STRUCTURAL REPORT FOR SALEM NEWS BUILDING SRA SIMSBURY ASSOCIATES
1 9
999
151-119 Washinglon Slreel
RENE MUGNIER ASSOCIATES, INC
_rRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
66-70 Union Square Suite 204 Somerville MA 02143 (617) 666-5566 FAX (617) 666-4115
September 2, 1997 C]s
Mr. Barry Gaw
Simsbury Associates
41 Warren Avenue
Boston, Ma 02116
RE: Salem Proiect, Washington Stree
Dear Barry:
This letter confirms our observations during our visit on 8/18/97 to the referenced building.
The purpose of this visit was to observe the apparent structural condition of the building.
This report is based on our observations and qualifications as well as information provided
to us during this visit, and does not claim to be an itemization of all structural problems, but
to provide the client with a general idea of the structural problems observed during this
walk-through inspection.
1. OBSERVATIONS
This is a combination of 2 buildings, a large block, which is built of several different types
of structures, and a factory-type building in the back.
We started by observing the front elevation of the building on Washington Street, from the
left to the right.
The first building on the left is a 2-story brick building, and its front fagade is in good
condition.
Then there is a 3-story building which fagade had been recently stuccoed over. As a
result, the windows are recessed inside of the fagade, which raises a question as to the
quality of the structure inside, given the fact that this was added on top of the existing wall,
most likely without removing the existing damaged facade. The first floor fa�ade has also
been superimposed on the existing structure, as there is a recess at the base overlapping
the sidewalk by at least 4".
The next building is very similar, even though it was most likely built at a different time. It
is also a 3-story building. The top part has been similarly remodeled with stucco
superimposed on a wood frame, but the first floor is most likely what was the front of the
building that we observed before. One problem is that the wood exterior of the front
fagade is in contact with the ground, which is in violation of the Code as it is prone to
insects and water damages (Photo 1).
As we progressed in front of the building, more damages could be observed, such as in
front of the entrance located to the left of 175. The damage to the entrance is such that it
creates a tripping hazard (Photo 2).
As you suggested, removing the stucco and clapboarding would be a very good solution,
as it would allow us to properly observe the back-up wood framing of the fagade and
address it accordingly, since the different uneven exterior of the building leads us to
believe that there is damage to the original structure and siding (Photo 3).
At the back side of this building, which is covered with clapboard, we became concerned
by the very irregular facade, which has moved laterally, as one could see by looking at the
fagade from the side. It is important to ensure that the studs of this wall are plumb, in good
condition and properly connected to all floors.
Please note that the covered deck between the front and back building is badly
underdesigned, and certainly not properly designed to support the snowdrift. (Photo 4).
We noted that the base of the back wall is still veFy close to the ground and far closer than
the Code calls for.
We then proceeded to the inside of the first floor of the right building. We became
concerned by the large movement of the floor (Photo 6). The columns have badly moved
laterally (Photo 7). Photo 8 shows the wall between the first bay to the right and the
second bay, which again indicates the same type of movement.
We then observed the second line of columns on the left, where the building shows a very
important displacement in excess of 1" per 2-feet of level towards the right.
The floor has badly moved also (Photo 9 is of the floor and Photo 10 shows the column).
As we proceeded toward the left of the building (as one looks at the building from
Washington Street) the same type of movement could be noted throughout.
As we proceeded to the small and limited basement room, .we became very much
concerned by the fact that the columns in this area are completely corroded and in
imminent danger of collapse (Photos 11, 20, 21). The plaster ceiling above prevented us
from properly evaluating the structure, but given the movement of floor above, we have a
strong doubt that it would be proper.
There is a grade beam on the right side of the basement (as one looks at it from the
street), and there is a very dramatic crack in the concrete caused by settlement (Photo
12).
