Loading...
127 NORTH STREET - AAB NORTH SHORE ROCK CHURCH - BUILDING INSPECTION 2 7 IZI 771 6-M66T 74520 40*/* E,4 J/ze tominmfof, aW II oyalff460hwje(k 016H26501777 -qefeaiifi,1cTW"1,q),d&yclel#E tic/tileelrvacC�ccedd &al?d d 0 .373 6e tx",, �/,?jo a 06i0712007 idla�a� E111addarleadelld 02.108mi, x Mailed From 02108 US POSTAGE MAILED A 0:2:B S; FIF:fr2 J Tt'CliiidS '�. V�`_il�a g;` `Ut i Si- 3rd F,"i� Of Sajern, 'NIA RECYCLED PMEE 30%PoSiLCNCN511MEfl - c'.-1�.>•P•T s s 5�� s r-'� IIt..,,..11111"t...IIL:. .11.516L.,t.It.IFJd..id..,.J.11 L ; o Deval L.Patrick �a�- Q �uaee-fiOl'�DD�pP-n�6y�p�pp Thomas G.Gatzunis,P.E. Governor 9j1 6'�J' JG�D6(�D/7-C/D�CJGC/-/GGG Commissioner Timothy P.Murray �f' L /y yp //1 Thomas P.Hopkins Lieutenant Governor �6 OD/.Y Director Kevin M.Burke �% ryp y _ v .mass.govldps Secretary coA DECISION RE: NORTH SHORE ROCK PRAYER HOUSE, 127 North Street, Salem 1. The variance hearing was held in regards to the following Rules and Regulations of the Architectural Access Board: Section 16.1 - General (Houses of Worship) Section 24.2.1 - Maximum Slope (Ramps) Section 24.3 - Clear Width(Ramps) Section 24.4 - Landings (Ramps) Section 24.5 - Handrails (Ramps) Section 25.1 - General (Entrances) Section 26.6.1 - Level Maneuvering Clearance (Doors and Doorways) Section 26.6.2 - Doors located in a Recess (Doors and Doorways) 2. The hearing was held on: Monday, May 21, 2007. 3. The following person(s) appeared: Lou Badolato,.Pastor for North Shore Rock Prayer House; Paul Paulsen, Administrator for North Shore Rock Prayer House; Phillip Kritikos, Architect for North Shore Rock Prayer House; Andre Ebersole, Contractor for North Shore Rock Prayer House; and Joseph Barbeau, Jr.,Building Inspector for the City of Salem. All were sworn in by the Chairman and the hearing was called to order at 3:08 p.m. 4. JURISDICTION: The Board took jurisdiction over the facility under Section 3.3.2, in that the work performed amounted to 30% or more of the full and fair cash value of the building, therefore the entire building is required to be brought into full compliance with all applicable sections of 521 CMR. 5. FINDINGS AND DECISION: The Board having considered the.evidence hereby decides and finds as follows: Let the record show that Ms. Diane McLeod and Mr. Doug Semple were not present for this hearing. Mr. Paul Paulsen started the hearing by stating that they are proposing to convert the existing building into a prayer house with healing rooms. The majority of the services will be provided on the first floor, but noted that if the second floor is opened to the public, it would be without vertical access. Mr. Paulsen stated that the second floor services would be the same as those provided on the first floor. Mr. Phillip Kritikos stating that they are seeking a variance for the lack of access into the building. The only way to create access into the space at present would be to remove some existing floor joists to lower the floor and create an interior and exterior ramp with an automatic door opener. He noted that the exterior of the doorway would have to be level and that this would require work to be done on the City sidewalk. He stated that the ramp would only be 2 feet 11 %2 inches wide. At this point, Mr. Jerry LeBlanc opened the hearing to questions from members of the Board. Mr. Richard Flippin asked for clarification that they were proposing to create access into the building at the side entrance. Mr. Kritikos stated that this was the proposal, adding that access could not be created at the front entrance because the ramp would be on the City sidewalk. Mr. Flippin noted that the stairs at the front of the building appeared to be on the City sidewalk, which Mr. Kritikos verified was correct. Ms. Myra Berloff asked for clarification that the petitioners were proposing to have the Board grant a variance for the lack of compliance at the front entrance, to which Mr. Kritikos responded and verified was correct. Ms. Berloff then asked for clarification that the variance was being sought because the petitioners believe that it is technologically infeasible to create access at the front of the building due to the site constraints, which Mr. Kritikos verified was correct. Ms. Berloff questioned if the petitioners had looked into getting permission from the City to use a portion of the City sidewalk to create a ramp on the sidewalk, adjacent to the stairs that are already on the City sidewalk. Mr. Joseph Barbeau, Jr. stated that the petitioners would not be allowed to place a ramp at the front sidewalk. Ms. Berloff then asked for clarification that the petitioners are planning to create an accessible entrance at the side entrance to the building with a 35 %2 inch ramp. Mr. Kritikos stated that they are proposing this ramp, but noted that they cannot provide a fully compliant entrance. Mr. Barbeau stated that the City would have an issue with creating a ramp at this side entrance since it would reduce the width of Mead Court, which would prevent access for safety vehicles to the houses along Mead Court. Mr. Paulsen stated that the only feasible way to create access into the building is to have a ramp at the side doorway and then a ramp sloped up into the building. He noted that they do not own any of the property adjacent to the building. Mr. Barbeau noted that it was the understanding of the Building Department that the North Shore Rock Church was purchasing properties at the left and rear of the building in question. Mr. Paulsen noted that the church was not buying any adjacent properties but he did know of some private parties that were purchasing one of the properties next to the church for their own investment. Ms. Berloff then questioned what the proposed slope of the ramp would be, to which Mr. Kritikos stated that the ramp would be 4 %2 feet:long with a slope of 1:6. Ms. Berloff noted