26 LYNDE STREET - BUILDING INSPECTION t 26 TANDE STREET '
f
• y •
Michael S. Dukakis
Governor
Deborah A. Ryan
Executive Director
(dp,,;617)727-066C
��,11r1
TO: Local Handicapped Commission
Local Building Department
Independent Living Center n
_4 C3 Uj
FROM: Architectural Access Board G r
SUBJECT: a�D= ( !n LI��5 SR 1'e rhY
C3 E21
DATE: AU S F L99
Enclosed please find a copy of the decision of the Architectural
Access Board with respect to the above case.
If you have any questions regarding this decision, please feel free to
contact this office at (617) 727-0660 or 1-800-828-7222 Voice or
TDD.
gal-*
Michael S. Dukakis
Governor
Deborah A.Ryan
Executive Director
,t?mlo.z,.iltoeen�neella A?1611?
(617) 727-0660
�Uarw and�1�1
DECISION (AMENDED)
RE: 26 Lynde Street, Salem
1 . An application for variance was filed with the Board by Barry
Berkal (Applicant) on February 7, 1989. The applicant had requested
variances from the following Sections of the 1982 Rules; ani
Regulations of the Board. o�
rnct � z
Section: 26 relating to entrances < �+
27 relating to doors rn
30 relating to toilet rooms r.
35 relating to elevators
2. The hearing was held on Monday, February 13, 1989.
3. Thefollowing persons appeared:
Leonard Berkal, Berkal, Stelman Daveen & Shribman -
Gary' Canner, Architect
4. FINDINGS AND DECISION
The Board, having considered the .evidence hereby ,finds and=decides -
as—fol lows:
The facility is a three-story wood framed structure constructed in
1876 as a private residence. The building has been used for law
offices for approximately the last fifteen years. The entire facility
will be occupied by one law firm with approximately five lawyers.
The work performed will involve the remodeling of the existing third
floor attic space into offices, and the addition of stairs from the
second floor to the third floor. The petitioner is seeking a variance
t
With respect to Section 35.1, the requirement to provide an elevator
for access to the second and third floors. The petitioner stated that
it is not practical to provide access to the second and third floors
for the following reasons: 1 . A hydraulic elevator requires 12'-6" of
clearance from the upper finished floor to the underside of the roof.
There is no space to locate the elevator except in the center of the
building where the main stairs and hallways are located, and
locating the elevator there would render the building useless. 2.
The cost of compliance would be excessive. An elevator would cost
approximately $55,000 plus an additional $18,000 for site
preparation. The total cost for the installation of an elevator will
be approximately $73,000, which is greater than the construction
budget of $68,000. The Board asked if the budget was set without
the inclusion of an elevator. The petitioner stated that the need for
access was brought to their attention upon speaking to the building
inspector. The petitioner stated that an additional $6,000-$7,000
will be added to the budget for the ramp, bathrooms and doors. The
Board inquired if the petitioner had considered an exterior elevator?
The petitioner stated that it had been considered, but the only
location to place one would be at the rear, and it would take up one
of the parking spaces, and that would violate the variance given by
the town with respect to the parking. The town required that a
certain number of on-site spaces had to be provided. The number of
spaces provided are six:
The board inquired if there would be; a -different'group 'of attorneys
on the third floor if there are plans for a reception area on that
floor? The petitioner stated that it.will -be a different type of
practice, there is a new.-attorney-that Pias-.been hired- who is a-.-
specialists
specialists in collection ;.matters.: The petitioner=cstated that there
will be a 'designated office :on the first _floor where a lawyer.could
meet with a handicapped client.
Several board members expressed concern with the fact that out of a
total of fifteen law offices, only four would be accessible. The
board inquired if a wheelchair lift had been looked into. The
petitioner stated that the use of a wheelchair lift had been look_d
w c
into, but the existing stairs are too narrow. �� a
M o
cn
�m CSD z
g m ry LD
v xa rn
y
y C3:D
• CC
for the second and third floors & (first floor primary entrance) from
the following sections: Section 26 relating to primary entrances,
Section 27 relating to doors, Section 30 relating to toilet rooms and
Section 35.1 relating to elevators. The amount of money being spent
is $68,000 and the assessed value of the building is $179,500. Thus,
triggering the Board's Regulations requiring full compliance. There
are three entrances to the building, one at the front, and two at the
rear, one where the parking is located, and one going to the second
floor at the rear.
