260A WASHINGTON STREET - ZBA 260Ac:WashingtorcS'1.' R-3
Bill McKinnon (owner).
,
Milagros Martinez (Eetitioner:
S
�n
O.�
i
f
Of '�ajeM, �41JUSSUrltuseite
:Banra of .Au}ienl
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MILAGROS MARTINEZ ( PETITIONER) ,
BILL MCKINNON (OWNER) FOR VARIANCES AT 260A WASHINGTON ST. (R-3)
A hearing on this petition was held May 15, 1991 with the following Board Members
present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Joseph Correnti, Richard Febonio, Edward
Luzinski, Mary Jane Stirgwolt. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and
others and notices of the hearing were properly published in they Salem Evening
News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chpater 40A.
The petitioner is requesting a Varince from use and parking to allow the property
to be used for a beauty salon. The property is located in an R-3 district and
is owned by Bill McKinnon.
The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding by this
Board that:
a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land,
building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other
lands, buildings and structures in the same district.
b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner.
c. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public
good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the
district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the
hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . This site has contained a number of commercial uses in the past, including
a temporary employment agency and a liquor store.
2. The proposed use will not be more detrimental to the neighborhood or zoning
district than the previously existing uses as it will not generate an
increase in the amount of vehicular traffic.
3. The proposed business will cater, primarily, to a walk-in trade from the
neighborhood.
4. The proposed site of the beauty parlor is in a commercial building which
should be utilized for a business purpose and therefore is somewhat unique
in the zoning district.
5. The proposed site of the beauty parlor is presently empty creating a
substantial financial hardship.
6. No opposition was expressed at the public hearing.
7. A representative of the Chamber of Commerce expressed support for the
location of this business on the site.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MILAGROS MARTINEZ ( PETITIONER) , BILL MCKINNON
(OWNER) FOR VARIANCES AT 260A WASHINGTON ST. , SALEM
page two
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the
hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but
not the district in general.
2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would work a substantial hardship
on the petitioner.
3. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the public
good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the
district or the purpose of the Ordinance. ••
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the
Variances requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . All renovations be done as per City and State Codes.
2. All construction be done as per plans and dimensions submitted.
3. A Building Permit be obtained.
4. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained.
5. All requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire
safety be strictly adhered to.
.r;6.n Petitioner comply with any and all Boards and Commissions having
�urisdiction, including, but not limited to the Board of Health.
Variances Granted
—May .15, 1991 JJJ
= Mary JAnevStirgwolt, birember, Board of Appeal
--
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
Appeal from this decision, If any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of
the Mass. General Laws, Chapter 808,and shall be filed within 20 days
after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk.
Pursuant to Mass. General Laws, Chapter 808, Section 11, the Variance
or Ppecial Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the
decision, bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have
elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been
filed, that it has been dismisse4 or denied is recorded in the South Essex
Registry of Deeds and Indexed under the name or the owner of record or
Is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title.
BOARD OF APPEAL
r 11I/
Y
DATE OF HEARING S /
PETITIONER u
LOCATION
MOTION: TO GRANT SECOND
TO DENY SECOND
TO RE-HEAR SECOND
LEAVE TO WITHDRAW SECOND
TO CONTINUE SECOND
ROLL CALL PRESENT GRANT
DENY WITHDRAW RE-HEAR CONTINUE
RICHARD BENCALy/
�I ( JOSEPH CORRENTI_ (/
RICHARD"FEBDNIO
EDWARD LUZINSKI
MARY JANE SliRGWOLT !/
ASSOCIATE MEMBERS
JOF R� Aly
ART
R�L,A\BAEc
CONDITIONS: L� �
C C.
r� fl�itg of Salvm, ttssttcljuse#ts
Poura of (�Appeal
June 3, 1991
Notice is hereby given that as of May 29, 1991 the decision
of the Board of Appeal has been filed in the office of the
City Clerk to grant the petition of Milagros Martinez fora
Variances to allow a beauty salon at 260A Washington St.
BOARD OF APPEAL
Brenda M. Sumrall
Clerk of the Board
Appeal from this decision, If any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 dt
the Mass. General Laws,Chapter 808, and shall be filed within 20 days
after.the date.of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk.
Pursuant to Mass. General Lases, Chapter 808, Section 11,the Variance
or Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the
derision, bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have
elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been
filed,that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South EwW
Registry of Deeds and indexed under the name or the owner ofinep"%
is recorded and noted on the owner's Certificate of Title.
