V10-200)
TH     - Submittal of toilet room plans
       - 20 and 23” to nearest wall
       - propose to block out the grab bars to create the required 18”

       DM      - accept the plan as presented (Plan 2.1) – to be done by July 1, 2011
       CS      - Second – Carries

9) Incoming: Durant Kendrick Homestead, 286 Waverly Ave, Newton (V11-088)
TH     - EXHIBIT – variance application
       - historic house variance application

       CS      - hearing
       DM      - Second – Carries

10) Incoming: Commercial Bldg, 415 Neponset St., Dorchester (V10-086)
TH     - EXHIBIT – Variance application
       - over 30%, full compliance required
       - seeking a variance to one of the building’s entrances

       GL      - grant, on the condition that signage is added
       WW      - Second – carries
                                         Meeting Minutes 5/9/11 – Page 4
11) Incoming Discussion: Barristers Building, 22 Shattuck St., Lowell (V11-069)
TH     - amendment request seeking relief for winders on existing staircase
       - noticed at previous variance review
       - new staircase is provided at the other side of the building

       CS      - grant
       WW      - Second – Carries

12) Advisory Opinion: handrail end conditions, 521 CMR 24.5.9
TH    - 24.5.9 requires rounded, or returned to post
      - picture of proposed end condition of a handrail with a rounded edge

       WW      - send to subcommittee
       MT      - Second - carries

13) Incoming Discussion: Mt. Pleasant Home, 301 South Huntington Ave., Jamaica Plain (V09-110)
TH     - Petitioner proposes to provide a fold-down grab at the wide side of the toilet
       - plan of grab bar in the fold-up position is provided to show if there is interference with a person using
       the wide side clearance (Plan SK-004)
       -521 CMR 44.4.4, grab bar at the back of the toilet is not as much help as the fold-down grab bar due to
       those living there

       DM      - grant
       CS      - second - carries

14) Incoming: Summit House, Joseph Skinner State Park, Hadley (V11-081)
TH     - EXHIBIT – variance application
       - basement and two stories
       - basement contains public toilet rooms and utilities, and a walkout with entrance at grade
       - work consists of structural improvements to an observation deck
       - creating accessible parking and picnic and accessible surface route to all accessible facilities
       - existing toilets to be renovated
       - new ramp and grading system to create access to the first floor museum and observation deck
       - not over 30%
       - seeking variances to 26.6.3a, regarding latch pull side clearance, reduce 18” to 13” due to existing
       concrete structure

       DM      - grant 26.6.3a
       MT      - Second – Carries

TH     - 36.2.3, clear floor space to be centered on drinking fountain, seeking to reduce one side from 15” to
       11” and increase other to 19” instead of 15”

       CS      - grant
       MT      - second - carries

                                         Meeting Minutes 5/9/11 – Page 5
15) Hearing: Lincoln Medical Center, 61 Lincoln St., Framingham (C11-006)
DL     - called to order at 10:30 a.m.
       - introduce the Board

David Correia, Access Consultant Metrowest Center for Independent Living (DC)
Mark Dempsey, Compliance Officer for the Board (MD)
David Williams, Asst. Town Manager for Framingham (DW)

DL     - EXHIBIT 1 – AAB1-40
       - all those present sworn

DC     - received a phone call about the lack of van accessible parking spaces
       - 219 spot provided, 15 accessible spaces
       - none were van accessible
       - some missing access aisles and curb cuts

MD     - first and second notice sent out, only documentation submitted from the Town was from the Building

DL     - any problem acknowledging conditions exist
       - DW - no

       DM     - find in favor of the Complainant
       MT     - second – carries unanimously

DW     - are planning to rectify the problem
       - apologize for confusion
       - notifications came into Town Managers Office, needed to review lease with Town Counsel, found that
       Town was in fact the owner of the property
       - confusion as to who was responding to the case from the Town Hall Offices
       - can rectify the issues within 30 days, work will be done by the Property Manager
       - did not realize that the Building was a Town owned building, 50 year lease

DL     - proposed solution is understood?
       DW - yes

DW     - can get work done within 30 days by the lease holder, would like to make sure work is done