The petitioner stated that the first and second floor are pretty much
mirror images. There will be six offices on the first floor, two of
the six will not be accessible, conference room, reception area,
work area, and an accessible toilet room will be provided on this
level, and the doors will be changed to meet the code. The second
floor will have six offices, private library, and lunch room. The
third floor will have three offices, reception area, and storage area.
With respect to Section 26, the petitioner stated that that a
variance is being sought due to the following: 1 . The close
proximity of the building to the street, there is no room to provide a
ramp, 2. The parking is located in the rear, and this is the entrance
that most people use. 3. Due to the historical significance of the
entrance of this building as well as the other:•buildings: located along
Lynde Street. The petitioner is planing to provide access- to--the rear
entrance which is adjacent to: the parking .lot via a :ramp. ..The
petitioner stated that there"is a problem in that the rear-vestibule
does not fully comply with the regulations.
With respect to Section -30.t;.the: toilet:-room -on- the `first° floor,--•wil#
be accessible by eliminating the bathtub. The---sink will .be-.`relocated
to the corner.
With respect to Section 27, the required three foot wide doors the ,
public area of the first floor will be provided, the reception ardd� o
toilet room, conference room and the office. The existing doorsgop CO g
the second and third floor will be maintained, since they are pQWtqbn
(i.e. offices and library), and all functions that occur on the sec®nd g rn
and third floor also occur on the first floor.
After listening to the testimony and reviewing the materials
submitted, a motion was made to GRANT a variance to Section 35.1
to access to the second and third floors, on condition that a
dedicated conference room be provided on the first floor for the
lawyers and any physically disabled clients requiring their services.
A vote was taken and the vote ended in a tie. Therefore, the motion
did not carry and the variance was DENIED. There were six members
voting.
No further action was taken on any other variances as the issue
became moot.
This constitutes a final order of the Architectural Access Board
entered pursuant to G.L. c. 30A. Any aggrieved person may appeal
this decision to the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts pursuant to Section 14 of G.L. c. 30A. Any appeal
must be filed in court no later than thirty (30) days of receipt of
this decision.
Dated: August 21, 1989 ARCHITECTURAL ACCESS BOARD
C' ell
Gerald LeBlanc, Chairman
cc: Local Building Inspector
Local Handicapped Commission
Independent Living Center:;,
C v3
c.0 G
'iM O f=
m
y ra
Orae Jx��i�ici�G2 ��ace
Michael S. Dukakis
cacernar �G.�fcr� e///Gas.�ac�rese��.s 0,270
Charles V. Barry
Secretary
n T
rn
DECISION Tom ,
n m
RE: 26 Lynde Street, Salem ' ; o
rn
:z c, R o
3 m rn
1 . An application for variance was filed with the Board Bgffry
Berkal (Applicant) on February 7, 1989. The applicant had reque-%#ed
variances from the following Sections of the 1982 Rules and
Regulations of the Board.
Section: 26 relating to entrances
27 relating to doors
30 relating to toilet rooms
35 relating to elevators
2. The hearing was held.on Monday, February 13, 1989.
3. The following persons appeared:
Leonard Berkal, Berkal, Stelman, Daveen & Shribman
Gary Canner, Architect
4. FINDINGS AND DECISION:
The Board, having considered the evidence, hereby finds and decides
as follows:
The facility is a three-story wood framed structure constructed in
1876 as a private residence. The building has been used for law
offices for approximately the last fifteen years. The entire facility
will be occupied by one law firm with approximately five lawyers.