We proceeded through the basement and noted that several of the columns are in
imminent danger of collapse. Some of them are badly rusted to the point that the concrete
inside is exposed, and is itself badly damaged. This goes for all the steel columns in this
space, as mentioned above, but we also noted temporary posts, which could be moved by
simply applying pressure. This is a very dangerous condition, which needs to be
immediately addressed (Photos 16, 17, 18, 19).
As we proceeded through the crawl space, we noted that one footing has been almost
completely undermined with a void underneath (Photo 13).
The foundation wall under the front of the building was also crumbling and very improper
(Photo 14 and 15). There were many wood structures that had been temporarily
introduced to hold the floor above (photos 16, 17, and 18). This was the only accessible
area, and this raises a question for all other areas which were not accessible.
As we proceeded to another crawlspace on the right of the area of concern, we were
extremely concerned by the very poor condition of the framing supporting the floors. The
beams and joists were much too small for their span (Photo 22). There were many burned
areas which have not been addressed, as we could see charred without reinforcements
(Photos 23 and 24).
Given the fact that new temporary columns had been added from the first floor to the
second (Photo 25), this leads us to believe that the failure of the structure observed on the
first floor is also occurring on the upper floors. (Please note that the large differential
lateral movement in Photo 25).
We then proceeded to the second floor, and on the way up we noted very bad cracks
throughout the marble steps, indicating movement as well as failure of the stair structure
(Photo 25). There were also cracks on the plaster of the side walls (Photo 27), indicating
differential downward movement.
We then proceeded to the top floor and noted cracks everywhere, indicating a very
'Mportant differential settlement (Photos 28 -36).
As we looked at the exterior wall, we noticed separation between the back wall and the
floor, which confirms our observation of the movement of the back wall mentioned in the
beginning of this report (Photos 33).
As we proceeded to the top floor, which is immediately under the trusses, we became very
much concerned by the history of cracking that has occurred over the years. There is
also evidence of many fires in this area that had not been addressed. Only in a few areas
could we see some doubling-up of the roof rafters. (Photos 36, 37, 38 and 41). Recently
added built-up frames are reinforcing the roof(Photos 39 and 40).
As we went to the roof, we became concerned by the new mechanical units which had
been introduced above the portion of the building, which is presently used as a press. We
advise you to verify that proper engineering \qas provided to support these units. (Photo
42).
We then proceeded to the last basement in the building on the left, located under the
Evening News. We noted that the structures were in much better conditi6n. A steel girder
had been introduced at one time, and the basement had been dropped so as to install the
boilers.
We then proceeded to the back masonry building. This building is built of brick with
concrete girders and a concrete slab structure inside. There is only need for repointing of
the wall (Photo 43).
There is a new building at the very back of this buil(iing which has a very high ceiling.
There were no obvious signs of failure (Photo 44).
11. RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations should not be considered a "blue print" of repairs for a
Contractor to use as they do not include designs, drawings, nor specifications. They are to
inform the client of the general direction of the repair work. Additionally, other structural
problems could be concealed behind finishes which were not observable during this walk-
through inspection, and therefore other repair recommendations may be necessary which
could only be provided after selective demolition.
These recommendations could nevertheless be submitted to a Contractor, combined with
a complete and thorough observation of the site, for the purpose of obtaining an idea of
the way the work could be implemented. These recommendations as well as other
possible findings must be developed into working drawings after a detailed exploration and
careful engineering of the building.
Several recommendations were made in the Observation Section above as it was more
practical to do so, and therefore must be also considered as part of this section.
Given the poor condition of the front building, we recommend that it be completely stripped
of all finishes and re-engineered to determine all necessary reinforcement to bring the
structures up to Code as required for underdesigned conditions, fire and rot damage.
(See below). This will involve some localized re-alignment of members as much as
possible, as it is very difficult to realign the columns if the foundations and the girder
underneath and the girder supported above are no longer plumb.
This may be made easier per the next paragraph:
FOUNDATION WORK
The first step is to determine the location of the good bearing soil. Given the fact that the
building on the left which houses the newspaper company is behaving properly, it is our
professional opinion that the good soil must be located within the depth of the basement.
