Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0287 IYANNOUGH ROAD/RTE 28 (8) I of� r Town of Barnstable 4 Regulatory Services . s,►RNSTear s. � Thomas F.Geller,Director asks& 16 i A ��� Building Division Tom Perry, Building Commissioner 200 Main Street, Hyannis,MA 02601 Fax: 508-790-6230 office: 508-862-4038 1 Date Address / t/.+� -atf To Whom It May Concern: � to the fact that you are flying illegal f?�✓�'! contrary to our attention has been alerted the Town of B arnstable's Zoning Ordinances.The Town has a sign code which is explicit regarding flags. Section 4-3.3,Prohibited Signs(1)"Any sign,all or any portion of which is set in motion by movement; including pennants,banners or flags,except official flags of nations or administrative or political subdivisions thereof." Please contact me at 508-862-4033 when these flags have been removed so that I can inspect the site.Thank you for your anticipated cooperation. Sincerely, David attos Building Inspector 02/09/2004 11:36 5087786448 WANNIS FIRE PAGE 01 t J IWAMIS FIRE DEPARTMENT E F>' i. �1,---S6'HIGH SCHWL AD. EXT. HYANNIS,AAA.0M1 CAL HAROLD $. BRUNELLE, CHIEF FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU DUSINESS PHONE:(508�300 FACSIMILE PHONE:(E5N)778-6448 LT.DONALD�:CHA9B. CFE LT.W=F.HUHlE114,UP11 FUM SON OMCBR FIIIH PREVENTIM HFFECER AGENCY NOTIFICATIONj � Wiring Gas Consumer Affairs Pursuant to.IVfass Genefai Law, Chapter 148:28kand 527 CMR 1.00, the above agericy Is her-eby notified to a hazard or vWation is believed to exist Ialating tD floe above agencysjurisdic . _ The hazard or,vloillftlC►n noted is not within the irgxKl s code ot'enb(cement or jurtsdirbon. The fo l&wisng has.been repotted in person or by phom on this.date: for ft property located at; in Hyannis: 2) 3) 1-4 4) Owner of record: _ ---- — phone: .-3/ Fire Prevention Mice Tire /0 O y k/jiTf1 cc:street IQe rev. 12000 %0 M f- CX iol-r VOOXS C//'o oZ� /t/��' /,o o� s w�,✓9 „✓moo-✓ 6 ` Al 60 /f ,��CooSvKFS4Wr le/K �n- G' � �sS 4-1 IO2/09/2004 11:36 5087786448 H'YANNIS FIRE PAGE 02 "� Hyannis Fire Department Vol AV LJ sh,'D 95 High School Road Extension Fiyannls, Massachusetts 02601 l898 Phone:(508) 775-1300 Facsimile:(508) 778-6448 0 To Report an Emergency Dial 91 I or 775-2323 Progeny I nsoegtion Report Fora Business Name: Phone: Street Address : Sprinkler System:Yes— No PSI !_ Can System be Pumped When Shut Down? Yes No FDC Location:Side Near: Shut Off Location: Closest Fire (Hydrant Location : Fire Alarm System : Yes No — Monitored by Hyannis Fire : Annunciator Location:Side Hear: Main Panel Location : Suppression System(s) Yes_ No Last inspection Key Box:Yes_ No Location :Side Near : as Violation, ••=Notes,O=Uncorrected.J=corrected} Reinspection Date: I ... 3— v a � 'M a $p _�r r►�i t P.DU, f t, { SO" Ltd" { { { I Fire Dept. Inspector: n $ Date: Occupant: Phone EMERGENCYCOMTA HUM 1. Phone : 2, Phone : 3. Phone : White: Fire Dept. Canary: Reinspect Pink:Property 02/09/2004 11:36 5087786448 HYANNIS FIRE PAGE 03 r Hyannis dire de a y p rtment AW 95 High School Road Extension � � Hyannis, Massachusetts 02601 9� 1896 Phone:(308) 775-1300 Facsimile:(508) 778-6448 To Report an Emergency Dial 911 or 775-2323 Property Insuction Report Form Business Home: t rJ Phone: `7 7 {- 11 Up Street Address: -')�A Sprinkler System :Yes 4No_ PSt `��b /75"" r�� )� .'00' Can System be.Pumped When Shut Down? Yes-K No FDC Location :Side LB moor: Shut Off Location : Closest Fire Hydrant Location: AI Fire Alarm System:Yes ,,,No Monitored by Hyannis Fire : Annunclato Location :Side Hear: o Main Panel 10Lcation: Suppression Systam(s) Yes.)� ,,No Last Inspection: Key Box:Yes No D� Location IdeHear : ##=Violation,""= ores, 0=Uncorrected, J corrected} Reinspection Date: I� �- „�l .h�vv� �� �"1'C��_ _ +�" '1��aZ.. A�►Is1Jl�tt 1"F+C 49'T�cnN (�,,...,� r 7 r .1r !j[ �U l r ^�•,�.1 ._ i, 5*1 rwh l wY�b`7J+gab4 V �9 4 . ��� S�'A�e.�f1"RLL��-br�� S�'��i.. i��.:L,�1' YsC.T� f� r�•n�t rt�k.� I-IjP to DA'L C Grutn• t"o�3 t�'c W+A? WNA �r 4. S rti� t,A'Cc��l � �t�a � ���.r1G•._..''('r�fCl.�I 1 1 I Imo^ �.Fire Dept. inspector: L ,Pete') ''1 Zo Occupant• !(atione: EMER6&4a=TACjtfUMK"<'' Phone : 2. i Phone; = 3, Phone: ; rru�t•'"'�/� White: Fir* Dept. Canary. Relnapect Plnk:Property k TOWN OF BARNSTABLE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION Map 328 Parcel 210-001 3C == Permit# r�o Health Division � � A L E ". Date Issued M3APR Conservation,Division 9 7 Fee Tax Collector "_„_441 a „ j 1 v <J CJ Treasurer S/ , Planning Dept. Date Definitive Plan Approved by Planning Board Historic-OKH Preservation/Hyannis r - Project Street Address 2 8 7 `I y a n o u g h R o ..Village Hyannis ' Owner Ridgewood Ave . Limited ' PartnershilAddress 297 'North St . , Hyannis Telephone ( 5 0 8) 7 7 5-9 316 Permit Request To build two handicapped bathrooms in the Restaurant The Radisson Hotel - dimensions : 8 ' x 13 - Square feet: 1 st floor: existing proposed 2nd floor:existing proposed Total new Estimated Project Cost $8 , 000.00 Zoning District Flood Plain Groundwater Overlay Construction Type Lot Size Grandfathered: ❑Yes ❑No If yes, attach supporting documentation. Dwelling Type: Single Family ❑ Two Family ❑ Multi-Family(#units) Age of Existing Structure Historic House: ❑Yes ❑No On Old King's Highway: ❑Yes ❑No Basement Type: ❑ Full ❑Crawl ❑Walkout ❑Other Basement Finished Area(sq.ft.) Basement Unfinished Area(sq.ft) Number of Baths: Full: existing new Half:existing new Number of Bedrooms: existing new Total Room Count(not including baths): existing new First Floor Room Count Heat Type and Fuel: ❑Gas ❑Oil ❑ Electric ❑Other Central Air: ❑Yes ❑No Fireplaces: Existing New Existing wood/coal stove: ❑Yes ❑No Detached garage:❑existing ❑new size Pool:❑existing ❑new size Barn:❑existing ❑new size Attached garage:❑existing ❑new size Shed:❑existing ❑new size Other: Zoning Board of Appeals Authorization ❑ Appeal# Recorded❑ Commercial ®Yes ❑No If yes,site plan review# Current Use Proposed Use BUILDER INFORMATION Name Michael J. Roberts Telephone Number ( 508 ) 775-9316 Address P .O. Box 168/ Centerville License# CS 053861 Home Improvement Contractor# Worker's Compensation# 5000549012002 ALL CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS RESULTING FROM THIS PROJECT WILL BE TAKEN TO off Cape SIGNATURE DATE 4/09/03 _ 1 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY PEkMIT NO. u, - '� DATE ISSUED MAP/PARCEL NO. , .1 r ADDRESS VILLAGE — OWNER 4 DATE OF INSPECTION: ,. FOUNDATION , FRAME �A tZ I717 /Q 3 .0 •. INSULATION FIREPLACE ` 4 ELECTRICAL: ROUGH FINAL PLUMBING: ROUGH FINAL s GAS: ROUGH FINAL r FINAL BUILDING DATE CLOSED OUT ASSOCIATION PLAN NO. - t Department of Industrial Accident p Office o!/nyestigatlons S 600 Washington Street Boston,Mass. 02111 Workers' Conoyensation Insurance davit 02 name: SIPPEWISSETT CONSTRUCTION_ CORP . . location: 297 North St . cih, Hyannis MA 02601 phone# ( 508 ) 775— ca-j71; ❑ I am a homeowner performing all work myself. ❑ I am a sole proprietor and have no one working in any capacity ® I am an employer providing workers' compensation for my employees working on this job. compnnvname: SippeWissett Constrnrtinn 'Cnrn_ address: 297 N'tirth StrPpt City: Hyannis , MA 026DI phone#: ( 508 ) 775-9316 insurance co. niiev#WCC 5000549012002 V1214 //////!//////// //.11G%//i//!/ U/�G1c71' ❑ I am a sole proprietor,general contractor, or homeowner(circle one)and have hired the contractors listed below who have . the folloising workers'compensation polices: companv name: address: <: city: phone it: . •�'......t......�..�. •.....fly, •.:� •/..y,¢ ••��•'':-•/;� S.. insurnnce ca. ohcv fl.. .J. ..:•�.< >:• :.;.:; ys;': : ::. ///�rG✓rrU.U///ll/U/////r.«riviy///�r�/0%/e/ l�///�iU�//Oi///////Ur/////a///l//////.�//////./�//////////////// companvname: :.. rttiE.>.0 > `%r ' J.{y2n address: CItV" phone#: insurance co. ,. : ... ;:,..:.,. .; .. ;;:,:;' :: : >~ {•:k. ' A.•..4� ..Oilty# :waJ:•:aa-. :.fsi.�;A.�n?ci.•...X,��yy':i.•..�. . Failure to.secure coverage as required under Section 25A of MGL 152 can lead to the iihposition of criminal penalties of a ate up to S1.300.00 and/or one rears'imprisonment as well as dvd penalties in the form of s STOP WORK ORDER and a Me of 5100.00 a day against me. I undentand that s copy of this statement maybe forwarded to the Office of Investigations of the DIA for coverage verfBation. I do her ce ijy un the d enalti f perj the information provided above is trap and correct Signature Date Print name Micha J . Roberts phoned (508) 775-9316 otlldal use only do not write in this area to be completed by city or town of vial city or town: permit/license q 013uilding Department CRIcensing Board ❑check if invrudiate response is required ❑Selectmen's Omce ❑Health Department contact person: Phone t$; ❑Other (tensed�195 P1A1 I � E i ol Iv I I i O 1-1 C-) f • GTE� � BO��RD:O Ui'LL)i'Cti, "ECE,l1 �TI�3'N'S F �� License aTRUCTIO•�yl kSl+1 R �S_OR Num� ±� 05-386 � " - I 27 04 Tr.no: M41 Res•� MICHAEL J ROBRT PO BOX 1.68 CENTERVILLE,;MA ` 1 Adm*nistHator a OiJ { ail: ;;w,.���-..�.�.. �: r,,.m;3;:•. max_.- - 11-15-2002 8:S8AM FROM HYANNIS FIRE/RESCUE S087786448 P. 1 HYANNIS FIRE DEPARTMENT V.1 AN 95 HIGH SCHOOL RD. EXT.HYANNIS,MA. D2601 HI ICAL HAROLD S. BRUNELLE, CHIEF ngFOPp�R(AIE� (TUD(NT•WARCRC89 OF flAf�iOVCaTl7r �4A !FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU BUSINESS PHONE:(508)775-1300 FACSIMILE PHONE:(308)776-6448 LT, DONALD H.CHASE,JR:,CFl LT.ERIC F.HUBLER,CFI FIRE PREVENTION OFFICER FIRE PREVENTION OFFICER FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET THIS FAX IS GOING TO: Tom Perry - BUILDING DEFT, THIS FAX IS BEING SENT BY: Lt. Eric Hubler SUBJECT OF THIS FAX: RADISSON INN 257 Tyannough Road EDATE: FAX NUMBER: NUMBER OF PAGES: 2............... , ................................................ ........... .......I..... ........ t INCLUp�s COVER) NOTES: ................—..............................................................................................I.............. 11-15-2002 8:59AM FROM HYANNIS FIRE/RESCUE 508778S448 P_ 2 N H anni's Fire Department i a�tBu rp0o 95 Nigh School Road Extension Hyannis, Massachusetts 02601 r Phone: 508 775-1300 Facsimile: 508 778-6448 1896 ( ) t 3 Q To Report an Emergency Dial 911 or 775-2323 Property InSR001on Report Form Business Name: t Izof� Phone : 77t - f`1 Cm Street Address : 2 Sprinkler System:.Yes No PSI ,, Can System.be Pumped When Shut Down? Yes � No FDC Location :Side Hear: Shut ON Location : Closest Fire Hydrant Loca 'on: Fire Alarm System :Yes „ No _ Monitored by Hyannis Fire : Annunciator Location :Side Hear: j -P!�l Main Panel Location: Suppression System(s) YeSCZ�N—o Last Inspection ; 0 Key Box:Yes ,No Location: Side Near: (##=Violation,""=Notes,0= Uncorrected,J=corrected) Reinspection Date: 1- Z-W ATV, S k-QLST at-- `�-'TkkA, 1 t� Vigil(�'Ct° O)F, a1y 1 t 4 o C 'c' I I c tLli: SP&I- ►VIM 4 She RA00v ' Doi, SYA .16bf.5 tMM 5\a U4eJ' W%f-� I F ' A. Rigw;" s rK CAR t.M C to k_4 e I &LD 'PST fc w tis su, l -6 Fire Dept. Insp �L Ltd, Date: Et t o Occupant: Tod Phone 1, Phone: 2. Phone: 1 Phone: HOLLY MANAGEMENT & SUPPLY CORPORATION 11yruonls.Ma,mewhusem;(12m), "'v- (508)7 i5.9�Ib 1 1SION "----�, FAX 008)7?5d6526 I'ACSIb�ILIC'1'k#NyM(ytlC)NCC��h7t ' �I"I' DATE: 9l03/U2 TO: Tom Perry, Building Inspector Town of Barnstable l-ax No. (508) 790-6230 FROM: Stuart Bc7rizgtein (� RE: Radisson - water I'cxuitttil; NUM13ER OF PAGES, TNCLUDING COVER SHEET ( 2 ) IF RECEIVER DOES NOT RECEIVE ALL PAGES TRANSMITTED, PLEASE CALL(508) 775-9316. MESSAGE: This is the;proposal for the referenced fountain. It is flush in the gi-outid, the only visual will be the columns, which are above ground. Also, this is the proposed height, which could be changed Somewthat.. I will be happy to meet you at the site to Show you exactly where it will be. Please call with any questions. T 35tid 9Z599LL80s:XdJ SO I NddWOS N I 31SNd08:Q I T0:Z0 Wd•aO, 60/60 TSS•ON 3'1 I 3 FILE No.-3300 09iO3 '02 PM 01:58 IU:BORNSTEIN COMPANIES FAY:5087756526 PAGE 1 .r. i m � J m 11 1 � a 4 T ..v L® 3910d S1630NDJ 3AIIV380 90TT06z805 E,9:Ei UQUEE/60 TOWN OF BARNSTABLE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION Map � Parcel / `�' � Permit# S—M5® Health Division �z/Z � - Date Issued Conservation Division FeeQ� Tax Collector Treasurer • A"LICANT MUST OBTAIN A.SiWER Planning Dept CONNECTION PERMIT FROM THE + ENUINEERING Dff=X PSI48 TO Date Definitive Plan Approved by Planning Board Historic-OKH Preservation/Hyannis Project Street Address c>?P 7 •; NA&d .�! y Village ffs3�1�/S Owner _ ✓t 4aeh.?0o,o 941el {Address d9°7 UaOrA57— Telephone Permit Request do e2 e,b Dw a ✓/7 !�'� al .9�isse�l ale L Square feet: 1 st floor: a •stin proposeM' 9�2nd floor: existing proposed Total new ' dw, a 05 Estimated Project Cost s Zoning District Flood Plain Groundwater Overlay Construction Type AJ o o/3 Lot Size Grandfathered: ❑Yes ❑No If yes, attach supporting documentation. Dwelling Type: Single Family ❑ Two Family ❑ Multi-Family(#units) Age of Existing Structure Historic House: ❑Yes ❑No On Old King's Highway: ❑Yes ❑No Basement Type: ❑Full ❑Crawl ❑Walkout ❑Other Basement Finished Area(sq.ft.) Basement Unfinished Area(sq.ft) Number of Baths: Full: existing new Half:existing new Number of Bedrooms: existing new Total Room Count(not including baths):existing new First Floor Room Count Heat Type and Fuel: ❑Gas ❑Oil ❑ Electric ❑Other Central Air: O Yes ❑No Fireplaces: Existing New Existing wood/coal stove: ❑Yes ❑No Detached garage:❑existing ❑new size Pool:❑existing ❑new size Barn:❑existing ❑new size Attached garage:❑existing ❑new size Shed:❑existing ❑new size Other: Zoning Board of Appeals Authorization ❑ Appeal# Recorded❑ Commercial Yes ❑ No If yes,site plan review# III-Q Current Use Proposed Use BUILDER INFORMATION Name z /e'w G /a P s Telephone Number __. �aS Address �D �J,L.Y 2/G ate' License# 1x4 od6 3.