The work performed will involve the remodeling of the existing third
floor attic space into offices, and the addition of stairs from the
second floor to the third floor. The petitioner is seeking a variance
for the second and third floors & (first floor primary entrance) from
the following sections: Section 26.1 relating to primary entrances,
Section 27 relating to doors, Section 30 relating to toilet rooms and
Section 35.1 relating to elevators. The amount of money being spent
is $68,000 and the assessed value of the building is $179,500. Thus,
triggering the Board's Regulations requiring full compliance. There
are three entrances to the building, one at the front, and two at the
rear, one where the parking is located, and one going to the second
floor at the rear.
The petitioner stated that the first and second floor are pretty much
mirror images. There will be six offices on the first floor, two of
the six will not be accessible, conference room, reception area,
work area, and an accessible toilet room will be provided on this
level, and the doors will be changed to meet the code. The second
floor will have six offices, private library, and lunch room. The
third floor will have three offices, reception area, and storage area.
With respect to Section 26.1 , the petitioner stated that that a
variance is being sought due to the following: 1 . The close
proximity of the building to the street, there is no room to provide a
ramp, 2. The parking is located in the rear, and this is the entrance
that most people use. 3. Due to the historical significance of the
entrance of this building as well as the other buildings located along
Lynde Street. The petitioner is planing to provide access to the rear
entrance which is adjacent to the parking lot via a ramp. The
petitioner stated that there is a problem in that the rear vestibule
does not fully comply with the regulations.
With respect to Section 30.1 , the toilet room on the first floor, will
be accessible by eliminating the bathtub. The sink will be relocated
to the corner.
With respect to Section 27, the required three foot wide doors to the
public area of the first floor will be provided, the reception area,
toilet room, conference room and the office. The existing doors on
the second and third floor will be maintained, since they are private,
(i.e. offices and library), and all functions that occur on the second
and third floor also occur on the first floor.
With respect to Section 35.1 , the requirement to provide an elevator
for access to the second and third floors. The petitioner stated that
it is not practical to provide access to the second and third floors
for the following reasons: 1 . A hydraulic elevator requires 12'-6" of
clearance from the upper finished floor to the underside of the roof.
There is no space to locate the elevator except in the center of the
building where the main stairs and hallways are located, and
locating the elevator there would render the building useless. 2.
The cost of compliance would be excessive. An elevator would cost
approximately $55,000 plus an additional $18,000 for site
preparation. The total cost for the installation of an elevator will
be approximately $73,000, which is greater than the construction
budget of $68,000. The Board asked if the budget was set without
the inclusion of an elevator. The petitioner stated that the need for
access was brought to their attention upon speaking to the building
inspector. The petitioner stated that an additional $6,000-$7,000
will be added to the budget for the ramp, bathrooms and doors. The
Board inquired if the petitioner had considered an exterior elevator?
The petitioner stated that it had been considered, but the only
location to place one would be at the rear, and it would take up one
of the parking spaces, and that would violate the variance given by
the town with respect to the parking. The town required that a
certain number of on-site spaces had to be provided. The number of
spaces provided are six.
The board inquired if there would be a different group of attorneys
on the third floor if there are plans for a reception area on that
floor? The petitioner stated that it will be a different type of
practice, there is a new attorney that has been hired who is a
specialists in collection matters. The petitioner stated that there
will be a designated office on the first floor where a lawyer could
meet with a handicapped client.
Several board members expressed concern with the fact that out of a
total of fifteen law offices, only four would be accessible. The
board inquired if a wheelchair lift had been looked into. The
petitioner stated that the use of a wheelchair lift had been looked
into, but the existing stairs are too narrow.
After listening to the testimony and reviewing, the materials
submitted, a motion was made to GRANT a variance to Section 35.1
to access to the second and third floors, on condition that a
dedicated conference room be provided on the first floor for the
lawyers and any physically disabled clients requiring their services.
A vote was taken and the vote ended in a tie. Therefore, the motion
did not carry and the variance was DENIED. There were six members
voting.
No further action was taken on any other variances as the issue
became moot.