BOARD OF APPEAR _
r ' (fit" of 'j�ttlrm, �4*fu$stttltusPtt�
.F
�3ottra of rAv
peal
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MILAGROS MARTINEZ (PETITIONER) ,
BILL MCKINNON (OWNER) FOR VARIANCES AT 260A WASHINGTON ST. (R-3)
A hearing on this petition was held May 15, 1991 with the following Board Members
present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Joseph Correnti, Richard Febonio, Edward
Luzinski, Mary Jane Stirgwolt. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and
others and notices of the hearing were properly published in t% Salem Evening
News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chpater 40A:
The petitioner is requesting a Varince from use and parking to allow the property
to be used for a beauty salon. The property is located in an R-3 district and
is owned by Bill McKinnon.
The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding by this
Board that:
a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land,
building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other
lands, buildings and structures in the same district.
b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner.
c. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public
good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the
district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the
hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . This site has contained a number of commercial uses in the past, including
a temporary employment agency and a liquor store.
2. The proposed use will not be more detrimental to the neighborhood or zoning
district than the previously existing uses as it will not generate an
increase in the amount of vehicular traffic.
3. The proposed business will cater, primarily, to a walk-in trade from the
neighborhood.
4. The proposed site of the beauty parlor is in a commercial building which
should be utilized for a business purpose and therefore is somewhat unique
in the zoning district.
5. The proposed site of the beauty parlor is presently empty creating a
substantial financial hardship.
6. No opposition was expressed at the public hearing.
7. A representative of the Chamber of Commerce expressed support for the
location of this business on the site.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MILAGROS MARTINEZ (PETITIONER) , BILL MCKINNON
(OWNER) FOR VARIANCES AT 260A WASHINGTON ST. , SALEM
page two
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the
hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows:
1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but
not the district in general.
2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would work a substantial hardship
on the petitioner.
3. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the public
good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the
district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the
Variances requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . All renovations be done as per City and State Codes.
2. All construction be done as per plans and dimensions submitted.
3. A Building Permit be obtained.
4. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained.
5. All requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire
safety be strictly adhered to.
77;6.� Petitioner comply with any and all Boards and Commissions having
r
jurisdiction, including, but not limited to the Board of Health.
NVariances Granted
_May..1.5, 1991
z
N \nom
z " Mary JAneVStirgwolt, Member, Board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
Appeal from this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of
the Mass. General Laws, Chapter 808,and shall be filed within 20 days
after the dateof filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk.
Pursuant to Mass. General Laws, Chapter 808, Section 11, the Variance
or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the
decision, bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have
elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been
filed, that it has been dismisseC or denied is recorded in the South Essex
Registry of Deeds and Indexed under the name or the owner of record or
is recorded and noted On the owner's Certificate of Title.
BOARD OF APPEAL
(Iitu ofttlem, � �85tzt1TUSets ,
'Pattra of �Aupexl ,
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MILAGROS MARTINEZ (PETITIONER) ,
BILL MCKINNON (OWNER) FOR VARIANCES AT 260A WASHINGTON ST. (R-3)
A hearing on this petition was held May 15, 1991 with the following Board Members
present: Richard Bencal, Chairman; Joseph Correnti, Richard Febonio, Edward
Luzinski, Mary Jane Stirgwolt. Notice of the hearing was sent to abutters and
others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening
News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chpater 40A..
The petitioner is requesting a Varince from use and parking to allow the property
to be used for a beauty salon. The property is located in an R-3 district and
is owned by Bill McKinnon.
The Variances which have been requested may be granted upon a finding by this
Board that:
a. Special conditions and circumstances exist which especially affect the land,
building or structure involved and which are not generally affecting other
lands, buildings and structures in the same district.
b. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would involve
substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the petitioner.
c. Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public
good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the
district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
The Board of Appeal, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the
hearing, and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact:
1 . This site has contained a number of commercial uses in the past, including
a temporary employment agency and a liquor store.
2. The proposed use will not be more detrimental to the neighborhood or zoning
district than the previously existing uses as it will not generate an
increase in the amount of vehicular traffic.
3. The proposed business will cater, primarily, to a walk-in trade from the
neighborhood.
4. The proposed site of the beauty parlor is in a commercial building which
should be utilized for a business purpose and therefore is somewhat unique
in the zoning district.
5. The proposed site of the beauty parlor is presently empty creating a
substantial financial hardship.
6. No opposition was expressed at the public hearing.
7. A representative of the Chamber of Commerce expressed support for the
location of this business on the site.
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF MILAGROS MARTINEZ (PETITIONER) , BILL MCKINNON
(OWNER) FOR VARIANCES AT 260A WASHINGTON ST. , SALEM
page two
On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the
hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: C
1 . Special conditions exist which especially affect the subject property but
not the district in general.