�k- Home Improvement Contractor# Worker's Compensation# 6 °1 'ALL CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS RESULTING FROM THIS PROJECT WILL BE TAKEN TO SIGNATURE �DATE a FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY OF PERMIT NO. , DATE ISSUED - - MAP/PARCEL NO. `r ADDRESS VILLAGE OWNER + DATE OF INSPECTION + ..r • . !: FOUNDATION FRAME INSULATION - . r i a p . • FIREPLACE- ELECTRICAL: ROUGH FINAL ' - 4 ` PLUMBING: ROUGH FINAL _ t GAS: ROUGH FINAL ¢ �6 FINAL BUILDING. C.Y DATE CLOSED;OUT w , ASSOCIATION PLAN NO. 4 Department of Industrial Accidents =� ' - - Office nl/nYestigations - 6 = � ., _ 600 Washington Street Boston Mass. 02111 Workers' Compensation Insurance Affidavit name: SIPPEWISSETT CONSTRUCTION CORP . location: 287 Iyannough Rd . city Hyannis MA 02601 phone# ❑ I am a homeowner performing all work myself. ❑ I am a sole roDrietor and have no one working in anv ca achy ///%%/%% %/%��/%/%////%%%%%1%%/%//%%/%/%%%��%/��%/%/��/%%///%%%%%///%%/////////%%/%%/%/%%%%%%//%///%%%;;�;'; ® I am an employer providing workers' compensation for my employees working on this job. camnnnvnome: Si ppeWissett Construrtinn Corn address: 20 N'6rth StrPat city: Hyannis , MA 02601 phone#- (508) 775-9316 �Linsurance cn. C berCom nolicv//.//%//////////////////////////////%////i%////////////// /////////////////////////%//////////%//////////////////I am a sole proprietor, general contractor, or homeowner(circle one) and have hired the contractors listed below who have the folloning workers' compensation polices: company name, address: city phone . ... ..... �•:<.;:. :M.:,.::.:.... #r tnsornnce cn. .....:..: oiicv Al' .. .:.....:::.:: :•: ...:><.:;..::..:.,,:..;::�:::., comnanv name- address: city- phone ...... fnsprance co. :.:::.......::..:. .:;:: # ;.;:;;«.:..:::.. . ..... .. polig Failure to secure coverage as required under Section 25A of MGL 152 can lead to the imposition of criminal penalties of a tine up to$1.500.00 and/or one veers'imptisonatent as well as civil penalties in the form of a STOP WORK ORDER and a tlne of S100.00 a day against me. I understand that a copy of this statement may be forwarded to the Onlce of Investigations of the DIA for coverage vetifIcation. 1 do her ce ijy tun the ns d enalti jperju • the information Provided above is true and correct Simature Date 1 2/1 2/0 0 Print name M . J . Roberts Phone# ( 508) 775-9316 otttcial use only do not write in this area to be completed by city or town oMcial city or town: permit/llcense# • ❑Building Department ❑check if Immediate response is required ❑Llcetsing Board ❑Selectmen s Ofdce ❑Health Department contact person: phone#; ❑Other (revuea 9,95 PJA) ; o . ✓ll6 106I114ItMlU /4 O�i.� GEUGP.l�6 BOARD OF BUILDING REGULATIONS License: CONSTRUCTION SUPERVISOR Number. CS 1 j Expires: 2/132002 Tr.no: 17551 Restricted To: 00 S MICHAEL J ROBERTS PO BOX 168 � CENTERVILLE, MA 02632 Administrator ' F l 12-28 2000 1 :53PM FROM HYANNIS FIRE/RESCUE 508 778 G448 P. 1 1EYYAN IS FIRE DEPARTMENT va►v 95 HIGH SCHOOL RD. EXT• HYANNI S, MA.02601 Ntxt'(ra�. HAF16LD S. BRUNELLE, CHIEF S*E ' �iDia SryplN(fN'iROMbfi Ol fRi ifDcfnpi SUSINESS PHONE'(509)775-1300 FACSIMILE PHONE:(508)778-6448 1.T, DONALD It. CHASE,JR,CF6 LT.FXUC F. FS4J$LER,CFI FERE FREVJE111MON OFFICER FIItE PREVENgEON OFFICER BUILDING CODE COMPLIANCE FORM THIS FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU.HAS REVIEWED THE PLANS DATED _ FOR THE PROPF.FRTY LOCATED AT _ ALSO KN(SWN A$:—__�—_P- THE CHART BELOW INDICATES THE STATUS OF OUR REVIEW: ' YFl :bFCON$TRUCTIUN. OCUNtEt�T; NtA RECEfVED R-VIEWED COMPLIES .. 1- ARRATIyE REP.OR'':: :2:-FIRE:EIGH7iNQ:'F Rlw C.UE ACCESS' ' 3�HY0RAN7 LOCATION!UVATER SUPPLY 4=8PgiNKLER SYST.EIVlS. - 5,SFRINKLER 6 NT :4..0 EOIJIPMENT :6-STANDPIPE SYS ,-- I-STANDPIPE•VAL'VE•:C ' .; .8=0✓It�E.DEFARTMENT COi`Vf�IECTION•'' , 9=FiRE PR4Ternvt SI iNALING S•YST: 10•F.P.s S. ANNUNCIATOR LOCATION• `'. -- 11-SMOKE CONTROL/EXHAUST 12-SMOKE CONTROL EQUIP..l CA710N 1:i-LIFF SAFETY SYSTEM.FI ATURES — -- ------ ia=FIRE EXT{NGUISHIN'd SYSTEMS 15-F.E.S.CONTROL:EQUIP LOCATION 16- IRE.PROFECTION k Ogftis` . ;:.. 17-FIDE PROTECT101`4 R,QUIP&GNAGE 18-ALARM:T,RANSMISSION-METHOD: 1.9-SEDUEIVCE OF OPEFiATIOP!REPORT 20-ACCEPTANCE,TES rfNG CR1T,.ERIA W>w BELIEVEA F CUME TO C PLETE AND COMPLIANT FOR THE ISSUANCE OFA BUILDING I, . ,PERMIT, 12- ��, I•ta'C- Pc.e—� CSC .�P�c�1.�. ��yy WE HAVE COMPLETED THE ACC TANCE TESTING FOR THE OCCUPANCY PERMIT AND BELIEVE4KA WITHIN THE SCOPE'OF THE BUILDING PERMIT;THE ABOVE.ISSUES ARF IN COMPLIANCE. } I. � �1 -�q--'- MRS 1�8 .. jai M A { H 8 T h E �� . 19 ?Q fd 6 ►t A RR . sa�. a a �c � u � e T'� ® G d S 8 9 T G w .. s g 8 O 8 0 0 FAX 4 � � S o 4 0 Deccmbcr 2b. 2000 VIA f! USIM L,E No. (508) /90-b2.30 Town of Barnstable ^,, .,+;.,,,• r,1,Y�t 1�cl�r.efrer, TritcrIT'n 1:3uilc'in� £',�mrrzissionc.r 367 Main Street -Hyannis, MA 02601 Rc: Radisson Inn of Hyannis 287 Iyannough Road Hyannis, "MA 02601 p-var Mr. tlishoefrer: In accordance with Section 116.0 of the Massachusetts State ,Building. Code H� we yv-iit perform the necessary professiortal set-vices and be present on the construction site on a regular and periodic basis to determine that the work is proceeding its accordance with the docuinents approved for the building permit and shall be responsible i'c1r the folloNvizig as specified 1-n Section 116.2. 1. Review, for conformance to the design concept, shop drawings, samples and other sOnuttals which are submitted by the contractor,in accordance with the requirements of the construction documents. 2. Review and appro��al c-f the gtiaiity control procedLire ('ot all code-required controlled niaterials. . 3. Be present at intervals appropriate to the stage of construction to become generally familiar with the pro6n•ess and quality of work to.detenri•ne, in general, if the work is being performed in a mwiner consistent with the construction documents rely Teter F. DiMeo. A.i,A. t ' 'The Commonwealth of Massachusetts u W ARCHITECTURAL ACCESS BOARD One Ashburton Place - Room 1310 4 Boston, Massachusetts 02108 Q,M SJe ARGEO PAUL CELLUCCI (617) 727-0660 GOVERNOR 1-800-828-7222 JANE SWIFT D M`_'(�?= `=] Voice and TDD LT.GOVERNOR OCT 16 2000 Fax: (617) 727-0665 www.state.ma.us/aab DEBORAH A. RYAN M EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR October 13,2000 Mr. Edwin E.Taipale Holly Management and Supply Corporation 297 North Street Hyannis,MA 02601 RE: Radisson Inn, 287 Iyannough Road,Hyannis,MA.(Compliant#98-146) Dear Mr.Taipale, This letter is a follow up regarding Complaint#98- 146 filed with the Architectural Access Board on September 29, 1998. On July 13, 1999 a site visit was done regarding the alleged violations of the 1982 Rules and Regulations of the Architectural Access Board. On October 6,2000 you wrote to the board and provided photographs of work that has been completed. To date,we have not received verification that ramp#1 referenced in my site report dated July 30, 1999,and the Boards Decision of January 28,2000 has been brought into compliance In addition,the photographs that you have provided showing a table with signage of the international symbol of accessibility does not meet the requirements of Section 7.4. I have enclosed a copy of the Boards Decision of January 28,2000 and my site visit report. The Board requests that you provide a written status report as to the steps you have taken or plan to take to comply with the current regulations. Sincere , 1't Thomas P.Hopkins Compliance Officer Architectural Access Board CC: Complainant I dependent Living Center 1? g onunission on Disability Local Building Inspector LJ 1 ' The Commonwealth of Massachusetts 4 W ARCHITECTURAL ACCESS BOARD - One Ashburton Place - Room 1310 4c Boston, Massachusetts 02108 ARGEO PAUL CELLUCCI (617) 727-0660 GOVERNOR 1-800-828-7222 JANE SWIFT Voice and TDD LT.GOVERNOR Fax: (617) 727-0665 www.state.ma.us/aab DEBORAH A. RYAN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR DECIiSION RE: Radisson Inn, 287 Iyannough Road, Hyannis 1. The hearing was held upon a complaint filed by Julie Nolan reporting the following sections to be in violation of the Rules and Regulations of the Architectural Access Board: Section 7.4— Service at the reception desk is not accessible due to lack of lowered counter. Section 25.2 — Slope of the ramp to the main entrance exceeds 1:12 (8.3%). The ramps to the reception area exceed 1:12 (8.3%) Section 26.5 —Door mats are not securely anchored at all edges to avoid tripping in the reception area. Section 27.2 —Clear opening width of the door to the accessible units is less than 34 inches. Section 30.1 —The restrooms in the conference and the restaurant/bar areas are not fully accessible. The hearing also addressed the findings in Thomas Hopkins' Site Inspection Report Dated July 30, 1999. 2. The hearing was held on: Monday, January 10, 2000 3. The following persons appeared: Julie Nolan, Complainant, Cape Organization for the Rights of the Disabled (CORD) and Timothy Caffyn, Attorney for Radisson Inn. The Chair swore in all persons offering testimony. 4. FINDINGS AND DECISION: The Board having considered the evidence hereby decides and finds as follows: By way of background: Julie Nolan filed a complaint with the Board on September 29, 1998. The Board notified the Radisson Inn of the reported violations. On October 30, iJ 1998, the Board received a letter from Michael Roberts responding to the reported violations. On July 13, 1999, Thomas Hopkins, the Board's Compliance Officer conducted a site inspection at the Radisson Inn. In a letter dated July 30, 1999, Mr. Hopkins sent his findings to Timothy Caffyn. In that letter Mr. Hopkins advised Mr. Caffyn that the Board ordered that the violations be brought into compliance with the regulations by August 31, 1999. Further, to notify the Board within five days of the completion date, and to include photographs, showing the completed work. On September 21, 1999, Mr. Hopkins sent a follow-up letter requesting a status report as to the steps taken to comply with the order requiring compliance by August 31, 1999. Subsequently, the Board scheduled a hearing to resolve the matter. Mr. Rhodes called upon Julie Nolan to present her complaint to the Board. Mr. Rhodes asked Ms. Nolan to discuss what she observed at the property. Mr. Rhodes noted the Board also has a Sit e e Inspection report to refer to. Ms. Nolan stated she would discuss the reported violations in the order of their importance. The restrooms in the conference and the restaurant/bar areas are not fully accessible. Ms. Nolan stated that persons in wheelchairs would be unable to use the restrooms, because the doors are too narrow. Mr. Rhodes asked Ms. Nolan if the restrooms are open to the public. Ms. Nolan replied in the affirmative. Ms. Nolan stated the slope of the ramp to the main entrance exceeds 1:12 and the ramp to the reception area also exceeds 1:12. Ms. Nolan stated that a ramp steeper than 1:12 is very dangerous for a person using canes or crutches. Also, the door mats that are not securely anchored present a danger to persons using canes or crutches. Ms. Nolan stated she found the lack of a complying service counter at the reception desk very inhospitable. The clear opening width of the door to the accessible units is slightly less than 34 inches. Mr. Hopkins' site report also cited Section 27.2 to be in violation of 521 CMR. Mr. Rhodes stated the Board needs to establish its jurisdiction in the matter. He asked Mr. Hopkins for a clarification as to when work was performed. Mr. Hopkins stated that Ms. Nolan submitted copies of the building permit that was issued on February 3, 1995, for the property at 287 Iyannough Road for complete renovation of motel. The cost of the work performed was given as $2,500,000.00. Mr. Caffyn stated Ms. Nolan reported that the restrooms in the conference area and restaurant bar area are not fully accessible. Mr. Caffyn stated there are accessible restrooms on the same level as the restaurant, a fair distance away. Mr. Caffyn asked for a clarification as to where the 2.5 million-dollar figure came from. Mr. Hopkins replied that information is from the Hyannis Building Department, and he noted the Assessor's Office reflected that figure as well. Mr. Hopkins' site inspection revealed the following and his report is indicated as Result in the body of the decision Section 7.4 Service at the reception desk is not accessible due to lack of a lowered counter. Result: Violation. Mr. Caffyn stated that the check-in table for persons with disabilities is located on the right side of the entrance about 10 feet from the main counter. He stated he understands it is acceptable to have an auxiliary counter. Ms. Greiff asked if when a person in a wheelchair comes into the facility if staff at the reception deck can observe them and proceed to what is called the accessible check in. Mr. Caffyn replied in the affirmative and noted there is a sign on the desk identifying the location as the accessible check-in area. The Board inquired if the auxiliary counter is permanently staffed. Mr. Caffyn replied it is only staffed as needed. Ms. Nolan stated the alcove where the table is located was vacant when she visited the site, i.e., there was no accessible check table. Ms. Nolan stated her opinion that the placement of the table in a different location segregates persons with disabilities from the general public. Mr. Hopkins also stated that he does not remember seeing the auxiliary check-in location when he visited the site. Section 25.2 -Slope of the ramp to the main entrance exceeds 1:12 (8.3%). The ramp to the reception area exceeds 1:12 (8.3%). Result: Violation. Mr. Hopkins_ measured the ramps as follows: Ramp #1. The ramp running slope was measured at various locations. Readings from the Smart Level were 10.4%, 9.7%, 9.6%. The slope violates Section 25.2. Handrails that comply with 521 CMR Section 25.4 were not provided. In addition no level landing at the top of the ramp in front of the doors is provided, violating Section 26.2 Ramp #2. The ramp that leads off of the reception area (main entrance) to the left as you face the reception area was measured with a smart level at various locations. Readings from the Smart Level were 7.4%, 7.9%, 7.5%. These measurements show that the running slope complies with Section 25.2. However, because the slope exceeds 5%, it shall be treated as a ramp, and Section 24.1 of the Regulations applicable to ramps shall apply. Therefore this ramp area is required to have handrails compliant with Section 25.4. Mr. Hopkins stated when the Board received a response from the Radisson relative to the ramp violations, it was stated that Ralph Jones, Barnstable Building Department measured both ramps and found them in compliance. Mr. Hopkins stated when he was at the site a gentleman was there with a level and tape measure to measure the ramps. Mr. Hopkins stated he took the measurements with the Smart Level, a more accurate tool for measurement, and his findings are above. Mr. Caffyn stated that the building official thought the ramps were in compliance. Mr. Caffyn stated that if the regul ations apply, the ramps will be brought into compliance. Mr. Carell asked Mr. Caffyn if it is his testimony that the ramps will be brought into full compliance with Section 24 of 521 CMR, relative to slopes, landings, handra ls, etc. Mr. Caffyn stated unless the Board has jurisdiction to require full compliance, some of the more costly violations, i.e., the slope and level platform of the one ramp, will probably not be corrected. Mr. Carell asked Mr. Caffvn if lie has the authority to make 3 commitments on behalf of the Radisson. Mr. Caffyn stated he does not have authority to make definitive commitments. Section 26.5 - Door mats in the reception area are not securely anchored at all edges to prevent people from tripping. Result: Violation. Rugs located throughout the reception area were not securely fastened to the floor. The Board stated that this is a dangerous situation for persons walking with crutches or canes. Mr. Caffyn advised the Board that the door mats have been secured. Mr. Rhodes asked Ms. Nolan when she last visited the site, and if the mats were secured. Ms. Nolan replied she visited the site late November, early December, and did not see the mats securely fastened to the floor. The Board finds, based on the testimony of Mr. Caffyn that the rugs located throughout the reception area have been securely fastened to the floor. Therefore, the Board finds that Section 26.5 is now in compliance with 521 CMR. Section 27.2 -Clear width opening of the entry doors to the accessible units is less than thirty-four (34) inches. Result: Violation. The doors to the accessible units measured thirty-three and one half (33-1/2) inches of clear width opening. (The measurement of thirty-three and one half inch as taken, does.violate Section 27.2 of the 1982-Regulations. Mr. Hopkins states that the current Regulations in full force and effect 2/23/96, Section 26.1.1, requires thirty-two inches of clear-width opening) Mr. Caffyn stated the Radisson might submit a variance request, since the door widths comply with the 1996 regulations. The Board finds that the 1996 Regulations requires a clear opening of not less than thirty- two inches (32") measured with the door at 90 degrees to jamb. The Board finds, based on the information that the doors to the units were measured at 33 1.2", there is no violation of the new regulations. Therefore, the Board voted to dismiss the complaint filed on Section 27.2. (The Board dismissed the complaint because any work done now to bring the doors into compliance with 521 CMR, would require compliance with the 1996 regulations. Section 30.1 - The restrooms in the conference room and the restaurant/ bar area are not fully accessible. Result: Violation. 1. The door hardware provided on the restroom doors located near the conference area does not comply with Section 27.9. 2. The bathrooms located in the restaurant and bar area had entry doors that measured twenty-two (22) inches, violating section 27.2. Mr. Hopkins stated that he agrees with Ms. Nolan's complaint that the restrooms do not comply with 521 CMR. Mr. Hopkins stated he could not enter the restrooms to 4 determine if there are any other violations, because of the width of the door. Mr. Rhodes asked Mr. Hopkins if it is his opinion that the restrooms are public restrooms. Mr. Hopkins replied unquestionably. Board Member Gregory Carell referred to the letter of October 27, 1998, from Mr. Roberts that states there are two fully accessible restrooms located adjacent to the restaurant that satisfies the requirements of 521 CMR. Mr. Caffyn acknowledged that the restrooms located within the restaurant do not comply with 521 CMR. Mr. Caffyn stated there is a question as to whether the regulations apply to the Radisson, since it was built in 1970. Mr. Caffyn stated some work has been done to make the Radisson more accessible to the Radisson's clientele. Mr. Caffyn stated it is not believed that the threshold has been met to require full compliance. Mr. Caffyn stated the Radisson is disputing the 2.5 million dollars reported by Ms. Nolan. Mr. Caffyn stated the building is currently valued at 2.3 million dollars, so he cannot see that the Radisson put in 2.5 million four years ago. Mr. Rhodes asked Mr. Caffyn if he has any evidence to dispute the 2.5 million cost. Mr. Rhodes stated that the record the Board has appears to be of the work as reflected on the building permit record issued by the municipality. Mr. Caffyn stated he does not have any information with him to dispute the reported cost of 2.5 million, but stated it must be $250,000, not 2.5 million. Mr. Rhodes reiterated that the Board has information that a permit was taken out on February 3, 1995, in the amount of 2.5 million for a complete renovation of the Motel. The Board noted that the assessing record also reflects the building permit record. Board Member Lorraine Greiff asked Mr. Caffyn just what figure his client is saying is the correct figure. Mr. Caffyn stated he is not sure exactly what the figure was, but would like time to further investigate-the matter. He stated he would like to go forth and address some of the reported violations. Mr. Caffyn stated that door hardware in full compliance with 521 CMR has been provided on the restroom doors located near the conference room. Mr. Caffyn stated it is questionable if it is even feasible, cost and space wise, to provide a unisex toilet room within the restaurant. Mr. Rhodes asked how far the accessible restrooms are from the restaurant. Mr. Caffyn replied, approximately 100 yards. The Board finds, based on Mr. Caffyn's testimony that complying door hardware has been provided on the doors to the restrooms located near the conference area. Therefore, the Board voted to dismiss the complaint riled on Section 27.9 for the reason that complying hardware has been provided on the doors to the restrooms located near the conference area. Further, the Board finds that the restrooms located in the restaurant are not in compliance with 521 CMR, e.g., the bathroom entry doors measure 22 inches. Section 27.2 - The threshold at the main entry to the lobby area exceeds one-half inch (1/2") in height. Result: New Violation. Although this violation was not reported with the first notice dated October 7, 1998, it was clear that the threshold exceeded one half (1/2) inch in height. The measurement showed that the threshold was approximately (1) inch or more in height. 5 Mr. Caffyn stated the Radisson plans to dispute the above new violation, because it was not part of the original complaint filed by Ms. Nolan. Mr. Caffyn stated the Radisson proposes to have the bricks right before the entrance redone. Ms. Greiff advised Mr. Caffyn that the Board has the power to bring its own complaints in a matter. Mr. Caffyn stated it was his understanding that complaints had to be filed by an individual. Mr. Rhodes stated that the Board has information before it that the cost of the work performed was 2.5 million and the assessed value of the property was 2.3 million, clearly the cost of the work performed was over 25% of the assessed value of the property. BOARD DECISION The Board finds, based on the building permit information provided by the Town, the work performed on the Radisson Inn Hyannis, was 2.5 million dollars, and the assessed value of the building as recorded is 2.3 million dollars. Clearly, this triggered Section 3.3B of the 1982 Regulations that the work performed was over twenty-five percent (25%) of the one-hundred percent (100%) equalized assessed value of the building, requiring that the entire facility be brought into compliance with 521 CMR. The Board finds since there was no evidence submitted to refute these figures, it takes jurisdiction over the facility under Section 3.3B of the 1982 Regulations. Therefore, based on its jurisdiction in the matter, the Board finds in favor of the complainant that the complaints filed and modified on the Site Inspection Report dated July 30, 1999, on Sections 7.4; Section 25.2; Ramp #1 (also violations of 25.4 and Section 26.2) and Ramp #2, (violation of Section 25.4); Section.26.5, Section 27.2 and Section 30.1 were valid when filed. The Board also finds the violation of Section 27.2 as reported by Mr. Hopkins in his Site Inspection Report is valid. Further, the Board finds, based on Mr. Caffyn's testimony that the following violations have been brought into compliance with 521 CMR: Section 26.5 is now in compliance with 521 CMR, the door mats have been secured. Section 27.2 was dismissed, for the reason there is no violation of the new 1996 regulations. Section 30.1(27.9) Door hardware has been provided on the restroom doors located near the conference area. The Board advises the Radisson Inn that if it has definitive information confirmed by the Building Department and the Assessor's Office that the work performed was under 25% of the assessed value of the building, i.e., different figures than those that are part of the case record, the Radisson has the right to file a Motion for Reconsideration as set forth in Section 4.4 of 521 CMR. If the Radisson decides to seek variances for those items that are impracticable to bring into full compliance with 521 CMR, an application for variance must be submitted by March 1, 2000, or a plan for compliance be submitted by said date. The Board will set a timeline for compliance once it receives the Radisson's response. 6 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. DATE: January 28, 2000 ARCHITECTURAL ACCESS BOARD Garry des Chairman cc: Local Building Inspector Local Disability Commission Independent Living Center Complainant 7 The Commonwealth of Massachusetts u W ARCHITECTURAL ACCESS BOARD w One Ashburton Place - Room 1310 OEM Svev Boston, Massachusetts 02108 ARGEO PAUL CELLUCCI (617) 727-0660 GOVERNOR 1-800-828-7222 JANE SWIFT Voice and TDD LT.GOVERNOR Fax: (617) 727-0665 www.state.ma.us/aab DEBORAH A. RYAN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Mr.James Caffyn July 30 ,1999 Radisson Inn 287 Iyannough Road Hyannis, MA 02601 RE: Radisson Inn, 287 Iyannough Road, Hyannis, MA.(Complaint #98-146) Dear Mr. Caffyn: On July 13, 1999, a site inspection was conducted at the above referenced premises. The inspection showed the following: Section: Description: 7.4 Service at the reception desk is not accessible due to lack of a lowered counter. Result: Violation. 25.2 Slope of the ramp to the main entrance exceeds 1:12 (8.3%). The ramp to the reception area exceeds 1:12 (8.3%). Result: Violation. Ramp #1. The ramp running slope was measured at various locations. Readings from the Smart Level were 10.4%, 9.7%, 9.6%. The slope violates Section 25.2. Handrails that comply with 521 CMR Section 25.4 were not provided. In addition no level landing at the top of the ramp in front of the doors is provided, violating Section 26.2 IL 1 iL _ Ramp #2. The ramp that leads off of the reception area to the left as you face the reception area was measured with a smart level at various locations. Readings from the Smart Level were 7.4%, 7.9%, 7.5%. These measurements show that the running slope complies with Section 25.2. However, because the slope exceeds 5%, it shall be treated as a ramp, and Section 22.1 of the Regulations applicable to ramps shall apply. Therefore this ramp area is required to have handrails compliant with Section 25.4. 26.5 Door mats in the reception area are not securely anchored at all edges to prevent people from tripping. Result: Violation. Rugs located throughout the reception area were not securely fastened to the floor. 27.2 Clear width opening of the entry doors to the accessible units is less than thirty-four (34) inches. Result: Violation. The doors to the accessible units measured,thirty-three and one half(33- 1/2) inches of clear width opening. (The measurement of thirty-three and one half inch as taken, does violate Section 27.2 of the 1982 Regulations, However, the current Regulations in full force and effect 3/6/98/ Section 26.1.1. requires thirty-two inches of clear-width opening) 30.1 The restrooms in the conference and the restaurant/ bar area are not fully accessible. Result: Violation. 1. The door hardware provided on the restroom doors located near the conference area do not comply with Section 27.9. 