This, of course, is extremely imperical, and borings will be extremely important. Two to 3
boring samples will be necessary and could be taken at the center portion of each face of
the front building. This will not only indicate the location of the good soil, but also the
location of the water level, which has a very important application in the difficulty of
excavating the foundations.
As indicated below, it is recommended that the building be completely stripped. This will
substantially lighten the building, but will also imply laterally bracing some of the remaining
portions of the structure to prevent further displacement, which is already very important at
this time.
The foundation contractor, who must have good experience with this type of work, will
have to provide new foundations underneath the exiting structure after removing all
existing foundations. It will be possible at this time to increase the size of the basement,
and therefore, it will be necessary to determine before-hand whether or not space will be
needed for mechanical equipment, storage, etc., as digging the basement may become
less expensive of a task given the fact that excavation will be necessary to go deeper than
the normal 4-feet, which is recommended for a building on good undisturbed bearing soil.
The system of foundation will depend on the depth of the good soil. It is our opinion that,
at this point, a continuous grade beam would be the solution of choice, as we did not
expect the good soil to be too deep. If the soil is much deeper than 6-feet, we would
switch to isolated piers with a 4-foot minimum grade beam on top of it.
We suggest if possible, at that point, to slightly raise the building in order to free the wood
from the exterior grade by a minimum of.6"to 8" in order to minimize the exposure to water
and insects, which was already responsible for a substantial amount of damage. If this is
not possible, as it is not really possible to play with exterior landscaping given the fact that
this building is on a sidewalk, then the sill plate may have to be replaced with pressure
treated members in order to minimize the damage to the building.
Note again that it is important to understand that the building cannot be lowered in its
foundation before the concrete foundations have reached a certain degree of curing, which
can allow them to take the weight of the building.
Finally, the building will need to be properly bolted to the foundations, and particular details
need to be introduced for this purpose.
EARTHQUAKE PROVISION
It'is important to understand, given the work to be done on this building, that this building
will have to be designed according to the new Building-Code, which implies that it should
be earthquake resistant.
FRONT OF BUILDING ON WASHINGTON STREET
On the front of the building, we suggest that the stucco be removed in order to properly
evaluate and address the problem with the original structure of the building. This repair
work could be done from the exterior, if a large amount of original siding is to be replaced,
or from the interior after removal of the plaster.
MEMBERS DAMAGED BY PREVIOUS FIRES
Burned members have triggered loss of capacity to the structures in areas of previous
fires, which have not been addressed properly.
In order to properly evaluate the structures, all finishes, such as plaster, sheetrock, etc.,
must be sufficiently removed to expose the structures. Once all damaged structures are
exposed the members which are not to be replaced will have to be sandblasted or wire
brushed to expose the solid wood. At that point, the structural engineer will be able to
compare the remaining section of wood with what is necessary to adequately support all
the dead and live loads. Only after exposing all supporting structures will the structural
engineer be able to evaluate the extent of the repair work.
The structural engineer will then need to make the necessary calculations and determine
where these reinforcements are necessary.
All properly sized members and slightly damaged members, which were over-
designed at the initial construction, may not need to be reinforced.
Members which are questionable should be sandblasted or wire brushed cleaned,
and their remaining "good" section evaluated for their capacity.
Badly damaged members could be doubled-up by splicing members to them, and if
necessary, replaced. This condition is particularly critical on horizontal floor boards
which could easily be punctured upon walking on them, and which are too thin to be
reinforced,
Members which are completely damaged to a point where they no longer have the
capacity for which they were designed must be removed and replaced.
It is extremely important to understand that the existing and new shoring must remain in
place during part of the final work and is not to be removed until permanent reinforcements
have been introduced. Additionally, during demolition some portions of the structures may
be left improperly supported (such as lateral support of the exterior walls), and this will
have to be taken into consideration by the contractor where more temporary supports may
be needed during the final construction.