2. Literal enforcement of the Ordinance would work, a substantial hardship
on the petitioner.
3. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the public
good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the
district or the purpose of the Ordinance.
Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted unanimously, 5-0, to grant the
Variances requested, subject to the following conditions:
1 . All renovations be done as per City and State Codes.
2. All construction be done as per plans and dimensions submitted.
3. A Building Permit be obtained.
4. A Certificate of Occupancy be obtained.
5. All requirements of the Salem Fire Dept. relative to smoke and fire
safety be strictly adhered to.
�;:;6. Petitioner comply with any and all Boards and Commissions having
1.�4urisdiction, including, but not limited to the Board of Health.
mWariances Granted
—May 15, 1991 )
' J
z Mary J n Stirgwolt, Member, Board of Appeal
A COPY OF THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK
Appeal from this decision, If any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 dP
the Mass. General Laws, Chapter 808,and shall be filed within 20 days
after the date of filing of this decision in the office of the City Clerk.
Pursuant to Mass. General Laws, Chcpter 808, Section 11, the Variance
or Ppecial Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the
decision, bearing the certification of the City Clerk that 20 days have
elapsed and no appeal has been filed, or that, if such appeal has been
filed,that it has been dismissed or denied is recorded in the South Essex
Registry of Deeds and Indexed under the name or the owner of record or
Is recorded and noted On the owner's Certificate of Title.
BOARD OF APPEAL
APPEAL CASE NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
of �$ttlrm, fflttssachusefts
�3carb of Apprnl
TO THE BOARD Of APPEALS:
The Undersigned represent that he is are the owners of a certain parcel of land loc,ppted
at NO. . . .3\�4!¢ . . .�.... �G ," ST • Street; Zonino Oistrict.� 3 .
and said parcel is affected by Section(s ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
of the Massachusetts State Building Code.
Plans describing the work proposed, have been submitted to the Inspector of Buildings in
accordance with Section IX A. 1 of the Zoning Ordinance.
N� r
=z rn
Lh
rn
co
The Application for Permit was denied by the Inspector of Buildings for thg,2foll*-- ing 7
reasons:
I f = 7
r'
-= n
The Undersigned hereby petitions the Board of Appeals to vary the terms of `fte S•a em
Zoning Ordinance and/or the Building Code and order the Inspector of Buildings to
approve the application fee permit to build as filed, as the enforcement of said
Zoning By-Laws and Building Code would involve practical difficulty or unnecessary
hardship to the Undersigned and relief may be granted without substantially dero-
gating from the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and Building Code for
the following reasons:
vayk/<-,-�.0 yn�cr�>�-- �c<2e ��c��..� �C'•c— cziC—rt�c�-
Owner. . E�` `?' . . . . . . . .
Address. �. . c�«,� . . . . . . . . .
Telephone. . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Petitioner. . . . . . .
Q Addres . .ou C�. . 6.:(...
.l. 1./. . . . . . . J
Date. . . . Tel
5� . . .�✓. . . . . . . 3.:1.�. . . .
Y . .
Three copies of the application must be filed with the Secretary of the Board of
V
Appeals with a check, for advertising in the amount of. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .
four weeks prior to the meeting of the Board of Appeals. Check payable to The
Evening News.
4_0r Zg-
-7- 9 /=ON.L) Sr
C RRY R, MAk"i VAY 7_0jLlWz �
/ 5 IDOND ST
/ 1
7.
� _ r
9. 3
y,o
1
nor i.0 ZP5 Q
LOT ZEtI AREA= S"400' _ :
,,3E LET- -ST/5EE?
RE,4LTY
w
�N S TZ)'N Sr
ri
N w
i� yI
�j5t Q
J �
^� y Story
LJ1� S H 11V G TO/v sTK E� T
I
n
-2
.o
:P- G60cS RcFE'� _0 CITY
._M Mf?A 3N.
,ICE. _ PLOT PLAN OF LAND
ov w or. u > ?
� r
LA y.
R p rn � PO
°F� s
DMZ
ZJ` z �z II
arrl
x o 6 i',Tl
3 x7
Pm
Z 3Z li 1 Sp xL Im II Z6 N 71
N
�- e I I
S zp i g ➢ ib �� ` CD ` n
--
�
Nix X —
. Zi Wo�K- �oJN TES K � C
it
➢ f
Z L JZ
Mu z
w -
92.r�- ' 4 107 v V 01
6T 30 N b '°
a6_e,f U
60 n 9 ryery P� S N S
04
16-8��. 94
6`1 In to
N P Q C
°�
tiJ C s 411 'J F b rye
I N O to
p r Or IK 2405 T-
ryry
Q `Q
d' N N m 5 21ry
�J 1 N N
C O
M
,- CY Ici
I o A J
I
Ct T Q �,
0
r s1
65_5. 19 � 9 n - e,
Ins _ '^
3JO00 o " ��
W v < d o
__- - o
160 63to
n n \ b
d O N 1 Fj Q l /gyp 0 6
� _ � � N N,� i. l
o rs n
"�' NUO
0- 1
.j
-Y
W A S H I N G T
oa
s
-osP o�, � �\ ?• s c N
� a
OiE \ d Oct,
Q
n {' r� 10 ate.