       DM     - compliance by June 30, 2011, with verification submitted on or before said date
       WW     - second –
       GL     - AAB38, no signage at the accessible space shown
              - AAB37, width of entry door
              DC      - picture was contorted to fit on the page
              - carries

16) Discussion: Chapin Hall, Williams College, 54 Chapin Hall Dr., Williamstown (V11-041)
TH     - denied the request to 26.6.1 regarding the doors into the recital hall
       - letter dated May 6, 2011, received today
       - proposing to remove the door at the bottom of the ramp

                                        Meeting Minutes 5/9/11 – Page 6
       WW      - accept proposal to remove the doors at the bottom of the ramp
       MT      - Second - carries

17) Incoming Discussion: Inside Out Stage, Jacob’s Pillow, 358 George Carter Rd., Becket (V11-071)
 TH - voted to schedule a hearing
       - met with Stephan Green, proposing complete access, and addressing guardrail issue
       - seeking permission to use a portable lift, which will be in place for the entire season and then removed
       at the end of the season

       DM - grant as proposed, with policy regarding installation of the portable ramp in place and covered
       when not in use; and therefore cancel the scheduled hearing
       WW - Second – carries

18) Incoming Discussion: Concord Depot, 80 Thoreau St., Concord (V11-026)
TH     - previously approved installation of the lift, on the condition that it complied in full with the
       requirements of 521 CMR regarding incline wheelchair lifts
       - proposing amendment to variance to allow Petitioners to provide a platform 31 ½” by 39 3/8”
       - seeking to use shorter platform
       - would depend on footrest location

       DM      - conduct staff site visit, hold on decision until then
       MT      - Second - carries

19) Incoming Discussion: 6 Fort St., 4-14 Fort St, Quincy (V11-076)
TH     - Petitioners requested that although hearing scheduled for July 25th, wanted the Board to review at least
       one of the items, based on lead time needed for the installation of lift
       - 3 of the units are townhouses
       - EXHIBIT – Plan A101, A103, and A103R
       - three steps to the townhouses
       - townhouses are 3 bedroom, but there is no demand for 3-bedroom request on the accessible housing
       waiting list
       - accessible unit is a two-bedroom and is comparable to the size of the three-bedroom units

       GL      - grant
       WW      - second – carries with DM and CS opposed

       AB      - reconsider
       DM      - Second – fails with MT, RF, WW, and GL opposed

20) Incoming: ODD Fellows Home, 2 Nameshaket Rd., Orleans (V11-089)
TH     - EXHIBIT 1 – variance application
       - existing inaccessible building, renovation project to create access
       - in 2008 exceeded 30% and did nothing
       - addition will create access to the building
       - building was built in 1800’s
       - all of the work scheduled to be completed by 2014
       - seeking time variances
       - since this came to light, cannot use second floor meeting room
       - seeking to use existing side entrance, provide temporary portable ramp to access the building

                                          Meeting Minutes 5/9/11 – Page 7
       WW     - grant, on the condition that a temporary ramp is installed, but not portable, and ramp proposal
              shall be approved by the Board prior to installation
       GL     - Second – carries

TH     - 27.4.1, existing historic stair and inner handrail to be maintained, propose continuous compliant
       wallside handrail

       WW     - grant on the condition that wall side handrail is installed by July 1, 2011
       MT     - Second – carries

KS     - date for submittal of ramp plans?

       CS     - submit proposed plans for temporary ramp by July 1, 2011
       DM     - Second – carries

DL     - drawing 3.1 and 1.3 show raised platforms, need variances

TH     - 28.1, seeking time variance and be allowed to use the second floor meeting room until July 1, 2014,
       proposing to provide 6 month status reports

       DM     - deny
       GL     - second – carries with MT, RF and WW opposed

21) Discussion: Sidewalks Central Business District in Malden (V10-029)
TH     - status report from Richard Azalena, submitted via email to KS
       - 25% ready on design documents, but design plans are dated September of 2010
       - study done between Mass DOT AAB/ADA reviewer
       - not 100% yet, status updates will continue