The choice of the contractor is an important factor as he must be entirely responsible for
the means and methods of construction.
STRUCTURES DAMAGED BY ROT
There is a substantial amount of rot damage underneath the first floor of the building and
possibly underneath the stucco in the front of the building. It is important that all members
which are rotted or that have a moisture content above 19% be treated per the following
recommendations:
In order to properly dry the structures, the finishes must be removed where necessary,
and it may be necessary to use heaters with fans to adequately dry the wood as well as to
obtain good cross ventilation.
Once the structures are properly dried, all rotted members must be re-evaluated. The
rotted part must be removed by sand blasting, wire brushing, etc.. Their "good sections"
must be able to resist all the loads (live and dead) that they are required to resist. If they
are found insufficient, they must be properly reinforced or replaced.
In light of the above o )seEmations . it is our professional recommendation that a full
structural investigation be conducted to reinforce and repai r the stru res o this building.
We suggest that structural plans be drawn whic wo Ica e t e structures as they
exist at the time of the investigation as well as all new reinforcements necessary to bring
the existing structures up to Code. Such plans would be useful in that: 1) they would
provide comparative bids from contractors on the work to be executed; 2) they would
enable you to obtain the necessary permits for the repair construction; and 3) they would
document the work executed for future reference, such as in the event of future alterations
to the building. It would also be important that the Structural Engineer visit the site during
construction so as to verify its compliance to the plans and structural recommendations.
This report addresses only those structural problems referred to above and observed
during this walk-through. Other structural problems may be concealed behind finishes,
plaster ceilings and walls, since few of the structures were exposed during this visit. We
did not implement computations, nor verify compliance with earthquake code regulations,
nor claim that the structural members observed were of the proper size, nor properly
transmitting the load from floor to floor.
The Structural Engineer is not responsible for -determining the existence of insect
infestation and waterproofing which are the specialties of professional exterminators and
waterproofing contractors.
.This report and analysis is based upon observations of-the visible and apparent condition
of the building and its major components on the date of this inspection. Although care has
been taken in the performance of the inspection, we make no representation regarding
latent or concealed defects which may exist and no warranty or guarantee is expressed or
implied with any structure. We do not take responsibility in the capacity of the stairs,
banisters, and handrails. The report is made only in the best exercise of our ability and
judgment. Conclusions in this report are based on normal working life of various structural
items. Predictions of life expectancy and the balance of useful life are necessarily based
on industry and/or statistical comparisons. It is essential to -understand that actual
conditions can alter the useful life of any item. The previous use/misuse, irregularity of
servicing, faulty manufacturing, unfavorable conditions, acts of God and unforeseen
circumstances make it impossible to state precisely when each item would require
replacement. The client herein should be aware that certain components within the above
referenced property may function consistent with their purpose at the time of the
inspection, but due to their nature are subject to deterioration without notice.
All repairs recommended herein require design and supervision from a Structural
Engineer. Should you have any questions, or require our services for an investigation and
the preparation of structural plans, please feel free to contact me.
Ver 1r� I"
.y.,.uy- oLkr
Rene"M'10'
. yqnqiqr,-., .. ., Principal
RENE MUGNIER ASSOCIATES, INC./FOL
RM1psf
Inv.
(Whington StAeet, Satem
RENE IVILIGNIER ASSOCIATES, INC. 'JOB
Structural Engineers SHEET NO. OF
66-70 Union Square Suite 204 8118197
SOMERVILLE, MASSACHUSETTS 02143 CALCULATED 8 DATE
(617) 666-5566 FAX (617) 666-4115
CHECKED BY DATE
SCALE
4p
---------- .........-
L ------
....... . . . . . .
low
Lt t
ri
AT
woshington StAeet, Satem
RENE MILIGNIER ASSOCIATES, INC. Joe—
Structural Engineers SHEET NO. OF
66-70 Union Square Suite 204 8118197
SOMERVILLE, MASSACHUSETTS 02143 CALCULATED 6 DATE
(617) 666-5566 FAX (617) 666-4115 CHECKED BY DATE
SCALE
..........