d' N —�1_
i CITY.OF SALEM
BOARD OF APPEAL
745-9595 Ext. 381
Will hold a public hearing for all persons inter-
sted in the petition submitted by Milagros Mar-
tinez for a Variance from use and parking to allow
beauty salon at 260A Washington St. (R-3). Said
hearing to be held Wednesday, May 15, 1991 at
7:00 P.M., One Salem Green, 2nd Door.
RICHARD A. BENCAL, Chairman
May 1, 8, 1991
r CITY.OF SALEM
BOARD OF APPEAL
795-9595 Ext. 381
Will hold a public hearing for all persons inter-
Ie
ted in the petition submitted by Milagros Mar-
nez for a Variance from use and parking to allow
auty salon at 260A Washington St. (R-3). Said
aring to be held Wednesday, May 15, 1991 at
00 P.M., One Salem Green, 2nd floor.
RICHARD A. BENCAL, Chairman
ay 1, 8, 1991
APPEAL CASE NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Chi of �$zdeni, fflttssariT Setts
e
,r Puar3 of 4peal
TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS:
The Undersiggned represent that he is are the owners of a certain parcel of land lac ted
at NO. . . . 60� . . .w`t?Hi+!¢(?+�, - ,S7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Street; Zoning District.�3
and said parcel is affected by Section(s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
of the Massachusetts State Building Code.
Plans describing the work proposed, have been submitted to the Inspector of Buildings in
accordance with Section IX A. 1 of the Zoning Ordinance.
�cn a tr4
_ e� rn
0
Y;O `J
cn� W
00
Cl
U1
The Application for Permit was denied by the Inspector of Buildings, for thPfo,lI ing p
reasons: '`' ` —
¢r r.
The Undersigned hereby petitions the Board of Appeals to vary the terms of `Nhe Sa4em
Zoning Ordinance and/or the Building Code and order the Inspector of Buildings to
approve the application fee permit to build as filed, as the enforcement of said
Zoning By-Laws and Building Code would involve practical difficulty or unnecessary
hardship to the Undersigned and relief may be granted without substantially dero-
gating from the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and Building Code for
the following reason
Owner. . /T . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .+..
Address.' .-. . . . . . . . �. . . . . .
c
Petitioner. . . . . . . . .
Addres
�S . . . . . . . . 0. . .
Date. . . . .
Telepho
yne. . . .�� . . .C�� . .-.��3.�.,�. . . .
By. . . .
Three copies of the application must be filed with the Secretary of the Board of
Appeals with a check, for advertising in the amount of. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
four weeks prior to the meeting of the Board of Appeals. Check payable to The
Evening News.
NO..._...... ....................
PETITION I TO BOARD Of: APPEALS
LOCAL]ON
................................................................
PEI I I IONER..... ..... . . ...... .. . ............
ADDRESS..-tzk,
v unA
CONDI I IONS
............. ............. ............ .......................
........................ I.............-......................
....................................... ........................
..................... ....... ...............................
..........-... .......I............. .......... .. .............
.................................................................
PETII[ON APPROVED.................... ❑
DENIED......................... 0
19.........
APPEAL CASE NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
, A dity of 15ttltm, ttsstttl�usPtts
�Rottrb of A"Pal
J��.Dm16
TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS:
The Undersined represent that he is are the owners of a certain parcel of land located
at NO. . . • �'•�sy��-/?"�• •s;�. . Street; Zoning Districti�. .�.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
and said parcel is affected by Section(s ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
of the Massachusetts State Building Code.
a �
Plans describing the work proposed, have been submitted to the Inspector o E Bui Rings ii?
accordance with Sectipn IX A. 1 of the Zoning Ordinance. o C;-, o
r_
m a
c-rn n
�m
Re -1 p
oC:' r• -o
--n rn
� � v
n r
N cn cn
n
y
D
C7
:?m � !'Ti
The Application for Permit was denied by the Inspector of Buildings for foT�owinp-,,
reasons:
n i w
_a
rn 0
00
The Undersigned hereby petitions the Board of Appeals to vary the terms of the Salem
Zoning Ordinance and/or the Building Code and order the Inspector of Buildings to
approve the application fee permit to build as filed, as the enforcement of said
Zoning By-Laws and Building Code would involve practical difficulty or unnecessary
hardship to the Undersigned and relief may be granted without substantially dero-
gating from the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and Building Code for
the following reasons: �✓��� /- T G,-[ „
4-
Address.,R-? . . . . .� • • '•
Telephone. . `. . . .. .v?5.6.� . . . . . . . . . . . ..
