5A GRISWOLD DRIVE - BUILDING INSPECTION �� � sw �
�� �
��.`�P
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Department.of�PuMc Safety
Board of BuiOng ftgufations and Standards
Thomas G.Gatmnis,P.E.
OneAsf6urton Place; mom 1301 commissioner
Davai L.Patrick Boston, ,Massachusetts 02108-1618 Ga Chtairman E
Governor �r
Timothy P.Murray (None (617) 727-7532 Tar,,(617)227-1754 AlexanderMacLeod,R.A.
Lieutenant Governor VMS Chairman
2�PY(617) 727-0019
Kevin M.Burka Robert Anderson
secretary www m"s g'ov/dps Administrator
Date: December 4, 2007
Name of Appellant: Joseph L. Martel
Service Address: 5A Griswold Drive
Salem, MA 01970
In reference to: 5A Griswold Drive
Salem,MA 01970
Docket Number: 05-395
Property.Address: 5A Griswold Drive
Salem,MA 01970
Date of Hearing: 04-05-07
We are pleased to enclose a copy of the decision on the request for a variance from the
Building Code.
Sincerely:
B�UI}LDINGG CODE APPEALS BOARD
VCLI 'I
Patricia Barry,Cle
cc: Building Code Appeals Board
Building Official
1
w
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
SUFFOLK,ss. Building Code Appeals Board
Docket No. 05-395
Joseph L. Martel, )
Appellant )
)
V. )
)
City of Salem, )
Appellee )
)
BOARD'S RULING ON APPEAL
Procedural History
This matter came before the State Building Code Appeals Board(`Board") on the
Appellant's appeal filed pursuant to 780 CMR§122.1. In accordance with 780 CMR§122.3,
Appellant asks the Board to grant a variance from 780 CMR§103.1 of the Massachusetts State
Building Code("Code")to allow Appellant to render a fireplace inoperable but retain the visual
appearance of the fireplace in his condominium unit.
By letters dated November 1,2006 and March 2, 2007,Thomas St. Pierre,Building
Commissioner for the City of Salem("Appellee"), explained that,because the chimney systems for
the Appellant's fireplace (and other fireplaces in the same condominium)need repairs and/or
replacement to be safe,the Appellant(and other unit owners in the condominium)must do the
following: eliminate the fireplace and sheetrock the opening; or replace the firebox and flue pipe;
and repair the top collar and cap on the Lennox system. He would not allow the firebox to remain
accessible because of public safety.
In accordance with G. L. c. 30A, §§10 and 11; G. L. c. 143, §100; 801 CMR §1.02 et. seq.;
and 780 CMR§122.3.4, the Board convened a public hearing on April 5, 2007 where all interested
parties were provided with an opportunity to testify and present evidence to the Board.
Appellant was present at the hearing. Thomas St. Pierre was present on behalf of the City
of Salem.
2
J
Discussion
The issue is whether Appellant should be allowed alternatives which would allow his
fireplace to remain in place for visual effect,but be inoperable,rather than take the steps Mr. St.
Pierre specified. Section 103.Lof the Code requires"all buildings and structures and all parts
thereof,both existing and new, and all systems and equipment therein which are regulated by 780
CMR shall be maintained in a safe, operable and sanitary condition."
The Board considered Appellant's suggestions, such as the installation of a plexi glass
cover to the fireplace,which could prevent someone from starting a fire in the fireplace,while .
retaining the look of a fireplace. The Board also considered Mr. St. Pierre's testimony that,with
respect to fireplaces that have been purportedly rendered inoperable,people find ways to avoid
such safety measures,resulting in fires that never should be set in fireplace areas,and, often,
"potentially fatal"consequences. As a result, Mr. St. Pierre did not recommend any of Appellant's
alternatives. His conclusion was,that to address safety concerns,the fireplace system defects had
to be corrected or the fireplace had to be eliminated, and reinstalled at a later time when all defects
had been corrected.
Decision
The Chair entertained a motion to deny the request for a variance from §103 of the Code,
based on life safety issues. Following testimony, and based upon relevant information provided,
Board members voted in favor of the motion,thus denying the request for a variance, as described
on the record. The Board voted as indicated below.
0.......... Granted X.......... Denied 0.......... Rendered Interpretation❑
...........Granted with conditions 0........ Dismissed
The vote was:
X..............Unanimous ..........0 Majority
Jacob Nunnemacher Brian Gale—Chair Stanley Shuman
Any person aggrieved by a decision of the State Building Code Appeals Board may appeal
to a court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with Chapter 30A, Section 14 of the
Massachusetts General Laws.
3
i
A complete administrative record is on file at the office of the Board of Building
Regulations and Standards.
A true copy attest, dated: December 4, 2007
Patricia Barry, Jerk
All hearings are audio recorded. The digital recording (which is on file at the office of
the Board of Building Regulations and Standards) serves as the official record of the hearing.
Copies of the recording are available from the Board for a fee of$10.00 per copy. Please make
requests for copies in writing and attach a check made payable to the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts for the appropriate fee. Requests may be addressed to:
Patricia Barry, Coordinator
State Building Code Appeals Board
BBRS/Department of Public Safety
One Ashburton Place—Room 1301
Boston,MA 02108
S:\Legal\Popov\05-395Martel(cnp).doc
4