JL
7
%:
Z-J
Wazk�ngton. StAep-t, Satem
RENE MILIGNIER ASSOCIATES,� INC. Jos_
Structural Engineers SHEET NO. OF
66-70 Union Square Suite 204
SOMERVILE, MASSACHUSETrS 02143- CALCULATED BY DATE
(617) 666.-5566 FAX. (617) 666-411S CHECKED BY DATE
SCALE
41,
-n-
0
(vashington StAeet, SaZem
RENE MILIGNIER ASSOCIATES, INC. JOB
Structural Engineers SHEE-rNO.� OF--F/18/9-7
66-70 Union Square Suite 204
SOMERVILLE, MASSACHUSETIS 02143 CALCULATED all DATE
(617Y 666-5566 FAX (617) 666-4115 CHECKEDBY DATE
SCALE
IL
it,
'Ns'
A.
(Yashington StLeet, Satem
RENE MILIGNIER ASSOCIATES, INC. JOB
Structural Engineers SHEET NO. OF-
66-70 Union Square Suite 204 8118197
SOMERVILLE, MASSACHUSETTS 02143 CALCULATED BY DATE
(617) 666-5566 FAX (617) 666-4115 - CHECKED By DATE
SCALE
w1w
T I
A
%
tuazk�ngtcn StAeet, Satem
RENE MUGNIER ASSOCIATES, INC. JOB
Structural Engineers SHEET NO. OF
66-70 Union Square Suite 204 8118197
SOMERVILLE, MASSACHUSETTS 02143 CALCULATED B DATE
(617) 666-5566 FAX (617) 666-4115 CHECKED BY DATE
SCALE
Art<
Wask�ngton StAut, Satem
RENE MILIGNIER ASSOCIATES, INC. 40B
Structural Engineers SHEET N OF
66-70 Union Square Suite 204 8118197
SOMERVILLE, MASSACHUSETTS 02143 CALCULATED By DATE -
(6.17) 666-5566 FAX (617) 666-4115 CHECKED BY DATE
SCALE
...........
(Ya6hington StAeet, Satem
RENE MUGNIER ASSOCIATES, INC. JOB
Structural Engineers SHEET NO. OF
66-70 Union Square Suite 204 8118197
SOMERVILLE, MASSACHUSETTS 02143 CALCULATED"S DATE
(617) 666-5566 FAX (617) 6 66-4115 CHECKED By' DATE
SCALE
imp
(Vaushington StLeet, Satem
RENE MILIGNIER ASSOCIATES, INC. JOB
Structural Engineers SHEET NO. OF
66-70 Union Square Suite 204 8118197
SOMERVILLE. MASSACHUSETTS 02143 CALCULATED 8 DATE
(617) 666-5566 FAX (617) 666-4115 -
CHECKED BY DATE
SCALE
Wuhington StAmt, SaZem
JOB
RENE MUGNIER AS�SOCIATES, INC.
Structural Engineers SHEEr No OF
66-70 Union Square Suite 204 8/18/97
SOMERVILLE, MASSACHUSETFS 02143 CALCULA=By DATE
(617) 666-5566 FAX (617) 666-4115 CHECKED Y DATE-
SCALE
(Wh�ngton St,%eet, Satem
RENE MUGNIER ASSOCIATES, INC. JOB
Structural Engineers SHEET N OF
66-70 Union Square Suite 204 8118197
SOMERVILLE, MASSACHUSETIS 02143 cALcuLATED By oATE-
(617) 666-5566 FAX (617) 666-4115
CHECKEDBY DATE
SCALE
7'
................ ---------- -
.............-
RENE MILIGNIER ASSO.CIATES-, INC. JOB Wa6 kZngto I n StAeet, Satem
Structural Engineers SHEET NO. OF
66-70 Union Square Suite 204 —T 18/9—7
SOMERVILLE, MASSACHUSETTS 02143 CALCULATED BY DATE
(617) 666-5566 FAX (617) 666-4115
CHECKED BY DATE
SCALE
..........