2. The bathrooms located in the restaurant and bar area had entry doors that measured twenty-two (22) inches, violating section 27.2. (Mr. Caffyn indicated that the men s and women's restrooms would be converted to a single Unisex toilet room) • 2 27.2 The threshold at the main entry to the lobby area exceeds one-half (1/2) inch in height. Result: New Violation. Although this violation was not reported with the first notice dated October 7, 1998, it was clear that the threshold exceeded one half (1/2) inch in height. The measurement showed that the threshold was approximately (1) inch or more in height. The Board orders the violations be brought into compliance with our regulations by August 31, 1999. You are required to notify the Board, in writing,within five days of the completion date, indicating whether the work has been completed. Moreover, it would be very helpful if you could include photos showing the work has been completed. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact this office. Sincerely, Thomas P. Hopkins Compliance Officer cc: Local Building Inspector Complainant Disability Commission Independent Living Center 3 r ,1 : . � The Town of Barnstable - -- • snieivsraa�.e, • Department of Health Safety and Environmental Services 1639. 1°rEnN,or► Building Division 367 Main Street,Hyannis MA 02601 Office: 508-862-4038 Ralph Crossen Fax: 508-790-6230 Building Commissioner May 11,2000 Architectural Access Board One Ashburton Place,Room 1310 Boston,MA 02108 Re: ' Radisson Inn,287 Iyannough Road,Hyannis ' Dear Members of the Board: Please be advised that I am the Building Commissioner for the Town of Barnstable. I am familiar with the above referenced building and with the decision of the Architectural Access Board dated January 28,2000 relative to violations of the Rules and Regulations of the Architectural Access Board. I have reviewed the plans of the building with the owner,and have viewed the site relative to the width of the entry doors to the restrooms in the restaurant/bar area. It is my opinion that any attempt to widen the doors in this wall would be structurally difficult based on the fact that it is a bearing wall and there are more than the normal number of plumbing chases passing through it. Further,I note that restrooms which comply with the Rules and Regulation of the Architectural Access Board are located nearby in the lower level of the building and are fully accessible via an elevator. For the above-stated reasons,I support the application for Variance filed on behalf of the Radisson Inn for a variance from Section 30.1(27.2)of your regulations,as stated in said application. Kindly contact me if I can provide any further information to the Board relative to this Variance Application. Sincerely, 1JVU _V� Ralph M.Crossen Building Commissioner RMC/km g000511a MAY-10-00 02 :07 PM HOLLY MANAGEMENT 508 775 8789 P. 01 C :4 Edwin E. Taipale, Attorney 297 North Street H • . . Hyannis,Massachusetts 02801 Tel: (508) 775-4200 Fax; (508)775-8789Sup • ly Corp Fm To: Ralph Crosson From: Ed Taipale Faxii 790-6230 Pales: Phone: Dote: 05/10100 Re: Radisson Inn CCr ❑Urgent ❑ For Review ©Please Comment 0 Please Reply 0 Please Recycle e Comments: Draft of letter to Architectural Access Board, for your review, and floor plan for hotel shoti fing restrooms in question(In bar/restaurant). Please call Stuart to discuss,Thanks, The information contained In this facsimile message is privileged and confidential, IntenJed only for the use of the individual or entity named above. Dissemination, distribution or copying of any part of this communication by anyone other than its intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you'.have received this message in error,please notify us by telephone Immediately, and return the original Oy malt, l i MAY-10-00 02 :08 PM HOLLY MANAGEMENT 508 775 8789 P. 02 RADISSON INN FA'INIS ,-...,...... y. --- P, 2 ,F-RTY FLOOR PLANS Forking Enhance �^—� Ratouranf � aKtS�i�J I ' E�honca ^•' r►� t72" il� a m c -•• .- PAT � i5' 11`I il � M c-�It:! � N N � t���ii0 ! w Pool Inn a a �, rl Y+ '11%ow , R mom ant r7 n mm 994, iV N KikMe soie: MAIN 15UILPINO w i $Aio. Meeting M 1:�}fouranP�,e Patiolobby en�rane9 Main Room) Lc b '.y'� Enlrvnco , km;4p ion M EAST .WING Main Floor Porkinq `1 "Now, rpm Will! wr.r..wwrw�.r..w..rr�rw o.,,.d.+ r.-. �..r.... r«�...r...-.ww+���..-w.�.,-,-'-`+• i �((pyy 1fN� m v N me ��y op 'u 1; 1 N F ' $3 JN N N N N i N rw.n,w•w..►ar�.' .,� MAIN DUILDING I ��• r, 1 N'tooling Roorno Lobby\ oelow A* = Main 16Low -'"" Entrance EAST WINO Second door Oym • Enhance 110M AbOVI i �, ro u►Of l N'T aoA w.M iprw.,I M. w cold's 1 MAY-10-00 02 :08 PM HOLLY MANAGEMENT 508 775 8789 P. 03 • , =4 1�AY-10-OQ WED 1 �H PM RADISSUN 1XX HYAhXIS ' OPFRTY FLOOR PLAN .., PR (^. - Patking RCn►ana RutaurgM �✓ � a nN� �e V MM ea N 66 n �EnKTMn 114 Ilia I s 'pool ,n wow! Rurovronl i RAeeNn� yMy MAIN A-IN DUILD-I NG 1pi1 �. Aram by r� �� R te�rpnl.. ' raft Vi1 in0 lnlrpnN �, Moin j Rooms to 6 r""' �n+rents � p f Pon in = � ro � N � t2 � � � EAST M WING Main Floor Park;nq ff IRA it Abe MAIN DUILPING 1' - -- -- ' M8GFnB Roorne' Lobby � tnow n At Main f � EAST WINO second door bym ' Enlronce • rap>K aAOvd 1MUy q►M RtAN (.t�vm�e'eM N lul M Fpco'l 'NGold'sGm iVol R�got►c Auoblct Y 'wire jj i lnvb goy Muting Roorn r � „ S MAIN DUILDINC Lowertevel MAY-10-00 02 :09 PM HOLLY MANAGEMENT 508 775 8789 P. 04 May 10,2000 Architectural Access Board One Ashburton Place, Room 13 10. Boston, MA 02108 Re,. Radisson Inn, 287 Iyannough Road, Hyannis Dear Menibers of the Board: Please be advised that I am the Building Commissioner for the Town of Barnstable. I am familiar with the above-referenced building and with the Decision of the Architectural Access Board dated January 28,2000 relative to violations of the Rules and Regulations bf the Architectural .Access Board. I have reviewed the plar�f the building with tt er, and have`dewed the site relative to the width of the entry doors he onrls in the restaurant'bar area. It is my opinion that any attempt to widen t entry doors rid� verse{y impact upon the structural integrity of the building at such alterations would be prohibitively expenside, Further, I note that restrooms which comply with the Rules and Regulation of the Architectural Access Board are located nearby in the lower level of the building ind are fully accessible via an elevator. For the above-stated reasons I support the Application for Variance filed on behalf of the Radisson Inn for a variance from Section 30.1 (27.2) of your regulations, as stated in said application. Kindly contact me if I can provide any further information to the Board relative to this Variance Application. Very truly yours, Ralph Crosscn, Building Cotunissioner Enc. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts ARCHITECTURAL ACCESS BOARD One Ashburton Place - Room 1310 Boston, Massachusetts 02108 ARGEO'PAUL CELLUCCI (617) 727-0660 GOVERNOR 1-800-828-7222 JANE SWIFT Voice and TDD LT.GOVERNOR Fax: (617) 727-0665 DEBORAH A. RYAN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO: :Local Building Inspector Independent Living Center Local Commission on Disability Complainant FROM: Architectural Access Board RE: DATE: ' d U Enclosed please find a copy of the following material regarding the above location: Application for Variance ✓ Decision of the Board Notice of Hearing Correspondence Letter of Meeting The purpose of this memo is to advise you of action taken or to be taken by this Board. If you have any information which would assist the Board in making a decision on this case, you may call this office, or you may submit your comments in writing to the above address. Thank you for your assistance. c� 02/11/2000 08:50 6177270665 ARCHITECTURAL ACCESS PAGE 01 The Commonwealth of Massachusetts ARCHITECTURAL ACCESS BOARD One Ashburton Place - Room 1310 Boston, Massachusetts 02108 APGEO PAUL CELLUCCi (617) 727-0660 GOVERNOR 1.800.828-7222 JANE SWIFT Voice and TDO LT GOVERNOR Fax: (617) 727-0665 www.state,ma,us/aab DEBORAH A. RYAN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FAX TRANSMISSION TO: FROM: 'I NUMBER OF PAGES (including cover sheet): MESSAGE; f 02/11/2000 08:50 6177270665 ARCHITECTURAL ACCESS PAGE 02 The Commonwealth of Massachusetts w ARCHITECTURAL ACCESS BOARD One Ashburton Place - Room 1310 =` Boston, Massachusetts 02108. ARGEO PAUL CELLUCCI (617) 727-0660 GOVERNOR 1-800.828-7222 JANE SWIFT Voice and TDD 4T,GOVERNOR Fax: (617) 727-0655 www.state.me.us/aab DEBORAH A. RYAN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR DECISION RE: Radisson Inn, 287 lyannough stead, Hyannis 1. The hearing was Meld upon a complaint filed by Julie Nolan reporting the following sections to be in violation of the Rules and Regulations of the Architectural Access Board: Section 7.4—Service at the reception desk is zaot accessible due to lack, of lowered counter, Section 25.2—Slope of the ramp to the grain entrance exceeds 1:12 (8.3%). The ramps to the reception area exceed 1:12 (83%) Section 26.5 Door gnats are not securely anchored at all edges to avoid tripping in the reception area. Section 27.2—Clear opening width of the door to the accessible units is less than 34 inches. Section 30.1 The restrooms in the conference and the restaurant/bar areas are not fully accessible. The hearin;also addressed the .findings in Thomas Hopkins' Site Inspection.Report Dated July 30, 1999. 2. The hearing was held on: Monday, January 10, 2000 ` 3. The following persons appeared: Julie Nolan, Complainant, Cape Organization for the Rights of the Disabled (CORD) and Timothy Caffyn, Attorney for Radisson Inn.. The Chair swore in all persons offering testimony. 4. FINDINGS AND DECISION, The Board having considered the evidence hereby decides and finds as follows: By way of background: Julie Nolan filed a complaint with the Board on September 29, 1998. Th' Board notified the Radisson Inn of the reported violations_ On October 30, 1 �J 02/11/2000 08:50 6177270665 ARCHITECTURAL ACCESS PAGE 03 1998, the Board received a letter from.Michael Roberts responding to the reported violations. On July 13, 1999, Thomas Hopkins, the Board's Compliance Officer conducted a site inspection at the Radisson inn. In a letter dated July 30, 1999, Mr. Hopkins sent his findings to Timothy Caff n. la that letter M.T. Hopkins advised Mr. Caffyn that the Board ordered that the violations be brought into compliance with the regulations by August 31, 1999. Further, to notify the Board within five days of the completion date, and to include photographs, showing the completed work.. On September 21, 1999, Mr. Hopkins sent a follow-up letter requesting a status report as to the steps taken to comply with the order requiring compliance by August 31, 1999. Subsequently, the Board scheduled a hearing to resolve the matter. Mr. Rhodes called upon Julie Nolan to present her complaint to the Board. Mr. Rhodes asked Ms.Nolan to discuss what she observed at the property. Mr. Rhodes noted the Board also has a Site Inspection report to refer to. Ms. Nolan stated she would discuss the reported violations in the order of their importance. The restrooms in the conference and the restaurant/bar areas are not fully accessible. Ms. Nolan stated that persons in wheelchairs would be unable to use the restrooms,because the doors are too narrow. Mr. Rhodes asked Ms. Nolan if the restrooms are open to the public. Ms. Nolan replied in the affirmative. Ms. Nolan stated the slope of the ramp to the main entrance exceeds 1:12 and the ramp to the reception area also exceeds 1:12. Ms. Nolan stated that a ramp steeper than 1:12 is very dangerous for a person using canes or crutches. Also, the door mats that are not securely anchored present a danger to personas using canes or crutches. Ms. Nolan stated she found the lack of a complying service counter at the reception desk very inhospitable. The clear opening width of the door to the accessible units is slightly less than 34 inches. Mr. Hopkins' site report also cited Section 27.2 to be in violation of 521 CMR, Mr. Rhodes stated the Board needs to establish its jurisdiction in the matter. He asked Mr. Hopkins for a clarification as to when work was performed. Mr. Hopkins stated that Ms. Nolan. submitted copies of the building permit that was issued on February 3, 1995. for the property at 287 Iyannough Road for complete renovation of motel. The cost of the work performed was given as$2,500,000.00. Mr. Caffyn stated Ms. Nolan reported that the restrooms in the conference area and restaurant bar area are not fully accessible. Mr. Caffyn stated there are accessible restrooms on the same level as the restaurapt, a fair distance away. Mr. Caffyn asked for a clarification as to where the 2:5 million-dollar figure came from. Mr. Hopkins replied that information is from the Hyannis Building Department, and he noted the Assessor's Office reflected that figure as well. Mr. Hopkins' site inspection revealed the following, and his report is indicated as Result in the body of the decision Section 7.4 Service At the reception desk is not accessible due to lack of a lowered counter. 