22) Incoming: Mass. Ave. Condo Trust, 264 Mass. Ave., Arlington (V11-084)
TH     - EXHIBIT – Variance application
       - petitioner seeking to maintain key operation of existing lift
       - cost to replace key system cited, but no costs given

       CS     - deny
       MT     - second – carries

23) Advisory Opinion: Building Façade Replacement
TH    - request from Harold Cutler, regarding a proposed building façade replacement
      - spending $108-126,000 on the façade renovation, can this work be taken as an exemption

DM     - does not say it as part of the exemption

TH     - therefore required to provide and an accessible entrance
       - not sure if working on entrances

WW     - work exempted does include masonry repointing

       DM     - need more information of detail of work to be done, including any entrance work
       WW     - Second - carries

                                         Meeting Minutes 5/9/11 – Page 8
24) Discussion: Minutes and Decisions from April 25
KS     - any amendments

CS     - remove name, from Brockton decision

TH     - Section 3, regarding decision on Main St., Brockton
       - at the hearing, the architect stated that the project is for the façade of the building, jurisdiction under
       both work performed (working on front entrance) and partial application; architect noted that because
       façade work encompasses the entire building, then cannot be partial application and therefore, must be
       30% of the entire building, not just the space

RF     - funded by a grant given to the owner of the building, doing the entire façade

WW     - 3-story building, entire façade is the project
       - used the value of the first floor of the building, since the work cost exceeds 30% of the value of the
       - is the scope of the work just the façade of the first floor?
       - need a breakdown of the project costs

TH     - need to know what the project cost is and what is being added from state/federal

       DM     - need to know more information about source of funding and matching funds from facades
              committee, and breakdown of expenditures; public bidding
       CS     - Second – carries

*NO MORE Diane McLeod (DM); Myra Berloff, Director of MOD now present (MB)*

25) Hearing: Becky D’s, dba Southside Annie’s, 114 Cove St., New Bedford
DL     - called to order at 1:00 p.m.
       - Introduce the Board

Mark Dempsey, Compliance Officer for the Board (MD)
Michael Ouimet, Advocate from Independence Associates (MO)
Emile Morad, attorney for the owner (EM)
William Hader, owner (WH)

DL     - all but counsel sworn in
       - EXHIBIT 1- AAB1-78
       - fine hearing, Petitioners responsibility to prove that the lack of compliance with the Board’s order is

DL     - outstanding issues AAB31, December 13, 2009 decision, requires that by January 9, 2010, two
       accessible toilet rooms; signed contract copy of deposit for incline wheelchair lift be submitted by said
       - AAB27, requested stamped plans regarding route to rear accessible entrance be submitted by March
       15, 2010
       - AAB7, affidavit from Michael Ouimet, regarding usage of the rear entrance being denied
       - counsel seen a copy of affidavit?
       EM      - no
                                          Meeting Minutes 5/9/11 – Page 9
      DL     - take a minute to read the affidavit from Mr. Ouimet

EM    - can’t comment on what was allegedly stated to this gentleman

DL    - not at issue, issue is lack of compliance with the Board’s order

WH    - there is no signage posted at the front door because the door has been locked because assumed that
      accessible restrooms were needed to be provided before a person with a disability could use the facility
      - bathroom work is going to be constructed at the exterior and connected to the building, has to be done
      in phases due to funding needs

EM    - lift was not pursued because the current proposal is to create a ramp at the exterior which will be
      enclosed to connect the upper level with the main level of the Board

CS    - AAB29, January 2010 letter stated that the bathrooms would be completed by July 1, 2010

EM    - had every intention to complete the work, but unable to get funding
      - had gone thru two-three sets o

26) Hearing: Becky D’s continued

WH    - funding needed for foundation of the newly proposed bathrooms
      - have plans from Dyer Brown for newly proposed bathrooms
      - vertical wheelchair lift put off, because cost of ramp was more practical and same cost as lift
      - things are being done, but not done on a timeline because of lack of funding

DL    - come to the conclusion that the inability to provide the minimum of standards of access over the last
      for years, establishment is not viable and perhaps should close