fuasUngton StAeet, Saeem
RENE MILIGNIER ASSOCIATES, INC. JOB
Structural Engineers SHEET NO. OF
66-70 Union Square Suite 204 --81-18197
SOMERVILLE, MASSACHUSETTS 02143 CALCULATEDB DATE
(617) 666-5566 FAX (617) 666-4115 I;HECKED BY DATE.
SCALE
(vashington StAeet, Satem
iRENE MILIGNIER ASSOCIATES, INC. J013--
Structural Engineers SHEETNO. OF
66-70 Union Square Suite 204 8118197
SOMERVILLE, MASSACHUSETIS 02143 CALCULATED BY DATE
(617) 666-5566 FAX (617) 666-4115 CHECKED By DATE
SCALE
CD
co
low
pw
f
T;A
Washington StAeet, Satem
RENE MILIGNIER ASSOCIATES, INC. JOB
Structural Engineers SHIEFr NO. OF---
66-70 Union Square Suite 204 8118197
SOMERVILLE, MASSACHUSETTS 02143 CALCULATED B DATE
(617) 666-5566 FAX (617) 666-4115 CHECKED By DATE
SCALE
I ln"-
WcLsk�ngton St,%eet, Satem
RENE IVILIGNIER ASSOCIATES, INC. JOB
Structural Engineers SHEET N OF
66-70 Union Square Suite 204 81 181T7—
SOMERVILLE, MASSACHUSETTS 02143 CALCULATED BY DATE
(617) 666-5566 FAX (617) 666-4115 CHECKED By DATE
SCALE
Washington StAeet, Satem
RENE MUGNIER ASSOCIATES, INC. J�B
Structural Engineers SKEET NO. OF
66-70 Union Square Suite 204 8118197
SOMERVILLE, MASSACHUSETTS 02143- CALCULATED BY DATE
(617) 666-5566 FAX (617) 666-4115
CHECKED BY DATE
SCALE
WcskLngton StAeet, Satem
RENE MILIGNIERASSOCIATES, INC. JOB
Structural Engineers SHEET NO. OF
66-70 Union Square Suite 204 8118197
SOMERVILLE, MASSACHUSETTS 02143 CALCULATED BY TE
(617) 666-5566 FAX (617) 666-4115 CHECKED By DATE
SCALE
........ ............
7�
(vashington StAea, Satem
JOB
RENE MILIGNIER ASSOCIATES, INC.
Structural Engineers SHEET NO. OF
66-70 Union Square Suite 204 8118197
SOMERVILLE, MASSACHUSETTS 02143 CALCULATED BY DATE-
(617) 666-5566 FAX (617) 666-4115
CHEMCED DATE
SCALE
...........
T
:.S:A
CD
I 't
mle,
WaAkZn�ton StAeet, Satem
RENE MUGNIER ASSOCIATE§, INC. J08
Structural Engineers SHEETNO. OF
66-70 Union Square Suite 20.4 8/1879-7
SOMERVILLE, MASSACHUSETTS 02143 CALCULATED 6 DATE_
(617) 666-5566 FAX (617) 6665�4115 CHECKED BY DATE.
SCALE
...... ....
C�
Y.
t
00
Wazhington StAeet, Satem
RENE MILIGNIER ASSOCIATE§, INC. JOB
Structural Engineers SHEET NO. OF
66-70 Union Square Suite 204 —T/�18/97
SOMERVILLE, MASSACHUSETTS 02143 CALCULATED 8 DATE
(617) 666-5566 FAX (617) 666-4115
CHECKEDBY DATE
SCALE
ow 4w
nu,
4 J.
w
A
Washington Stteet, SaZem
RENE MUGNIER ASSOCIATE§, INC. Joe
Structural Engineers SHEETWO. OF—T/-1 /—7
66-70 Union Square Suite 204
SOMERVILLE, MASSACHUSETIS 02143 CALCULATED BY- DATE
(617) 666-5566 FAX (617) 666-4115
CHECKS)BY DATE
SCALE
-7-- 7
. ..... .......
%
IN,
Washington StAeet, Satem
RENE MUGNIER ASSOCIATE�, INC. JOB-
Structural Engineers SHEET NO. OF
66-70 Union Square Suite 204 81181T7—
SOMERVILLE, MASSACHUSETTS 02143 CALCULATED Y DATE
(617) 666-5566 FAX (617) 666-4115 CHECKED SY DATE
SCALE
......................
(Vashington S.t%eet, Satem
RENE MILIGNIER ASSOCIATE9, INC. JOB
Structural Engineers SHEETNO. OF--F/-1 8/9-7
66-70 Union Square Suite 204
SOMERVILLE, MASSACHUSETTS 02143 CALCULATED 9 DATE-
(617) 666-5566 FAX (617) 666-4115 CHECKED DATE
SCALE
..........
-----------
Washington StAeet, Satem
RENE MILIGNIER ASSOCIATES, INC. JOB
Structural Engineers
66-70 Union Square Suite 204 SHEET NO. OF 81187-97
SOMERVILLE, MASSACHUSETTS 02143 CALCULATED BY DATE
(617) 666-5566 FAX (617) 666-4115 CHECKED
DATE
SCALE
dh
ie-
(Whington StAeet, Satem
RENE MILIGNIER ASSOCIATE§, INC. J013
Structural Engineers SHEET NO. OF
66-70 Union Square Suite 204 DATE 8118197
SOMERVILLE, MASSACHUSETTS 02143 CALCULATED B
(617).666-5566 FAX (617) 666-4115
CHECKED DATE
SCALE
J111W
W"htngton StAeet, Satem
RENE MUGNIER ASSOCIATE§, INC. JOB
Structural Engineers SHEET NO. OF
66-70 Union Square Suite 204. 81187T7—
SOMERVILLE, MASSACHUSE71*S 02143 CALCULATED B DATE
(617) 666-5566 FAX (617) 666-4115
CHECKED BY-- DATE
SCALE
d 00f
I A;j
W"hington StAeet, Satem
RENE MUGNIER ASSOCIATd, INC. JOB—
Structural Engineers SHEET OF--TI-18197
66-70 Union Square Suite 204
SOMERVILLE, MASSACHUSETI'S 02143 CALCULATED DATE—
(617) 666-5566 FAX (617) 666-4115 CHECKED DATE
SCALE
I lfl�v '
'%.c4
......................... .......
..........
............... ........................
Wq.6hington StAeet, Satem
RENE MILIGNIER ASSOCIATES, INC. JOB
Structural Engineers SHEET NO. OF
66-70 Union Square Suite 204 —TI-18197
SOMERVILLE, MASSACHUSETTS 02143 CALCULATED DATE
(617) 666-5566 FAX (617) 666-4115 CHECKED BY DATE
SCALE
.4i
...................
----------...... ......
............ ...
Z r
v
Wa4hington StAeet, Satem
RENE MUGNIER ASSOCIATES, INC. JOB
Structural Engineers SHEETWO. OF
66-70 Union Square Suite 204 8118197
SOMERVILLE, MASSACHUSE17S 02143 CALCULATED 9 DATE
(617) 666-5566 FAX (617) 666-4115 CHECKED BY DATE
SCALE
rve
41
hb...
.......... ........... .........-
.............................. ........... —---------- ...........
............. -------
RENE MUGNIER ASSOCIATE§, INC. JOB Wazhington I StAeet, SaZem
Structural Engineers SHEET NO. OF—7119/9—7
66-70 Union Square Suite 204
SOMERVILLE, MASSACHUSETTS 02143 CALCULATEOBY------------�.- DATE_
(617) 666-5566 FAX (617) 666-4115
CHECKED 8 DATE_
SCALE
A
All
............
..........
........... ...... ............. ......
OY
RONAN, SEGAL & HARRINGTON
ATT004EYS AT LAW
FIFI`Y-NINE FEDERAL STREET
JAMES T.RONAN(1922-1987) SALEM.mASSACHUSETTS 01970-3470
JACOB S.SEGAL
MARY REMONTE HARRINGTON (778)74"=
GEORGE W.AWM.III FAX(978)744-7493 FILE NO.
OF COUNSEL
HEATHER S.RAMSEY
October6, 1999
I
Salem Redevelopment Authority
One Salem Green
Salem, MA 01970
40�
RE: 155-189 Washington Street
Dear Members of the Authority:
I represent Simsbury Associates, Inc., the developer of the above referenced
property. At your regularly scheduled meeting on October 13, 1999, we intend to present
our site development plans for the location in connection with our petition to the Authority
for demolition approval and approval of new construction plans by your Design Review
Board.
Enclosed for your prior review are renderings of the proposed new construction, a
copy of the Historical Commission Preliminary Recommendation, and a structural engineer
report concerning the condition of the three story buildi n :ashington Street.
ery truly yours,
George W. Atkins, III
GWA:kmb
cc: Simsbury Associates, Inc.,
Attention.: Cheryle Potter
y i
A-A
for ir
1-h
.... .........
121, .;. . .". , "IR I ;;�x ., . -
MWIS
.. ..........
i.:
lo
Al
-"r,V
,mi
............ ...
FW
0
511
................ F-M
Landm ark at Salem
Van Ness Development Corporation
EGA P.C.
Salem Historical Commission
ONE SALEM GREEN,SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
(978)745-9595EXT.311 FAX(978)740-0404
PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATION REGARDING DEMOLITION PERMIT
RE: 155-189 Washington Street
On Wednesday, March 3, 1999, the Salem Historical Commission unanimously
voted in opposition to the granting of a permit for the demolition of 3 structures located at
155-189 Misshington Street as proposed by Van Ness Development Corporation.
As per Part 11, Chapter 2, Article XV, Division 2, Section 2-394 (Demolition Delay)
of the Code of Ordinances, no permit for demolition shall be issued until a more thorough
investigation is undertaken and a final written recommendation regarding the granting of
the permit for demolition is provided by the Commission to the Director of Public Property
and to the property owner. Such investigation and recommendation shall be completed
within 180 days of the original submission to the Historical Commission.
I attest that this is an accurate record of the vote taken, not amended or modified
in any way to this date.
March 5, 1999 —/?A
Jan Guy
C C 0,t
le/ of the C4omr�ission
cc: Director of Public Property
City Clerk
RONANSEGAL & HARRINGTON
ATrORNEYS EIVED
FIFTY-NINE FEDE A
JAMEST RONAN OM-IM SALEM.MASSACHUSETTS 01970,3470
JACOB S.SEGAL -444SEP 23 Ril 2: 23
MARY PIEMONTE HARRINGTON (978)744-0350
GEORGE W.ATIaW 01 FAX C978)744-7493 SALEM FLE NO.
OF COUNSEL Pt,&.NNING DIED
HEATHER S.RAMSEY
September 22, 1999
Salem Redevelopment Authority
One Salem Green
Salem, MA 01970
ATTN: Ellen Dubinsky
RE: 155-189 Washington Street
Dear Ellen:
I represent Simsbury Associates, Inc., the developer of the above referenced
property. Please place this matter on the Redevelopment Authority Agenda at your next
regularly scheduled meeting, which I understand is October 13, 1999. We would like at
that time to present our site development plans to the Authority and refer the matter for
further review by the Design Review Board. I
Very truly yours
George W. Atkins, III
GWA:kmb
cc: Simsbury Associates, Inc.,
Attention: Cheryle Potter