This constitutes a final order of the Architectural Access Board
entered pursuant to G.L. c. 30A. Any aggrieved person may appeal
this decision to the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts pursuant to Section 14 of G.L. c. 30A. Any appeal
must be filed in court no later than thirty (30) days of receipt of
this decision.
Dated: February 21 , 1989 ARCHITECTURAL ACCESS BOARD
Gerald LeBlanc, Chairman
cc: Local Building Inspector
Local Handicapped Commission
Independent Living Center
Michael S. Dukakis O �1ii�nf oz Jlace A.
Governor �j /
..FJacfari, �L�ieeac/ueeCta Ol'!OB � ..
Deborah A. Ryan
Executive Director �G/7� 727-G000 ��00-6P.`0P7.92. c_
' m
DECISION
1 m
RE: 26 Lynde Street, Salem H cz
1 . A Motion to Reconsider the Board's Decision of February 13, 1989
was filed by Gary Canner. The Board voted to grant the Motion to
Reconsider. The following Sections of the Regulations were
addressed at the rehearing.
Section: 26.1 relating to primary entrances
30.1 relating to toilet rooms
27 relating to doors
35 relating to elevators
2. The hearing was held on Tuesday, April 18, 1989.
3. The following persons appeared:
Jeffrey Shribman, Berkal, Stelman, Davern & Shribman, Law Firm
Gary Canner, Architect
Gil Adrien
4. FINDINGS AND DECISION:
The Board, having considered the evidence, hereby finds and decides
as follows:
The petitioners had requested a Motion to Reconsider the Board's
Decision of February 13, 1989, and the board granted the Motion.
By way of background, the facility is a three-story wood framed
structure constructed in 1876 as a private residence. The entire
facility will be occupied by one law firm with approximately five
lawyers. The petitioner was seeking variances to Section 26
relating to entrances, Section 27 relating to doors, Section 30� -57% p
relating to toilet rooms and Section 35 relating to elevators.
C;O a
o�
The petitioner stated that the following documents were not 12
available at the time of the previous hearing: a) letter (dated rnN m
2/13/89) from Gilbert Adrien, Salem Communty Access Monitor,=,_� _
stating that he supported the variance request, because for man7u,
years they have accommodated the needs of the disabled clients by
having appointments in accessible building. Mr. Adrien also showed a
video of the building in question, which clearly showed the close
proximity of the building to the street b) statement from Salem
Historical Commission supporting the variance request and stated
that the property has significant historical value. Also, any change
to the front entrance would destroy an important and visible
historic characteristic of the building. c) proposal from McLauthlin
Elevator Company stating that the cost to furnish and install an
elevator with hardware in a prepared hoistway is $55,000. It was
also testified to at the previous hearing that additional $18,000
would be needed for site preparation.
In the Motion to Reconsider, the petitioner stated that on the revised
Application for Variance with respect to Section 35 - Elevators, the
upper two floors are private. The petitioner stated that the general
public will not be allowed in the private area of the building for
reasons of confidentiality and security. The petitioner also stated
that the plans have been modified (plans dated 2/19/89) The first
floor will be made accessible via a ramp at the rear of the building,
all offices will be made accessible and a second conference room
added, and there will be an accessible bathroom. The doors into the
public rooms on the first floor will be made accessible. Second
floor, (private floor) - no change, third floor, (private floor) -
private conference room changed to office.
In making the following decision, the board took into account the
testimony and support of Gil Adrien, a Community Access Monitor,
and; the historical significance of the building.
After viewing the video and listening to the testimony, the Board
voted as follows with respect to the following Sections:
Section 30 Public Toilet Rooms
The toilet room on the first floor will be fully accessible.
Information must be sent to the Board certifying the toilet seat J§
17" to 19" above the floor.
vl p
Section 27 - Doors
The Board voted to GRANT a variance to Section 27 relating to the
main entrance doors due to the historical significance of the doors.
Section 26 Entrances
The board voted to GRANT a variance to Section 26.1 relating to the
main entrance, on condition that access to the rear entrance, which
is adjacent to the parking lot, be provided via a ramp. Appropriate
signage must be posted at the inaccessible entrance indicating the
location of the accessible entrance. Due to the historical
significance of the entrance of the building.