2 02/11/2000 08:50 6177270665 ARCHITECTURAL ACCESS PAGE 04 Result: Violation. Mr. Caffyn stated that the check-in table for persons with disabilities is located on the right side of the entrance about 10 feet from the main counter. He stated he understands it is acceptable to have an auxiliary counter. Ms. Greiff asked if when a person in a wheelchair comes into the facility if staff at the reception deck can observe them and proceed to what is called the accessible check in. Mr. Caffyn replied irr the affirmative and noted there is a sign on the desk identifying the location as the accessible check-in area. The Board inquired if the auxiliary counter is permanently staffed. Mr. Caffyn replied it is only staffed as needed. Ms. Nolan stated the alcove where the table is located was vacant when she visited the site, i.e., there was no accessible check table. Ms. Nolan stated her opinion that the placement of the table in a different location, segregates persons with disabilities from the general public. Mr. Hopkins also stated that he does not remember seeing the auxiliary check-in location when he visited the site. Section 25.2 -.Slope of the ramp to the main entrance exceeds 1:12 (8.3%). The ramp to the reception area exceeds 1.12 (8.3%). Result: Violation. Mr. Hopkins measured the ramps as follows: Ramp 41. The ramp running slope was measured at various locations. Readings from the Smart Level were 10.4%, 9.7%, 9.6%. The slope violates Section 25.2. Handrails that comply with 521 OvIR Section 25.4 were not provided. In addition no level landing at the top of the ramp in front of the doors is provided, violating Section 26.2 Ramp #2. The ramp that leads off of the reception area(main entrance) to the left as you face the reception area was measured with a smart Ievel at various locations, Readings from the Smart Level were T4%, 7.9%, 7.5%, These measurements show that the ru.-ani g slope complies with Section. 25.2. However, because the slope exceeds 5%, it shall be treated as a ramp, and Section 24.1. of the Regulations applicable to ramps shall apply. Therefore this ramp area is required to have handrails compliant with Section 25-4, Mr. Hopkins stated when the Board received a response from the Radisson relative to the ramp violations, it was stated that Ralph Jones, Barnstable Building Department measured both ramps and found them in compliance. Mr. Hopkins stated when he was at the site a gentleman was there with a level and tape measure to measure the ramps, Mr. Hopkins stated he took the measurements with the Smart Level, a more accurate tool for measurement, and his findings are above. Mr. Caffyn stated that the building official thought the ramps were in compliance. Mr. Caffyn. stated that if the regulations apply, the ramps w0l be brought into compliance. Mr. Carell asked.Mr. Caffyn if it is his testInIony that the ramps will be brought into full compliance with.Section 24 of 52 i CMR, relative to slopes, landings, handrails, etc. Mr. Caffyn stated unless tlhv Board has jurisdiction to require full compliance, some of the more costly violations, i.e., the slope and level platform of the one ramp, will probably not be corrected. Mr, CareIl. asked Mr. Caffyn if he has the authority to make 3 02/11/2000 06:50 6177270665 ARCHITECTURAL ACCESS PAGE 05 commitments on behalf of the Radisson. Mr. Caffyn stated he does riot have authority to make definitive commitments, Section 26.5 - Doormats in the reception area are not securely anchored at all edges to,prevent people from tripping. Result: Violation. Rugs located throughout the reception.area were not securely fastened to the floor. The Board stated that this is a dangerous situation for persons walking with crutches or canes. Mr. Cafflyn advised the Board that the door mats have been. secured. Mr. Rhodes asked Ms. Nolan when she last visited the site, and if the mats were secured. ,Ms. Nolan replied she visited the site late November, early December, and did not see the mats securely fastened to the floor. The Board finds, based on the testimony of N:1.r.. Caffyn that the rigs located throughout the reception area have been securely fastened to the floor. Therefore, the Board finds that Section 26.5 is now in compliance with 521 C1VJR, Section 27.2 -Clear width opening of the entry doors to the accessible units is less than thirty-four(34) inches. Result: Violation. The doors to the accessible units measured thirty-three and one half (33-1/21 inches of clear width opening. (The measurement of thirty-three and one half inch as taken, does violate Section 27.2 of the 1982 Regulations. Mr. Hopkins states that the current Regulations in full force and effect 2/23/96, Section 26.1.1,requires thirty-two inches of clear-width opening) Mr. Caffyn stated the Radisson might submit a variance request, since the door widths comply with the 1996 regulations. The Board finds that the 1996 Regulations requires a clear opening of not less than thirty- two inches (32") measured with the door at 90 degrees to jamb. The Board finds, based on the information that the doors to the units were measured at 33 1..2", there is no violation of the new regulations. Therefore, the Board voted to dismiss the complaint filed on Section 271. (The Board dismissed the complaint because any work done now to bring the doors into compliance with 521 CMR, would require compliance with the 1996 regulations. Section 30.i - The restrooms in the conference room and the restaurant/ bar area are not fully accessible. Result: Violati.on- 1. The door hardware provided on the-restroom floors located near the conference area does.not comply with Section 27.9. 2. The bathrooms located in the restaurant and bar area had entry doors that measured twenty-two (22) inches, violating section'27.2, Mr. Hopkins stated that he agrees with APIs. Nolarn's complaint that the restrooms do not comply with 521 CMR. Mr. Hopkins stated he could not enter the restrOD.ms to 4 r 02/11/2000 08.50 6177270665 APCH1TECTUPAL ACCESS PAGE 06 determine if there are any other violations, because of the width of the door. Mr. Rhodes asked Mr. Hopkins if it is his opinion that the restrooms are public restrooms. Mr. Hopkins replied unquestionably. Board. Member Gregory Carell .referred to the letter of October 27, 1998, brorn Mr. Roberts that states there are two .fully accessible restrooms located adjacent to the restaurant that satisfies the requirements of 521. CMR. Mr. Caffyn acknowledged that the restrooms located within the restaurant do not comply with 521 CMR. Mr. Caffyri stated there .is a question as to whether the regulations apply to the Radisson, since it was built in 1970. Mr. Caffyn stated some work has been done to make the Radisson more accessible to the Radisson's clientele. Mr. Caffyn stated it is not believed that the threshold has been met to require full compliance. Mr. Caffyn, stated the Radisson is disputing the 2.5 million dollars reported by Ms. Nolan. Mr. Caffyn stated the building is currently valued at 2.3 million dollars, so he cannot see that the Radisson put in 2.5 million four years ago. Mr. Rhodes asked Mr. Caffyn if he has any evidence to dispute the 2.5 million cost. Mr. Rhodes stated that the record the Board has appears to be of the work as reflected on the building permit record issued by the municipality. Mr. Caffym stated he does not have any information with him to dispute the reported cost of 2.5 u illion, but stated it must be $250,000, not 2.5 million. Mr. Rhodes reiterated that the Board has information that a permit was taken out on February 3, 1995, in the amount of 2.5 million for a complete renovation cf the Motel. The Board noted that the assessing record also reflects the building permit record. Board Member Lorraine Greiff asked Mr. Caffyn just what figure his client is saying is the correct figure. Mr. Caffyn stated he is not sure exactly what the figure was, but would like time to further investigate the matter. He stated he would like to go forth and address some of the reported violations. Mr. Caffyn,stated that door hardware in full compliance with 521 CMR has been provided on the restroom doors located near the eoDierence room. Mr. Caffyn stated it is questionable if it is even feasible, cost and space, wise, to provide a unisex toilet room within, the restaurant. Mr. Rhodes asked how far the accessible restrooms are from the restaurant. .MT, Caffyn replied, approx.inlately 100 yards. The Board finds, based on. Mr. Caffyn's tes in,lony that complying door hardware has been provided on the doors to the restrooms located near the conference area. Therefore, the Board voted to dismiss the complaint tiled on Section 27,.9 for the reason that complying hardware has been, provided on the doors to the restrooms located near the conference area. Further, the Board .finds tf at-the restroozrls located in the restaurant are not in compliance with 521 CMR, e.g., the bathroom entry doors measure 22 inches. Section 27.2 - The threshold at the train entry to the lobby area exceeds one-half inch (1/2") in height. Result: New Violation. Although this violation. was not reported with the first notice dated October 7, 1998, it was clear that the threshold exceeded one half (t`2) inch in he.ig.ht. The measurement showed that the threshold was approximately (1)inch or more in height. 5 02/11/2000 08:50 6177270665 ARCHITECTURAL aC."CESS PAGE 07 Mr. Caffyxr stated the Radisson plazas to dispute the above new violation, because it was not part of the original complaint filed by Ms. Nolan. Mr. Caffyn stated the Radisson proposes to have the bricks right before the entrance redone. Ms. Greiff advised Mr. Caffyn that the Board has the power to 41"Wig its own complaints in a Matter. Mr. Caffyn stated it was his understanding that complaints had to be filed by an individual. Mr. Rhodes stated that the Board has information before it that the cost of the work performed was 2.5 million and the assessed value of the property was 2.3 million, clearly the cost of the work performed was over 25%of the assessed value of'the property. BOARD DEOISION The Board finds, based on the building penxri.t information provided by the Town, the work performed on the R2dzsson Inn Hyannis, was 2.5 million dollars, and the assessed value of the building as recorded is 2.3 million dollars. Clearly, this triggered Section 3.3B of the 1982 Regulations that the work performed was over twenty-five percent (25%) of the one-hundred percent (100,%) equalized assessed value of the building, requiring that the entire facility be brought into compliance with 521 CMR. The Board finds since there was no evidence submitted to refute these figures, it takes jurisdiction over the facility wilder Section 3.3B of the 1982 Regulations. Therefore, based on its jurisdiction in the matter, the Board finds in favor of the complainant that the complaints f led and rz:odifzed on the Site Inspection Report dated July 30, 1999, oil Sections 7.4; Section 25.2; Ramp #1 (also violations of 25.4 and Section 26.2) and Ramp #2, (violation of Section 25,4); Section 26.5, Section 27.2 and Section 30.1 were valid when filed. The Board also finds the violation of Section 27.2 as reported by Mr. Hopkins in his Site Inspection Report is valid. Further, the Board finds, based on Mr. Caffyn's testimozny that the following violations have been brought into compliance with 521 CMR: Section 26.5 is now in compliance with 521 CMR, the door mats have been secured. Section 27.2 was dismissed, for the reason' there is no violation of the new 1996 regulations. Section 30.1.(27.9) Door hardware has been provided on the restroom, doors located near the conference area. The Board advises the Radisson Jrm that if it has definitive info.raiiation confirmed by the Building Department and the Assessor's Office that the work performed was under 251,'0 of the assessed value of the building, i.e., different figures than those that are part of the case record, the Radisson has the right to vile a N-lotion for Reconsideration as set .forth in Section 4.4 of 521 CMR. If the Radisson decides to seek variances for those items that are impracticable to bung into full compliance with 521 CMR, an application for vari,an.ce must be submitted by March 1, 2000, or a plain for compliance be submitted by said. date. The Board will set a tiznelitie for compliance once it receives the Radisson's response. 6 02/11/2000 08:50 6177270665 ARCHITECTURAL ACCESS PAGE 08 This constitutes a final order of the Arch toct Ural 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 ccurt no later than thirty(30)days of receipt of tMs decision. DATE: January 23, 2000 ARCHITECTURAL ACCESS BOARD � L ass Garry. des Chairman cc: Local Building Inspector Local Disability Cortniission Independent Living Center Complainant 7 The Commonwealth of Massachusetts' ,4 w ARCHITECTURAL ACCESS BOARD �- d y One Ashburton Place - Room 1310 �.� Boston, Massachusetts 02108 O,M 5y0 r ARGEO PAUL CELLUCCI (617) 727-0660 GOVERNOR 1-800-828-7222 JANE SWIFT a Voice and TDD LT.GOVERNOR Fax: (617) 727-0665 www.state.ma.us/aab DEBORAH A. RYAN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR -----�_ DECISION RE: Radisson Inn, 287 Iyannough oad, Hyannis 1. The hearing was e upon a complaint filed by Julie Nolan reporting the following sections to be in violation of the Rules and Regulations of the Architectural Access Board: Section 7.4—Service at the reception desk is not accessible due to lack of lowered counter. Section 25.2—Slope of the ramp to the main entrance exceeds 1:12 (8.3%). The ramps to the reception area exceed 1:12 (8.3%) Section 26.5 —Door mats are not securely anchored at all edges to avoid tripping in the reception area. Section 27.2—Clear opening width of the door to the accessible units is less than 34 inches. Section 30.1 —The restrooms in the conference and the restaurant/bar areas are not fully accessible. The hearing also addressed the findings in Thomas Hopkins' Site Inspection Report Dated July 30, 1999. 2. The hearing was held on: Monday, January 16, 2000 3. The following persons appeared: Julie Nolan, Complainant, Cape Organization for the Rights of the Disabled (CORD) and Timothy Caffyn, Attorney for Radisson Inn. The Chair swore in,all persons offering testimony. 