0
Petitioner. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Address�.upf�`�. -. .
Date. . . y� . .l. l. . . . . . . . Tel eph�e . . . �.� . . :l�P. V� � 1 . .
By. . . .C�.C�!4. . . . . . . . . . . . '
Three copies of the application must be filed with the Secretary of the Board of
Appeals with a check, for advertising in the amount of. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
four weeks prior to the meeting of the Board of Appeals. Check payable to The
Evening News.
NO....................................
PEI 11 ION 10 BOARD 017 APPEALS
I OCAI ION
..................... ............-......... ......
PEI 11 10114ER . . ................ ........
ADDRESS .......
c)kN
CONDI I IONS
.............. ............ ....................................
.................... ... .......................... ............
......................... ......................................
...................... ....... .......... ....................
..........I...................... ............
........... .............. ....... ......................
PETITION APPROVED....................
DENIED......................... 0
............................................ 19.........
.� `SttaCD"RCNi�f^
i Wr
r aE.e :IY
c Jaquith&Siemasko,Inc
a
Z f
S
v, O •^
V 0 Q H L
.L
LJ
w S
c CLrt Q
Irv •=
s� k .4 0
vao � d Qas
at < r
r
F�ITV IR.ES _ ^ y Z
CODE RESEARCH
❑ _ 4 .. .Q
or Use Group: B- Business (from Table F-1) —
¢ 0 -3
Hazard Index No. 2 .,.I,v, Q A u E-fZ- ex STI N co
ToIL-6T
Construction Classification: 3B - Non-combustible-Combustible Unprotected rioo .I
By Section 106,project must conform to Article 32
c9
Section 3200.3 - #1 requires compliance with Section 3203.0 because this use is a .h�\
continuation of the same Use Group(formerly an office use).
Section 3203.3 and 3203.4 allow repairs using like materials
Section 702- The building official has the right to determine if the ventilation
system is to be upgraded The current door opening allows for a floor area of 525
S.F.
Section 809.3.1 allows one means of egress T
Section 823.0 waives the need for exit signs d
7So s- ± 1
Section 824.0 requites emergency lighting
Plumbing Section 2.10: 19(e)allows one toilet room for business uses less than
1000 S.F. (which this is).
Handicap accessibility: Project is less than$50,000 and less than 25% of the `New Z o
assessed building value. Therefore,only the new work need comply to Barriers SHAM PG+ NU
Board requirements. 6TAT IO Ny_
k d
' a Q
HAI F7-
0
ZD RY I NC9 • "''
p
n
EX�`�TIIJIs 9MoIcE J -7
b vETe�r-Torx-
- 4
N �
(LEMOVE EXISTIN(L
�20M !�'�Oii To I O
c_ooR U —7
4 L
4 �-
AoJa.oF-- NT NAIT C
V/ w
TE�lAN-r AREf� TENaNT
Z
CENEZAI_ �40TE.s q N �,x N
�;- "T "� w d Z
I. EXISTIrIU WALLS ARE To �E -- L" T
PATGHE� AJC PAIrJTBP. '2 r
ex 5T N�
2. ALL WALLS 4.HOW 1 ARE Exl5TINCo• sAJJox P T\ E`T��N� J � J
3. THE EXIST NU GEII_.INCo It, To PbE v ' Q +.J U
PAINTED. HAl2 GUTTIrJ CG .� Ill •� (:) W
4. Tolt-ET rACU M TO rxe.,Ab- .l. yT<* IONS O (� m
p164�(1'ylc.T�•q To 1=�Mn�ES 1 I
STO�E_ orsEP. IS LF�;f� TNAPI LOCO L.F. ,I I— L"' w
Q �Q
wce
EXISTi�IU EM 15 JU _ No11-IwU*tIr LTFD EXI'�TItiU DE 191NU (�
WALL TC 2EMAIN Ex'T '-A& 4 TO ZEM61N .• � H
UN�HaNUE� gclT UN GHANriE� /� N
0
Z
EX 1.5
S•rOR.E w
x To rzEM..iN N p vv
W t0/
/ EXIbTIN</ GONG. GJ�0
y -ro REMAIN ,
Drawing Number