that the required slope for a ramp was 1:12. Ms. Nancy Angney then asked if Option 3 (AAB 17, File), an interior ramp proposal, could be accomplished without constructing Option 3a (AAB 18, File), the removal of portions of the street to create a compliant side entry. Mr. Kritikos stated that they would have to do the outside work, unless a slope outside the door was allowed, noting that the exterior work would require approval from the City. Ms. Angney then asked if there was any way to create an entrance into the waiting area. Mr. Kritikos stated that the floor at the first floor waiting area was much higher than the street level. Ms. Angney questioned if it would be possible to change the entry doorway location to the men's room so that there would be more room for an interior ramp. Mr. Kritikos stated that the doorway was placed at this.location to allow for the proper clearances. Mr. Robert Bersani asked if there was parking provided. Mr. Paulsen stated that the parking is all on street parking, there is no designated parking lot for this building. Mr. Bersani then asked if the plans submitted showed the existing layout of the building or the proposed. Mr. Kritikos stated that the plans that were submitted were plans of the existing layout, noting that the layout was newly constructed. Mr. Bersani asked 2 for clarification that the building permit to do the interior work was given prior to resolving the access issues, to which Mr. Kritikos responded that they had applied for the permit for the interior work and the variance from the AAB at the same time. Mr. Andre Ebersole reiterated that they had applied for the building permit for the interior work and the variance from the AAB at the same time. He noted that it was their understanding that the interior work could be done and that they would have to provide some form of access at the side entrance. Mr. Bersam noted that the petitioners took a risk by doing all of the interior work before they resolved their lack of access with the AAB. Mr. Ebersole noted that they are proposing a small ramp at the exterior, which the Building Inspector will not allow, or lower the door by cutting into the street and cut out some floor joists and creating an interior ramp. He added that another option would be to slope to the side entrance via pouring more asphalt at the exterior of the doorway. Mr. Donald Lang noted that the petitioners could lower the door without damaging the street to get into the building, adding that this would most likely require an automatic door opener, widen the door, and install directional signage. He then asked if the petitioners had looked into extending the interior ramp to create a compliant slope, by rearranging the layout of the adjacent men's room by moving the sink and the doorway. He added that this option would make the building accessible at a minor cost that would be technologically feasible. Mr. Lang then asked if the petitioners were also seeking a variance for the lack of vertical access. Mr. Thomas Hopkins, Executive Director of the AAB, stated that although not specifically stated in the variance application, the supplemental information to the application did show an incline chair lift as a means of access to the second floor. At this point, Mr. Barbeau stated that the Salem Building Department objected to the variances for the lack of access being granted, based on the fact that this building was formerly a private residence and is now being proposed to be a church. Ms. Berloff noted that the variance application stated that the building was formerly used as a church. Mr. Barbeau clarified that at one time the building was used as a church, but that most recently it was used as a private residence. In regards to the vertical access, Mr. Lang noted that the building has three stairways, noting that an incline wheelchair lift would not impeded the means of egress if it was installed at one of the three stairways, adding that the use of an incline wheelchair lift would require a variance from the AAB. Mr. Paulsen stated that they would like the second floor to be accessible. Mr. Hopkins noted that AAB 23 (File) shows a"Stannah Stair Lift" at the rear stairway, pointing out that this lift would not comply with the requirements of 521 CMR, adding that the use of chair stair lifts were not allowed by 521 CMR. Ms. Angney noted that the fact that the petitioners completed the interior work prior to resolving the lack of access into the building bothered her. She added that the cost of redoing the interior work to create access is much greater than what the cost would have been if they dealt with creating access into the building first and then dealing with the interior layout would have been a better plan for the petitioner,noting that they created the present hardship at the interior. Mr. Ebersole stated that by moving the doorway, it would lessen the slope of the street, noting that this would most likely only improve the slope of the ramp to 1:10. At this point, Ms. Berloff made a motion to CONTINUE the hearing to July 16, 2007, by which time the petitioners must resubmit a compliant plan for an entrance into the building and access to the second floor, noting that the Board will not grant variances for a ramp with a slope of 1:6 or the use of a "Stannah Stair Lift". The motion was seconded by Mr. Bersani for discussion. Mr. Hopkins noted that the AAB Staff had met with the petitioners and had encouraged the petitioners to look at alternate designs for compliance when it was determined that an exterior ramp would not be feasible due to the lot lines. Upon a vote from the Board, the motion carried unanimously. A true copy attests: 3 I� Dated: June 5, 2007 ARCHITECTURAL ACCESS BOARD �"4Cp Gerald LeBlanc, Chairman v ' cc: Local Building Inspector Local Disability Commission Independent Living Center w 4