Section 35.1 - Elevators
The Board voted to GRANT a variance to Section 35.1 relating to
vertical access to the upper floors, on condition that two conference
be available on the first floor at all times should a handicapped
client need the services of the law firm.
This constitutes a final order of the Architectural Access Board
entered pursuant to G.L. c. 30A. Any aggrieved person may appeal
this decision to the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts pursuant.to Section 14 of G.L. c. 30A. Any appeal
must be filed in court no later than thirty (30) days of receipt of
this decision.
Dated: April 28, 1989 ARCHITET�AL ACCESS BOARD
GK�f
Gerald LeBlanc, Chairman
cc: Local Building Inspector
Local Handicapped Commission
Independent Living Center
fie �o��to�tulea�l o��/l�ac�iuQeC�
'xecuk'r<a d�ce ol9uMc ,.�VeG-y REC
EIVED
r!u�xa�iitectuxal�:?�ccP.oG lc aa�c�
Vachad S. Dukakis L1Jne S.f�✓:Gurtan �laoa - R'"M I's to JAN 10 1989Crmmor ffa&wdw"dz o2fm .
Clades V. Barrer �aaCan, ✓ k667 �l
ft-
' _ h Voice 6 TDD
etc' ea �r
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE
Q2 = �o
a
In .a:corctTnce with M.C.L. , Chapter 22, Section 13A, I :e aby apply fcr
modification of or substitution for the rules and regulations of the
Architectural Access Board as they apply to the facility described below on the
grounds that literal compliance with the Board requlations is impracticable in
my case.
1. State the names and address of the owner of the building/facility:
Leonard Berkal Michael Stelman Timothy Davern & Jeffrey _Shribman
26 - nde Street Salem MA 01970
2. State the name and address or other identification of the building/facility:
26 Lynde Street Salem YA 01970
3. Describe the facility: (number of floors, type of functions, etc.) :
3 Story, Historic Food Framed Structure Built In 1176
4. Check the work performed or to be performed:
New construction xx Reconstruction, Alteration,
__. Remodeling
_Addition Change of Use
5. Briefly describ ".the extent and nature of the work performed or to be
performed: Remodeling of existing 3rd floor attic space into offices (36' x 381)
6. State each section of the Rules and Regulations of the Architectural Access
Board for which a variance is being requested.
SECTION NUMBER DESCRIPTION
26 Entrance
27 Doors
In I Public Toii r u m
8. For each variance requested, state in detail the reasons why compliance with
the Board's regulations would not be practical. State the necessary cost of
the work required to achieve compliance. (You should submit cost estimates
detailing the amount of compliance) USE ADDITIONAL SHEETS IF NECESSARY.
ryree;, ttac a eets
9. Has a building permit been applied for? No
:. ra`f If`yes', 'scale the date the permit was issued: �
10. State the estimated cost of construction as stated on the building permit.
If a building permit has not been issued, state the anticipated construction
cost: $68,000.00
11 . Has a co.rr.iticate of occupant;' t;ean iss;;ad far the facilit ? Yes I
If yes, state the date: 1978
12. State the actual assessed valuation of the BUILDING ONLY AS RECORDED IN THE
ASSESSOR'S OFFICE of the municipality in which the building is located:
$179,500.00
13. State the phase of design or construction of the facility as of the date of
this application:Design Complete - Construction not started.
14. State the name and address of the architectural or engineering firm
including the name of the individual architect or engineer responsible for
preparing drawings of the facility: Gary S. Canner, AIA.
149 Fulton Street
Boston, MA 02109 TEL: 617-227-2629
15. State the name and address of the building inspector responsible for
overseeing this project:Inspector Santoa Salem Buildinq' Department, Salem
Massachusetts
PLEASE NOTE: The Board may, in its discretion, hold a hearing on your
app, icacian :_r -.-ariancc. Tha Board may aizv- decide. cur .app lic M:ion without a
o
hearing, upon the information you submit. You should therefore, incla%;e all
relevant information with your application. At minimum, the plans should
include a site plan, all floor plans, elevations, sections and details.