EM    - this was initially going to be an enlargement of the room
      - architect never involved, the city should not have accepted the plans or issued a permit
      - building inspector waited until all the work was done before bringing up issue of accessibility
      - foundation was raised to create more headroom at the basement

DL    - capacity?
      WH - 48 people, no kitchen
              - rear entrance was $4,000
              - architectural fees was $15,000

DL    - crowded when MO went?
      MO - no, approximately 10 people, not that busy

WW    - why not let the Board know that you were not able to comply with the deadlines?
      - date on the latest plan is March 24, 2011
      - letter for scheduling the hearing was dated March 17, 2011

EM    - only on temporary CO
      - should have cc’ed the Board with correspondence

WW    - paying lawyer’s fees and architects fees, but can’t afford access

                                       Meeting Minutes 5/9/11 – Page 10
WH   - liquor liability laws, required insurance has upgraded, $14-15,000 purchase

WW   - no pictures of ramp
     EM      - local inspector reviewed the ramp, so thought that they were reporting back to the Board

RF   - responsibility of architect
     EM      - building department should have denied permit application because no architect

EM   - as soon as they hit ledge, the owner called the building inspector

DL   - it’s the owners building responsibility

CS   - MO, aware of rear ramp?
     MO - asked to use the ramp at the rear, when made aware of ramp being there by bartender, was
            denied use of the ramp
            - so therefore did not see the ramp

CS   - no pictures of ramp?
     KS      - AAB20, asphalt up to doorway
     - but no pictures of route

CS   - letter from attorney set deadlines, never followed up
     - no intention to do the work?

WH   - spent a lot of money in order to start to bring the building into compliance
     - originally got approval for temporary ramp, but then changed to built up asphalt

DL   - never received engineering drawing as required
     - fine hearing for failure to follow orders of the Board

WH   - unaware of the incident with MO, and upset about it, wish he would have gone to him; whole issue is
     to provide access into the building

DL   - compliance date in 2010 and heard nothing until

MT   - in the past, when argument of financial issues, petitioners have provided tax returns in the past

AB   - severe lack of accountability over the years; no follow through with the Board; only aware of lack of
     compliance based

WH   - trying to do the best with what they had
     - did not inform Board of changes to the plans; did not inform when couldn’t meet the deadlines
     - apologize to MO, should have been made available to him, spent the money to create it

MB   - $4,000 for an accessible entrance, but then not available to be used
     - although may not have told staff that the ramp shouldn’t be used, the understanding is that the entrance
     is not usable

WH   - emergency egress, crash bar

MB   - no exterior door handle?
                                      Meeting Minutes 5/9/11 – Page 11
       WH     - no

EM     - have to push a button to call for someone to open the rear entrance
       - was part of the discussion when the portable ramp was proposed, because bartender was going to have
       to put out the portable ramp

MB     - lottery agent?

WH     - dealing with that issue as well with dealing this Board

DL     - initial reaction was to fine a one-time fine of $5,000 and close the building
       - after hearing testimony, understand that closing the business will not help, but fines because of lack of
       compliance with an order of the Board
       - need to work with the Board, understand can’t get blood from a stone; clearly a lack of compliance
       without justification

WW     - when first applied for the building permit, owner apply or the contractor apply?
       WH - contractor applied for the building permit

WW     - permit to proceed, not a license to violate, falls onto the licensed contractor as well

WH     - during different phases of construction, Building inspector was there
       - should have rejected permit application

       RF     - under advisement
       GL     - Second
       CS     - when do you think the work required to be done can be done
              - dates for compliance given by attorney, not made up by the Board,

TH     - bathroom plan completely changed and grown; granted use of unisex toilet rooms; now proposing two
       accessible toilet rooms

DL     - additional toilet facilities for additional capacity?
       WH - just additional toilet facilities, no additional capacity

TH     - excessive cost but proposing to spend more to create more facilities
       - plan in file shows addition of one unisex toilet room

EM     - plan for unisex toilet room was in the middle of the room, would cut into the business
       - plan to work at the exterior of the building and then connect to the building