4. FINDINGS AND DECISION: The Board having considered the evidence hereby decides and finds as follows: By way of background: Julie Nolan.filed a complaint with the Board on September 29, 1998. The Board notified the Radisson Inn of the reported violations. On October 30, iJ 1 r 1998, the Board received a letter from Michael Roberts responding to the reported violations. On July 13, 1999, Thomas Hopkins, the Board's Compliance Officer conducted a site inspection at the Radisson Inn. In a letter dated July 30, 1999, Mr. Hopkins sent his findings to Timothy Caffyn. In that letter Mr. Hopkins advised Mr. Caffyn -that the Board ordered that the violations be brought.into compliance with the regulations by August 31, 1999. Further, to notify the Board within five days of the completion date, and to include photographs, showing the completed work. On September 21, 1999, Mr. Hopkins sent a follow-up letter requesting a status report as to the steps taken to comply with the order requiring compliance by August 31, 1999. Subsequently, the Board scheduled a hearing to resolve the matter. Mr. Rhodes called upon Julie Nolan to present her complaint to the Board. Mr. Rhodes asked Ms. Nolan to discuss what she observed at the property. Mr. Rhodes noted the Board also has a Site Inspection report to refer to. Ms. Nolan stated she would discuss the reported violations in the order of their importance. The restrooms in the conference and the restaurantibar areas are not fully accessible. Ms. Nolan stated that persons in wheelchairs would be unable to use the restrooms, because the doors are too narrow. Mr. Rhodes asked Ms. Nolan if the restrooms are open to the public. Ms. Nolan replied in the affirmative. Ms. Nolan stated the slope of the ramp to the main entrance exceeds 1:12 and the ramp to the reception area also exceeds 1:12. Ms. Nolan stated that a ramp steeper than 1:12.is very dangerous for a person using canes or crutches. Also, the door mats that are not securely anchored present a danger to persons using canes or crutches. . Ms. Nolan stated she found the lack of a complying service counter at the.reception desk very inhospitable. The clear opening width of the door to the accessible units is slightly less than 34 inches. Mr. Hopkins' site report also cited Section 27.2 to be in violation of 521 CMR. Mr. Rhodes stated the Board needs to establish its jurisdiction in the matter. He asked Mr. Hopkins for a clarification as to when work was performed. Mr. Hopkins stated that Ms. Nolan submitted copies of the building permit that was issued on February 3, 1995, for the property at 287 Iyannough Road for complete renovation of motel. The cost of the work performed was given as $2,500,000.00. Mr. Caffyn stated Ms. Nolan reported that the restrooms in the conference area and restaurant bar area are not fully accessible. Mr. Caffyn stated there are accessible restrooms on the same level as the restaurant, a fair distance away. Mr. Caffyn asked for a clarification as to where the 2.5 million-dollar figure came from. Mr. Hopkins replied that information is from the Hyannis Building Department, and he noted the Assessor's Office reflected that figure as well. Mr. Hopkins' site inspection revealed the following, and his report is indicated as Result in the body of the decision Section 7.4 Service at the reception desk is not accessible due to lack of a lowered counter. 2 I Result: Violation. Mr. Caffyn stated that the check-in table for persons with disabilities is located on the right side of the entrance about 10 feet from the main counter. He stated he understands it is acceptable to have an auxiliary counter. Ms. Greiff asked if when a person in a wheelchair comes into the facility if staff at the reception deck can observe them and proceed to what is called the accessible check in. Mr. Caffyn replied in the affirmative and noted there is a sign on the desk identifying the location as the accessible check-in area. The Board inquired if the auxiliary counter is permanently staffed. Mr. Caffyn replied it is only staffed as needed. Ms. Nolan stated the alcove where the table is located was vacant when she visited the site, i.e., there was no accessible check table. Ms. Nolan stated her opinion that the placement of the table in a different location segregates persons with disabilities from the general public. Mr. Hopkins also stated that he does not remember seeing the auxiliary check-in location when he visited the site. Section 25.2 -Slope of the ramp to the main entrance exceeds 1:12 (8.3%). The ramp to the reception area exceeds 1:12 (8.3%). Result: Violation. Mr. Hopkins measured the ramps as follows: Ramp #1. The ramp running slope was measured at various locations. Readings from the Smart Level were 10.4%, 9.7%, 9.6%. The slope violates Section 25.2. Handrails that comply with 521 CMR Section 25.4 were not provided. In addition no,level landing at the top of the ramp in front of the doors is provided, violating Section 26.2 Ramp#2. The ramp that leads off of the reception area(main entrance) to the left as you face the reception area was measured with a smart level at various locations. Readings from the Smart Level were 7.4%, 7.9%, 7.5%. These measurements show that the running slope complies with Section 25.2. However, because the slope exceeds 5%, it shall be treated as a ramp, and Section 24.1 of the Regulations applicable to ramps shall apply. Therefore this ramp area is required to have handrails compliant with Section 25.4. Mr. Hopkins stated when the Board received a response from the Radisson relative to the ramp violations, it was stated that Ralph Jones, Barnstable Building Department measured both ramps and found them in compliance. Mr. Hopkins stated when he was at _ the site a gentleman was there with a level and tape measure to measure the ramps. Mr. Hopkins stated he took.the measurements with the Smart Level, a more accurate tool for measurement, and his findings are above. Mr. Caffyn stated that the building official thought the ramps were in compliance. Mr. Caffyn stated that if the regulations apply, the ramps will be brought into compliance. Mr. Carell asked Mr. Caffyn if it is his testimony that the ramps will be brought into full compliance with Section 24 of 521 CMR, relative to slopes, landings, handrails, etc. Mr. Caffyn stated unless the Board has jurisdiction to require full compliance, some of the more costly violations, i.e., the slope and level platform of the one ramp, will probably not be corrected. Mr. Carell asked Mr. Caffyn if he has the authority to make 3 commitments on behalf of the Radisson. Mr. Caffyn stated he does not have authority to make definitive commitments. Section 26.5 - Door mats in the reception area are not securely anchored at all edges to prevent people from tripping. Result: Violation. Rugs located throughout the reception area were not securely fastened to the floor. The Board stated that this is a dangerous situation for persons walking with crutches or canes. Mr. Caffyn advised the Board that the door mats have been secured. Mr. Rhodes asked Ms. Nolan when she last visited the site, and if the mats were secured. Ms. Nolan replied she visited the site late November, early December, and did not see the mats securely fastened to the floor. The Board finds, based on the testimony of Mr. Caffyn that the rugs located throughout the reception area have been securely fastened to the floor. Therefore, the Board finds that Section 26.5 is now in compliance with 521 CMR. Section 27.2 -Clear width opening of the entry doors to the accessible units is less than thirty-four(34) inches. Result: Violation. The doors to the accessible units measured thirty-three and one half (33-1/2) inches of clear width opening. (The measurement of thirty-three and one'half inch as taken, does violate Section 27.2 of the 1982 Regulations. Mr. Hopkins states' Ahat the current Regulations in full force and effect 2/23/96, Section 26.1.1, requires thirty-two inches of clear-width opening) Mr. Caffyn stated the Radisson might submit a variance request, since the door widths comply with the 1996 regulations. The Board finds that the 1996 Regulations requires a clear opening of not less than thirty- two inches (32") measured with the door at 90 degrees to jamb. The Board finds, based on the information that the doors to the.units were measured at 33 1.2", there is no violation of the new regulations. Therefore, the Board voted to dismiss the complaint filed on Section 27.2. (The Board dismissed the complaint because any work done now to bring the doors into compliance with 521 CMR, would require compliance with the 1996 regulations. Section 30.1 - The restrooms in the conference room and the restaurant/ bar area are not fully accessible. Result: Violation. 1. The door hardware provided on-the restroom doors located near the conference area does not comply with Section 27.9. 2. The bathrooms located in the restaurant and bar area had entry doors that measured twenty-two (22) inches, violating section 27.2. Mr. 'Hopkins stated that he agrees with Ms. Nolan s complaint that the restrooms do not comply with 521 CMR. Mr. Hopkins stated he could not enter the restrooms to 4 determine if there are any other violations, because of the width of the door. Mr. Rhodes asked Mr. Hopkins if it is his opinion that the restrooms are public restrooms. Mr. Hopkins replied unquestionably. Board Member Gregory Carell referred to the letter of October 27, 1998, from Mr. Roberts that states there are two fully accessible restrooms located adjacent to the restaurant that satisfies the requirements of 521 CMR. Mr. Caffyn acknowledged that the restrooms located within the restaurant do not comply with 521 CMR. Mr. Caffyn stated there is a question as to whether the regulations apply to the Radisson, since it was built in 1970. Mr. Caffyn stated some work has been" done to make the Radisson more accessible to the Radisson's clientele. Mr. Caffyn stated it is not believed that the threshold has been met to require full compliance. Mr. Caffyn stated the Radisson is disputing the 2.5 million dollars reported by Ms. Nolan. Mr. Caffyn stated the building is currently valued at 2.3 million dollars, so he cannot see that the Radisson put in 2.5 million four years ago. Mr. Rhodes asked Mr. Caffyn if he has any evidence to dispute the 2.5 million cost. Mr. Rhodes stated that the record the Board has appears to be of the work as reflected on the building permit record issued by the municipality. Mr. Caffyn stated he does not have any information with him to dispute the reported cost of 2.5 million, but stated it must be $250,000, not 2.5 million. Mr. Rhodes reiterated that the Board has information that a permit was taken out on February 3, 1995, in the amount of 2.5 million for a complete renovation of the Motel. The Board noted that the assessing record also reflects the building permit record. Board Member Lorraine Greiff asked Mr. Caffyn just what figure his client is saying is the correct figure. Mr. Caffyn stated he is not sure exactly what the figure was, but would like time to further investigate the matter. He stated he would like to'go forth and address some of the reported violations. Mr. Caffyn stated that door hardware in full compliance with 521 CMR has been provided on the restroom doors located near the conference room. Mr. Caffyn stated it is questionable if it is even feasible, cost and space wise, to provide a unisex toilet room within the restaurant. Mr. Rhodes asked how far the accessible restrooms are from the restaurant. Mr. Caffyn replied, approximately 100 yards. The Board finds, based on Mr. Caffyn's testimony that complying door hardware has been provided on the doors to the restrooms located near the conference area. Therefore, the Board voted to dismiss the complaint filed on Section 27.9 for the reason that complying hardware has been provided on the doors to the restrooms located near the conference area. Further, the Board finds that the restrooms located in the restaurant are not in compliance with 521 CMR;e.g., the bathroom entry doors measure 22 inches. Section 27.2 - The threshold at the main entry to the lobby area exceeds one-half inch (1/2") in height. Result: New Violation. Although this violation was not reported with the first notice dated October 7, 1998, it was clear that the threshold exceeded one half (1/2) inch in height. The measurement I showed that the threshold was approximately(1) inch or more in height. P 5 Mr. Caffyn stated the Radisson plans to dispute the above new violation, because it was not part of the original complaint filed by Ms. Nolan.. Mr. Caffyn stated the Radisson proposes to have the bricks right before the entrance redone. Ms. Greiff advised Mr. Caffyn that the Board has the power to bring its own complaints in a matter. Mr. Caffyn stated it was his understanding that complaints had to be filed by an individual. Mr. Rhodes stated that the Board has information before it that the cost of the work performed was 2.5 million and the assessed value of the property was 2.3 million, clearly the cost of the work performed was over 25% of the assessed value of the property. BOARD DECISION The Board finds, based on the building permit information provided by the Town, the work performed on the Radisson Inn Hyannis, was 2.5 million dollars, and the assessed value of the building as recorded is 2.3 million dollars. Clearly, this triggered Section 3.3B of the 1982 Regulations that the work performed was over twenty-five percent (25%) of the one-hundred percent (100%) equalized assessed value of the building, requiring that the entire facility be brought into compliance with 521 CMR. The Board finds since there was no evidence submitted to refute these figures, it takes jurisdiction over the facility under Section 3.313 of the 1982 Regulations. Therefore, based on its jurisdiction in the matter, the Board finds in favor of the complainant that the complaints filed and modified on the Site Inspection Report dated July 30, 1999, on Sections 7.4; Section 25.2; Ramp #1 (also violations of 25.4 and Section 26.2) and Ramp #2, (violation of Section 25.4); Section 26.5, Section 27.2 and Section 30.1 were valid when filed. The Board also finds the violation of Section 27.2 as reported by Mr. Hopkins in his Site Inspection Report is valid. Further, the Board finds, based on Mr. Caffyn's testimony that the following violations have been brought into compliance with 521 CMR:' Section 26.5 is now in compliance with 521 CMR, the door mats have' been secured. Section 27.2 was dismissed, for the reason there is no violation of the new 1996 regulations. Section 30.1(27.9) Door hardware has been provided on the restroom doors located near the conference area. The Board advises the Radisson Inn that if it has definitive information confirmed by the Building Department and the Assessor's Office that the work performed was under 25% of the assessed value of the building, i.e., different figures than those that are part of the case record, the Radisson has the right to file a Motion for Reconsideration as set forth in Section 4.4 of 521 CMR. If the Radisson decides to seek variances for those items that are impracticable to bring into full compliance with 521 CMR, an application for variance must be submitted by March 1, 2000, or a plan for compliance be submitted by said date. The Board will set a timeline for compliance once it receives the Radisson's response. 