Photographs are extremely helpful.
Date: zym., SIGNATURE OF OWNER OR AUTHORIZED AGENT
RECEIVED geti �Q l/lf��,
JAN 10 1989 `? ✓-
PPL ASE PRINT OWNER AGENT S NAME
Adleft At= Board 44 « ��9-1, ti 4TA L WV
Gary S. Canner
Registered Architect
149 FULTON STREET BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02109 (617) 227-2629
ATTATCHMENT TO
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE
Re : Berkal , Stelman, Davern & Shribman
26 Lynda Street
Salem, , Massachussetts
8. For each variance requested, state In detail the reasons why
compliance with the Boards regulations would not be practical .
State the necessary cost of the work required to achieve
compliance.
SECTION yam$ 3 DESCRIPTION
26 Entrances: Access to the front entrance by persons in
wheelchairs is not practical due to the existing close proximity
between the building and the street and due to the historical
nature of the building and neighborhood. (see photographs and
site plan)
Access to the rear and side entrance by a
ramp or chair lift is not practical due to space constraints, the
blockage of basement windows, cost factor and potential vandalism
problems. (the 1st floor Is located approximately 31- 10" above
grade and would require a ramp 501 (461 + 4f for a platform)).
Estimated cost fora chair 1 Ift would be $10, 000 for the lift and
an additional $3,000 for site preparation. Estimated cost for a
concrete ramp would be approximately $4200 .
27 Doors; The required 31-0" doors to public areas of the
building is not practical in the existing portion of the
building due to space limitations and Its historical
significance. 95% of the doorways were constructed to accommodate
only 21-8" doors and in many cases It Is physically impossible to
enlarge the openings. In addition, to remove the original doors
and their moldings would radically alter the interior
characteristics of the space.
The requirement for at least one door of a pair be
3'-0" is not practicale for the front entry doors due to the high
prominence of their location and to the historic significance of
a symmetrical entrance .
1
Gary S. Canner
Registered Architect
149 FULTON STREET BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02109 (617) 227.2629
30 Public Toilet Rooms: The requirement for an accessible
toilet room is not practical due to physical limitations of the
building. It would be impossible to enlarge the toilet rooms
to meet the space requirements without blocking the means of
egress. Estimated cost of construction for an accessible toilet
room If It were possible would be approximately $3400 each .
35 Elevators: The requirement to provide an elevator for
buildings of 3 or more levels is not practical in this situation
due to the severe physical space shortage and prohibitive cost .
Estimated cost of the elevator is $15, 000 plus an additional
$18,000 for site preparation. Total cost would be approximately
$33, 000, almost 50% of the total construction cost of $68, 000.
Summary : In general , this project presents difficult
obstacles to overcome Inorder to make this building conform the
the regulations of 521 CMR:
1 ) historical nature of the building makes It difficult to
make alterations without destroying its Inherent characteristics.
2) the residential characteristic of the architecture and the
building' s small size makes accessibllty difficult.
3) extremely small site contributes significantly in making
access difficult.
4) relatively small construction budget of $68,000 makes many
solutions of access unfeasable.
2
_ s
i
Z41
LAO—
-
�`_`
4
a
z ; BK64 17 PG 1 13
�3aarb of '�Fveal UC1 ( Cl r'N '77
SEPTEMBER 27, 1977
��LEN,N 4$;FILE
DECISION ON THE PETITION OF SANDRA AHMAN CONCERNING PROPERTY LOCATED AT
26 LYNDE STREET (R-3 DISTRICT)
A hearing on this petition was held Tuesday, September 27, 1977, with members
Jane T. r �ndregan, Arthur Labrecque, William Abbott, James Boulger and Associate Member
Douglas Hopper present. Notices were sent to abutters and others in accordance with
Mass. General Laws, Chapter 808.
Atty. Timothy Davern represented the Petitioner requesting a variance on the
property located at 26 Lynde Street for the use of the premises as professional office
building. Atty. Timothy Davern advised the 'Board that the Petitioner has a sales and
purchase agreement contingent on the granting of the variance on the property for its use
as. a professional office building. Mr. Davern noted that the location is best suited to
their needs due to the fact that it is close to the Courts. There will'be no change on
the exterior of the building 'and the persons using the professional office building have
parking arrangements in the parking garage which they will continue to do. Therefore,
Mr. Davern stated that he felt that there will be no parking problem and no traffic problem
caused by the change in use.
The Board voted unanimously to grant the petition requested,to wit, to allow the use
of the building at 26 Lynde Street in an R-3 District to be used as aprofessional office
building, namely for legal offices. The Board also granted the Petitioners request to
allow 'a variation from the parking requirements for said office building. The Board did
so on the assurance of the Attorneys who are going to be utilizing the office, they would
provide parking for themselves in another location. The Board found that it could grant
the permit requested without derogating from the intent of the Salem Zoning By-law.
The Board found that the area in question is basically non-residential and that tnere
are many office buildings in the area and it is suitable for such use and to deny the request
would cause a hardship to the Petitioner.
VARIANCE GRANTED **�**axa.:**,.•*• j I'
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 SPECIAL PERMIT
GRANTED HEREIN, SHALL NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL A COPY OF THE DECISION, BEARING THE CERTIFICA-
TION OF THE CITY CLERK THAT 20 DAYS HAVE,ELAPSED AND NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED, OR THAT,
IF SUCH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED THAT IT HAS BEEN DISMISSED OR DENIED IS RECORDED IN THE
SOUTHESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE NAME OF THE OWNER OF RECORD OR IS
RECORDED AND NOTED ON THE OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE.
BJARD OF APPEAL
�;
pane T. Lundregan / �L
T�1�'tee-<- toC� Secretary r
i+rc�1 qutalfied the duly appointed
City of Salem, do, horeby Clerk of the
Tr'entY (;2n1 .i ..,, Y certify t,hra
fill .. .';x✓u e::;)ired since the
the City
City of Sal.um and
r,c:cnl hr:u been filed
r,GI-dan
T Ce with Chap_ _
e, r0? r,f ? F t""Y LOWS of the Common—
ATT ' ✓asst ry
y :
nr.n,-..,.,•........ ..l'.-....... /Y .ice 1, //"7 /7
Gary S. Canner BUILDING DEPT
Registered Architect ppu pp
149 FULTON STREET BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02109 MAI 19 $ 50 NM X89 1617) 227-2629
RECEIVED
CITY OF SALEM,MASS.
May 16, 1989
Building Department
One Salem Green
Salem, Massachusetts 01970
Attn : Inspector Santos
Reference : X26 L'yn-de—Streen
Dear Inspector Santos,
11d like to thank you for the time you spent with me the
other day in reference to this project located at 26 Lynde Street
in Salem. I ' ve enclosed a completed Construction Control form
that 1s required under section 127 of the Massachusetts State
Code and have included a dimensional modification to the ramp
located at the rear of the building .
If you have any further questions, please give me a call .
Since/rely,
Canner, AIA
a - -
- G`.,.• <,,;<.(jf< ,y,'��y,i ���,f FEB 05 A� X89
r� 2sfecCc� Y�cedJ �Qa"E7fY
RECEIVED
\hCIM(AS Dukakis r$Q�E� �Q
Gm ernor � $$.
Deborah A. livan Ciu %%d�z/.c,v/c.z=���ce, - l�.acnc /3/0
Gcecutive Director /Q
(617) 727-066C
TO: Local Building Inspector
Local Handicapped Commission
Independent Living Center
FROM: Architectural Access Board
SUBJECT: � 6 L y/a6/e �_ = 5.j lejn
------
DATE: f Z 6/g
Enclosed please find the following material regarding the above
premises:
/Application for Variance Decision of the Board
/Notice of Hearing Correspondence
Letter of Meeting
The purpose of this memo is to advise your office of action taken or
to be taken by this Board. If you have any information which would
assist this Board in making a decision on this case you may call this
office at (617) 727-0660 or 1-800-828-7222 Voice or TDD or you
may submit comments in writing to the above address.
Thank you for your interest in this matter.
Michael S. Dukakis ��r�u Ac,c
Governor � ���
Deborah A. Ryan C�' " �� ��"''= ah�931O
Executive Director
aa/or
(617) 727-066C
VARIANCE HEARING NOTICE
RE: 26 lynde St., Salem
Yeu are hereby notified that an nforiral adj:. d catsry hearm- before the Architectural
Access Board twill be held on ( 1_,nda��; februarj 13, 'q89 at. 3:30 p.m. in Room 1310,
One Ashburton Place,Boston, rlA.
This hearing is upon an application -T-adeNichael -,;t.el^.an !ender the provisions of
G.L.; c. 22, Section 13A, for modification or• or for, the ro'ioainq Rules and
Regulations of the Board as specified in Bald acplicat',r,, Secoons: 26 - entrance, 27 -
doors, 30.1 - Public Toilet Room, .0 - elevators, mF the 1982 regulations. .4 copy of
=aid application is available for public inspection dwrinr.. recular business hours.
This hearing 011 be conducted Ire accordance `rnh foe procedures set, f0rt; 1n r1.0 L., C.
d S (/2 of the FA Pules JvA, arn. S. v andard kL�..S G`F'ra•'t1c6 .ano --�r"gC2du^e. At the iearlilq, FaCfl
oart'y may be represe",ted _ iur'.sel, may; pr S I'. 'r• d _rc= 9n.-.rma,,, CMOs- xair?Inp,
`)ppnsingwltnesses.
Pe Board requires ar chitertursl -I 7 ,ingsanu pnowgraph, Ci -hr„ areas you are
requesting variance= for. Whe, :--wkinq ynnr �:r`cSP,,',t al n, It is advisable that, any
'visual material, (i e, pno;.os, etc) be m0 'n;.ed and ylbie fl-c—, I' ' feet.
'a8� r,H'�f . F U 1RAt ACCESS,. `S BUAPD
We. Janl�ary 26, 1 i
1a. Pr1A°•1
;F
4 �;• C�weer/u:c(.�'�y��C.n� %u�ic.f�%.
Guccrnur
Debnr;ih :1. liui lip -2/1
E. ecutie Dfrecinr
(617) 727-066C
TO: Local Building Inspector
Local Handicapped Commission
Independent Living Center
FROM: Architectural-.Access Board
SUBJECT
DATE:
Enclosed please find the following material regarding the above
premises:
Application for Variance Decision of the Board
Notice of Hearing Correspondence
Letter of Meeting
The purpose of this memo is to advise your office of action taken or
to be taken by this Board. If you have any information which would
assist this Board in making a decision on this case you may call this
office at (617) 727-0660 or 1-800-828-7222 Voice or TDD or you
may submit comments in writing to the above address.
Thank you for your interest in this matter.
H M
N C
o rn v r—
yn O
GO Z
m<
x m 00 o
C7 M
D
N
N 00
. ccf
Michael S. Dukakis
Governor _ �-
Deborah A. Ryan /,Y/0
Executive Director
3Brulo.m -AL111111111 0?/6X
(617) 727-066C
March 21 , 1989
Mr. Gary S. Canner
149 Fulton Street
Boston, MA 02109
RE: 26 Lynde Street, Salem
Dear Mr. Canner:
The Architectural Access Board has reviewed your motion for
reconsideration of the Board's decision of February 21 , 1989 and
voted to grant reconsideration.
The Board has therefore scheduled a hearing on your reconsideration
for Tuesday, April 18, 1989 at 1 :00 p.m. in Room 1310, One
Ashburton Place, Boston, MA.
Sincerely yours,
Deborah A. .Ryan
Executive Director
cc: Local Building Inspector
Local Handicapped Commission
Independent Living Center-