WH     - would hope to comply by August of 2012

MB     - cost to come into compliance; current cost estimate?
       - one unisex toilet room is less than the proposed two accessible toilet rooms
       WH - if going to do it, would like it to be done correctly, would save $10,000 if only did the unisex
       EM       - must have been cost analysis submitted with the plan

       - motion to take the matter under advisement carries

27) Hearing: St. Julia’s Roman Catholic Church, 374 Boston Post Rd., Weston (V11-030)
                                         Meeting Minutes 5/9/11 – Page 12
DL     - called at 2:10 p.m.
       - introduce the Board

Martin Demardy, Architect (MD)
Beth Nolan, Attorney (BN)
George Evans, Reverend for St. Julia’s Church (GE)

DL     - all those offering testimony sworn in
       - EXHIBIT 1 – AAB1-35

BN     - withdrawing variance request for 521 CMR 27.4, regarding handrails in 3 locations
       - handout, summary of presentation – EXHIBIT 2

MD     - parish consists of 4 structures; the church, the rectory, new parish center, parking lot
       - existing church, site and bell tower entrances, existing walkway at the bell tower, allows access into
       the church
       - no accessible seating currently
       - altar is 12” above the nave
       - toilet rooms are in the basement
       - no assistive listening systems
       - parish center and rectory link, provides access to the administration portion of the parish
       - parish center is fully compliant
       - structure is assessed at $1.3 million, project will trigger full compliance ($2.8 million)
       - rebuilding the buttresses, a lot of exterior stone repair
       - installing new compliant handrails at all stairs
       - AAB34, proposing to renovate sacristy
       - basement space was used as thrift shop, after parish center built, but closed in June 2010 due to the
       renovations proposed
       - proposing to remove stair at sacristy and create two accessible toilet rooms (Men’s and women’s),
       accessed via a ramp from the sanctuary
       - proposing 6 locations for wheelchair spaces, currently capacity is approximately 400, 4 at front center,
       two at rear corners
       - proposing assisted listening devices as well

DL     - AAB34, where the new toilet rooms are proposed, lobby space any steps?
       MD - no, all one level

MD     - variances for places of assembly 14.6
       - access to the altar, functions needed for altar
       - door between nave and lobby will be removed, ramp to bathrooms, will also access the altar

       GL     - grant 14.6
       RF     - second – carries

MD     - accessible route, ramp at the front of the building (20.11.11)
       - two accessible means of egress
       - front entrance is a means of egress, but will not be accessible

MB     - relief from having to make it an accessible entrance and lack of emergency egress
       - spaces provided available at area of rescue assistance?
       MD - could provide six
                                        Meeting Minutes 5/9/11 – Page 13
     - although fire department is next door, have they been notified that area of rescue assistance location is
     being provided
     MD - have not, but will discuss with them

DL   - Mass Historic letter, AAB13
     - any letter from Paul Spooner

BN   - Metrowest did support variance application but did not submit written testimony

     RF      - grant, the variance for 20.11, on the condition that the locations of the areas of refuge are
     WW      - Second – carries

MD   - front entrance variance, AAB34
     - technologically infeasible to make the front door accessible
     - would have to build a new ramp at the east side of the structure and lift the grade and build a new
     terrace around the front steps
     - significant cost for this plan, approximately $300,000
     - project budget is $2.8 million, 10% of total project cost to make the front door accessible

DL   - how many steps from nave to platform?
     MD - currently 4, 6 inch granite threshold at entrance doors
            - elevation difference of 24 inches

MB   - wedding party pictures at front steps?
     BN     - yes, and at an accessible level in front of the stairs but still raised

CS   - parking?
     MD - there are dedicated parking on street

     CS      - Grant 25.1
     MT      - Second - carries

MD   - 24.3, issue is interior ramp that connects sanctuary with altar
     - width between handrails is 32” clear, 48” required

MB   - eliminate a lower handrail to allow more width lower

     MB      - grant the lack of clear width between upper handrails and eliminate lower handrails
     WW      - Second – carries

DL   - any other doors other than bell tower entrance door for lack of maneuvering clearance?