6 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. DATE: January 28, 2000 ARCHITECTURAL ACCESS BOARD Garry R&des Chairman cc: Local Building Inspector Local Disability Commission Independent Living Center Complainant 7 The Commonwealth. of Massachusetts - W ARCHITECTURAL ACCESS BOARD One Ashburton Place - Room 1310 Boston, Massachusetts 02108 -f,y yve ARGEO PAUL CELLUCCI (617) 727-0660 GOVERNOR 1-800-828-7222 Voice and TDD JANE SWIFT Fax: (617) 727-0665 LT.GOVERNOR www.state.ma.us/aab DEBORAH A. RYAN NOTICE OF ACTION EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR RE: Radisson Inn, 287 lyannough Road Hyannis 1. A request for a variance was filed with the Board by Edwin E. Taipale, Esquire (Applicant)on May 15, 2000 The applicant has requested variances from the following sections of the1996 Rules and Regulations of the Board: Section: Description: I30.1 General: Each public toilet room provided on a site or in a building shall comply with 521 CMR. j 2. The application was heard by the Board as an incoming case on Monday, June 5, 2000 . 3. After reviewing all materials submitted to the Board, the Board voted as follows: DENY the variance to Section 30.1 for the reason that compliance has not been proven to be impracticable. NOTE: If the work being performed is reconstruction, renovation, addition, or alteration, compliance with this decision must be achieved by completion of the project and prior to final approval by the building department. Otherwise,if the work being performed is new construction, compliance with this decision must be achieved prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit. Any person aggrieved by the above decision may request an adjudicatory hearing before the Board within 30 days of receipt of this decision by filing the attached request for an adjudicatory hearing. If after 30 days, a request for an adjudicatory hearing is not received, the above decision becomes a final decision and the appeal process is through Superior Court. Date: June 6, 2000 ARCHITECTURAL ACCESS BOARD cc: Local Building Inspector Local Disability Commission independent Living Center Chairpe on ZL �t i ofINE ~� The Town of Barnstable MAM 1�� Department of Health Safety and Environmental Services A,E1 N,p. Building Division 367 Main Street,Hyannis MA 02601 Office: 508-862-4038 Ralph Crossen Fax: 508-790-6230 Building Commissioner June 30,2000 Stuart Bornstein 1 Financial Place 297 North Street Hyannis,MA Re: The Radisson Inn 287 Iyannough Road,Hyannis,MA Dear Mr.Bornstein: I regret to inform you that as a result of your variance denial by the Architectural Access Board.,you must submit plans and apply to provide accessible rest room provisions in the restaurant area of your hotel. Please take immediate steps to do this and apply for a building permit within 30 days. Thank you. Sincerely, Ralph M.Crossen Building Commissioner RMC/km g000628b °Ft„E r°�ti Town of Barnstable Regulatory Services r � ` BAMSfABM ` Thomas F.Geller,Director MAS& 1639.,a Building Division Ralph Crossen,Building Commissioner 367 Main Street, Hyannis,MA 02601 Office: 50&862-4038 Fax: .508-790-6230 September 15,2000 Stuart Bornstein One Financial Place 297 North Street Hyannis,MA 02601 Re: Radisson Inn,287 Iyannough Road,Hyannis,MA.-_ Dear Mr.Bornstein: Pursuant to the August 23 Architectural Access Board decision involving the Radisson Inn. At this time,I must inform you that you must comply with the Board's decision. You must take out a building permit to put in these handicapped bathrooms as soon as possible. Sincerely, ,0000 Ralph M.Crossen Building Commissioner RMC/lun enclosure g000915a The Commonwealth of Massachusetts ARCHITECTURAL ACCESS BOARD One Ashburton Place - Room 1310 Boston, Massachusetts 02108 y ARGEO PAUL CELLUCCI (617)727-0660 GOVERNOR _. __------- 1-800-828-7222 J - Voice and TDD ANE SWIFT Fax: (617) 727-0665 LT.GOVERNOR DEBORAH A. RYAN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO: Local Building Inspector .. Independent Living Center_ Local Commission on Disability _ Complainant FROM: Architectural Access.Board iL W DATE: Enclosed please find a copy of the following material-r_garding-the above location: Application for Variance _ Decision of,_the Board.. Notice of HearingCorrespondence--ri- - - - z Letter of Meeting The purpose of this memo is to advise you of.action take`n'oi-to.be taken by­this Board:- if- -you have any information which.would assist the Board in making a decision on this case, you may call this office, or you may submit your comments in writing to the above address. Thank you for.your assistance. c� The Commonwealth of Massachusetts ARCHITECTURAL ACCESS BOARD ' One Ashburton Place - Room 1310 p Boston, Massachusetts 02108 Ov 1M Sve ARGEO PAUL CELLUCCI (617) 727-0660 GOVERNOR 1-800-828-7222 Voice and TDD JANE SWIFT Fax: (617) 727-0665 LT.GOVERNOR www.state.ma.us/aab DEBORAH_A. RYAN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR DECISION. . _ RE: Radisson Inn, 287 Iyannough Road,Hyannis 1. The hearing was held up an application for variance submitted by Edwin E. Taipale for modification of or substitution of the following section(s) of the Rules and Regulations_of the Architectural Access Board. Section 30.1 (27.2)-Entry door width of restrooms in the restaurant/bar area 2. The hearing was held on: Monday, August 7, 2000 3. The following persons appeared: Edwin E. Taipale,_ Esquire, Attorney for Radisson Inn, and Julie Nolan, Cape `Organization`for the Rights of the Disabled (CORD)-;-and complainant: The Chairman swore m all persons testifymg:T 4. FINDINGS AND DECISION: The Board having considered the evidence hereby decides and finds as follows: By way of background: The case originated as a complaint relative to a number of issues. -- -- The remaining-issue is the.inaccessibility .of the toilet room in the restaurant/bar area. The Board reviewed the application as an incoming case on June 5, 200. After reviewing all of the material submitted, the Board voted to deny the variance for the reason that compliance had not been proven to be impracticable. The petitioner was aggrieved by the Board's decision and requested a hearing on the matter. The Chairman, Gary Rhodes called upon the petitioner to present the case for the variance request. Mr..Rhodes reminded the petitioner that the Board could only grant variances if compliance with the regulations is proven to be technologically unfeasible or if the cost for compliance is exces§ive without providing a substantial benefit for persons with disabilities. The petitioner stated that the poured concrete walls in the restaurant/bar area make it structurally impossible to widen the entry door width of the restrooms without major reconstruction. The petitioner stated that the cost for compliance is considered excessive 1 r 1 without providing a substantial benefit to persons with disabilities. The petitioner stated that there are two fully accessible sets of restrooms in the lower level accessible by elevator and one set of fully accessible restrooms on the first floor in the lobby area. The petitioner stated that the Hotel customers almost exclusively use the restaurant/bar area. The petitioner stated that the toilet rooms were located in the restaurant/bar area for the convenience of the Hotel's clientele. The petitioner referred the Board to a reduced version of the property floor plans showing the lower level, main floor and second floor relative to the location of the restrooms (accessible and non-accessible) on each level. The petitioner also submitted two estimates with the necessary work required to bring the restrooms into full compliance with 521 CMR. The estimate for $128,296 is for reconstruction of the restrooms at the restaurant/bar area. The other-estimate of$112,836.00 involves moving into the kitchen area, resulting in loss of 20% of the existing kitchen, and rebuilding of the kitchen on the other side. Also,the stairwell would have to be moved and shored up with steel lentils and brace on sides. The petitioner also noted the letter dated May 11, 2000, from Ralph M. Crossen, Building Commissioner, the Town of Barnstable, in which Mr. Crossen acknowledged the structural difficulty in making the restrooms accessible due to the location of a bearing wall and the plumbing chases passing through it. - Mr. Rhodes called upon Julie-Nolan for her comments relative to the variance request. x. .Ms. Noran stated it is appalling `to suggest that persons with disabilities, who are customers of the Hotel, have to leave the restaurant/bar area and take an elevator to the lower level to-use the toilet-facilities..-When,all other persons can access toilet facilities right in the restaurant/bar area. Board Member Paul Moriarty asked why the subject toilet rooms were not made accessible when the Hotel was renovated in 1995,-at a cost of 2.5 million dollars. The petitioner-stated they were added as an afterthought as a convenience to patrons. Mr. Moriarty stated they are definitely an amenity to the restaurant/bar area. Mr. Moriarty asked for the occupancy of the restaurant. The petitioner responded approximately 100 people. The petitioner stated the-issue of providing a unisex toilet room was discussed, but that only provided one facility, and it was felt that the restrooms were a convenience to the patrons. The petitioner stated that there is the same problem with providing unisex toilet rooms involving reconfiguring the bar or kitchen area. Mr. Rhodes called for a motion in the matter. BOARD DECISION The Board finds that it was not proven to be impractical to bring the restrooms in the restaurant/bar area into full compliance with 521 CMR. The Board finds that the toilet rooms were required to fully comply with 521 CMR, when the Board's regulations were triggered to require the Hotel be brought into full compliance with.521 CMR. The Board did not find that compliance with 521 CMR would be technologically unfeasible, or compliance with 521 CMR would result in excessive and unreasonable costs without any substantial benefit to persons with disabilities. The Board did not find that the cost now 2 of either $128,296.00, or $112,836.00, excessive for making the restrooms in the restaurant/bar area accessible in light of the initial project cost of 2.5 million dollars. Further, the Board finds that cost for compliance is not a consideration if there is a substantial benefit for persons with disabilities to have the toilet rooms be made accessible in the restaurant/bar area, Pyramid Co. of Hadley, 403 Mass. at 131. The Board finds it is unacceptable to have persons with disabilities travel out of the restaurant/bar area get in arf elevator-and-travel to the lower level and travel to the accessible toilet rooms, or travel _a distance to the lobby. Especially, when testimony indicated that the toilet rooms were provided in the restaurant/bar area as a convenience for the Hotel's customers, i.e., so customers would not have to travel a distance to the lobby, or take an elevator to the lower level restrooms. The Board finds that since the toilet rooms were constructed as a convenience-for the Hotel's customers in-the subject'. -- area, the convenience should be provided for all of the-Hotel customers; i:e:;persons with disabilities. Thereforer:based=on the:above;=the Board-voted unanimously to DENY-` the variance request to Section 30.1 (27.2). The Board ordered that the restrooms .in the iestatirant/bar--area be brought into--full - - compliance with Section .30 of the 199�R___* and-Regulations of the Architectural==A Access Board,by January-_1,.2001 r- Further, the Board ordered-thk documentation, r e,, photographs-etc., be submitted- to the Board verifying that_the followiag�ections_that have been:brought into full- -- _ _-. compliance with 521~ e at the reception desk is not accessible due to lack of lowered<.counter; Section 25 2 -Slope of the ramp to the - -- main entrance exceeds 1 12=(8 3%). Tlie ramps to vthe reception-area exceed 1:12 �. (8.3%); Secti6n-26 5 =boor Ina are n6 a urely anchored at all edges to avoid tripping in the reception area and Section 27.2 Clear opening width of the door to the accessible units is less than 34 inches: __.--- - The Board advises the petitioner that allilew�vork performed must be brought into full compliance with the 1996 Rules and Regulahoris of the Architectural Access Board. _. _. The Board voted to waive the—site- 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 -- Y PP 3 - 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. DATE: August 22,2000'``"�" ARCHITECTURAL ACCESS BOARD L, L Garry des Chairm cc: Local Building^Inspector Local Disability_Commission_ �. Independent Living Center ` - Complainant « -w 4 ' � y The Commonwealth of Massachusetts ARCHITECTURAL ACCESS BOARD d One Ashburton Place - Room 1310 v.W Boston, Massachusetts 02108 ��M See ARGEO PAUL CELLUCCI (617) 727-0660 GOVERNOR 1-800-828-7222 JANE SWIFT Voice and TDD LT.GOVERNOR Fax: (617) 727-0665 www.state.ma.us/aab DEBORAH A. RYAN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR September 28,2000 Mr. Edwin E.Taipale Holly Management and Supply Corp. 297 North Street Hyannis,MA 02601 rRE:Radisson Inn,287 I a�gh Road,Hyannis,MA(Complaint#98—146) i Dear Mr.Taipale The Boards decision dated August 22,2000,required that you provide photographs of the work that has been completed to correct violations of CMR 521 at the Radisson Inn. We have not received any confirmation that the work required by the Board has been completed.If you do not respond within 14 days of receipt of this letter a fine hearing will be scheduled for you to appear on the complaint. I have enclosed the Boards August 22°d Decision for your convenience. Sincerely, Thomas P.Hopkins Compliance Officer Architectural Access Board it 2000 Rol�RRR91P99Q4971!!1�Al R cc: Complainant y'-------------------- Local Building Inspector Independent Living Center Local Commission-on Disability LJ f, y The Commonwealth of Massachusetts z W ARCHITECTURAL ACCESS BOARD A a One Ashburton Place - Room 1310 G,M SJ0 Boston, Massachusetts 02108 ARGEO PAUL CELLUCCI (617) 727-0660 GOVERNOR 1-800-828-7222 Voice and TDD JANE SWIFT Fax: (617) 727-0665 �T.GOVERNOR www.state.ma.us/aab DEBORAH A. RYAN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR DECISION RE: Radisson Inn, 287 Iyannough Road, Hyannis 1. The hearing was held up an application for variance submitted by Edwin E..Taipale for modification of or substitution of the following section(s) of the Rules and Regulations of the Architectural Access Board. Section 30.1 (27.2)—Entry door width of restrooms in the restaurant/bar area 2. The hearing was held on: Monday, August 7, 2000 3. The following persons appeared: Edwin E. Taipale, Esquire, Attorney for Radisson Inn, and Julie Nolan, Cape Organization for the Rights of the Disabled (CORD), and complainant. The Chairman swore in all persons testifying. 4. FINDINGS AND DECISION: The Board having considered the evidence hereby decides and finds as follows: By way of background: The case originated as a complaint relative to a number of issues. The remaining issue is the inaccessibility of the toilet room in the restaurant/bar area. The Board reviewed the application as an incoming case on June 5, 200. After reviewing all of the material submitted, the Board voted to deny the variance for the reason that compliance had not been proven to be impracticable. The petitioner was aggrieved by the Board's decision and requested a hearing on the matter. The Chairman, Gary Rhodes called upon the petitioner to present the case for the variance request. Mr. Rhodes reminded the petitioner that the Board could only grant variances if compliance with the regulations is proven to be technologically unfeasible or if the cost for compliance is excessive without providing a substantial benefit for persons with disabilities. The petitioner stated that the poured concrete walls in the restaurant/bar area make it structurally impossible to widen the entry door width of the restrooms without major reconstruction. The petitioner stated that the cost for compliance is considered excessive y 1 ' without providing a substantial benefit to persons with disabilities. The petitioner stated that there are two fully accessible sets of restrooms in the lower level accessible by elevator and one set of fully accessible restrooms on the first floor in the lobby area. The petitioner stated that the Hotel customers almost exclusively use the restaurant/bar area. The petitioner stated that the toilet rooms were located in the restaurant/bar area for the convenience of the Hotel's clientele. The petitioner referred the Board to a reduced version of the property floor plans showing the lower level, main floor and second floor relative to the location of the restrooms (accessible and non-accessible) on each level. The petitioner also submitted two estimates with the necessary work required to bring the restrooms into full compliance with 521 CMR. The estimate for $128,296 is for reconstruction of the restrooms at the restaurant/bar area. The other estimate of$112,836.00 involves moving into the kitchen area, resulting in loss of 20% of the existing kitchen, and rebuilding of the kitchen on the other side. Also, the stairwell would have to be moved and shored up with steel lentils and brace on sides. The petitioner also noted the letter dated May 11, 2000, from Ralph M. Crossen, Building Commissioner, the Town of Barnstable, in which Mr. Crossen acknowledged the structural difficulty in making the restrooms accessible due to the location of a bearing wall and the plumbing chases passing through it. Mr. Rhodes called upon Julie Nolan for her comments relative to the variance request. Ms. Nolan stated it is appalling to suggest that persons with disabilities, who are customers of the Hotel, have to leave the restaurant/bar area and take an elevator to the lower level to use the toilet facilities. When all other persons can access toilet facilities right.in the restaurant/bar area. Board Member Paul Moriarty asked why the subject toilet rooms were not made accessible when the Hotel was renovated in 1995, at a cost of 2.5 million dollars. The petitioner stated they were added as an afterthought as a convenience to patrons. Mr. Moriarty stated they are definitely an amenity to the restaurant/bar area. Mr. Moriarty asked for the occupancy of the restaurant. The petitioner responded approximately 100 people. The petitioner stated the issue of providing a unisex toilet room was discussed, but that only provided one facility, and it was felt that the restrooms were a convenience to the patrons. The petitioner stated that there is the same problem with providing unisex toilet rooms involving reconfiguring the bar or kitchen area. Mr. Rhodes called for a motion in the matter. BOARD DECISION The Board finds that it was not proven to be impractical to bring the restrooms in the restaurant/bar area into full compliance with 521 CMR. The Board finds that the toilet rooms were required to fully comply with 521 CMR, when the Board's regulations were triggered to require the Hotel be brought into full compliance with 521 CMR. The Board did not find that compliance with 521 CMR would be technologically unfeasible, or compliance with.521 CMR would result in excessive and unreasonable costs without any substantial benefit to persons with disabilities. The Board did not find that the cost now r of either $128,296.00, or $112,836.00, excessive for making the restrooms in the restaurant/bar area accessible in light of the initial project cost of 2.5 million dollars. Further, the Board finds that cost for compliance is not a consideration if there is a substantial benefit for persons with disabilities to have the toilet rooms be made accessible in the restaurant/bar area, "Pyramid Co. of Hadley, 403 Mass. at 131. The Board finds it is unacceptable to have persons with disabilities travel out of the restaurant/bar area get in an elevator and travel to the lower level and travel to the accessible toilet rooms, or travel a distance to the lobby. Especially, when testimony indicated that the toilet rooms were provided in the restaurant/bar area as a convenience for the Hotel's customers, i.e., so customers would not have to travel a distance to the lobby, or take an elevator to the lower level restrooms. The Board finds that since the toilet rooms were constructed as a convenience for the Hotel's customers in the subject area, the convenience should be provided for all of the Hotel's customers, i.e., persons with disabilities. Therefore, based on the above, the Board voted unanimously to DENY the variance request to Section 30.1 (27.2). The Board ordered that the restrooms in the restaurant/bar area be brought compliance with Section 30 of the 1996 Rules and Regulations of the Architectural Access Board, by January 1, 2001. Further, the Board ordered that documentation, i.e., photographs etc., be submitted to the Board verifying that the following sections that have been brought into full compliance with 521 CMR: Section 7.4 — Service at the reception desk is not accessible due to lack of lowered counter; Section 25.2 — Slope of the ramp to the main entrance exceeds 1:12 (8.3%). The ramps to the reception area exceed 1:12 (8.3%); Section 26.5 — Door mats are not securely anchored at all edges to avoid tripping in the reception area and Section 27.2 — Clear opening width of the door to the accessible units is less than 34 inches. The Board advises the petitioner that all new work performed must be brought into full compliance with the 1996 Rules and Regulations of the Architectural Access Board. The Board voted to waive the site visit requirement. 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 3 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. DATE: August 22, 2000 ARCHITECTURAL ACCESS BOARD V.r T,, L Garry des C, n cc: Local Building Inspector Local Disability Commission Independent Living Center Complainant 4 1 �Gal• ` M ��j�`r r ,.�j,.. i (�w'n,�•. Y!/0,. _G1i . i_f, `L•'/((jw }T/1 M„ S. 4 W (p w w M Fes, L�4�1 it ,► C 1� I „ 1 ,� C �� 1 �} 1 r 1 u n C 11 � . ' .* #' ___...._--�Y�/-t�.-I��•C CSC G �/ X 13�i 31e� k ►3 h 3 /� x 13 . g f k I j �j1 fjr 54%1x x r/ a �rr v C. Ut„L�t'I bpN�41 _ Ol�'M'►'Cr• ``t�.�N t d�N�GI M��'! t... I � �, ! �� AV ._ I/0 1 z \ I I - I Ile- � r r 1&5't c►►N _--!!M}m♦lam-lo bq 1E} "*'.'-'yk tit t 3 43` t 6 -� 3Lv -( 1-6v - -!r _ r %g"xa i iX? it / � -IX7 • _ • :.. �'"�vlvG, 31.A1'.wl_12�IN�����'a�'.X�,`� __ �` rtj i I ,1 f I �f i ti t u y 60 _C,-Lill t,. } ! / '► �, I 0* -- t +� _ _ ' '-L�'_ ,� 1 .1 '_ ° jt' G•FCi' _---- - - K O_ O �, .0 ' T� '' _T 6AL . AI 44 4. s av�L C 11 a w"IJ LAM l� -�U l0+a m t d ,► tl `4 �' 1/6 u 1 I u 1!•C - t- >C 1 + h I►L V C.:ta.C�1 /,�,'1 ,/ ► ✓ Y _r�Lu LA�I - - -711 fil .0*', 1 ` J ,���y.'��/\/�(](�J�\ , .. .-.yIt .�,l._..S.lyCj.i 11 tXf \.-'._ R ox It- oft w REVISIONS: },�--• PROJECT: DATE -� �• -Q ' NO. DESCRIPTION GATE _ PETER F DIMEU vLED AJ? ASSOCIATES,INC. ( l t4' ARCHITECTS-ENGINEERS , J,,�.��l�h y 106 MAIN STREET o a No.1 5 0 D W G • N O . T 1 t,*^ I ! I ��) ,, 1 MASS y STONEHAM,MASSACHUSETTS 02180 a - 1 it> I,�llT' C,2 '1'RI ►1-F I P -. TlL. 741 43r♦ 0#00 Gf�� FAX. 701 4011 , 9 , ✓f _ • '2. t • p qw p �II — tir , 'IM 1 , ' I� f • = I-�l�-- - / 0 z : 1 , — i t T_�I killt � - ".f�N►��N'i 1144 _Wrww -4v-rz G 7 -4) All lophill ' -�N11`t �� �Gl�LI✓ r , �Ixt"�D olrvt•IINy .. -►---- ' � l - '�' =1: i=i _ I i _, 1 i l-I .i I� I 1 j l 11 1 1 _ t 5 , — � 12 ;ITT / 1 . ---�'Xi STl N (, _� � .T t_.�. �_ t t�--►--= __ ��e � —_ ,_. -1�:'fir: - 1 -L 1 I I -i- -i -- i T i I i 1 I 11 I � f i , ---- - - i J1 I r i l- fi (-1it rr i i \ I I�i1j-I - -•I _ ? I �\rt�l � � IIAI . 5 , i1 I _ rI 1 1 iI N 1 i i Fi. al a l t f 1_ _ --- - -- r , or vo -tilt :.. i V ' .. -131�'•C.c� .• • J • N N i • 'l. � � � �L�UaTi0r'l — �� �VU- iNTG- '- y �`_ - - �G�I�G ; REVISIONS: '`. DATE; PROJECT: NO. DESCRIPTION DATE W PETER F DIMEO E�tt:o�tc k-LAV4,7-10 ASSOCIATES,INC. w f. ARCHITECTS--ENGINEERS 1 W �0 , --- 0 a Na.i665o y - pW G . NO. "'Ai 106 MAIr! STREET siBiAS. . STONEHAM,MASSACHUSETTS 02180 a T'Nrr`�e,E+I rp/a1NH10 TEL. 7s1 434 0200 Ami ti PAX. 741 438 61140 _ _.".�i�ts6.�►b . is It a , w _._ r i t��may► - �. __ --- N- - -------------- f - K - I TjT'� .0 - /Z 40 . ►, bF f `N W rsLL K 60T 10- IV„X S' 4 91p*ITS N I o"_GONG , 5L K IN , �� . a o e REVISIONS: • +�`''�'' -- PROJECT: • DATE: 12 1 (pr pD - �� �"'r � L�'►� �� NO. DESCRIPTION DATE PETER F DIMEO RED ARC ASSOCIATES,INC. E I ?Ct- -- jr----- --- --- ARCHITECTS-ENGINEERS N l 665 o y U W'G. N O . d o. 100 MAIN STREET o iTON[Ni�M. r~" r_. _. $ MASS• STONEHAM,MASSACHUSETTS 02180 0 TEL. 741 -434 0900 m 2 FAX. 701 438-3940 J 1 69 / '`x 7�j�1 JI/�rf,�( ��IhtJ} ✓p.��,_ �x Irl lll/ 5���k 1(p / all/` (1► •i -7T--Y9!77- ...: 7 7 Pjr X a a I 4 Y ► is it t o 1 -vie Cm►L.Vl.L�1'� Ile —mv—+(A--x 11,41)(4"1 ET 10 to 4 4 ,1 i� t , x y ( IX go 3 -X13 l�2 3� 13 �2 3 13 u r7 g k I lwf,w1ro''x(v" '3 I_(Oi (,I"(p� 'I Cv- 'rc C,o ' CIOr,` /q' I I _ © k� I 04 -I t*--)_6v P L 4 H I ?` q p JZ,Z 1_ 1 F, ,3 " 'C1 — J�" GG►C,t ,T aHe'.Fes' el _ { o TY _ 'c5' 5 C71 0 ri - i _L'�� /_� ly 60 • r r T'1'II GAL j;Z0c`f- zo -_._-... lJ�-4f-�f *x.��-i '--� Fes• f I 1 w4 p G011 oM -51T,Grp N 4, AN I MG1 _ _r1 r , ' f6•t.r9 wkM ��1 '�kc0 ' vis6L. 1_fit-rat 1 H G� _ ' ,, , It Ileux l- G.�vLe•.r�► 1/g�X i+ai��`' --- - x - a I ` i ►► . _ I.QI -4*WL lcit ftwT uL art • a° ___ .a - L of s it o i {. - -4 REVISIONS: DATE_ Zi.�.�--C� ���,e�— t'_L�cM _ PROJECT: _. NO. DESCRIPTION DATE - ,may t • _ _ __,_ PETER F DIMEO _ :�!v� .C.. '1 !C� t�,�EO ARc _ ASSOCIAT_ ES,INC. �•S "'fF�, ARCHITECTS-ENGINEERS a No.16650 pW,G. NO . ' 100 MAIN STREET- o pollEMkm.MASS STONEHAM,MASSACHUSETTS 02180 y� Lxl Jrr y 1 ► � 1� TEL. 741 434 0900 PAX. 741 434 3040 _w y