     WW      - no variance needed for 26.6, based on the proposal on installation of auto door opener
     GL      - Second – carries

     WW      - no variance needed for 27.4, because proposing to comply
     GL      - Second - carries

CS   - choir location?
     MD - all accessible, even when larger choir
                                        Meeting Minutes 5/9/11 – Page 14
28) Hodges House (SMOC), 266 Main St., Oxford (V11-031)
DL    - called to order at 3:00 p.m.
      - introduce the Board

Kitty Ryan, Architect (KR)
Michael Comesky, SMOC Representative (MC)

DL    - both sworn in
      - EXHIBIT 1 – AAB 1-17

MC    - developer from SMOC
      - supportive housing for 16 individuals (sober housing)
      - sign a lease, stay as long as they like, affordable/supported housing

KR    - built in 1834 as a rectory to the adjacent church
      - 2 ½ story wood frame, second floor is front portion, later addition at the first floor
      - renovate first and second floors
      - 16 SRO rooms
      - front entrance on Main Street
      - want to maintain historic front entrance and create new entrance at the north side of the building
      - south entrance will be accessible as well
      - fairly flat site, but do need to put in walkway, enters at center of living space, main entrance will be the
      north side, where the mailboxes are located
      - 9 parking spaces, making one accessible
      - first floor will hold all of the first floor, as well as 9 SRO’s
      - center is more of the common space
      - the current front entrance will be an emergency egress only
      - 2 accessible SRO’s at the first floor
      - second floor screened porch will not be accessible, because of lack of access to the second floor
      - three toilet rooms at second floor not proposed to be made accessible
      - propose no access to the second floor, cost of elevator would be $90,000, and loss of two SRO’s (1 at
      each floor)

DL    - existing front entrance use?
      KR      - will be emergency egress only

TH    - need variance for lack of vertical access as well

      CS      - grant the variance for 25.1, for the front entrance, on the grounds that it will be emergency
              egress only and signage provided as proposed
      GL      - Second – carries

DL    - lack of access to the second floor

MB    - use of porch, no classes or gathering?
      MC - no
      - would like to see affidavit that no special function held at that second floor porch

AB    - possibility of vertical wheelchair lift?
      KR      - looked into it, but still a loss of space
                                         Meeting Minutes 5/9/11 – Page 15
CS     - would like to see screened in area at first floor patio

       WW      - grant
       GL      - second
       MB      - excessive cost without benefit to persons with disabilities
               - carries with CS opposed

       MB      - Grant relief to 10.1, regarding the lack of access to the screened porch at the second floor, on
               the condition that a portion of the first floor patio is screened in and accessible
       GL      - Second – carries
               MB     - submit plan for screened area of patio at first floor when construction is complete

       WW      - grant second floor toilet rooms 30.1
       GL      - Second – carries

       WW      - grant winders
       GL      - second – carries

MB     - nosings?
       KR      - currently carpeted

       MB      - grant relief at existing stair interior handrail, on the condition that compliant wall side
               handrail installed
       WW      - Second – carries

       CS      - new stairway will comply in full, no variance needed
       MB      - second – carries

29) Hearing: Becky D’s - Cont’d
DL     - agreed to do things that never got done

MB     - finally put in the asphalt entrance to the rear, but then testified that the entrance is emergency egress
       only, no exterior door hardware

AB     - took a picture of the entrance but not the route to the entrance from the front

CS     - would like to impose accumulating fines until work is completed

DL     - use the fine as a vehicle to get compliance

TH     - Fairway Oaks fines are now over $290,000.00, because of lack of compliance

       GL      - fine them one time for $5,000.00 and shut them down by the end of the week
       MT      - Second – carries unanimously

       MT      - expedite
       WW      - second – carries

30) Decisions and Minutes from April 25th
KS     - amendments made add to the Brockton decision, analysis pending for jurisdiction
                                         Meeting Minutes 5/9/11 – Page 16
MT   - accept with amendments
CS   - second – carries

                                ---- End of Meeting ----

                            Meeting Minutes 5/9/11 – Page 17

Shared By: