Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
0071 SOUTH STREET (7)
r71 PROJECT � l NAME: ADDRESS: PERNIIT# PERNIIT DATE: S M/P: c� LARGE ROLLED PLANS ARE IN: BOX `� { SLOT Data entered in MAPS program, on:. BY: q/wpfiles/forms/archive i f I NA PROJEcT ME � 7 rt, ADDRESS: 171 �s rg�A lv a-n1S PERMIT# Cf D L PERMIT DATE: c,g sr— AUP: LARGE ROLLED PLANS ARE IN: BOX I SLOT Data entered in MAPS program on:. BY: q/wpfiles/forms/archive J ri $? az�naeer;ree. a . COMMONWEALTOF H r7EPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY t MASSACHUSETTS i i 1010 COMMONWEALTH AVE.;BOSTON,MA 02215 ' EXPIRATIONDATL.� '/]. . 'f[, �{`;� I_:i_(IVS'1'R-\ =cl_IF'IEhVT:3iiR CAUTIO N RESTRICTIONS #� EFFECTIVE DATE LIC-NO. FOR PROTECTION AGAINST ac.� /91/1`92 05929 , '1 THEFT, PUT RIGHT THUMB PRINT IN APPROPRIATE g` BOX ON LICENSE. _ _IAME:_ 1= -STE IDI.—EIR _ 3 1'=' a•C PRUDENCE LN vi BLASTING OPERATORS r' y� MUST INCLUDE PHOTO. PHOTO(BLASTING OPR ONLY) ` 7 —•�.I I I I I-I t 1' l =_; FEE: ,� . _ x ? NOT VALID UNTIL SIGNED BY LICENSEE AND OFFICIALLY ;I i HEIGHT: ''- STAMPED-Oq;;^,�(aNgTURE Of THE COMMISSIONER DOB: 11' 07 `i THIS DOCUMENT MUST�,Y {' CARRIED D THE PERSON ij l yy 4 -.. « SIGN NAME IN FULL ABOVE SIGNATURE LINE 1 THE HOLDER WHEN fr(11� I/^w'R SIGNATUAE OF LICENSEE t 7 O?HERS-RIGHT THUMB PRINT GAGED IN THIS OCCUPI1*IY - � -. f /� y.. .AF`F'.R0V ► I " -- ..�• A TH. -h• Mw;. ��r�r,uye�sa10r�M t7ej�y`i?UU9� � p r -..-, - -->°„ - vri-��"8�(J1.34-`F4K __ __ __ _ _ -_ _.____ ___ _ ____ __ - �i 0;I 1.11�35 11-:3F �. �.0851340S6,8 :1t�,.tiCANLAf a CO L�Z- - I CBRTIFILA OF I SURANCE, SCANL 'M CD 07 12 95. - PRODUCER THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS � TFR OF �} r RMATION ONLY-AND COI1W3y rll lit 'aY2 $g('.PlG I2IC �. CONFERS !IO RIGHTS UPON THE CEt?TI�ICATE HOCD ' ,THIS CERTIFICATE Y DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER ?NE•COVERACE' Au�FORDED BY ,TNE ` 1$3. Colu2tlJbaa R POLIG E5,�LON. 4anov er MA 02 3 39- _ .. _ - - 5T7-8Z �E7Q f" ` COMPANIES AFFORDING COVEFAG Como -- .:... I:wsuRED E n = Gdne i, S B xanc3� COMPANY a1 . ...-_ .� --_ _ B_, AA2ERICA T IY3T'ERRTA'TZGIdAL GROUP t J. Scanlan C!)11d pan ` Inc. COAPAMV .._.__ ....._ _...._ -- Scanl y ` 700 W. nt x S$:. P.��:' fox c. HANOVER COMPANY. �N5URANCE est. Br'Tdggwater XA 02379 - --... - - ---....__ f COMPANY D Federal Insurance Company •� 7 GOVERA6ES taaaoax=cuaoaa=raaunuQ==aonacm ana-c. ano _::manna=_-w ' THIS r5 TO CERTIFY TNA7-THE PDLiCI�S OF rN aucm -_~ �cc �= aan== _=a cat.-__-EOaAB = -__- --_- i SURANCE LISTED ®ELi HAVE BEEN: iSSUED, TQ THE ]NSUREO NAM ABOVE fOR,THE':p011CY J PERIOD IlIDICATED_. NOTti117HSTANDING ANY RibVIREMENT, TERM OR CQ�IDITION cF.,'_Arl CONT'RAC,T.'©R,OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT 70, { WHICH THl5 CERTIFICATE 14AY_BE ISSUED "OR MAY PERTAIN, THE 1l(SURANCE AQQROED,-&.Y THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO' + AL1 THE TERIBS-.EXCLUSI;ONS, AND.CONDITIONS OF'SUCH POLICIES, 'LtMItS .SH041H..f1A� HRVE 9EE.N'REDUCED ST PAID CLAIMS. { _-._. t C0 ?YPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER POLICY EEF6 � -POLICY EkP 1tM_.tSA -- LTR DATE MM O v� DATE(MM/DO/YY} ( / 4fY GENERA! IIAITYLITY '� "` -- , .. ... ... ....... .-- ..._. . fX"] -CO`�i'ktERCIAL GEm LIA®tCITY $d 2( = ?.' GENERAL AGGREGATE' 12C100�04 I x I2/23J94 -t2/23;j,95 PROD-:COMP/OP ACG. . 2000000 fi I cLAI I�aDE IX1 occ: v Elf I OWNERS,S 1 CORTRACTOR,S � ` /' PERS. & ADV. I'MJURY 10000 0 PROTECTII�E EACK OCCURRENCE 1000.000 ( ] Fiky DAMAGE e C ] - - " `1 (ANY ONE FIRE). (zC?0400 4 ,. `.}: • fitEO. E,%PENS � , AUTO'rlOBYLE --- - (ANY ONE 'P`e'3SON>� 5Qo00 LIAEtLIFY .. .« h, ... _' tic 9 AMY AUTO- A�14850636 COMB. SINGLE IFirJ`J �'• I I ALL M10 AUTOS - 12/�2 3J 9 12/2 3 J 9 5 6oD 1-LY I J ' YL t Y I-a bE�ULED AUTOS ,. - � - - {PER PERSON) �; � �'��00 ;•� - � .1'OaT<{{!b 4405 BOOILP'IN.ruRY f I (PER ACCIDENT] V, iJCIt� r., 4 • - - .....__ ...__... - -- ------ - ... I PROPERTY DAMAGE GARAGE LI AD,ILFTY -• -� - 1 I ANY AUTO Aura ONLY '(EA ACC) E . 5 GATHER-J`AUTO ONLY: {. EACH-ACCIDENT � __. .._ .. `TY _ -,_._... :..... ........... .: � AGGREGATE EIICESS L' a ...-------- + - _ B M) Urm43' rOAM EACH OCCURRENCE E .•} OTHe s � tl UI1$REILA FORkf �95) 7943-41-$5 12 j. 3/94 12/23/95 AGGREGATE HDRKERC-C4N0 LAND �iP:E LAB, ..... --- : __. .._ - t.. w. THE PROP RIETORiPARTNEi}SJ ]STATUTORY LtM1T`s�, . '$ EICECUT3VE OFF1rrERS ARE: EACH AC[IDENT $00 000 WC 0,33'-02-76 `12/23./94 12/23/S5 DISEASE ROL. LIMIT 50.0, 000 DtSE9SE-EACH EMP 540'f 0O0 l '7ESGRITIOOF GE91I I s -- --....yANPI E .A TERMINAL R CtSPEC LY " 1Ec.._,. .N ;. ! ,:CERTIFICATE HOLDEt;. CAQ-wcoanscaae�_aao�wwaaa -sae-a�nce Ai x + ����a�`7�� CGLl.�tTb(I;t �, �.�at ¢zrcnmoanC b3n¢_csantt� saar� sir ne Cam' - - $HtjiJLO J►fIY.C3F INE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES 0 CANCELLED -BEFORE THE 1 oQureme Steamship ALl'�pib�-�_$ PTRATIi7#I_oATk THE RED F ,THE-lSSVING`CMPAXY'__WTL"L"ExDEavd,t TQ-F1Ah ' x OGLiY Em�pa F9 �r it1ent DAIS WITITTEW W"ItE TO'THE CERTIFICATE ;HOLDER NAMED TO TNE '•C• BOX 204 LEFT, BUY FAIlUfre Ad-1 , SUCH NOTICE SNA(L Ik POW NO OBLIGATION DR Toodshole 1�[A q 543 -1 'IA3E_I.ITY �F AN , R'E q -14PO4-THE Ct'>riPANY,ITA AGErTi OR REPR€SENTATIV,!E. �,�.C'i1j�'I4�` IiGI�•!il?7-!'F'�l E4 .Ivs Acd ___...- - '�_-- _- a --- _--•--_ -_ - --_-_I._ -.• r • 111,02/94 17:02 126177277122 DEPT IND ACCID - CO/3unonivealK o Ma.66aclia4eMl ' ..C.�oPa�tineal c��iic�uaf�iu[✓ticcic�n� 600 lNasA q1-a S1rwo1 James J.Campbell &Ion, Mamachmdelh OZ111 Commissioner Workers` Compensation Insurance Affidavit I, with a principal place of business at: (Gcjas�sly� - do hereby certify under the pains and penalties of penury, that: I am an employer providing workers' compensation coverage for my empfoyees working this 'Job. C 05 -5-0;?—L 4 Insurance Company Policy Number () I am a sole proprietor and have no one working for me in any capacity. O I am a sole proprietor, general contractor or homeowner (circle one) and have hired the contractors listed below who have the following workers' compensation policies: Contractor Insurance Company/Policy NumbE Contractor Insurance Company/Folicy Numbe Contractor Insurance Company/Policy NumbE () I am a homeowner performing all the work myself. I understand tiat a cop-t of this statement will be fon arded to the Office of Investiptions of the D1A for coverage veriftcntion and that failure to co.erage:s rec ited under Section 2SA of MGL 152 can lead to the Imposition of criminal penalties consisting of a fine of up to S 1,500.00 anc years' imptisorr.,ent as welt as civil penalties in the forty.of a STOP WORK ORDER ad a tine of S 100.00 a day against me. Signed this day of , 19 LicenseeMerinittee Building Department Licensing Board Selectmen Office ` Health Department I Yn art=airy rnArvy c:F Tmrnt?mA-nnU rni r.- 617-727-4900 X403, 404, 405, 409, 375 10-14-1994 11:25AM FROM WH MV NT STEAMSHIP AUT TO 15087753344 P.02 �-� Woods Hale Martha's Vine and W Y --� - and Nantucket Steamship Authority AUTHORITY WIEMBERS, FINANCE AWASOAY BOARD Of:MERAL MANAGER AJ �y� BERNARD D.GROSSMAN R08ERT C,MURPHY BARRY 0,FULLER,SR. y{{/I Nantucket Member,Chairman Martha's Vineyard -_` RONALD H.RAPPAPORT NORMAN F BEACH TREASORERICOMPTROLLER Dukes County Member,Vice Chairman Nantucket WAYNE C. L.AMSON WILLIAM A,ANDREW$ PAUL R.KELLEHER Falmouth Member,Secretary Falmouth GENERAL COUNSEL ROBERT L.O'BRIEN STE.VEN M.SAYERS Bamstablo Member,Associate Secretary October 14,1994 Ralph Crossen Building Commissioner Town of Barnstable Town Hall Hyannis,MA 02601 Dear Ralph: Bob Hayden asked me to send you this letter documenting why the Dockside Restaurant has to be moved by the end of the month. Jordan Levy's agreement with the Steamship Authority requires him to be clear of the site by October 31. We set that date for several reasons. The ferry terminal reconstruction project is out to bid now,with filed sub-bids due November 15 and general contract bids due December 1. Construction is scheduled to start January 2nd. If the Dockside building is not moved by the end of the month we either have to amend the contract documents or contract separately to have it moved. We also have to remove two 10,000 gallon fuel tanks that are located between the restaurant and the ferry terminal. We have a contract with Enviro-Tech in Sandwich to do this work,but are waiting for the building to be removed first. If either of these tanks has leaked, we may need additional time to remove contaminated soil. In negotiating the agreement with Levy,we tried to allow him as much time as we felt we could prudently risk because.the Dockside Restaurant scrvcs our customers. Now that the restaurant is closed, it is important that the building be removed as soon as possible. Please call me if you have any'questions. since , W Ewen Special Projects Manager 1 43 508 548.5011 • FAX 508 548.8410 Use Group: A-3 �Assessor'9 office(1st Floor): / .�- Icy Assessor's map and lot number Pypi THE>o`` q��S 6-conservation(4th Floor): Sewage Permit number S DsaasT�nct �o rug t.,-rngineering Department(3rd floor):.. ` °''�i6 House number gefiaits _ PIffiad F �� 19 PPLIC TIONS PROCESSED"8:30-9:30 A.M.'and 1.00-2:00 P.M.only TOWN OF BARNSTABLE BUILDING , INSPECTOR APPLICATION,FOR PERMIT TO Build New Terminal Building TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION 5B with full automatic fire suppression system ` July 13, 19 TO THE INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS: The undersigned hereby applies for a permit according to the following information: ~ �l cation_. �tL�et , Hyannis Harbor Proposed Use Ferry Terminal (Passenger Ticketing & Waiting) Zoning District B-LB Fire District Hyannis Woods Hole, Marthas Vineyard, Nantucket NameofOwner Steamship Authority Address Box 284/Woods Hole, MA Name of Builder To be determined Address N.A. Keenan + Kenny, Architects , Ltd. Name of Architect Address 1337 County Road/P.O. Box 128 Cataumet , MA Number of Rooms 10 Foundation Concrete Exterior Wood Shingle Siding Roofing Asphalt shingles Floors Concrete, Finish Varied Interior Gypsum Board & Metal Studs Heating Gas Fired Plumbing 6 Rest Rooms , Kitchenette Fireplace N.A. Approximate Cost $1 ,000,000.00 Area 6 , 900 sq. ft . Diagram of Lot and Building with Dimensions Fee Notes: 1 . See attached Contract Documents (Construction plans and specifications � . project manual ) . 2. Project will be publicly bid under MGL , Chapter 149. 1 ahc wtJ li OCCUPANCY PERMITS REQUIRED FOR NEW DWELLINGS I hereby agree to conform to all the Rules and Regulations of the Town of Barnsta le regarding the above construction. Jo J. Keenan, Name KEENA + KENNY, A ITECTS, LTD. (For Owne Architect/Re ' tration cense No.4148 Genstfuetien&&peFViSeF'6 � f A No 4�9Q15 ;Permit*For Bui i d New-Terminal Bldg. Location 141 School Street Hyannis, MA>02601 r Owner Steamship Authority Woods=Hole/Marthas Vineyard & Nantucket Type of Construction T " Plot 326 Lot 122 f Permit Granted July 17 19 95 Date of Inspection: Frame 19. Insulation 19 Fireplace 19 Date Completed 19 i _ Y j" • .RJR.°} - � 1 1 _� :Woods Hole, Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket Steamship Authority 4 A11 WILLIAM W. REICH 0r Terminal Construction Coordinator- Site Phone(508)862-2327 P.O.Box 284 1-800-352-7144(MA ONLY) Railroad Avenue (508)548-5011 Woods Hole,MA 02543 FAX(508)548-8410 J CHILDS .ENGINEERING CORPO7P.E. Waterfront and Structur Richard G. FitzGeral BOX 333. MEDFIELD, M_ ASSACHUSETfS 02052 U.S.A i FAX: 508 /359-2 P51 5078 7/3-5 9-8945 i 64r'03/1996 16:22 5086979406 EOSTniICK ENGINEERING PAG�E 02' t O.M.B.NO. 3W-0077 O Expir"may 31,1"6 ' F-LEVATION CERTiFICATE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM nsurance purchase u I is used ATTENTION: Use at this certificate does not provide camplianceaw M appf the �dcbble community f bdpa ntrmanagemelntform ordinances,to ly to 2rovlde elevation information necessary to ensure cetermine the proper Insure I e Premium rate,ons for�mp pt S 'port s form gn be rfound on the following a Letter of Map pi�40s Revision (t_OMA or LQMR). SECTION A PRCIPERTY INFORMATION FOR INSURANCE CO$APANY USE POLICY NUMBER 31JILOING OWNER'S NAME t c S `� COMPANY NAIC NUMBER STREET ADDRESS 0nll'n"Cluding Ipt..unit,Suite anorot Bldg,Numt»ri OR P.O.ROUTE AND BOX NUMBER OTHER DESCRIPTION ilot lll i 8100t NUmMn•et" STATE " Zip CODE CITY SECTION tS F".00D INSURANCE RATE MAP (FIRM) INFORMATION Provide the following troy I the proper FiRM (See Instructions): +.DATE OF FIRM INDEX :.FIRM 20NCs d•BASE FLOOD ELEVATION LCOMMUNITY NUMBER ! 2 PANEL NUMBER J SUFPyf in AO ZorM.uN COW) 250001 - _ Q006 C 8-19-85 Al2 12 ' ' cilcate the elevation ifatum system used on the FIRM for Base Flood Elevations(BFE): NaVD'29 l_Other(doeotibatnn blitCk) ,.or Zones A or V,whfits no BFE is provided on the FiRM. and the Community has established a 13FE for this building shot Indicate ,he community's BFE; . —. ...._feet NGVD (or other FIRM datum—see Section B. Item 7), SECTION C BUILDING ELEVATION INFORMATION 1, Using the Elevation Certificate Instructions. Indica;9the diagram number from the diagrams found on Pages 5 and 8 that best descnoes the subject building's reference level 1-1—on Slab 2(a), FiRM Zones Al•A30.AE,AH. and A(with BFE). The too of the reference level floor from the selected diagram is at an elevation of 12 —feet NGVD (or other FIRM datum—sae Section B. Item 7). (b). FIRM Zones V1430.VE.and V (with 8FE). The bottom of the lowest horizontal structural member of the reference level from the selected diagram, Is at an elevation of . feet NGVD (or other FiRM datum—see Section 8, Item 7). lC). FIRM Zone A(without 13FE). The floor used as the reference level from the selected diagram is _ feet above L.. or below (check one) the highest grade ao)acent to the building. Id). FIRM Zone AO. The floor used as the reference level from the selected diagram Is feet above or below 1 (check tine) the highest grade adjacent to the budding. It no flood deoth number Is available, is the building's lowest floor(reference level) elevated in accordance with the community's fioodplain management ordinance? _ Yes _ No , Unknown 3, indicate the elevation datum system used in determining the above reference level elevations::x NGVD'29 __ Other(describe under Comments on Page 2), (NOTE: If fhe elevation datum used in measuring the elevations is diNerent than that used on the FIRM [see section S. item 71, then convert the elevations to the datum system used on the FIRM and show the conversion equation under Com,menrs on Page 2.) _ 4. Elevation reference mark used appears on FIRM: ; Yes L- No (See instructions on Page 4) 5.The reference levei!elevanan is based on: . actual Construction _ construction drawings (NOTE: Use of construction drawings is only valid i1 the building does not yet have the reference level floor in place, in which case this certificate will only be valid for the building during the course of construction, A post-construction Elgvation Certificate will be required once construction is compl@te.) 12 feet NGVD (or other FiRM datum-see 6.The elevation of the lowest grade immediately adjacent to the building is: Section B, Item 7). . SECTION D COMMUNITY INFORMATiON 1, tt the community official responsible for verifying building elevations specifies that ma reference level indicated in Section C. Item is not the"fewest fi`por" as defined in the commumryis fioodplain management ordinance,the elevation of the building's"lowest floor'' as defined by trio ordinance is: .... - feet NGVD (or other FIRM datum see Section B. item 7). �..2. Date of the start oil construction or substantial improvement SEE REVERSE 51bE FOR Gt�ht11Nl1ATK7N \`1A,4 Form 81.31,4Y 93 RERA>rES ALL PREVIOUS EDMON5 04/03/,.1996 16I22 508697940E BOSTWICK ENGINEERING PAGE 03 r % j ar.CnON 9 C6RTIF11CAMON This certification Is to be$f nod by a land surveyor,engineer,or architect who is authorized by state or local law to certify elevation :ntormauon whn the eiavaaon information for Zones At—A30.AE,AH. A(with BFE).Vt—V30.VE, and V(with SF'E)is required. nfO(Ma IOn officials who are authorized by local law or ordinance to provide fl000plaln management Information. may alsolslgn the certification. In the case of Zones AO and A(without a FEMA or community issued 6FE). a building official, a property owner, or an owner s representative ma also sign the certiticauon. -breaKaw 10 Reference level diagrams�. 7 and S • Distinguishing Features—If the certifier uis un'blle ao c F aturels)Ihenyist the Features) net inon enclosure size. location of servicing equipment, area use. wail openings. ncivaed In the cerllficaUon under Comments below. The diagram number, Section, C.1Tem..i. must still be entered, I certify i unae strand th informatloh it' sections B and C on any fals4 statement may De ounisnal ble by f fine orempn5onmen b t tuncer 18 U. date hat the S. C008, Secrion100 j rleble. Nicholas B1ilow PLS 29875 CERTIFIER'S NAME LICENSE NUMBER nor Affix Soau CEO i _Bostwick Engineering, Inc . COMPANY NAME 'iTLE First Str � t Bridgewater MA 02324 TATE CITY ADOPESs � . .... �. - March 28, 1996 508 s697-6911 zIP i LATE PHONE SIGNATURE ;pies should be made of this Cerflficate for: 1) Community official, 2) insurance sgentmotriparty, and 3) building owner. Pro sect Benchmark is a Spike at elev. 20 .37 set in Utility Pole COMMENTS: ____.....�^__.._.. ......._ ..__ located on the south side of South Street . 140 feet west of Number 52/9 l -- �- School. Stre&t. gaid Benchmark was supplied by Earth Tech Inc . and was set from an Army, Corps of Engineer ' s Disc , elev . 13 .41 on Irwin Avenue 100 feet west of the corner of Iannough Avenue . l � i ON Viali. ON WITH o,eRa,OR COLUMNS SLA• 8�S�MENT .�+ A A J A ZONES ZONES :ONES ZONES ZONES f+lNREHCE J VIL oEFE�lNC! flo00 � :EVft �-' hit wr�r ftOCG aA�E ADOACEµT A(FEAEW_E E,lvATION ILOOD -,,,,Elevations for all V Zones snoultl GRAD! A.I.E,EWtiON � at/ERENCE ADJACENT lE.rlt 'aA0( . ; ACUACENt 1 the elevations should be measureo in A Zones and V Zones. The diagrams above illustrate the points at which Elevations for all A Zones should be measured at the top of the reference level floor, ` be measured at the bottom of the lowest horizontal structural member. Page 2 'y t3� aV p,, TOWN OF"BARNSTABLE PARCEL ID 326 , � �' ` GEOBASE ID 24094 ADDRESS 1d G L=oT ET PHONE HYANNI ZIP LOT 1 BLOCK LOT SIZE DBA DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT HY . PERMIT 13899 DESCRIPTION STEAM.AUTHOR.TERM.BLDG. (BLDG.PMT #9015) PERMIT TYPE BCOO TITLE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY CONTRACTORS: Department of Health, Safety ARCHITECTS: and Environmental Services TOTAL FEES: BOND. $.00 Ox THEE CONSTRUCTION COSTS ' $.00 756 CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY BARN3TABLE. `I MASS.163 1 ` BUI, ' SIO`N/ BY DATE ISSUED 04/17/1.996 EXPIRATION DATE 05/17/1906 I 71 a�' -^ TOWN OF=BARI SYABLE+ ADDRESS 14-,1 HOO"SET PHONE ZIP LOT I BLOCS LOT SIZE D13A � DEV11LOPMENT D I STRI M HY 1 PEER IT 13899 DESCRf PTION STEAM.AUTHOR"TEU, 1..BLDG. (BLDG.P'MT 09015) P.—MIT TYPE: BCOO TITLE �.;EBTIFI(3ATE Oka OCCUPANCY CONTRACTORS: Department of Health, Safety {! A,I{CIaTTCT3" and Environmental Services TOTAL, FEES: � 1 BOND $ OC) OxTNE CONSTRUCTION COSTS r $"00 756 CERTIFICATE Off' OCCUPANCY * BARNSTABLE, • j 1MA831®� BULL IN I SION BY { BATE ISSUED' 04/17/1996 EXPIRATION HATE 06/17/1,99 3 THIS PERMIT CONVEYS NO RIGHT TO OCCUPY ANY STREET,ALLEY OR SIDEWALK OR ANY PART THEREOF, EITHER TEMPORARILY OR PERMANENTLY.EN- CROACHMENTS ON PUBLIC PROPERTY,NOT SPECIFICALLY PERMITTED UNDER THE BUILDING CODE,MUST BE APPROVED BY THE JURISDICTION.STREET OR ALLEY GRADES AS WELL AS DEPTH AND LOCATION OF PUBLIC SEWERS MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS.THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT DOES NOT RELEASE THE APPLICANT FROM THE CONDITIONS OF ANY APPLICABLE SUBDIVISION RESTRICTIONS. MINIMUM OF FOUR CALL INSPECTIONS REQUIRED FOR ALL CONSTRUCTION WORK: APPROVED PLANS MUST BE RETAINED ON JOB AND WHERE APPLICABLE, SEPARATE THIS CARD KEPT POSTED UNTIL FINAL INSPECTION 1.FOUNDATIONS OR FOOTINGS 2. PRIOR TO COVERING STRUCTURAL MEMBERS HAS BEEN MADE.WHERE A CERTIFICATE OF OCCU- PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR' (READY TO LATH). PANCY ELECTRICAL,PLUMBING AND MECH- ISREQUIRED,SUCH BUILDING SHALL NOT BE ' I 3.INSULATION. OCCUPIED UNTIL FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE. ANICAL INSTALLATIONS. 4.FINAL INSPECTION BEFORE OCCUPANCY. INS 601 I i 0 I BUILDING INSPECTION APPROVALS PLUMBING INSPECTION APPROVALS ELECTRICAL INSPECTION APPROVALS I 2 2 2 'I I ;I I I 3 1 HEATING INSPECTION APPROVALS ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT I I I 2 BOARD OF HEALTH OTHER: SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL WORK SHALL NOT PROCEED UNTIL PERMIT WILL BECOME NULL AND VOID IF CON- INSPECTIONS INDICATED ON THIS THE INSPECTOR HASAPPROVEDTHE STRUCTION WORK IS NOT STARTED WITHIN SIX CARD CAN BE ARRANGED FOR BY VARIOUS STAGES OF CONSTRUC- MONTHS OF DATE THE PERMIT IS ISSUED AS TELEPHONE OR WRITTEN NOTIFICA- TION. NOTED ABOVE. TION. BUILDING PERMIT I, F TOWN OF BARNSTABLE TEMPORARY CERf-IFICATE OF OCCUPANCY ' PARCEL ID 326 122 GEOBASE ID 24094 ADDRESS 141 SCHOOL STREET PHONE Hyannis ZIP - LOT 1 BLOCK LOT SIZE j DBA DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT HY I_ PERMIT 13899 DESCRIPTION STEAM.AUTHOR.TERM.BLDG. (BLDG.PMT #9016) PERMIT TYPE BTC00 TITLE TEMP. OCCUPANCY PERMIT / , Department of Health, Safety CONTRACTORS: and Environmental Services ARCHITECTS: TOTAL FEES: � � Ox TM BOND $.00 CONSTRUCTION COSTS $.00 756 CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY BARNSPABM . MAM &� OWNER WOODS, HOLE MARTHAS VINEY / G �/ ED M ADDRESS & NANTUCKET STEAMSHIP AUTHY / P 0 BOX 284 BUILDING DIVISION WOODS HOLE MA DATE ISSUED 04/17/1996 EXPIRATI N DATE 05/17/1996 TOWN OF 13AIZNSTABLE 7 ''Nlf U R CER1 I b CA,v RAY I T E OF UCC �UPA NCl PARC'EL ID 326 IL22 GEODAiSE ID 24094 ADDRESS 141 SC`-gOOL STREET PHONE Hyanr_is ZIP LOT 1 BLOCK LOT SIZE DBA DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT HY PERMIT DESCRIPTION STEA.M.AUTHOR.TE.RM,BLD(!. (BLDG.PMT 09015) t'L+RMIT TYPE L'T ;J TITLE TEMP. OCCUPANCY PERMIT Department of Health, Safety CONTRACTORS: ,�=-� and Environmental Services AR{::x-i 11VECTS: - . 00 f gT,E, #'► 1 56 CE �T 7 Ti.1 `� 0� t?(:LU.��A�TCY fARN31'A MASS. s6g9. A�� 01+u?13R W 0 S , HOLE MARTHAS v iN2Y( ED ikDDR..F:SIS x NA_-47UCK'._T 'STR'A1141SHIP AUTPHY BUILDING DIVISION 2u Ai BY r DATE I2S",jFD 04/17/1996 EXPIRATION DATE 05/17/1996 THIS PERMIT CONVEYS NO RIGHT TO OCCUPY ANY STREET,ALLEY OR SIDEWALK OR ANY PART THEREOF, EITHER TEMPORARILY OR PERMANENTLY.EN- CROACHMENTS ON PUBLIC PROPERTY,NOT SPECIFICALLY PERMITTED UNDER THE BUILDING CODE,MUST BE APPROVED BY THE JURISDICTION.STREET OR ALLEY GRADES AS WELL AS DEPTH AND LOCATION OF PUBLIC SEWERS MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS.THE ISSUANCE OFTHIS PERMIT DOES NOT RELEASE THE APPLICANT FROM THE CONDITIONS OF ANY APPLICABLE SUBDIVISION RESTRICTIONS. MINIMUM OF FOUR CALL INSPECTIONS REQUIRED FOR ALL CONSTRUCTION WORK: APPROVED PLANS MUST BE RETAINED ON JOB AND WHERE APPLICABLE, SEPARATE 1.FOUNDATIONS OR FOOTINGS THIS CARD KEPT POSTED UNTIL FINAL INSPECTION PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR 2. PRIOR TO COVERING STRUCTURAL MEMBERS HAS BEEN MADE.WHERE A CERTIFICATE OF OCCU- ELECTRICAL,PLUMBING AND MECH- (READY TO LATH). PANCY IS REQUIRED,SUCH BUILDING SHALL NOT BE ANICAL INSTALLATIONS. 3.INSULATION. OCCUPIED UNTIL FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE. 4.FINAL INSPECTION BEFORE OCCUPANCY. VISIBLEPOSTTHIS CARD SO IT IS BUILDING INSPECTION APPROVALS PLUMBING INSPECTION APPROVALS ELECTRICAL INSPECTION APPROVALS 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 1 HEATING INSPECTION APPROVALS ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 2 BOARD OF HEALTH OTHER: SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL WORK SHALL NOT PROCEED UNTIL PERMIT WILL BECOME NULL AND VOID IF CON- INSPECTIONS INDICATED ON THIS THE INSPECTOR HAS APPROVED THE STRUCTION WORK IS NOT STARTED WITHIN SIX CARD CAN BE ARRANGED FOR BY VARIOUS STAGES OF CONSTRUC- MONTHS OF DATE THE PERMIT IS ISSUED AS TELEPHONE OR WRITTEN NOTIFICA- TION. NOTED ABOVE. TION. TOWN OF BARNSTABLE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY PARCEL ID 326 122 GEOBASE ID 24094 ADDRESSO 141 SCHOOL STREET PHONE HYANNIS ZIP - LOT 1 BLOCK LOT SIZE _ DBA DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT HY PERMIT r 13899 DESCRIPTION STEAM..AUTHOR.TERM.BLDG.. (BLDG.PMT 09015) PERMIT TYPE--- BCOO TITLE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY CONTRACTORS:. Department of Health, Safety ARCHITECTS: and Environmental Services TOTAL FEES: BOND THE .00 CONSTRUCTION COSTS $.00 75q. CERh�FICATE OF OCCUPANCY * ; * BARNSTAB14 • MAS& BUILDIl� SI�ON By , DATE ISSUED 04/17/1996 EXPIRATION DATE 05/17/19A I TOWNOFLll".Yb *?1%fL3F�JCi OEIt`I MATE Off' 'OCCUPANCY .r y . . ADDRESS, .141' SCHOOL STREET PHONE HYANiu s f tr ZIPLOT BLOCK- LOT SIZE , - DBA DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT BY PERMIT ' ' 13899 DESCRIPTION VEAK,AUTHOR.T RM.BLDG BLDG.DMT" 49015 PERM I T TYPE- BCOO TITLE l:EaTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY CONTRACTORS. `f ; Department of Health Safety ARCHITECTS �t and Enviro �y'(, nmental Services MAL Gt1 T;`.I'RUC:T OI! COS'{' $.00 r I :.:., 756, CFJTt ;VI T OF, OCCUPANCY � BASTABLE. +' 1 RNMASS. 16.39. BUILDING�DIVIS' d3 j `BY<ar ..�` DATE- ISSUED 04/'1:7/1996 EXPZRA'I(M DATE e 06j"911.1Z THIS PERMIT CONVEYS NO RIGHT TO OCCUPY ANY STREET,ALLEY OR SIDEWALK OR ANY PART THEREOF, EITHER TEMPORARILY OR PERMANENTLY.EN- CROACHMENTS ON PUBLIC PROPERTY,NOT SPECIFICALLY PERMITTED UNDER THE BUILDING CODE,MUST BE APPROVED BY THE JURISDICTION.STREET OR ALLEY GRADES AS WELL AS DEPTH AND LOCATION OF PUBLIC SEWERS MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS.THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT DOES NOT RELEASE THE APPLICANT FROM THE CONDITIONS OF ANY APPLICABLE SUBDIVISION RESTRICTIONS, MINIMUM OF FOUR CALL INSPECTIONS REQUIRED FOR ALL CONSTRUCTION WORK: APPROVED PLANS MUST BE RETAINED ON JOB AND WHERE APPLICABLE, SEPARATE 1.FOUNDATIONS OR FOOTINGS THIS CARD KEPT POSTED UNTIL FINAL INSPECTION PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR 2. PRIOR TO COVERING STRUCTURAL MEMBERS 'HAS BEEN MADE.WHERE A CERTIFICATE OF OCCU- ELECTRICAL,PLUMBING AND MECH- (READY TO LATH). PANCY IS REQUIRED, SUCH BUILDING SHALL NOT BE ANICAL INSTALLATIONS.'4 3.INSULATION. OCCUPIED UNTIL FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE. 4.FINAL INSPECTION BEFORE OCCUPANCY. VISIBLEPOST THIS CARD SO IT IS FROM STREET BUILDING INSPECTION APPROVALS PLUMBING INSPECTION APPROVALS ELECTRICAL INSPECTION APPROVALS 2 2 2 3 1 HEATING INSPECTION APPROVALS ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 2 BOARD OF HEALTH OTHER: SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL l WORK SHALL NOT PROCEED UNTIL PERMIT WILL BECOME NULL AND VOID IF CON-' INSPECTIONS INDICATED ON THIS THE INSPECTOR HAS APPROVED THE STRUCTION WORK IS NOT STARTED WITHIN SIX CARD CAN BE ARRANGED FOR BY VARIOUS STAGES OF CONSTRUC-' MONTHS. OF DATE THE PERMIT IS ISSUED AS TELEPHONE OR WRITTEN NOTIFICA- TION. NOTED ABOVE. TION. BUILDING PERMIT ', s� Woods Hole, Martha's Vineyard r and Nantucket Steamship Authority AUTHORITY MEMBERS FINANCE ADVISORY BOARD GENERAL MANAGER RONALD H.RAPPAPORT ROBERT C.MURPHY ARMAND L.TIBERIO Martha's Vineyard Member,Chairman Martha's Vineyard PAUL R.KELLEHER S.ERIC ASENDORF TREASURER/COMPTROLLER Falmouth Member,Vice Chairman Falmouth WAYNE C. LAMSON GRACE S.GROSSMAN STEVEN A.TORNOVISH Nantucket Member,Secretary Nantucket GENERAL COUNSEL STEVEN M.SAYERS ROBERT L.O'BRIEN Barnstable Member,Associate Secretary July 28, 1998 Ralph Crossen, Building Commissioner Barnstable Town Hall 367 Main Street Hyannis, MA 02601 Re: Pile Sheathing on Dolphins at Hyannis Ferry Terminal Dear Ralph: The timber sheathing of mooring dolphins at the Hyannis ferry terminal has been completed by AGM Marine Contractors, Inc., in accordance with the plans approved by the Barnstable Historical Commission. I understand this was the last element of the terminal reconstruction that needed to be done for your release of the final Certificate of Occupancy. Please forward the Certificate to my attention at P.O. Box 284, Woods Hole, MA 02543, Sincere Wesley J. Ewell %( . Special Projects Manager cc: Bob O'Brien P.O. Box 284 Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543 (508) 548-5011 FAX (508) 548-8410 tay,- . The Town of Barnstable ■ saxxsrnsi.E. • 9� 1639. `0�' Department of Health, Safety and Environmental Services Building Division 367 Main Street,Hyannis MA 02601 Office: 508-862-4038 Ralph Crossen Fax: 508-790-6230 Building Commissioner July 1, 1998 Mr. Armand Tiberio General Manager Steamship Authority P.O. Box 284 Woods Hole, MA 02543 Dear Mr. Tiberio: This will serve to confirm my conversation yesterday whereby you agreed to start putting the piling covers around the concrete dolphins in Hyannis Harbor by next week. Compliance with the above is critical as your temporary certificate of occupancy has expired. Sincerely, Ralph M. Crossen Building Commissioner RMC/lbn g980701d S�� -Woods Hole Martha's Vine � and v lrs� and Nantucket Steamship Authority AUTHORITY MEMBERS FINANCE ADVISORY BOARD GENERAL MANAGER GRACE S.GROSSMAN ROBERT C.MURPHY ARMAND L.TIBERIO Nantucket Member,Chairman Martha's Vineyard TREASURER/COMPTROLLER RONALD H.RAPPAPORT NORMAN F.BEACH WAYNE C.LAMSON Martha's Vineyard Member,Vice Chairman, Nantucket PAUL R.KELLEHER S.ERIC ASENDORF GENERAL COUNSEL Falmouth Member,Secretary Falmouth STEVEN M.SAYERS ROBERT L.O'BRIEN Barnstable Member,Associate Secretary December 4, 1997 Mr. Ralph Crossen Building Commissioner Barnstable Town Hall 367 Main Street Hyannis, MA 02601 Re: Hyannis Ferry Terminal Dear Mr. Crossen: Enclosed is a copy of a letter from Skip McCourt, District Highway Director of Mass. Highway Dept., that was hand delivered to us this morning certifying that all work on the Hyannis terminal reconstruction was completed in conformance with the plans and specifications. You also asked for certification that there will be no additional movement of soils at the bulkhead. Nobody can certify that. We will, however, commit to have the location of the bulkhead cap surveyed at least every six months until we are all satisfied that it is not moving. Total movement since the steel pipe pile driving ended has been less than 0.5 inches, and that occurred during the timber pile driving. The area appears to have stabilized and we have experienced no further cracking of the concrete work since it was replaced. Sincerely, and L.ITierio General Manager cc: Robert O'Brien P.O. Box 284 Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543 (508) 548-5011 FAX (508) 548-8410 MASS Argeo Paul Cellucci Patrick J. Moynihan Kevin J. Sullivan H�GHINAY Governor Secretary Commissioner December 4, 1997 District File#601 SUBJECT: CONSTRUCTION- Barnstable(Ferry Terminal) Contract#96130 -F.A.#FBD-OOOS(003) RE: Completion of Work Woods Hole, Martha's Vineyard&Nantucket Steamship Authority P.O. Box 284 Woods Hole, MA 02543 Attn: Wes Ewell Dear Sir: Please be advised that work on the subject project is completed. All work was completed in conformance with the plans and specifications. mcerely, Bernard McCourt District Highway Director RLF/mq cc: WJM DHD RE file Encls. Massachusetts Highway Department•District 5. 1000 County Street, Taunton, MA 02780•(508) 824-6633 Woods Hole, Martha's Vineyard J4, and Nantucket Steamship Authority 10 AUTHORITY MEMBERS FINANCE ADVISORY BOARD GENERAL MANAGER GRACE S.GROSSMAN ROBERT C.MURPHY ARMAND L.TIBERIO Nantucket Member,Chairman Martha's Vineyard TREASURER/COMPTROLLER RONALD H.RAPPAPORT NORMAN F.BEACH I Martha's Vineyard Member,Vice Chairman Nantucket WAYNE C.LAMSON PAUL R.KELLEHER S.ERIC ASENDORF Falmouth Member,Secretary Falmouth GENERAL COUNSEL STEVEN M.SAYERS ROBERT L.O'BRIEN Barnstable Member,Associate Secretary September 5, 1997 ' 4 Ralph Crossen, Building Commissioner Barnstable Town Hall 367 Main Street - Hyannis, MA 02601 e Re: Timber Piles on Dolphins at Hyannis Ferry Terminal Dear Ralph: Responding to your call regarding sheathing of the concrete berthing dolphins with timber piles, let me assure you that the"Steamship Authority is committed to this plan, and will have the work done as soon as the Massachusetts Highway Department contract is completed. At a meeting with the Barnstable Historical Commission November.14, 1994 Dave'Porter of Childs Engineering explained why timber dolphins could no longer be used and demonstrated why such massive concrete structures were needed for slips of this size. We then worked out a compromise whereby the dolphins.would be reduced in width and depth, increased in height to retain the same mass, and the sides that were not designed for contact with vessels would be sheathed with wood pilings to imitate the appearance of traditional pile clusters. Extra work orders of this magnitude under the MHD contract rules allow the contractor an automatic extension of time to complete all elements'of the contract, and also allow additional mark-ups-beyond those we normally pay. We will therefore.con tract this work separately after the MI-ID contract is done, now expected to be October 9.. This will leave plenty of time to complete the pile sheathing before winter. Please let me know if you need anything,else; my extension in Woods Hole is 276. Sincerely, We ey J. Ewell Special Projects Manager cc: Bob O'Brien P.O. Box 284 Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543 (508) 548-5011 FAX (508) 548-8410 i QUERY PERMITS : QUERY END QUERY PERMITS PENTAMATION----------------------------------------------------------- 06/30/98 PERMIT NUMBER 13899 PARCEL ID 326 122 141 SCHOOL STREET PERMIT TYPE BCOO CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY DESCRIPTION STEAM.AUTHOR.TERM.BLDG. (BLDG. PMT #9015) CONTRACTOR PERMIT FEE 0 . 00 VARIANCE STATUS T TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION TYPE 756 GROUP TYPE APPLICATION 04/17/1996 EXPIRATION 05/17/1996 VALUATION 0 . 00 DATE ISSUED 04/17/1996 COMPLETED 12/04/1997 DEPARTMENT-----STATUS---DATE-----DEPARTMENT-----STATUS---DATE---- (N) EXT/ (P) REVIOUS/ (C) ONTRACTORS/ PR(0) PERTY/ (I)NSPECTIONS/ (H) ISTORY/ (F) EES/ (A) RCHITECTS/ (V) IOLATION/ (E) XIT Woods Hole, Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket Steamship Authority AUTHORITY MEMBERS FINANCE ADVISORY BOARD GENERAL MANAGER GRACE S.GROSSMAN ROBERT C.MURPHY ARMAND L.TIBERIO W'" Nantucket Member,Chairman Martha's Vineyard RONALD H.RAPPAPORT NORMAN F.BEACH TREASURER LCOMPTROLLER ��Jlll Martha's Vineyard Member,Vice Chairman Nantucket WAYNE C. AMSON PAUL R.KELLEHER S.ERIC ASENDORF Falmouth Member,Secretary Falmouth GENERAL COUNSEL ROBERT L.O'BRIEN STEVEN M.SAYERS Barnstable Member,Associate Secretary November 25, 1997 Mr. Ralph Crossen Building Commissioner Barnstable Town Hall 367 Main Street Hyannis, MA 02601 Re: Hyannis Ferry Terminal Dear Mr. Crossen: Responding to your question about sheathing the dolphins at the new-Hyannis facility,the Steamship Authority has made a commitment to the Town of Barnstable Historical Commission, which is documented in their letter of November 22, 1994, to face the three new dolphins with wood pilings on all faces except the berthing face. This project will be designed by consulting engineers this winter and put out to bid for construction in the.Spring of 1998. We will commit to completion of the work by May 20, 1998. Sincerely, X=abeno General Manager P.O. Box 284 Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543 (508) 548-5011 • FAX (508) 548-8410 ��-�Ifi Woods Hole, Martha's Vineyard �-- - and Nantucket Steamship Authority y RECEIVED MEMOR INDUM September 2, 1997 SE® �7 To: Bob O'Brien TOWN OF BARNSTABLE WEIGHTS AND MEASURES From: Wes Ewell y , AHG Re. Rip Rap at Hyannis Terminal You asked about the stone rip rap installed along the bulkhead at the end of School Street. This material supports, and largely supplants, the sheet steel bulkhead that was installed years ago. The rip rap is essential to the structural integrity of the bulkhead, which has been widely known to have been inadequate from the start. The rip rap is shown in all of the approved plans, and was properly installed as designed. During design development there was no thought given to a need to bring vessels up to the bulkhead because of the substantial amount of new mooring space afforded by the timber pier. Skiffs and other small boats can still use the davit at the end of School Street. a P.O. Box 284 Woods Hole,Massachusetts 02543 (508) 548-5011 • FAX (508) 548-8410 i n,+M s.H%p -4O.J HD e-1 T! '_j Tzf2*1 L �l�t� � rI` ) �7� �¢.�i✓i l r✓l� , - mi-E C-©tri"� ---------------- IT I � i • I I 1 I i 1 I I I _ 1 �^^e etc ��� �� POSTO N CONCESSIONS RT7� 6VOILIP, INC. 111 SIXTH STREET Telephone: (617)499-2700 CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS 02141 Fax: (617)661-3023 June 15, 1998 Mr. Ralph Crossen Building Commissioner Town Hall Hyannis, MA 02601 Mr. Crossen, Per your request I have enclosed a diagram of the Kiosk located within the Steamship Authority's Terminal in Hyannis, Massachusetts. I have also included a rough draft of its location within the building itself. If I can be of further assistance or if you need to speak with me directly,please feel free to call me at 508- 477-0780. Since y, Dave Oberlander Boston:Concessions Group, Inc. Soils Inspection Briggs Engineering & Testing PROJECT: STEAMSHIP AUTHORITY BRIGGS A Division of PK Associates, Inc. PROJECT#: 51602 c INSPECTOR: Donald Concheri EMP.#: 326 REPORT#-. DATE: 9/5/97 CODE: S26 ARR.TIME: 7:00 am JOB HRS.: 8 T.T.: MILEAGE TEMP.: H X L WIND: H L X HUMID.:. H L X SUNNY XCLOUDY Briggs Engineering and Testing field engineers took in place density tests. In place density was determined in accordance with ASTM D-2922 and D-3017 for comparison to the laboratory determined maximum density at optimum moisture in accordance with ASTM D-1557 and/or D698. Locator: Stairway, handicap ramp, patio waiting area and front of building Remarks: All lifts were placed in 6" increments with compaction and testing between each lift Water was added to insure total compaction was accomplished. All lifts passed for 95% or above proctor. Technician: Donald Concheri Approved 1��1 ' Soils Compaction Report ®A ■` I���®®� Briggs Engineering & Testing PROJECT: fret �..v A Division of PK Associates, Inc. PROJECT#: v~ INSPECTOR: EMP.#: Cp REPORT#: DATE: CODE: S-a ARR.TIME: 7.p�D JOB HRS.: S T. MILEAGE TEMP.: L WIND: H HUMID.: H UNNY CLOUDY Maximum Dry Density: 39. () Optimum Moisture Content: -7_ Method of Testing ( Check One) : Sand Cone Nuclear Densometer Test Location Estimated Elevation Test Results Req. Min. Moisture Optimum No. Area Tested %Comp. % Comp. Content '/ Moisture % -tp `��(o cts � 2. '7• a q7 0 3 9S•3 1 .S a7- a 3 .0 S 4 $ 1 .9 'Ito•3 1 —2LO 97, :2 . 7 �. R5. ► 3.6 3 T(0.o t �tS.a 2.6 as.q z -7 5'7_ 2-i 3 ci 1.3 I �� 97-) 2•v 5V. 9 7- 9 Irz-o Tests not meeting requirements: Who notified: Recommendations: r`mw Remarks: 41 'U�t SL c>( o2 roz Technician: Approved Soils Compaction Report • =AL PROJECT: BRIO®$ Briggs Engineering & Testing F� A Division of PK Associates, Inc. PROJECT#: 16 INSPECTOR: EMP.#: 89Qo REPORT#: DATE: q_S-c�7 CODE: ARR.TIME: q_&3 JOB HRS.: O T.T.: MILEAGE: TEMP.: H (a L WIND: H Z HUMID.: H ® VONN9 CLOUDY Maximum Dry Densi Optimum Moisture Content: '�7 Method of Testing ( Check One) : Sand Cone Nuclear Densometer Test Location Estimated Elevation Test Results Req. Min. Moisture Optimum No. Area Tested %Comp. % Comp. Content % Moisture % ( 1-P saIKSCD 9 01-//) z z rT 7 a 9TS 1, 9 3 95• 1. 7 q7-a t.9 gS,.3 z. I C17.3 2.I Tests not meeting requirements: o Who notified: Recommendations: Remarks: See Prre�.�o.1 s Technician: �(� o � ..�.� Approved jt <% ,�' lie J . . ,1 Soils Inspection Briggs Engineering & Testing PROJECT: STEAMSHIP AUTHORITY BRIGGS A Division of PK Associates, Inc. PROJECT#: 51602 INSPECTOR: Don Concheri EMP.#: 326 REPORT#: DATE: 9/6/97 CODE S26 ARR.TIME: 9:00 am JOB HRS.: 4 T.T.: MILEAGE: TEMP.: H X L WIND: H L X HUMID.: H L X SUNNYX CLOUDY Briggs Engineering and Testing field engineers took in place density tests. In place density was determined in accordance with ASTM D-2922 and D-3017 for comparison to the laboratory determined maximum density at optimum moisture in accordance with ASTM D-1557 and/or D698. Location: Stairs,- ,handicap ramp and patio waiting area. Remarks: All lifts were placed in 6" increments with compaction and testing between between each lift. Water was added to insure total compaction was accomplished. All lifts passed for 95% or above proctor value. Technician: Donald Concheri Approved V� v Soils Compaction Report PROJECT: A n�N lqM BRIGGS Briggs Engineering & Testing A Division of PK Associates, Inc. PROJECT#: �( ©a INSPECTOR: O a � EMP.#: REPORT#: DATE: 9_ (�,_oo CODE: g ARR.TIME: C�fCTO JOB HR&: y T.T.: MILEAGE: TEMP.: H K L WIND: H ® HUMID.: H CLOUDY Maximum Dry Density: B9.O Optimum Moisture Content: Method of Testing ( Check One) : Sand Cone Nuclear Densometer Test Location Estimated Elevation Test Results Req. Min. Moisture Optimum No. Area Tested %Comp. % Comp. Content % Moisture % —�� . q to _9 7,7 8. �8 I g-4 3 �cS. I 2•cG� Lf Tests not meeting requirements: NpNQ Who notified: SCA Nt-c S &1rn� Recommendations: MOMP Remarks: 11 fe-� QA5,2>ep Oi��& v� � ;tee (pc�erCSZ Technician: Approved ' ,r .00 °Fa+e The Town of Barnstable snxtvsrnBz.E, • 9� Department of Health Safety and Environmental Services ArFDUAA�A Building Division 367 Main Street,Hyannis MA 02601 Office: 508-790-6227 Ralph Crossen Fax: 508-790-6230 Building Commissioner March 25, 1996 Mr.Wesley J.Ewell, Special Projects Manager Woods Hole,Martha's Vineyard&Nantucket Steamship Authority P.O.Box 284 Woods Hole,MA 02543 Re: Hyannis Ferry Terminal Dear Mr.Ewell: Pursuant to Section 1202.1 of 780 CMR I am requesting that you contract with a geotechnical engineer to perform subsurface borings in the area of the rear patio to a depth suitable to the engineer and this office. Please make all results available to me as soon as possible. After these borings are complete and after we are sure the bearing capacity of the land in this area is adequate,a decision will be made concerning possible soil bearing tests under Section 1203.1. The geotechnical engineer should be able to evaluate the soils in the area between the bulkhead and the deadmen as well as in the water alongside the bulkhead. Prior to any reconstruction activity in the rear of the building,the structural integrity of the existing bulkhead should be evaluated by a structural engineer. I would appreciate a report on that. The basic questions I want answered by these engineers are two: 1. Is the bulkhead stable and is its movement in check permanently? 2. Are the soils under the patio area and between the patio and the water side of the bulkhead stable and suitably compacted? To recap,after the rip rap is in and complete,pile driving may resume. Reconstruction,however,may not begin (although removal of all slabs and rear retaining walls may take place during pile driving)until these measures have been taken and all results approved by me. Sincerely, Ralph M.Crossen Building Commissioner RMC/km cc: Bernie F.McKernan,J K Scanlan Co.,Inc. Robert Smith,Town Attorney Robert O'Brien,Assistant Superintendent,DPW Q960325D / ARTICLE 12 4 FOUNDATION SYSTEMS AND RETAINING WALLS (This Article is entirely unique to Massachusetts) SECTION 1200.0 GENERAL 1200.1 Scope: The provisions of this article shall control foundation design and construction of all buildings and structures hereafter erected to insure adequate strength of all parts thereof for the safe support of all superimposed live and special loads, in addition to their own dead load, without exceeding the allowable stresses or design capacities. ` _ f SECTION 1201.0 BEARING PRESSURE ON FOUNDATION MATERIALS 1201.1 Soils report:- All applications for permits for the construction of new structures, and for the alteration of permanent structures which require changes in' foundation loads and distribution, shall be accompanied by a report describing soil; in all bearing strata, including sufficient records and data to establish character, nature and load bearing pressure. Such report shall be prepared and submitted by a registered professional engineer, except as otherwise specified in this article. 1201.2 Satisfactory foundation materials:. Satisfactory bearing strata to provide structural support shall be considered to include the following, provided they are of a standard consistent with engineering specifications: natural strata of rock, gravel, sand, inorganic silt, inorganic clay, or combination of- these materials. Compacted fills, when designed and monitored by a registered professional engineer, may be accepted by the building official. Other conditions of unsatisfactory bearing materials which are improved in accordance with the recommendations of, and monitored by, a registered professional engineer may be accepted by the building official. Sites involving medium and fine sands, inorganic silt and compacted Ells are subject to the additional special requirements-of Section 1113.8 (Liquefaction). 1201.2.1 Loading interaction: Wherever bearing strata are subject to interaction from other loadings or strata reactions, such conditions shall be incorporated in the evaluation of the design bearing capacity of the support strata. Corrected 780 CMR - Fifth Edition 12-1 FOUNDATION SYSTEMS AND RETAINING WALLS 6. Settlement analyses in accordance with Section 1204.5 should be performed if the ability of a given structure to tolerate settlements is in question,particularly for,but not limited to,soft or very soft clays and silts and loose granular materials. 7. Allowable bearing pressures may be increased by an amount equal to five(5)percent for each foot of depth of the bearing area below the minimum required in Section 1205.0; however, the bearing pressure shall not exceed two (2) times the value given in the table. For foundation bearing areas having a least lateral dimension smaller than three (3) feet, the allowable bearing pressure shall be one-third (1/3) of the tabulated value times the least dimension in feet. 8. Refer to Section 1201.3.2 when these materials are used as compacted fills. 9. These materials are subject to the provisions in Section 1113.8 (Liquefaction). 10. Alternatively, the allowable bearing pressure lnay be taken as 1.5 times the peak unconfined compressive strength of undisturbed samples for square and round footings or 1.25 times that strength for footings with length to width ratio of 4 or greater. For intermediate cases, interpolation may be used. 11. A registered professional engineer shall be engaged to provide recommendations for these special cases.Direct bearing on organic soils is not permitted.Organic soils are allowed under foundations for those cases defined in Section 1201.3.3, Preloaded materials. 1201.3.3 Preloaded materials: The building official may allow the use of certain otherwise unsatisfactory natural soils and uncompacted fills for support of one (1) story structures after these materials have been preloaded to effective stresses not less than one hundred and fifty (150) percent of the effective stresses which will be induced by the structure. The building official may require the loading and unloading of a sufficiently large area, conducted under the direction of a registered professional engineer, approved by the building official, who shall submit a report containing a program which will allow sufficient time for adequate consolidation of the material based on an analysis of the preloaded material and of the probable settlements of the structure. 1201.4 Light weight structures: One story structures without masonry walls and not exceeding eight hundred (800) square feet in area may be founded on a layer of satisfactory bearing material not less than three (3) feet thick,which is underlain by highly compressible material, provided that the stresses induced in the unsatisfactory material by the live and dead loads of the structure, and the weight of any new fill within or adjacent to the building area, will not exceed two hundred and fifty (250) pounds per square foot (psf). SECTION 1202.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS 1202.1 Where required: Borings, test pits or other soil investigations shall be required for all structures except the following, unless specifically required by,the' • building official: 780 CMR - Fifth Edition 12-5 THE MASSACHUSETTS STATE BUILDING CODE 1. one- and two-family dwellings and their accessory buildings; 2. structures less than 35,000 cubic feet in gross volume; or 3. structures used for agricultural purposes. The borings, test pits or other soil investigations shall be adequate in number and depth and so located to accurately define the nature of the subsurface materials necessary for the support of the structure. When it is proposed to support the structure directly on bedrock, the building official shall require core borings to be made into the rock; or shall require other satisfactory evidence to prove that the structure shall be adequately founded on bedrock. 1202.2 Soil samples and boring reports: Samples of the strata penetrated in test borings or test pits, representing the natural disposition and conditions at the site, shall be available for examination by the building official. Wash or bucket samples shall not be accepted. Duplicate copies of the results obtained from all borings, plotted to a true relative elevation and to scale, and of all test results or other pertinent soil data, shall be filed with the building official. SECTION 1203.0 SOIL BEARING TESTS 1203.1 General: Whenever the allowable bearing pressure on bearing materials is • in doubt, the building official may require soil bearing tests! The tests shall be performed under the direction of a registered professional engineer. A complete record of the test results together with a soil profile shall be filed by the registered professional engineer who shall have a representative on the site during all test operations. 1203.2 Loaded areas: The loaded area shall be approximately 4 square feet for all bearing materials; except that when the footing overlies wet clay or other soft materials, the test load shall be applied to an area of not less than 10 square feet. Bearing tests shall be applied at the elevations of the proposed bearing surfaces of the structure; except that the load may be applied directly on the surface of compacted granular material.The excavation immediately surrounding an area to be tested shall be made not deeper than one (1) foot above the plane of application of the test. The test plate shall be placed with uniform bearing. 1203.3 Loading procedure: The application of the test load shall be in steps equal to not more than one-half (1/z) the contemplated design load, to at least twice the contemplated design load. The unloading shall be at least two (2) steps, to the design load and then to zero (0) load. The contemplated design load and twice the contemplated design load shall be maintained constant for at least twenty-four (24) • hours and until the movement does not exceed two hundredths (.02) of an inch during a twenty-four hour period. The load for all other load and unload steps 12-6 780 CMR - Fifth Edition THE MASSACHUSETTS STATE BUILDING CODE minus the weight of the excavated material, induce a maximum stress greater than three hundred (300) pounds per square foot at mid-depth of the underlying soft clay layer. Settlement analysis will be based on a computation of the new increase in stress that will be induced by the structure and realistically appraised live loads, after deducting the weight of excavated material under which the soil was fully consolidated. The effects of fill loads within the building area or fill and other loads adjacent to the building shall be included in the settlement analysis. The appraisal of the live loads may be based on surveys of actual live loads of existing buildings with similar occupancy. The soil compressibility shall be determined by a registered professional engineer. 1204.6 Disturbance of bearing materials: Whenever the bearing materials are disturbed from any cause, for example,by the inward or upward flow of water and/or by construction activities, the extent of the disturbance shall be evaluated by a registered professional engineer and appropriate remedial measures taken satisfactory to the building official. SECTION 1205.0 DEPTH OF FOOTING 1205.1 Frost protection: All permanent supports of buildings and structures shall • extend a minimum of four (4) feet below finished grade except when erected upon sound bedrock or when protected from frost, or when the foundation grade is established by a registered professional engineer and as approved by the building official. The engineer shall show supporting data including the type and extent of free-draining foundation material, ground water levels, and climatic records. 1205.2 Isolated footing: Footings on granular soil of Classes 7 to 9 of Table 1201 and compacted fill shall be so located that the line drawn between the lower edges of adjoining footings shall not have a steeper slope than thirty (30) degrees with the vertical, unless the material supporting the higher footing is braced or retained or otherwise laterally supported in an approved manner. 1205.3 Depth of spread foundations: The bottom surface of any footing resting on material of Classes 5 to 10 of Table 1201, inclusive, shall be at least eighteen (18) inches below the lowest ground surface or the surface of a floor slab bearing directly on the soil immediately adjacent to the footing. SECTION 1206.0 FOOTING DESIGN 1206.1 Design loads: The loads to be used in computing the pressure upon bearing materials directly underlying foundations shall be the live and dead loads of the structure, as.specified in Section 1115.0 including the weight of the foundations and 12-8 780 CMR - Fifth Edition r� FOUNDATION SYSTEMS AND RETAINING WALLS of any immediately overlying material,but deducting from the resulting pressure per square foot the total weight of a one-(1) foot-square column of soil, including the water in its voids,which extends from the lowest immediately adjacent surface of the soil to the bottom of the footing, pier or mat. Foundations shall be constructed so as to resist the maximum probable hydrostatic pressures. 1206.2 Pressure due to lateral loads: Where the pressure on the bearing material due to wind or other lateral loads is less than one-third (1/3) of that due to dead and live loads, it may be neglected in the foundation design. Where this ratio exceeds one-third (1/3), foundations shall be so proportioned that the pressure due to combined dead, live, wind loads, and other lateral loads shall not exceed the allowable bearing pressures by more than one-third (1/3). 1206.3 Earthquake loads: Special provisions shall be made in the foundation design to comply with the provisions of Section 1113.0. 1206.4 Vibratory loads: Where machinery or other vibrations may be transmitted through the foundations, consideration shall be given in'the design of the footing11 s to prevent detrimental disturbances of the soil. i1206.5 Varying unit pressures: Footings shall be so designed that the unit soil pressure under the dead load shall be as uniform as possible under all parts of the building structure. When necessary for stability in the structure due to settlement or varying soil conditions, approved variations are permitted in the unit pressure under different footings. 1206.6 Eccentric loads: Eccentricity of loadings in foundations shall be fully investigated, and the maximum pressure on the basis of straight-line distribution shall not exceed the allowable bearing pressures. SECTION 1207.0 TIMBER FOOTINGS AND WOOD FOUNDATIONS 1207.1 Timber footings: Timber footings are. permitted for buildings of Type 5 construction and as otherwise approved. Such footings shall be treated in accordance with AWPA C2 or C3 listed in Appendix A. Treated timbers are not required when placed entirely below permanent water level, or when used as capping for wood piles which project above the water level over submerged or marsh lands.The compressive stresses perpendicular to grain in untreated timber footings supported upon piles shall not exceed 70 percent of the allowable stresses for the species and grade of timber as specified in the NFoPA National Design Specification for Wood Construction listed in Appendix A. 780 CMR - Fifth Edition 12-9 o � - I . i c� ___-____ � �� I / o Woods Hole, Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket Steamship Authority AUTHORITY MEMBERS FINANCE ADVISORY BOARD GENERAL MANAGER PAUL R.KELLEHER ROBERT C.MURPHY ARMAND L.TIBERIO � Falmouth Member,Chairman Martha's Vineyard,qy sM GRACE S.GROSSMAN NORMAN F.BEACH TREASURER/COMPTROLLER Nantucket Member,Vice Chairman Nantucket WAYNE C.LAMSON RONALD H.RAPPAPORT S.ERIC ASENDORF Martha's Vineyard Member,Secretary Falmouth GENERAL COUNSEL ROBERT L.O'BRIEN STEVEN M.SAYERS Barnstable Member,Associate Secretary Town of Barnstable Building Department June 25,1997 Town Hall Hyannis, MA. 02601 Attention: Mr. Ralph Crossen Re: Hyannis Terminal - Plaza Reconstruction and Bulkhead Status Dear Mr. Crossen, As a follow-up to your request that you be kept abreast of the developments at the Steamship Authority project, please find the following documents for your use: 1. Drawings : Hyannis Ferry Terminal Plaza, Plaza Concrete Details, Sheets 1 &2 dated 5/21/97; Drawing EX-1, Existing Conditions Base Plan dated . 5/21/97; Drawings RSA-1 thru RSA-3, Revised Plaza Plan & Elevations dated 5/20/97. These are being forwarded to the Town Engineering Department and Conservation Commision as well The drawings indicate the new position of the plaza retaining walls five feet further to the North, the inclusion of the shuttle bus turn-around on School Street and an additional set of stairs connecting the upper and lower levels . The revised layout allows offloading passengers easier and safer access to luggage and off-site parking transportation by channeling them away from transfer bridge vehicle traffic. 2. Correspondence from Childs Engineering, the designer of the plaza retaining walls, clarifying the bottom of footing elevation and bearing soil specification. Letter of June 24, 1997 and sketch SK109492-10. The bottom of footing elevation.of 2.5 would have put the footing slab in a foot and a half of ground water. By installing crushed stone to elevation 4.0, that situation is alleviated while maintaining frost protection and allowing for groundwater tidal movement. P.O. Box 284 Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543 (508) 548-5011 9 FAX (508) 548-8410 r :^F 3. Bostwick Engineering bulkhead monitoring results indicating the degree of movement relative to the timber pier pile driving operation. The monitoring results indicate that the bulkhead immediately in front of the timber piles, point 102, settled approximately 1 1/2 inches vertically and 3/4 of an inch to the south. The majority of the movement occurred as piles were driven in close proximity to the bulkhead and has appeared to cease as the work moved seaward. This is consistent with what was experienced at the concrete pier. The rip-rap operation is also complete which further stabilizes the soil immediately in front of the bulkhead. Please note that there was no movement of the Terminal Building. If I can be of further assistance or if there are any questions, please contact me at 771-0544. Thank you for your continued cooperation. incere , �e Bill Reich cc: Wes Ewell . _.'?4 17:GO E 1508,t592751 CHILLS ENGR CORP G1 CHILDS ENGINEERING CORPORATION SOX 333 MEOFIELO,MASSACHUSETTS 0205 2 jnR,,�r)E7 R04!'i FAX -r..15/339-2'!5, Kenneth M. CnAde, Jr.. P.E. ChA,r nrilr-hifaf £xCm:uuve Off:uer- Oevid L. Parer, P.E PreeiclenuGenerer Msr,sgsr Crain U. Berns, P.E Vice f'reerdent 24 June 1997 Mr. Dill Reich Woods Hole, Martha' s vineyard and Nantucket Steamship Authority 141 School Street Hyannis, Massachusetts 02601 RE: Hyannis Ferry Terminal Patio Dear Bill : As shown on the project drawings, the footing for the proposed patio at the Hyannis Perry terminal should be a minimum of 4 feet below the proposed surface elevation. Because of the potential for groundwater at the site above the proposed bottom of footing, as an option the footing can be placed at or slightly above the groundwater level as long as before placement of the footing the area is excavated down to an elevation 4 feet below and then backfilled with crushed stone . The crushed stone will produce a free draining layer down to the 4 foot depth as required for frost protection. See the enclosed sketch, SK109294-10 which illustrates brie various options for the installation of' the patio footing. If you have any questions or require additional Information, please contact the undersigned. Respectfully submitted, CHILDS ENGINEERING CORPORATION Richard G. Fitrerald, P .E. Encl . o0 G� .— a..' �i P •_c.v._ mac• ..• r.�v.+ a.r..,r r tivr • VG ' •'`O M PROPOSED SURFACE MAN= wALL Ab C a .r PA�11Q FOOTING F** VQSTING SOIL TO BE PROOF ROLLED .� sGWE: 3/6r�1•-d PROPOSED PROPOSED SURFACE RETAINING WALL ELEV. • ♦6.541 �= PROPOSED —4-p,%To i orm 6 / 3/ 9EP CRUSMED STONE TO PROOF ROLLED ERISTM SOIL �T Nag SWL- 3/I ml'--d CONCRETE PATIO FOOTW WH. MV; AND NANTUCKET STEAMSHIP AUTHORITY HYANNIS, MA JUNE 1997 FFF-:EC.H[LDS L�NatNECR &V COAPQRAttON Apr m Ali Yft.O- tlM Wlt MC• V•S 070N tl.k DATE OF PRINTING; SPISM7 HYANNIS FERRY: DMP MONOTORIzz NG OSSERVATION 1 OBSERVATION 2 OBSERVATION 3 _... __.. Ln POINT NORTHING EASTING ELEVATIONNORTHINGI EASTING ELEVATION NORTHING EASTING ELEVATION : --- --- - 1 5000.0404 .5Q00.0000 ---- ; 5000.0000 b000A000 -- 5000.001>0 5(100.6000 5089.960 sm.0000 -----_ 5089.9600 ` 5000.0000 ---- 5489.9600 SOOD.p040- 4 V-5209.6981 5076.0718 _ - 5209,6981 5076.0718 --- - ; 5209.7051 5076,0818 _ 100.E - -- -- - ---- _ 1 D0.00 --- __ 1 o.00 101 5215-5642 4987.0422 81.03 5215.57_61 4987-06_81_ 81.00 5215.6145 4987.1133 80--- i ---- 102 5220.8534 5039.3031 s1.s8 5220.8735 5039.3026 81.63 5220.9152 5039.3023 81.56 - -._ - -- -103 5224.8601 5077.3623. 81.69 5224.8624 5077.3T31 81.67 5224:8695 : 5077.3817 81.62 104 5229-0742_ 39.5114.42_B_1 81.61 _5229.0778 5114.0309 81.61 5229.0808 5174.0542 81.60_ --105 5230.4404 511110 81.66 5230.4444 5139.1371 81.65__- 5230.4437 5139.1801 81.62 106 --�-_5175.4379 5125.8991 86.75 - 5175.4379 5125.9001 86.76 5175.436G 5125.9105 r 86.74_ - -. _ - __ - ,� 107 51 .--..5 ;5046A193 86.83 , 5156.5$08 5046A183 86.83 5156.5867 5046.0314 86.83 wit 108 __.. _- $7.05 87.05 - co 109 -- 1 r- 110 --- 86.67 - _-- - -- --�-- - - � - --111-- - ----86.52 - S _ 86.53 -� MOVEMENTS SINCE__._._.. . 14'IOVEMENTS SINCE - - OBSERVATION 4 LAST OBSERVATION _ _-�_" OBSERVATION _POINT ,N_ ORTHING FASTING ELEVATION---HORIZONTA VERTICAL ESCRIPTION kORIZO?+ITA�VERTICAL 1 5000.0000 '5000.0000 2 5089.9600 5000.0000 --- - 0.0000 -- 4 5209.7212 6076.0375 --- 0.0470 --- SPUR"A" 0.0413 _ to VRP-1 -- --- 100.00 --- - .RR SPIKE IN BIT. _ 101 : 5215.6163 !4987.1313 80.99 ---- -0-0189 ' ---0.00 OMP-101 0.1032 ,--�0.0.4 - - _ -- 102 5220.9372 5039.2703 81.57 - -0.0388 0.01 DMP-102 - �_. Ca 3 _ 5224.8856 5077_3367 T 81.62 ----- 0.0478 0.00 DMP-103 00361 0.07 104 5229.0721 5114,0338 81.60 0.0222 0.00 DMP-164 0.0061 Q01 _ 105 _ 5230.4522 ;5139.0868; 81.62 0.0738 0.00 DMP-145 _0.0269 O.Od 106 5175.4519 5125.8718 86.75 0.0416 0.01 DMP-106 0.0307 Q 0Q -- - -- 107 5156.5970 5046.0166 86.82 0--0-_-18-_- 4-- -0--.0-1 - -DMP-107 ---`---0-.0-1-8-7--- - --00,.001 108 87.07 DM P-108 BOLT SO - - DMP-109 BOLT SO 0.012 -- -- -- -- ---- 86.68 -- RMP-110 BOLT SO --- -' -_- 86. 5s --- DMP-111 BOLT SO _0.01 O Woods Hole, Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket Steamship Authority� p r 5M Town of Barnstable Building.Department . 367 Main St. Hyannis, MA. 02601 Attention: Ralph Crossen February 11, 1997 Dear Mr. Crossen, Please be advised that the demolition of the damaged plaza on the south side of the Hyannis Ferry Terminal will begin this week. JK Scanlan has been awarded the demolition contract which will involve removal of approximately 200 cubic yards of concrete using a non-impact removal process. Sections of wall, slabs and footings will be saw cut and removed from the site. A survey crew from Bostwick Engineering will be on site tomorrow to monitor any further movement, if any, since late fall of 1996.. The reconstruction of the plaza will start shortly after the demolition process is complete. If you have any questions, comments or advice, please.contact me at 771-0544. Thank you for your continued cooperation. Very a_- ly You 0; , 0 Bill Reich cc: Wes Ewell P.O. Box 284 Woods Hole,Massachusetts 02543 (508) 548-5011 • FAX (508) 548-8410 e, CFIME A The Town of Barnstable k BARNST LE. t z639. Department of Health, Safety and Environmental Services '�Fn raa'�" Building Division 367 Main Street,Hyannis MA 02601 Office: 508-790-6227 Ralph Crossen Fax: 508-790-6230 Building Commissioner MEMORANDUM TO: Bill Reich The Steamship Authority Hyannis Ferry Terminal Construction.Field Office FAX 508-778-6355 FROM: Ralph Crossen SUBJECT: HP Access at Hyannis Building 1. 521 CMR section 25.1 requires all entrances be accessible. Earth Tech quotes the federal rule which is accurate; however, 521 CMR is stricter and therefore prevails. l g960624a ��TMe tom,_ The Town of Barnstable gym$ Department of Health Safety and Environmental Services 1859. Building Division 367 Main Street,Hyannis MA 02601 Office: 508-790-6227 Ralph Crossen Fax: 508-790-6230 Building Commissioner PLEASE FORWARD THE ATTACHED PAGE(S) TO: TO: ;l� ATTN: FAX NO: 5ZJ —7 6 3 5S FROM: 1 r1S S e DATE: b 12-4 PAGE(S): (EXCLUDING COVER SHEET) LAWRENCE READY f MED CONCRETE CO. 888-8002 TOLL FREE 1-800-633-8889 rA . t i : 7 ; y _ z r i } , 4 t s 5 1 i s { , S ` } s , r ! t _ SERVING CAPE COD i fetter ®f Transmittal a . The Steamship Authority iI�■ •n R R Y A 1,n r F+1 .� �tL r rrr�R a-r 1 0 n R d'.$r r.!f$e n R ��ri�� 0 i 71'Y�n!.1 1 IY4311111z� 1 Go Y I Iil 11/111471 1.uwn1 k1 UL ILIUI1 I lulu U1 it"G Phone: (508) 771 -4544 sW—�;3Y-- ,-z 7S S Fax: [h 0 8] 7 7 8-6 3 h h kA i From Date: i I The following is transmitted via: ( and delivery Mail Overnight delivery ( ) Other_ O O g ry For: O your use O as requested O approval ( review and comment 4\ ( distribution ,, } revision and resubmittal { ) other Item No. of pages Date Comments: w LT 14 o u 7' A, CZ.A"t-Vil, -niL /—o Lo4-TLb/./ /VOW My s--r &L:E- 0�,t COT-- —r.6t-L N -v r t ric �r ,PpA vr. �S-n� S w `�H LA)IR7 ,p- �- i i MON 2 F-A-X 'LRTH TECH Z002 MEMORANDUM 6071/esp/mrcic-li T.— IQ, I fi9K ir"Alel'i LN V Tol Big lzeicK -kc-Sidni 'Jigincet From: Payson'A�vlhitney-EARTH TECI.-Li vi�vj�x�.t: 2'fi!'Taes°ass P-11'our phone waversation of Jun,- 12, EAR` 4 ITCH reimad-d-ic newssi-thy of placing whe-elchiii.lamps A review of an ADA Comply.ice, Gk-ndecook-rt-vealc4,that there appears to ix-is za�.- for pjujDg NkheeldlHir TWn;ns in th-l'F �U e*i act whezich"air lt; ESs lwAs loclen prwided to lGiv :n ildivif!tri nwi-al oilier areas,. grade Of 6ils sidevalk cotOid Post: i pctrltal hamrd to wheelchair users Plarim 'i wm'-T f h, talylp a! dic VVI-all, cmer of this siele'k4lk- 'w",*' invite whevidiai users io trave-i on tms st p sid-nvaik 'R:Wlor Clan -6-lle %vliaeklmil Lis,.rs-lxAards t�s 0 wrtiallv dangerous grade, EARTH TECH suggests&'e, ,Ahe;l -hai- :;vaps nuti-be pir i 'c Ca in -��Ws 10- don axic' Av ecicliair users bo directixi to tiffe otter Vricelchair accessible locarions. If you have any questions, PLase c-ontad.me at 508-3., '14239. F A A T H Ir r w t g- 1 ------------ a� --------------- VO�Ns�p•�,0 seat' Eg I FF£ 12 f r 3� o I • I� I IA I N 0612'45' E L5+ STREET CERTIFIED PLOT PLAN Qi P.�TE_ TH S =15 PLAN IS. THE PURPOSE OF SOWING THE LOCATION(S) OF PROPCSED OR ��ttx y{Sf HYANNIS FERRY TERMINAL Ex?STING STRUCTURES ANO IS NOT IN:7!--4TIVE NK*OuM �cs A BOUND.ARY RETRACEMENT SURVEY- C RECONSTRL CTION PROJECT o s� SCAM ,-_20' OAW— W/-M ,ac�y, nrer+ti ,ioe ira sao7n !, ;' �y�C1ST FOUR FIRST STREET BR DGEWA.TER. UA I Sr`lR�� _ 09324 778--6 -;�,53� . r CHILOS ENGINEERING CORPORATION BOX 333 MEDFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 02052 50B/359-8945 FAX 508/359-2751 Kenneth M. Childs, Jr., P.E. Chairman/Chief Executive Officer David L. Porter, P.E. President/General Manager O O O • O Craig 0. Sams, P.E. Vice President 31 July 1997 Mr. Ralph Crossen Building Commissioner 367 Main Street Hyannis, MA 02601 RE: The Hyannis Ferry Terminal Dear Mr. Crossen: During our meeting on Tuesday, July 26, 1997, myself and Bill Reich of the Steamship Authority discussed with you the concerns of the existing soil that is going to support the redesigned patio at the new Hyannis Ferry Terminal. We reviewed the existing soil borings taken in the area of the ' patio and the changes that were made in the redesign of the patio foundation. A copy of the soil borings and a sketch illustrating their location is included with this letter. You suggested that an additional soil boring be taken on the south side of the patio structure to an elevation of 15 feet below ground level. This boring was done on Wednesday by Desmond Well Drilling Inc. A copy ,of the boring log is also included. From reviewing the previous and most recent soil borings,it is felt that the existing soil can properly support the proposed patio structure. The anticipated soil loading from the structure is just over one ton per square foot, which the existing granular material can support especially after being compacted and tested according to the project specifications. Please review the enclosed information and if there are any questions or additional information is required,please contact the undersigned. Respectfully submitted, CHILDS ENGINEERING CORPORATION Richard G. ,P.E. C.C. ���isnF � P. Plhitne B. Reich Ali = '. 7 °04/28/97 ',ION 13: 20 FAT 508 371 2468 1 :1R7'li "HITCH 004 HMM ASSOCIATES PROJECT: Steamship Authority BORING NUMBER B-1 196 BAKER AVE. Ferry Terminal Reconstruction SHEET 1 OF 2 CONCORD, MA Hyannis, MA DATE 9/5/93 FILE 6071-401 BORING COMPANY Shiner Test Boring, Inc. BORING LOCATION Between Restaurant & Seawall FOREMAN Fred Shiner GROUND ELEVATION HMM GEOLOGIST Virginia Chadbourne DATE STARTED 9/8/93 DATE ENDED 9/8/93 CASING SAMPLER GROUNDWATER READINGS SIZE HSA 4.25" TYPE SS OTHER: DATE DEPTH CASING STABILIZATION TIME HAMMER 140# FALL FALL 30" 9/8/93 5' I HSA Initial Reading i SAMPLE STRATA. CHANGE FIELD TESTING EQUIPMENT OR SAMPLE DESCRIPTION AND GENERAL HNU WELL INSTALLED N0. REC. DEPTH BLOWS DESCRIPTION NA S-1 6" 0.5-2 25- Sampler struck cobble-no density 4" Asphalt estimate; brown coarse to fine SAND, trace silt, moist s-2 24" 2-4 2-6- Medium dense brown to black coarse to FILL 1 fine SAND, some fine gravel, little 10-10 silt, occasional cinders S-3 15" 4-6 9-7- Medium dense brown medium to fine l 5 SAND, trace silt, wet i 10-10 S-4 18" 6-8 8-8-8-8 Medium dense Lt. brown coarse to fine SAND, trace fine gravel, wet 1� dense Light brown coarse to fine NATURAL SAND S S 15 8 10 7 8 b 6 Medium 9 SAND, trace fine gravel S-6 18" 10-12 6-3-4-9 Loose coarse to fine SAND, some coarse to fine gravel, trace silt .. i i 1 S 7 24" 15-17 3-6-8-11 Medium dense coarse to fine SAND, trace silt 20 S#8241- 20-22 5-8- Medium dense reddish-brown medium to fine SAND, lenses of fine sand, trace silt * SANDS flowed into boring after sample retrieval ap "ems ION___ S USED PENETRATION RESISTANCE WELL CONSTRUCTION LEGEND t SCE 0 TO 10% 140 LB WT FALLING 30" ON 2" O.D. SAMPLER E 10 TO 20% COHESIONLESS DENSITY COHESIVE CONSISTENCY CONCRETE a BENTONITEEE GROUT 20 TO 35% 0-4 VERY LOOSE 0-2 VERY SOFT 1a0 35 TO 507 5-9 LOOSE 3-4 SOFT -� a 10-29 MED. DENSE 5-8 M/STIFF SILICA NATURAL BEDROCK EE 30-49 DENSE 9-15 STIFF SAND BACKFILL ; 50+ VERY DENSE 16-30 V-STIFF 31+ HARD �04'/28/97 110N 13: 21, FAX 508 371 2468 EARTH "11ECH 005 r (PROJECT: Steamship Authority BORING NUMBER B-1 HMM ASSOCIATES I 196 BAKER AVE. ferry Terminal Reconstruction SHEET 2 Of 2 CONCORD, MA Hyannis, MA DATE 9/5/93 FILE 6071-401 STRATA. CHANGE FIELD TESTING EQUIPMENT OR SAMPLE SAMPLE DESCRIPTION ANO GENERAL HNU WELL INSTALLED NO. REC. DEPTH BL051S DESCRIPTION NA r S 9 24" 25 27 4-6- Medium dense light brown coarse to fine ` Natural SAND SAND, trace silt I it j 11 18 B.O.E. 27' I I * 4' SAND blew into hole could not keep hydraulic head on boring r f35' II , i � � I I '15' Fr- i~ PENETRATION RESISTANCE WELL CONSTRUCTION LEGEND PROPORTIONS USED �" (RACE 0 TO lax 140 LB WT FALLING 30" ON 2" 0.0. SAMPLER GROUT j======j LITTLE 10 TO 20X COHESIONLESS DENSITY COHESIVE CONSISTENCY CONCRETE a BENTONlTE ••••'• I_� )ME 20 TO 35% 0.4 VERY LOOSE 0-2 VERY SOFT InND 35 TO 50% 5-9 35 LOOSE - SOFT 10- MED. DENSE -88 M/STIFF SILICA NATURAL BEDROCK ++++++ 30-49 DENSE 9-15 STIFF SAND BACKFILL I 50+ VERY DENSE 16-30 V-STIFF ' 31+ HARD c F J4/28/97 1iUN 1.3: 24 FAX 508 371 2468 E W1711 `171---CH 1�1008 HMM ASSOCIATES PROJECT: Steamship Authority BORING NUMBER 3-7 196 BAKER AVE. Ferry Terminal Reconstruction SHEET 1 OF 1 CONCORD, MA Hyannis, MA DATE 9/13/93 FILE 6071-401 ;ORIn- COMPANY Shiner Test Boring Inc. BORING LOCATION See Plan OREMAN Fred Shiner GROUND ELEVATION IMM GEOLOGIST Jim O'Brien DATE STARTED 9/13/93 DATE ENDED 9/13/93 CASING SAMPLER GROUNDWATER READINGS IZE NSA TYPE SS OTHER: DATE DEPTH CASING STABILIZATION TIME IAMMER HAMMER 1409 ALL FALL 301, 9/13/93 8.7' 10.01 Initial Reading SAMPLE STRATA. CHANGE FIELD TESTING EQUIPMENT OR SAMPLE DESCRIPTION AND GENERAL HNU WELL INSTALLED N0. REC. DEPTH BLOWS DESCRIPTION NA { Asphalt 0.2' Asphalt S 1 20" 1-3' 7-18 Dense, brown coarse to fine SAND, trace fine gravel and silt, with cinders 15-17 FILL ! S 2 1" 5-7' 5-6 Same as S-1 i I 6-7 8.5' H---j I jS-3 11" 10-12' 1-2 Very Loose, tan coarse to fine SAND, trace silt 2.2 GLACIAL OUTWASH S-4 24" 15-17' 4-9 Dense, brown to rusty brown medium to fine sand, trace fine gravel and silt 35-26 running sand at 161, running up into auger while driving SS i I I PS-5 24" 20-22' 6.12 Dense, brown, medium to fine SAND, trace silt 1 26-35 Bottom of exploration at 22.0' { I I ROPORTIONS USED PENETRATION RESISTANCE WELL CONSTRUCTION LEGEND RArc 0 TO 10% 140 LB WT FALLING 30" ON 2" O.D. SAMPLER 10 TO 20% COHESIONLESS DENSITY COHESIVE.CONSISTENCY CONCRETE BENTONITE EE GROUT n a'._ 20 TO 35% 0-4 VERY LOOSE 0-2 VERY SOFT 35 TO 50% 5-9 LOOSE 3.4 SOFT 10-29 MED. DENSE 5-8 M/STIFF SILICA NATURAL BEDROCK I++++++; 30-49 DENSE 9-15 STIFF SAND BACKFILL — iI 50+ VERY DENSE 16-30 V-STIFF j 31+ HARD GUILD DRILLING CO., INC. SHEET 1 OF 2 ' 100 WATER STREET • EAST PROVIDENCE, R.I. TO Childs Engineering Corporation ADDRESS Medfield, Mass HOLE NO. _SI-3 PROJECT NAME Hyannis Ferry Reconstruction LOCATION Bamstable (Hyannis), Mass. PROD:NO. REPORT SENT TO above / Project OUR"NO. 96-303 SURF.ELEV. GROUND WATER OBSERVATIONS CASING SAMPLER CORE BAR. DATE At 9.2 after Hours Type HW S/S Start 5/24/96 (Poss. Tidal) Sizel.D. 40 1-318 Complete 5/28/96 At after Hours Hammer Wt. 300# 14 # BIT Boring Foreman T. Paquette Hammer Fall 244 30" Inspector/Engr. LOCATION OF BORING Blows per 6" Strata SOIL OR ROCK IDENTIFICATION EBlo1ws Type on Sampler Moisture SAMPLE DepSample Depths of From p To Density or Change Remarks include color,gradation,type of soil etc. From-To Elev./ Rock-color,type,condition,hardness,drilling time, Sample 6 6-1 1 - Consist. Depth seams,etc. No. Pen" Rec." 0, 2,3..............D....... ..1............2...........3...... Brick 1........24... ..19... 5 0.3 Brown fine SAND,trace fine gravel-Fill ............................................................. .....................................:.... 5 Brown fine(trace medium to coarse)SAND,little _. ............ ..................................................................4...... fine gravel-Fill .................... .......... _ ..................................................................:............. ............. _.... .......... 10 Brown fine(little medium to coarse)SAND,little ................................I.........I.........I...... ........................3...... fine to medium gravel,trace silt-Fill _.................. ......... . ......................._......................................................I................. ..................... .......... _.............................. ................................ ............ 13.0 .............................. ................. 15 Brown-Rust Brown fine to medium(little coarse) __...._..__. ... ......_...._........ ..._........._.::... ........ ....7...... SAND,trace fine to coarse gravel .............._....._.. .................................................................................. ...................................................................................................... 18.0 _......................_...._............................................................... ......I....................... Brown fine to medium SAND,trace silt&fine .........3...... gravel .................... .......... ...................................................................................I............... ... ....................................... 22.5 .................... .......... ........................................................................I............................ .................. .......... 25 Brown fine to coarse SAND,little fine to medium _...._................_.........................:................... ..................8...... gravel ............................._...................................................................... _ ......... 27.3 ... ................._..................................................._...................... _._... ...-._... ..............................................................................._............... _ .......... Rust Brown fine(little medium)SAND,little silt .........................................._.:._..................._ ...................... _..................._......._.._......_.................._....._ . ..__............._ _...._.. .._..... " little coarse sand,trace coarse gravel _._.._.........._....._........_............ ...... ............._..13..... ............... .......... ........................................_. _........... _........... .... _........................................._..........I......................_.................. JROUND SURFACE TO 39.5' USED HW CASING: THEN S/S to 41.5' Sample Type Proportions Used 140 lb.Wt x 30"fall on 2"O.D.Sampler SUMMARY: D=Drive C=Cored W=Washed trace 0to 10% Cohesionless Density Cohesive Consistency Earth Boring 41.5, UP=Fixed Piston UT=Shelby Tube little 10 to 20% 0-10 Loose 0-4 Soft 30 + Hard Rock Coring TP=Test Pit A=Auger some 20 to 35% 10-30 Med.Dense 4-8 M./Stiff Samples OE =Open End Rod and 35 to 50% 30-50 Dense 8-15 Stiff *300#hammer 50+ Very Dense 15-30 V-Stiff HOLE NO. SI-3 GUILD DRILLING CO., INC. SHEET 2 OF 2 100 WATER STREET • EAST PROVIDENCE, R.I. To Childs Engineering Corporation ADDRESS Medfield, Mass HOLE NO. SI-3 PROJECT NAME Hyannis Ferrel Reconstruction LOCATION Bamstable (Hyannis.), Mass PROJ.NO. REPORT SENT TO above / Project OUR JOB NO. 96-303 SURF.ELEV. Blows per 6" Strata SOIL OR ROCK IDENTIFICATION Casing Type on Sampler Moisture Change SAMPLE Depth Blows Sample Depths of From To Density or Remarks include color,gradation,type of soil etc. er foot From-To m le Consist. Elev./ Rock-color,type,condition,hardness,drilling time, P P 0-6 6-12 12-18 Depth seams,etc. No. Pen" Rec." 39.5-41.5 D 12 13 17 Rust Brown fine(little coarse)SAND,trace silt& 9 24 11 _............................................................................................. _........... 15 41.5 coarse gravel Bottom of Boring 41.5' Installed 2.75 Inclinometer Casing at 40' 3 Couplings-2 Caps-30 lbs.Zeogel Grout: 2 Bags of Cement i uROUND SURFACE TO 39.5' USED HW CASING: THEN SIS to 41.5' Sample Type Proportions Used 140 lb.Wt x 30"fall on 2"O.D.Sampler SUMMARY: D=Drive C=Cored W=Washed trace 0 to 10% Cohesionless Density Cohesive Consistency Earth Boring 41.6 UP=Fixed Piston UT=Shelby Tube little 10 to 20% 0.10 Loose 0-4 Soft 30 + Hard Rock Coring TP=Test Pit A=Auger some 20 to 35% '10.30 Med.Dense 4-8 M./Stiff Samples ^ OE =Open End Rod and 35 to 50% `�`0 use 8-15 Stiff *300#hammer 50+ Very Dense 15-30 V-Stiff HOLE NO. SI-3 GUILD DRILLING CO., INC. SHEET 1 OF 2 100 WATER STREET a EAST PROVIDENCE, R.I. To Childs Engineering Corporation ADDRESS Medfield, Mass. HOLE NO. SI-2 _ PROJECT NAME Hyannis Ferry Reconstruction LOCATION Bamstable (Hyannis),Mass. PROJ.NO, REPORT SENT TO above / ProoW OUR JOB NO. 96-303 SURF.ELEV._ GROUND WATER OBSERVATIONS CASING SAMPLER CORE BAR. DATE At 9.3 after Hours Type HW S/S Start 5123/96 Tidal - 7.45 AM size I.D. 4" 1-3/8" Complete 5/24/96 At after Hours Hammer Wt. 300# 14 # BIT Boring Foreman T. Paquette Hammer Fall 2411 30m Inspector/Engr. LOCATION OF BORING Blows per 6" Strata SOIL OR ROCK IDENTIFICATION Casing Sample Depths Type on Sampler Moisture Change SAMPLE Depth Blows p of From To Density or Remarks include color,gradation,type of soil etc. From-To Elev./ Rock-color,type,condition,hardness,drilling time, per foot Sample 6 1 1 1 Consist. Depth seams,etc. No. Pen" Rec." Cement _.. ........0,3 2,3...........1 D............1...........2_.........3...... 1......24.......1.5.... 0.3 Brown fine SAND,trace fine gravel-Fill .................................. ..._.. ..........._......................................... .....................................................:.............. 4.0 5 Brown fine to medium(little coarse)SAND,trace ........................................... ..................................:._12..... fine to coarse gravel(Possible Fill) ............................... _.............................................................--....... ..................... .............. 10 • _..........................................._...........I..........3..... 15 Rust Brown fine to medium(trace coarse)SAND, _. ........__._.........---...... ....._........_..............3._.. little fine gravel,trace silt _..._... .............................................. ............................................... ............................... _ ............................... _......._................................................................................._..... ............................... 20 Brown silty fine SAND ............. ................................._.........................................3...... ............... .............................................................................-....................... .......................,... ................................................_..................................................... ................................................................................................. 25 Brown fine to medium SAND ......................................:........................ ......... . 5 . ...... ..... ...................................................................................................... ......................._........................................,......:.......................... ......................-....... ..........................I.....................................---.................... Rust Brown fine(trace medium to coarse)SAND, ..................._...._..................... ....................................'16..... little fine to medium gravel,trace silt ...............I..........._.. ..... ..................................-....._....................................... 1 _.............. _.......:...........__..._............................_ ............. _......_... 35 " trace medium to coarse gravel 15 ...... ... _._..._.........._._.................................__........._...................... 38.0 .........................._................................................................... ,ROUND SURFACE TO 39.5' USED HW CASING: THEN SIS to 41.5' Sample Type Proportions Used 140 lb.Wt x 30"fall on 2"O.D.Sampler SUMMARY: D=Drive C=Cored W=Washed trace 0 to 10% Cohesionless Density Cohesive Consistency Earth Boring 41.5, UP=Fixed Piston UT=Shelby Tube little 10 to 20% 0-10 Loose 0-4 Soft 30 + Hard Rock Coring TP=Test Pit A=Auger some 20 to 35% 10-30 Med.Dense 4-8 M./Stiff Samples OE = Open End Rod and . 35 to 50% 30'50 Dense B-15 Stiff *300#hammer 50+ Very Dense 15-30 V-Stiff HOLE NO. SI-2 GUILD DRILLING CO., INC. SHEET 2 OF 2 100 WATER STREET EAST PROVIDENCE, R.I. To Childs Engineering Co=ration ADDRESS Medfield, Mass HOLE NO. SI-2 PROJECT NAME Hyannis Ferry Reconstruction LOCATION Bamstable (Hyannis), Mass PROJ.NO. REPORT SENT TO above I Project OUR JOB NO. W303 SURF.ELEV. Blows per 6" Strata SOIL OR ROCK IDENTIFICATION Casing Sample Depths Type on Sampler Moisture Change SAMPLE Depth Blows of From To Density or Remarks include color,gradation,type of soil etc. From-To Elev./ Rock-color,type,condition,hardness,drilling time, per foot mple 0 6 6-12 12-18 Consist. Depth seams,etc. No. Pen" Rec." 39.5-41.5 D 3 5 3 Brown fine SAND,one 3'layer of coarse Sand, 9 24 21 ....................................................................................................... .................. 5 41.5 some fine gravel,trace silt Bottom of Boring 41.5' Installed 2.75 Inclinometer Casing at 40' 3 Couplings-2 Caps-30 lbs.of Zeogel Grout: 2 Bags of Cement i GROUND SURFACE TO 39.5' USED HW CASING: THEN SIS to 41 5' Sample Type Proportions Used 140 lb.Wt x 30"fall on 2"O.D.Sampler SUMMARY: D=Drive C=Cored W=Washed trace 0 to 10% Cohesionless Density Cohesive Consistency Earth Boring 41.5, UP=Fixed Piston UT=Shelby Tube little 10 to 20% 0-10 Loose 0-4 Soft 30 + Hard Rock Coring TP=Test Pit A=Auger some 20 to 35% 10.30 Med.Dense 4-8 M./Stiff Samples 9 OE = Open End Rod and 35 to 50% 30-50 Dense 8-15 Stiff *300#hammer 50+ Very Dense 15-30 V-Stiff HOLE NO. SI-2 1_4'D:4'=,HI1 FF.'.Cq°t Cap4 Cod Test Boring W j .T 80AINC NO. RC I ' 5 Rayber Road,Orleans, MA 02653 tQw=hip Au�hnt:ity (508)240-1OW 4 Sc 1100 . fit. , 14Yar 'liS� SHEET �_4F )_— d'.Y. De3mon4 Well Drilling, Inc. DRILLF-R:T. Desmond AING LOCATION; 7' south of patio footings WELPER: T. POwerS VUND SURFACE ELEVATION; WPPCTCR:5i1? Reich/Steamsh.i.p Authority p�Tr START: 7/29/97 DATE END, NOTES AUGER NOTES :iSA SAMPLER:SAMPLER CONSISTS OF A TWO INCH CASING SIZE: NA SPLIT SPOON DRIVEN USING A 140 L.$,HAMMER SCREEN SIZE: I�iR FALLING THIRTY INCHE$. -- WELL SAMPLE SAMPLE DBSCRIPTtON INSTALLATION No. PEN I REC OEPTH I FT BLQ�"JS 6" i i ium-coarM sand i 31 4 12 °-5 4-4-2-4Tra efane-medium-coar$e gravel TraCG silty material Brown/weL 1 B 2 4 2 '-•10' 3--2--2_3 Fj{ e-medium sand Trace fine-medium-coarse gravel Br6vn/wet 1 13 24 24 i 'r 5' -Z-4�6 SAME En, of borzng. Drilled to 13' . sampled to 15' . Grbundwtater encountered 310". I S i i I 4 1 i a f COHESIVE Sc3{!S WELT.INSTALLATION KEY PROPORTIONS USED T"LOOSE NSITY koW&FT DENSITY pd�E c2 V.SOFT NT •BfNTONliE Trace 0. 10% OSE i:8M STIFF Llttlp 10 209bNSE •W40 PACK 12•SCREEtd Somt� 20.35°la GttsE -15STIFF �, SOS BACKF�1 �.APPAOX.WATER And 35-50% FNSE 15-30 v.STIFF r3o HARD I VEL APE, COD TEST 50RING ; gMNG NO, RC 1 l TOTAL P.0 'I !• - j� '` ? - - i�/' ® / \ fir!` � ./ Ur upaV-- F i I I ;II IL _ o t rz —-� - -- — - - - I — �. r'JUz�, F'AIZGIN� CI i �I��\ 11 .. � �'� X:� .,�. I Ir:, �'--,. ,• 1� _.� i I _ LocA--riaVs -�a!_I_ I i 2 � FZSA•I � - 12SA•I -----------................_.................._....................................._.......:.__......,............,__.._..__._>....._............._._.. _....................._------......_..... .................................. _..._..__ � I E i i i i Hyannis Ferry Terminal Reconstruction Project Meeting Minutes 3/06/96 Attendees, Bill Reich - SSA Wes Ewell - SSA Jim Steidler - JKS Bernie McKernan - JKS Jim Rubino - SSA 1 John Keenan - K+K I: Old Business I 1. As-built drawings are required for the sub-slab HVAC and plumbing pipes. This relates to Sagamore's rejected PCO. j 2. Move curb 3' to the west at the north parking lot. 3. The Sewage ejector pump spec has been corrected by EarthTech.The SSA has directed JKS to proceed and will approve PCO 337 for $2887 with proper back-up documentation. 4. The sewer manhole is filling with water. The cause will be investigated this spring. 5. Electrical receptacles and radiators are in conflict in the waiting room and in tho lunch room. The SSA approves T&M PCO#35 to Systems for rewiring specified i outlets. Cable for the programmable sign is also approved. 6. The SSA will accept temporary measures upon Substantial Completion provided that the are acceptable to the SSA and Town code officials with respect to life and safety issues. 7. The SSA requests a credit for the 4"water line tap to be done by others. 8. The gas line to the generator will be reviewed by Colonial Gas on 2/15 will be completed on 3111/96. 9. The SSA will re-use the ticket office signage currently on the old building. ll. New Business 1. A T&M PCO is approved to Sagamore to extend the gas line to the generator.) 2. PCO approved for the radiator cover in the waiting room, around $400. 1 3. The K fixtures have been formally rejected by K+K and the SSA. The suspension cable and the power cord are not integrated as submitted. 4. A PCO is approved to change the K fixture lamps to a coated CU100 lamp. 1 5: A different diffuser is suggested for the top of the L fixture t() direct the light more toward the vault. 6. AS is approaching the Town for an occupancy permit. All code inspections are pp g p Y scheduled for next week. The SSA will not accept Substantial Completion until all systems are 100% complete and functional. j I . a i 7. JKS has advised the SSA io cease aii piie driving operations see memo of 20i96 from B. McKernan). The pile driving operation will continue with SSA engineers monitoring seismic activity and lateral/horizontal movement. Per Wes, AGM i contracted by Mass Highway and any claims will go through the State. Bernie suggests that AGM's insurance requirements relative to the current contract be investigated. 8. JKS suggests that all utility lines for the project be investigated for damage) resulting from the pile driving operation prior to opening the building. 9. The SSA requests a credit for the demolition of the existing ticket office. 10. JKS will request from Bostwick the survey indicating the extent to which engineered backfill was installed. Wes suggested investigating what methods are available to keep our fill material in place. I The contents of these minutes are deemed to be true and accurate. Any discrepancies, conflicts or omissions are to be submitted to the Owner, in writing, within 5 d�ys of receipt. cc: Attendees Barnstable Bldg Dept. EarthTech File 00020 P i i i i I 1 1 L7 i vot Cu cry oteR S GB ' v t �' �� �� f MHD-BRRNS FERRY F. O. PHONE NO. 578 771 4066 Mar. 21 1996 07:22RM P2 - � THE FOLLOWING IS/ARE THE BEST IMAGES FROM POOR QUALITY ORIGINAL (S) M F DATA FROM : MHD-BRRNS FERRY F. O. PHONE NO. 509 771 4066 Mar. 21 1996 07:24RM P4 F-IA6. VJZ , '1G36 14:27 508697S4e$ SO�TWIGK ENGINEERING d,• Sheet: BOSTWICK No, — Camp Sheer 3:360 Other: r-soe-69���11 Prepared by: �—.�-- �0�j k'i2��. �j�Casz�: �'�l N 1 �` M f-1 J tis M t ►J � pf- j-�- zL \I � C �� � v�U� `� C "Coo tJ .c9 c.?3 ' p C� v C� 21 W CD•,0.vs 10 - r � a, oily " ccvD! 0 . O'Ll. /31 ('_) � t � � � . 01 � / CDO `� d 00- S � � 1� } O . (7)7-1 ll Kt � Nit tk4 RkSu�.�5 �P `( �S►" R S��' S SvA�,J fl CAb P A W i�t, ��Li.Gv� woi 1� 4Rw��=n R>✓5,jC,S AaA t�lOt,o MkP' TO A"' �Cc•vRAc �S T� �c� QF A ����, � F i�.�- A ..�:� Mc��J�'C�a3z, �N� pA;';��►� �� �J�,�2�w OF MoJ�s�c►.� � Wtt�.Y � ��►+cuctir�m,�«,o�n�.ams 1 M A .w l --' F0UM : MHD-BRRNS FERRY F.O. PHONE NO. 506 771 4066 Mar. 21 1996 07:24RM P5 `J!iGp7l 74c U1-1-I P,4IA, a ru A �w. .. �. .� a�STYdICK Job: :5 o I sheet: r No: bate: I " , Comp .SheetOther: r,sca•b9769t1 2,---- Prc•narcd day: � 1*^ �P� n LA_--- I- 7,94W ax M. t;%f 1 1 1 F✓' R+ 4I), F p� ?..4 A J! � 0. t? � r Cr) zz 7 1 oil) P t=�17N r. 1�WCx1(nn1v1•�wlp+�u pnt� BARNSTABLE DNR 508 790 6275 03-19-96 02:56PM 1601 ##2 r. HYANNIS MARINA w Y 21 Ai-li11gton Street I 1y3nnis, Ntis5JCIIUsctts 02601 Tel: (108) 77 5-5062 F ix: (SOB) 775-0851 January 22, 1996 Bob O'Brian Barnstable D.P.W. Main Street Hyannis, MA 02601 Dear Bob, The Steamship Authority agreed to dredge the area on the enclosed SSA plan to a depth of -13 ' mean low water (MLW) . You will notice on this plan, in the legend and along the taper, that it calls for -13 ' MLW. Typically, there is up to a foot of overdredge as well. Recently, I became aware that SSA was not digging to that depth so i contacted their contractor, AGM, who tells me they are digging to 13' NGVD. (NGVD - 1 .41 , in this area- MLW. ) 13 ' a . NGVD.. = 11 . 6 ' at MLW. So they are not digging to -13' MLW, they are digging to -11 . 6' MLW. A vessel such as the Eagle, when loaded, I think draws about 10 . 51 . Running a 10 . 5' draft boat through 11 . 6' of water is unacceptable to most operators. Furthermore, when we have a negative tide, the situation naturally gets much worse. A 2' negative tide will make the water ( 11 .6 ' -21 ) 9.6' deep. A boat with a 10 . 5' draft will displace a lot . of mud when traveling through 9 . 6 ' of water . This will cause an incredible amount of turbidity, which in turn will cause sediment transport back into my area and other areas, which the dredging contractors are presently dredging. These areas will quickly fill with material again. There seems to be a serious misunderstanding. I respectfully request that you. check into this, because once the dredging stops, I think it will be hard to get the problem corrected and since the Army Corp's intent Is to dredge the balance of the channel to -13' , it would be unwise to dredge this area to -11 .61 . Regards, Wayne Kurker President cc: Warren Rutherford �.,.. Bob Gatewood V kA.,e4 P1rOPOSED AD0 C.ppED"nIWA AT KZW+vrS MUW* �. i G-q 400 •»••�✓, ,'' / . limits of U.S. Army Corps of Ruginee" • �• �+ �j -/ / Federal riavigation Channel Controlling Depth —12.0' M.4R. _ `s o idt I I �� c•% I Hyannis � Inner Harborcr P".1;-1:1441- a �' -t' � �a-ss sne/1r+e sTanw tvc►»>a� � ti, .� mom(_1l0 1�FJI v WE SURE a+ OOA101A1S aE B,►7M Of GfJY1 LOWVV 4-L TfD _ AbAP iilM il01AE 4-8, SMWADrT SAWLE SM t0CA1 ODOM Cl zz._ _ � - �� aA P71�GR+ 0 1 R4pp1��l,�Wa6 9WI0 0 wA1d10�" s S71✓B*.WE7��c MESAC�w�(i1Eg::: r+Kt7-Veit .� 1 ,r •'1,�+1... :`= - �.1L1 MW cma s or Off. vAL"*-ft M&UK 040 --► �r w„` .` ` -1 \`\ sit SMMIE t=*T M OW AgrWXT 9ACA) o s v O O i _� _ }:�_�.�.I _�.�(� 1 �._ ,.���.�_r Mom_ ,_�{._� ,�-1 �_. __...�____• _. -- ---�-- ---r-• __ -1. _-r- -_.;.V_ ._._�__{---�__I-�_�_��r_.. . I - 771 - - - -f- - - - - -- -` - -- _ 1 ff ff to tt rt- f _ I I a , r— J --} r-- 1- 41- 1 j � - t [ --�- 44-t :F-1-4 l Woods Hole;-;.Martha's Vineyard o and Nantucket Steamship Authority ,l WILLIAM'W.REICH T Terminal ConstrOction Coordinator Site Phone(508)862-2327 P.O.Box 284 1-800-352-7144(MA ONLY) Railroad Avenue (508)548-5011 ( Woods Hole,MA.02543 FAX(508)548-8410 i i Fax Transmittal Cower Sheet The Steamship Authority Hyannis Ferry Terminal Construction Field Office Phone: (500) 052-2327 Fax: (500) 052-2320 . ' i_ L�� i To: Fax Number: From: Bill Reic - Si e Representative Date: 3 -1 Number of pages including this form: Subject: \ / , . J� ►—=i-\��_- �( Comments: 51, PVJrL o � i 1 _ � I-- 6v Cr-1 N L--L--ritNG- L t-It 1Q� tit` �- L[.v.� 7—t a IV ry Cr i LZ i f7 BOSTWICK r Job y ��sew .,. ; Sheet ;. Comp Sheet .. No: " Date: '3 t 9 9G Z sos 697 s9ii Prepared by:�_� t ��w Other. 1 508-697-94OG fax P {II 1 1 , , - 12 ' 0 : _.._... i� /_C K._`N1..l RYZ._ .. ('v. a.a.Z �?:i�L\ T...-:�'v �` k•Z .6-leR N --A �(t.�... is - • _S Q P'�-VL'A_ .6--- -Av si..u' �c.�.( '�� g J 1 E. -. r , , r, i , i � t i t { i . , t i I ' 1---T 1 < i \\MCK\fcmiskcompsht.pm5 I 1 i Hyannis Ferry Terminal Reconstruction Project Meeting Minutes 2/21/96 Attendees: Bill Reich - SSA Wes Ewell - SSA Jim Steidler- JKS j Bernie McKernan - JKS Jim Rubino - SSA John Keenan - K+K I i . f I. Old Business 1. As-built drawings are required for the sub-slab HVAC and plumbing pipes. This relates to Sagamore's rejected PCO. 2. PCO 99 has been accepted as an add of$1800. 3. Exterior signage package has been changed to delete the 3 building signs. PCO #48 is a credit of$1800. 4. Move curb 3 to the west at the north parking lot. 5. The Sewage ejector pump spec has been corrected by EarthTech.The SSA has directed JKS to proceed and will approve PCO 337 for$2887 with proper back-up documentation. 6. Water will be supplied to the building by the end of February per Mass Highway. The 8" line from South St will be installed first. This will be sufficient for a temporary C of O per the fire department. Sagamore to provide a credit of$1009 for the water meter to be installed by others. PCO#42. 7. The sewer manhole is filling with water. The cause will be investigated this spring. 8. Electrical receptacles and radiators are in conflict in the waiting room and in the lunch room. The SSA approves T&M PCQ_#35 to Systems for rewiring specified outlets. Cable for the programmable sign is also approved, 9. If Scanlan is ready to turn the building over to the SSA and utilities to be provided by j others have not yet been delivered to the site, then the SSA will assume the costs of maintaining the facility. The building must be substantially complete, excluding Weatherend interior benches. 10. The SSA will accept temporary measures upon.Substantial Completion provided that the are acceptable to the SSA and Town code officials with respect to life and safety issues. 11. PCO#40 for $2500 will include the vanity tops for the employee bathrooms, the additional oak trim under the wall tile in the waiting room and a credit for one row of tile. Add the cost of wood shelving by AS on a T&M basis. 12. Phone lines are required for the elevator emergency phone and the alarm panel as a prerequisite for the elevator inspection. The SSA to contract with a monitoring company. Phone service and interior wiring scheduled for next week. 13. The SSA requests a credit for the 4"water line tap to be done by others. i i I i i i i 14. The gas line to the generator will be reviewed by Colonial Gas on 2/15. 15. K+K has submitted drawings for improvements to the east elevation entrance. PCO # 46 is approved for $5700 and PCO#51, the shingle work is approved for$1300. 16. PCO#45, a credit of$10,190, will deal with site furnishings. The trash receptacles are eliminated (we will use the left-overs-from the Vineyard). 8 wood benches are eliminated; four 6'ers and four 8'ers.Three of the 8 steel benches are.eliminate6. 17. The SSA has accepted PCO#47, a $6412 credit for the programmable sigh. II. New Business 1. The oil shed demolition belongs to AGM via change order. 2. The SSA will re-use the ticket office signage currently on the old building. 3. PCO#49 for 1064 is approved; adding 15 surge protection quad outlets at,the ticket counters per the request of the SSA communications 4. PCO#43,.elevator wiring alterations per the fire department, for $3010 is approved. 5. The flagpole top mast is allegedly installed backwards. Bill to review shop dwo. The contents of these minutes are deemed to be true and accurate. Any,discrepancies, conflicts or omissions are to be submitted to the Owner, in writing, within 5 days'of receipt. i cc: Attendees Barnstable Bldg Dept. EarthTech File 00020 l i i i i i I i i Hyannis Ferry Terminal Reconstruction Project Meeting Minutes 2/14/96 Attendees: Bill Reich - SSA Wes Ewell - SSA I Jim Steidler- JKS E Bernie McKernan - JKS G Jim Rubino - SSA John Keenan - K+K I. Old Business i 1. As-built drawings are required for the sub-slab HVAC and plumbing pipes. This relates to Sagamore's rejected PCO. 2. The SSA requests credits for door#9 and ticket office area. PCO #9. 3. Exterior signage package is approved from ASI, except for the spelling of"Vinyard". JKS to review allowance of$29,000 as PCO#30. Additional cost of$1150'. 4. Move curb T to the west at the north parking lot. 5. The Sewage ejector pump spec has been corrected by EarthTech.The SSA has directed JKS to proceed and will approve the PCO with proper back-up documentation. 6. Water will be supplied to the building by the end of February per Mass Highway. The 8" line from South St will be installed first. This will be sufficient for a temporary C of O per the fire department. Scheduled for week of 2/12. Sagamore to provide a credit of$1009 for the water meter to be installed by others. PCO#42. 7. The sewer manhole is filling with water. The cause will be investigated this spring. 8. Electrical receptacles and radiators are in conflict in the waiting room and in the lunch room. The SSA approves T&M PCO#35 to Systems for rewiring specified outlets. Cable for the programmable sign is also�approved. 9. If Scanlan is ready to turn the building over to the SSA and utilities to be provided by others have not yet been delivered to the site, then the SSA will assume the costs of maintaining the facility. The building must be substantially complete including interior benches and site furnishings. 10. The SSA will accept temporary measures upon Substantial Completion provided that the are acceptable to the SSA and Town code officials with respect to life and safety issues. 11. PCO#40 will include the vanity tops.for the employee bathrooms, the additional oak trim under the wall the in the waiting room and a credit for one row of tile. Add the cost of wood shelving by JKS on a T&M'basis. 12. Phone lines are required for the elevator emergency phone and the alarm panel as a prerequisite for the elevator inspection. The SSA to contract with a monitoring company. Phone service and interior wiring scheduled for next week. 13. The SSA requests a credit for the 4"water line tap to be done by others. w i k II. New Business i 1. The gas line to the generator will be reviewed by Colonial Gas on 2/15. 2. K+K to submit a drawing for improvements to the east elevation entrance. 3. PCO#44, window blind alterations, is rejected. 4. PCO#45, a credit of$10,190, will'deal with site furnishings. The trash receptacles are eliminated (wewill use the left-overs from the Vineyard). 8 wood benches are eliminated; four 6'ers and four 8'ets.Tf 'ree of the 8 steel benches are eliminated. 5. JKS has offered a $6412 credit for the programmable sign. The contents of these minutes are deemed to be true and accurate. Any discrepancies, conflicts or omissions are to be submitted to the Owner, in writing, within 5 days of receipt. cc: Attendees Barnstable Bldg Dept. EarthTech - File 00020 l ,i • _;.. j f I i Hyannis Ferry Terminal Reconstruction Project Meeting Minutes 1/31/96 Attendees: Bill Reich - SSA Wes Ewell- SSA Jim Steidler- JKS Bernie McKernan - JKS Jim Rubino - SSA I. OId Business i 1. As-built drawings are required for the sub-slab HVAC and plumbing pipes. This relates to Sagamore's rejected PCO. 2 JKS to contact hardware supplier regarding keypads for doors X1 & 10 as PCO#28. 3. The SSA requests credits for door#9 and ticket office area. PCO 49. 4. Exterior signage.package is approved from ASI, except for the spelling of"Vinyard". JKS to review allowance of.$29,000 as PCO#30. Additional cost of$1150. 5. Move curb T to the west at the north parking lot. 16. Signage changes for agents and manager's office, and fare board specs submitted to JKS. Treat as PCO#18 for$653. 7. Use all white ceiling grid throughout. Credit due the SSA as PCO#34 for$1100. 8. The Sewage ejector pump spec has been corrected by EarthTech.The SSA has directed JKS to proceed and will.approve the PC�Q with proper back-up documentation. 9. Water will be supplied to the building by the end of February per Mass Highway. The 8" line from South St will be installed first. This will be sufficient for a temporary C of O per the fire department. Scheduled.for week of 2/12. Sagamore to provide a credit of$1009 for the water meter to be installed.by others. 10. The sewer manhole is filling with water. The cause will be investigated this spring. 11. Electrical receptacles and radiators are in conflict in the waiting room and in the lunch room. The SSA approves T&M,PCO to Systems for rewiring specified outlets. j Cable for the programmable sign is also approved. 12, If Scanlan is ready to turn the building over to the SSA and utilities to be provided j by others have not yet been delivered to the site, then the SSA will assume the costs of maintaining the facility. The building must be substantially complete which is 1 scheduled for the end of February. 13. JKS is in receipt of K+K's directive for additional furniture per Jim Rubino. PCO#38 for$2450, assembly, installation and clean-up by JKS. 14. K+K to resolve problem in women's room with respect to handicap stall accessories. PCO#41 approved for$548. 15.The SSA will accept temporary measures upon Substantial Completion provided '_that the are acceptable to the Town code officials with respect to life and safety issues. 16. PCO#40 will include the vanity tops for the employee bathrooms, the additional .oak trim under the wall tile in the waiting room and a credit for one row of tile. i 1 11. New Business i 1. Interior benches to be white Weatherend with Awlgrip on maple. 2. Phone lines are required for the elevator emergency phone and the alarm panel as a prerequisite for the elevator inspection. The SSA to contract with a monitoring j company. Phone service and interior wiring scheduled for next week. 3. Exterior signage sub wants 30% down payment. SSA will,consider joint check to his supplier and him. Other approved suppliers are listed in the spec. 4. The SSA requests.a credit for the A"water line tap to be done by others. 5. The assesor's officehas assigned-the building the official address of 141 School St. The contents of these minutes are deemed to be true and accurate. Any discr pancies, conflicts or omissions are to be submitted to the Owner, in writing, within 5 days of receipt. cc: Attendees Barnstable Bldg Dept. EarthTech File 00020 i myannis Terry i erminai Keconstruction Project Meeting Minutes 1/23/96 Attendees:,Bill Reich - SSA Wes,Ewell - SSA Jim Steidler- JKS" Bernie McKernan - JKS Jim Rubino - SSA , I I. Old Business 1. As-built-drawings are required for the sub-slab HVAC and plumbing pipes. This relates to Sagamore's rejected PCO. 2 JKS to contact hardware supplier regarding keypads for doors X1 & 10 as PCO#28. 3. The SSA requests credits for door#9 and ticket office area. PCO#9. 4. Signage package is approved from ASI, except for the spelling of"Vinyard". JKS to review allowance of$29,000 as PCO#30. 5. Move curb 3' to the west at the north parking lot. 6. Signage changes for agents and managers office, and fare board specs submitted to JKS. Treat as PCO#18. 7. Use all white ceiling grid throughout. Credit due the SSA as PCO#34.. 8. Upstairs bathroom Type G light fixtures conflict with the sprinkler piping. In addition, j there is a problem with the jog in the public men's room. 19. The Sewage ejector pump spec has been corrected by EarthTech.The SSA has directed JKS to proceed and will approve the PCO with proper back-up documentation. 10. Water will be supplied to the building by the end of February per Mass Highway. The 8" line from South St will be installed first. This and the tie-in at School St will be sufficient for a temporary C of O per the fire department. Scheduled for week of 2/12. 11. The sewer manhole is filling with water.The cause will be investigated this spring. 12. Electrical receptacles and radiators are in conflict in the waiting room and in the lunch room. The SSA approves T&M PCO to Systems for rewiring specified outlets. Cable for the programmable sign is also approved. 13. If Scanlan is ready to turn the building over to the SSA and utilities to be provided by others have not yet been delivered to the site, then the SSA will assume the costs of maintaining the facility. 12. JKS is in receipt of K+K's directive.for additional furniture per Jim Rubino. PCO #38. 13. K+K to resolve problem in women's room with respect to handicap stall accessories. 14. Jim Rubino expressed concern over security with regard to the sliding doors. JKS suggests that we wait for the manufacturer to make final adustments and demonstrate the operation of the system. i.15. The SSA will accept temporary measures'upon Substantial Completion provided I that the are acceptable to.the Town code officials with respect to life and safety issues. !16. Attic hatch details approved by John Keenan. i i `I I II. New Business 1. PCO#40 will.include the vanity tops for the employee bathrooms, the additional oak trim under thewall=tile in the waiting room and a credit for one row of tile. 2. PCO#41„will include costs associated with changing the toilet accessories in the women's handicap istall. We are also adding two napkin disposal units in the other 2 women's toilet rooms. The contents of these minutes are deemed to be true and accurate. Any discrepancies, conflicts or omissions are to be submitted to the Owner, in writing, within 5 days of receipt. cc: Attendees Barnstable Bldg Dept. i EarthTech File 00020 i i rM1 I I I { y i 's I i e� Hyannis Ferry Terminal Reconstruction { Project.Meeting Minutes 1/17/96 z j i Attendees: Bill Reich - SSA Wes Ewell SSA Jim Steidler- JKS Bernie McKernan - JKS Jim Rubino - SSA !. Old Business 1. As-built drawings are required for the sub-slab HVAC and plumbing pipes. This relates to Sagamore's rejected PCO. 2. The elevator shaft roof and stack will be built with a 2 hour rated drywall ass Imbly in lieu of the concrete and metal flue as designed. The SSA requires,waterproofi g protection for the GWB from driven rain. The SSA suggests submitting the product info to John Tuckwood for review. 3. JKS to contact hardware supplier regarding keypads for doors X1 & 10 as PCO 428. 4. The SSA requests credits for door#9 and ticket office area. PCO#9. 5. Signage package is approved from ASI, except for the spelling of"Vinyard".' JKS to review allowance of$29,000 as PCO#30. 6. Move curb 3' to the west at the north parking lot. 7. Signage changes for agents and manager's office, and fare board specs submitted to JKS. Treat as PCO#18. 8. Use all white ceiling grid throughout. Credit due the SSA as PCO #34.. 9. Upstairs bathroom Type G light fixtures conflict with the sprinkler,piping. In addition, there is a problem with the jog in the public men's room. 10. The Sewage ejector pump spec has.been corrected by EarthTech.The SS.A has directed JKS to proceed and will approve the PCO with proper back-up documentatlon. 11. Water will be supplied to the building by the end of February per Mass Highway. The 8" line from South St will be installed first. This and the tie-in at School St will be sufficient for a temporary C of O per the fire department. Scheduled for week o�2/12. 12. The sewer manhole is filling with water. The cause will be investigated this ;spring. 13. Additional pump station conduits are installed. PCO #26. 14. Electrical receptacles and radiators are in conflict in the waiting room and ip the lunch room. The SSA approves T&M PCO to Systems for rewiring specified o�tlets. Cable for the programmable sign is also approved. i 15. A 2" baekflow preventer is required on the boat water line. PCO#33 submitted for $1606 and approved, Required by Town Building. Dept. 16. Temporary water may be required for the boiler start-up and for the make-tjp water. Rusty's requests PCO for around $300. I il. New Business 1. JKS is in receipt of K+K's directive for additional furniture per Jim Rubino. 2. Nall tile is approved as submitted. 3. K+K to resolve problem in women's room with respect to handicap stall accessories. 4. Jim Rubino expressed concern over security with regard to the sliding doors. JKS suggests that we wait for the manufacturer to make final adustments and demonstrate the operation of the system. 5. The SSA will accept temporary measures upon Substantial Completion provide' that the are acceptable to the Town code officials with respect to life and safety issues.' i 6, Attic hatch details to be submitted to K+K and the SSA for review. i i The contents of these minutes are deemed to be true and accurate. Any discrepancies, conflicts or omissions are to be submitted to the Owner, in writing, within 5 days of receipt. 1 cc: Attendees i Barnstable Bldg Dept. EarthTech File 00020 j 9 i i I i Y . I j 1 Hyannis Ferry Terminal Reconstruction Project Meeting Minutes 1/10/96 IF s Attendees: Bill Reich - SSA Wes Ewell - SSA Jim Steidler - JKS F Bernie McKernan - JKS Jim Rubino - SSA John Keenan - K+K 1. Old Business 1. As-built drawings are required for the sub-slab HVAC and plumbing pipes. This relates to Sagamore's rejected PCO. 2. The elevator shaft roof and stack will be built with a 2 hour rated drywall assembly in lieu of the concrete and metal flue as designed. The SSA requires waterproofing protection for the GWB from driven rain. The SSA suggests submitting the product info to John Tuckwood for review. 3. JKS to replace two damaged window sash 4. JKS to contact hardware supplier regarding keypads for doors X1 & 10 as PCO #28. 5. The SSA requests credits for door 99 and ticket office area. PCO 99. 6. Signage package is approved from ASI, except for the spelling of"Vinyard". JKS to review allowance of$29,000 as PCO #30. 7. Move curb 3' to the west at the north parking lot. i 8..S►gnage changes for agents and manager's ottice, and tare board specs submitted l to JKS. Treat as PCO #18. 9. Use ail white ceiling grid throughout. Credit due the SSA as PCO #34.. 10. Upstairs bathroom Type G light fixtures conflict with the sprinkler pipincl. In addition, thara is n nrnhlam With tha inn in thn ni ihlin rn man'S.` rn nnry LI IVI V.IV to t./1 VI✓1 +11 • Ill l ll lr ,V� 111 ll lV r./b1 NIIV 111V11 I VV . 1-1. The Sewage ejector pumps were spec'd and approved for 480 Vdit motors. ` EarthTech has respec'd the correct motors requiring a 30 Amp breaker and 10 gauge power wiring. There is a possible re-stock charge associated witl 1 this substitution. 12. Water will be supplied to the building by the end of February per Mass Highway. The 8" line from South St will be installed first. This,and the tie-in at School St will be sufficient for a ten-7porary C of Q per the fire department. 13. Completion of sitework is dependent upon improvements to be made by AGM. Coordination and cooperation between all parties will be required. 14. The sewer manhole is filling with water. The cause will be investigated this spring. 15. Additional pump station conduits are installed. RC�O#26. 16. Electrical receptacles and radiators are in conflict in the waiting room and in the lunch room. The SSA approves T&M PCO to Systems for rewiring specified outlets. Cable for the programmable sign is also approved. 17. JKS has proposed a no cost change relative to the decorative fence; change to all aluminum to prevent possible galvanic action. JKS will provide specific, alternative details for K+K's revievlv. '• I j o , 18. A 2" backflow preventer is required on the boat water line. PCO 433 submitted for $1606. Bill to review marine contract for possible alternative solution. j 10. Temporary water may be required for the boiler start-up and for the make-qp water. 20. If Scanlan is ready to turn the building over to the SSA and utilities to be provided by others have not.yet been delivered to the site, then the SSA will assume tho costs of maintaining the facility. The contents of these minutes are deemed to be true and accurate. Any discrepancies, confiicts,or omissions are to be submitted to the Owner, in writing, within 5 days of j receipt. cc. Attendees Barnstable Bldg Dept. i. EarthTech File 00020 i i F i i I i i I Hyannis Ferry Terminal Reconstruction Project Meeting Minutes 1 f3196 Attendees: Bill Reich - SSA Wes Ewell - SSA Jim Steidler JKS Bernie IvicKernan - JKS Jim Rubino - .I I. Old Business 1. JKS has submitted PCO #8 for $13,000 for adding brick feature strips in the j oourtyard. Driok vviII bo full thiokn000 and Got on a oand bad in a backot woavo pattorn. r j Sample approved. 2. Rosa Rugosa have been eliminated. JKS has determined that PCO #22 is a no cost change. 3. The sewage pump control panel has been submitted thru JKS for approval. JKS has submitted a tentative price of$5110 for the panel. (PCO #6). Bill to contact Payson for a status report on the submittal. 4. As-built drawings are required for the sub-slab HVAC and plumbing pipes. This relates to Sagamcre's rejected PCO. 5. The elevator shaft roof and stack will be built vv t-h a 2 hour rated drywail assembly in lieu of the concrete and metal flue as designed. TheSA reauires watergroofina protection for the GWD from driven rein. The SSA suggests subs fitting the product info to John Tuckwood Tor review. 16. The fire department connection for the sprinkler system will be located at the west ;side of the building per drawing SA-1. JKS has submitted PCO#16, not to exceed $6529, for running a dry pipe from the sprinkler riser to the Storz connection per j EarthTech's sketch. An additional offset is required at the soffit location. 7. The SSA has upgraded the wall shingles to R&R Selects. JKS to initiate a PCO #17 Ifor$150. 8. An 8" high platforni vvill be built of i the cantilevered part of the balcony. This is PCO #24 for$1,000. 9. JKS to replace two damaged window sash. 10. The wall behind the public telephones is to be carpeted, counter to ceiling and wall returns. JKS to treat the issue as PCO #19 for$250. Color selected by K+K. 11. Wes requires K+K to review the liability issue with regard to people accessing the roof. 12. The annunciator panel is not required and the SSA will receive a credit of$1 K as `;-PCO #13. 13. SSA approves $300 for PCO#20; a 6"x 30 vision panel in the employee lunch room exterior door. 14. Corridor 117 is to carpeted instead of terrazzo. JKS to subi-nitted a credit of$1500 as PCO#21, The SSA rejects the offer based on unit pricing and requests a re- submittal. f 15. JKS to contact hardware supplier regarding keypads for doors X1 & 10 as PiCO 1 nn 88 ttiEL 0. 16. The SSA requests credits for door#9 and ticket office area. PCO#9. � 17. Signage package is approved from ASI, except for the spelling of"Vinyard".; JKS to review allowar ice of$29,000. 18. Move curb 3' to the west at the north parking lot. j 19. Signage changes for agents and manager's office, and fare board specs submitted to JKS. Treat as PCO #18. 3. Use all white ceiling grid throughout. Credit due the SSAas PCO #34.. 4. Upstairs bathroom Type G light fixtures conflict with the sprinkler piping. 5. The SSA approves 2 eacf �" gate valves as PCO # 31 not to exceed $2500. II. New Business 1. The Sewage ejector pumps were spec'd and approved for 480 Volt motors. f EarthTech has respec'd the correct motors requiring a 30 Amp breaker and 10 i auge power wiring. 2. Water will be supplied to the building by the end of February per Mass Highway. � 3. Completion of site work is dependent upon improvements to be made by AGE. Coordination and cooperation between all parties will be required. 4. The sewer manhole is filling with water. The cause will be investigated this sp[ing. 5. Additional pump station conduits are,installed. PCO #26. 6. Electrical receptacles and radiators are in conflict in the waiting room and in the lunch room. The SSA approves T&M PCO to Systems for rewiring specified outlets. Cable for the programmable sign is also approved. 7. The elevator must be installed as a condition of Substantial Completion. It is due in 3 112 weeks. 8. The SSA suggests a no cost change relative to the decorative fence, change to all aluminum to prevent possible galvanic action. K+K to review. 9. A 2" backflow preventer is required on the bout water line. PCO#33 submitted for $1606. Bill to review marine contract for possible solution. . I . The contents of these minutes are deemed to be true and accurate. Any discrepancies, conflicts or ornissions are to be submitted to the Owner, in writing, within 5 days, of receipt. cc: Attendees Barnstable Bldg Dept. EarthTech r File 00020 1 04 Hyannis Ferry Terminal F,,econ 5t ruct ion Project Meeting 1 2M M-1, Attendees: Blil "SA Wes Fwell SSA lim Sle Jn Bernie MicKernan - JKS 1. 016, Business 1 jKS has submMed a price of$11000 for addng bhok ka[uiu sirips 11 K ti-lu, F�ric* will hp full lhicknE,--ssand opt con a send bed in a baskel I lRosa FRuqosa nave been eliminated. .JKS vviii revie�.A,the S(11-1%=TJTIJI;C)n tc\,r 3. The sewage pump cunhol panel has been s1- bc,,iii1ed, llw'u JK fol j;-\& submitted a tentative pric.(.-.� of$151 10 for the panel. (PU-) #6). 1. As-built are required I,',-)r the sub-slaL, ai"id plumbinC,, l-,ipe,— Th�, relates to . I eje�c[eci PCO. 1-5 The elevator shaft roof and stack will be to IN Wth a 9 hour in 1hu of Te concrNe and nict,,,l flue; ias designed, TO pnxeton for the GVVE's from driven rain. 6 The he Xpat--eni r,,onne tion Rw We spiirkRy system to H he Kcated W 1hp -PY f -" t" C C 1 'Ste o Te bukdOg per doWng SA-1. jK5has subii iecIPO ", not ,Cexc�e $6529 for vniTal a My pq)e (Tom the sprinkler 1*(.-) the conneclion p(..-r Ti 'A has cygaded the waH Wing% to R&R Seiucts. ic) if ohatu d i; i',-" i Mr S 150. 8, An 8" hyh pbtfomi will be built on the canti!cvc,,,,\.d p3r, th.c. 9 Am RuNno requests a fare board as additional ,;i(,inaqe. He ,%AIili revie`!v K+K's catalog. BIT ve,.Ml or�-Jer thru JKS as PCn #18 I C). jK\3 ',c) feplact✓ two dai-naged v%iindow sash. 11. The wall behind the public telephones is to be cmpetecl, ccomler to cell nq and wall returns. JKS to ti-,:at the as PC-'O �F'l 9. cc!-cct-cd Ly K+K. 12. Wes requxes K*K to review the loMy issue Wth i e-gard o people accessing ti it- roof. 13. Th-c annundaOr pond is not required amid the SSA W! 1-ccccivc c crcdil. PGO It 3. 1.4 t.. A, ao $,!() p O ol if-! -hr f �r,hpe: ' r "" f p 1 exterioi. door. 1 b PIX) #11, the gutter cri Hie east snip rs, aq-:)roved for S-18DU if-3. Cl,)rFidoF '117 is to carpPed HISLead of terrazzo. N.", !,� ts""C' 17 Sysifen-is inl * G Ifixt-ures ii i the Met seing of - added fixlur&s E:xGi of fl-ie L. fixture in the * SyMms carl fond c lot tric for the MD not kvil subf-I-litted spuc 5C IUrI 16.3. 12 as thu SSAI-, i't-t;pOf I`iu1. Its -,njili Gorliif lue umd('[ prolust. K T-14, to fir,nalize; -,ite sign location. K+K reqL!P',tS stainless steei wail piates in public areas. in contnct hardwim supp,!ier reg�,mdin�i in!- Jnnf-,� 'XI 1 it The SSA requE;sts credits hor door 49 and ltickEt office area. PCO 4S, 20. Sqna.le package is approved from ASI, except for the spp- Ilinq of Ninyard'!I "JKS to a n ,c o� S 20 2-1. i-mfimiatt✓ uulu(,,; by K*K. J. 92 JKS to Mot PCO N20 for covering t.-x,--ise with Fk-,indard d" vinyl caMit base l✓•ali i t C..�C! 1 im(--we curl) to trievvest. at the north parlmg lot I SQ2, champc W zgMs and managM Mcc, -):id fa,,,e -zpccim; sub�-nitto'd tu VS. i 3 SAW Mmorpon grid is 4 weeks out. Use white in non-j-,uhiic, areas, chIle th(---, ,4. i-jpsiairs l),,7.iT.nronrn i ype light Mums conflict %van the inkier pipnq 5 Thr, SSA appmvez 2 each 8" gate valvm; as, P(-n •# ,�i nNif to %25C...., G. Ke-y'ii i.,,.j Systern subri"itted ILG JIKS. T!"."-, ;ill; xe dcemed to be Luc wK =L011. Any dQcmprdc,-, (;UfIi*iiU[s or offllb"Iunsafe to be su(JmANd bi I& C)wrmk W wdbnq, Mdn 5 day§ W cc: Attendees R,-.rn�t a!-.'I Cs ECII H I-Ftci I hoe M to.) .rxa..uq. .www..—.a......a.t..,,.R.......+w.m.m•..-n--....roi.......:«�a...ee..,....... � ! 1 i F-iyannis Ferry Terminal ty_i c;nstn_li:rirn N1c,"etin("I 12035-5, i I Jim Rubino - SSA John Kt en an - I.+K ' J�Ick L?anKert - JKS j !. Okj Business i i i 1. Jr:S has SUul7rntt..., a price Cit .y1 J,UJU fc;r Lddir-iq i.%i ii;K f: tial% tii.11_,., n tl le courtyard. Colored concrete is eiimini ted. Brick wili be full thickness and set on sand bed;. Submit snm fle for approval. i Rosa RuglCasa love been alf ninated. jKS wit review the c;i.Ji:jCj tit2cl substitution for price impact. 3. The sewage pump cun% panel has been suNwitted thru JIBS for approval JI<S has 5ut rc li Od i i tervatwe Ppi ice of $51 10 ioi, the le paned. (PCO 46). 1. As-huilt drat,/ingv ;ire required for the sl_!h sl;rl_I 1-I\/A(; ar-id {-lun-ibing pij-)e- ,.I TNz relates to item 8; Sagaimorc;'s PCO. I -(he elevator shaft roof and stack will be bt.iilt with a ! not-ir rated drywall assembly In Hej of the coixgete and metal flue as desUned The, SSA requires 'waterprnoff-ig Pi*0kV,;6Or'i for U Ie GVVL,' fron i drivei-i rain. I f . Thp fire department connection for the sprinkler system be located at the West side of the building per dray^ring SAX JKS has submitted a change ovie'r fIx�rUrll'inq My FApe frond the sprinkier riser to the Sitar con(ieciian I_)er E.ari{-I-fecli's Sketch. 7. The SSA. has upgraded the shingles to RRAR Sri^cl=.. .It<c to initi,�,ite a PCO. 8. 'plan Jones requires joist hangers at tho bay root` location due, to paps between the joists and the header. 9. An 8" high platform Will be built on the c arltilevered purl of tht Ll,iicony. 1 —i 1 l I I I I i 10 iim Rubino a fart, IDnard as add Tdwl.qigna4je 1-1(, will revieva K+K',; calzbg. Rill will orC;er thru JKS as PCO -41 S. 11 JKS to replaces the damaged window sash in the Managers othns 12. The 'v,!all behind 1hu public telephones is to be carpeted COLM&to ccIng and M returns. jK• ILo t>Ljbnii[ aq_-)et sampbs and Al treat Hie issue as PCG' 13. VVes rE c7l.liri.s K+K to review the liability issue with regaR.1 to people acnessing the, roof. 14, J-he annuncmtor panei is not requmed and SA the S recit iests an �appropri,�,it.e credit, as P. 413. '!5. F-Fai-ning PLMoh HI ismakis incOnliYete OWT, i eiji�ii d ai id 2x 1,2 blocking. 1 10. S�SA 2pprovcs fc'r PCO �!21 a 6"X 30" panc! t1he lu-nch i I-0on-I exterior doof-. 20. ..IKS priced installation A a gutter and dovanspnut an the nnah Me of the downlairs enkancev_-��tibule PCO #11 is subt-nitted for ,11,43100 and is bc;inq reviewed by me 1. JKS requests reproducible copies of the revised ticket office area drawmio" 22. Light pole bases for all Jr Mums wii! be 14 diarnetiitr sor,otube, 3' 23: Per Alan Jones, reinstall vertical tmms members around the AHU in th P.- '..)ttic' 24. Corriclor 117 is to carpeted instead of terrazzo. AS to i,aSUC CrCdit 2.S !'--)CC) -!;12'!. 20. systems Contracting had the [ollowing questions: K fixtures require ballasts within 5' of the fixture. VVe will install --iccass:pands in to radAs ceing. ' G fixtures in the ticket selling area - status of order to be investigated and changes may I Any not be made to accomodate new lay-oi,.it depending on price ,:,11-1d latus of the order. * Second 1TD compatible phone back box to be installed downstairs at lower of the, 2 e!evations, SyMems contends that Hie conUol wiring Q the auto IiLiSh vaives is nol: theils. Bill submitted spr, c section 16.3.12 as the SSA's res!.-)onse. Systems will confinue under protest. K+K to finalize site sign iocation H. New Business .1 CaSew to reVje�.-�, the fire depaftm�--_,!--it c Cnnection .1 1 . price. 1 2. JKS to coritac.L harckAare SUpplier regarding keyp -ids for doo,s XI 3. The SSA (,-recfits, for the unused L fixtures, door#9 and ticket office area, 4. SUnage pao.kage is approved, f"orn AS11 Cxcept for the. spelling --f"Vin.yard''. J'KS' r. review aiio\n/ance. K+K needs lanninate chips for color selections. - 16. AS I SubiTiit PCO ior cove ring wood base with carpet bas'e ,,"Alerever Pciinted base was specified. 7. DePaoli to sljbn.�it control joint pattern for approval. 8 Ce ill iqs to be i�)vveiwd 4" downsw4s, Shone, pundai s; GI:, ,uqun w, iyhi %Rvs, ;Y 1 i Hyannis Ferry terminal Recon str!rerun Project l':/!cef"ing Minutes I t 612W95 I 1 I /\ttendees r ill Feeicn - S n; W- Well . SSA .Win I WCIl.11er - US Jim I-:c_!hinn - SSA 'eentc McKeman JKS Rich Burt - Systems Contracting Dave Murphy' i 1 Coo FSr.isiness l 1 JKS has sl_rluautted ( price of$13 000 fear addMg bnck Ihatur(z� ,tips ril tht7 -ourtynrd �clror-ed concrete i{- l Brick' 1 thickness ss and set 01 I :....r Ic.l bt'�_l .;,ull-,Ir r ._ � ,.0 c.� Icrct., ,:, c_L..a„I�t.�;�l. Br {;will be lull th�;,!< i ,n t � is J., J ,. siln ipie for ,al_Iprovai. I Rosa lY,_gosa have been eliminated. .JKS %All review the sugge.,Med si_hs;tirl ition for pi icy: ir,ip�zct. a. I he sewage purnp c(-}ntrol panel was not !mclt_Iden In the I wyect spec!ticahiins. The e panel will be re ted in the fist Moor We r S rJa r000l rih an a_ bI(:., alarnl. c:aiiiI I01,1I IIhs iiiariSiliiirrG a Co it!actor Diredive t0 SuUnit a pariF;'I for appr6val Cllven tho pe;-fonance spec of the directive. JKS has submitted ,( tent,,,%ve p frier of`65110 for Uic pane!. #. .ilnl RUbIrltt recaue ,i5 t-lal ceramic the base be, �iubstitl_itc;d for the specified iQuad base in the tq t aks; batl-irooms. He has also rE:sclt.lerted tha-.t the base in the ebf.t-lcay(-.�e lounge and the Gvv,,nstairs employee restroams be chanCal d from bvood to gt..i,arr'y` Llic:. ..ik.,S to treat as PCca #10 for $18,53, `_}. As-built drav,/ings _ve required for the sub-sl_al_I [-IV A,'-,' -and plurnbitng pipes This i rlatr_ ro item 6: Sagarnore's PCO. 0. •JKS to initiate PCO #14 for 3 door closers in Me amount of$700. ' The el�:vat r' u of and � by 7 i , . ; 11;. ::I,,.:��or :>,r�ft re.., ar,.J stack�v;li �,=; guilt with a � hour ±•ateJ d,wal! u'<s;vmbly in heu of the concrete and metal flue as desic_Ined. Ple SSA require's wateQ000 ig !protection of the r-:WB from driven rain. ; rU _.I.Iry.- . ill I :I t h .t is lu c; •(���%cartl 11�:1 Il i:Ui iric�.t{Cil i f0{ a I�: ,prli inli,l i�r'ut0i i i 'vJ{li iJl' IOi�iltiU u� the bV;:it side or the building per drawing SAO JKS to Submit a change order for running a dry pipe from Ihu 'sprinkler riser to the Skorz connection per Darth-D ich's, sketct-;. 9. The Do kside s fire hydrant 'vvlll be furnished and installed by ti ie kNate( D'_#?a trl It'I it per Joe Del!_iz, based on his conversti,on with the Town. Bill to coordinat with the Toren Water Company. W. Tilt-' SSA fus uppaded the wall shingles to P<&R Selecis. JKS to haitiate EKG. C . 11. Alan Jones requires; ioist hangers at the bay roof framingii loc, tinr7 c1l_1e tea claps. t t.1C; vdi;(:ri the joists and ti1i� header. An " high platform will he built on the cantilevered part of the balcony. John will r r,rri'rl•::{tt::, , t-ai s \TJ(I iKS. I i i r i i 11 3. Jim Rijbina requests a fare board as additional sinnage. He \,vill mvie��,, K+K's Bill will oi-Udei- thru JKS as PCO 418. I L r- 14. JKS to replace the damacjecl ,vindow sash in the Manar c ger'F, offi e. The behind the, p ub!ic tclephones is to be c,'arnoted, Counter to "rtjjjr,jri J t-jr, �qo teLh.1-r- 6. jr\O LU subs? carpet samples and 'will treat the lssije as PCO 41119. 16, Wes requires K+K to review the.liabilifv issue with regard to people accessing the roof. 17. The annumator panel is not required and the SS*,-,, requests an appropriate credit I 0 a PC #13. 18. F"raming puinch list rernains inoomple"evvith joisl hanioei-s ai,ij blocking. $300 for PCO#,)n. a 6, n�,,vi_zi.n�,j nanel in th- -mn!o, or, I- - room exterior door. 20. JKS priced the installation of a-gutter and do,,vnspni..it system cm the north of tho Cwrjf-r-:tn�_n ni;ff C.11- 1 - --IibLll--. PCC #111 is sub: ,,-d for 15418,00 line i's reviewed by the SSA. I!. Nev-i Business 1. JKS requeStS roprodUcible copies. of the rCVjs0d ticket offic1 .e area Z. Light pole bases for ail S fixtures will be 14" diameter sonolubes '3" deep. 3. Per Alan Janes. reinstall vertical truss members around the AHIJ in the attic., 4. Corridor 1.17 is to carpeted instead of terrazZo. JKS to issue cr.-dit as !-'CO 5. Install hockey sticks at the west retaining wall prior to pouring the patio slab. 1 6 The SSA is to submit a spec on the ATM machine. I L �, IT, _L1 LI IC IUIIUV I I�j HU OL I i 7 SYS'ei-cis C& 'raoling had Followi -ejoS K fixtures recli,lire IDaliasts within 5' of the fixture. We will install access panels in the radius ceili,ng,. G fixtures in 11he ticket selling area - status of order to be irwesiLiga[ed acid changes may of may not be made to accomodate new lay-out depend i ricl on f-.)rire and status of the order. Condt..iit to HCP station to be run overhead, Second T_FIn comnatij,-)IP r)hone back hoy to Ll,-4 inslaj!E.d lowver of il iiEm, 2 elevai:ions. Systern,,3 will continiue Wider ixotest. Systems contends that the control wirinc) for the auto flush valves is not theirs. rail! submitted I:--P,_,c section 1(:5.3.12) as the SSA' , ro.pclnse. K+K to linalize SiLe si(-- i L:-I- Pwage rump station to be formally submitted to EarthTech for approval. PCO It!;,- vAll deal v..,ith ceiling hung' exlit signa(:.je. The contents of these mini.ites are deemed to b�::IL.rup and acci..jrate. An,.,, disrrenanci,--s .1, l;orilliots Or ai,e "o be to the C/1,M)Ei" If.,i receipt, cc, Attei Idees Barnstable E1.1do Dept. a;I h,-F c c h FOP 000-11-0 11-03-1994 10:23AM ,- FROM WH MU NT STEAMSHIP AUT TO 15087753344 P.02 Woods Hole, Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket Steamship Authority AUTNORTTY MEMBERS FINANCE ADVISORY BOARD ACTING GENERAL MANAGER y� E!l=RNARb b.GROSSMAN. ROBERf G MURPHY TREASURERlCOMPTROLLER Nantucket Member,Chairman Martha's Vineyard WAYNE C.LAMSON RONALD H.RAPAAPORT NORMAN F.BEACH Dukes County Member,Vft Chairman Nantucket GENERAL COUNSEL WILLIAM R,ANDREWS PAUL R.KELLEHER STEVEN M.SAYERS Falmouth Member,Swistary Falmouth ROBERT L.O'BRIEN Samstable'Member,Associate Secretary November 3, 1994 W. Ralph Crosson Building Commissioner Barnstable Town Hall 367 Main Street Hyannis,MA 02601 Dear W. Crossen: On October 31, 1994,1 delivered to your office a request from the Massachusetts DEP for a Municipal Zoning Certificate, along with a Form D certificate ready for your signature, and several legal opinion letters that clearly cite the case law that exempts the Steamship Authority from local zoning jurisdiction. Included in this packet was a letter from former Barnstable Town Counsel Henry L. Murphy,Jr. to the then Board of Selectmen stating that the Authority is not subject to local zoning bylaws of the Town of Barnstable. You and I have also had several telephone conversations about this issue. Notwithstanding any question of exemption,the Authority follows a policy of complying with local zoning to the extent that the regulations do not unduly interfere with operations. In this case,we have made every effort to comply with Barnstable zoning regulations,and we are not aware of any aspect of this project that is not in compliance. The Hyannis ferry terminal reconstruction project has been through not one,but two courtesy site plan reviews: on February 4, 1993 and again on June 9, 1994. We have also presented the plans to any groups and individuals who expressed interest, have negotiated a detailed mitigation agreement with the Town Council,and have made substantial changes to the plans in response to requests from neighboring property owners. Furthermore, we have put the project through complete MEPA review and have a Final Environmental Impact Report certified by the agency. Please sign the DEP certificate as soon as possible and return it to me. The Massachusetts Highway Department is prepared to advertise for construction bids,and needs this document in order to proceed. Sincerely Wesley J. Ewell " Special Projects Manager P.O. Box 284 Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543 (508) 548-5011 • FAX (508) 548-8410 . . - JK SCANLAN Company, Inc. March 22, 1996 Mr. Ralph M. Crossen Building Commissioner Town Office Building 267 Main Street Hyannis, MA 02601 Re: Hyannis Ferry Terminal Building Dear Mr. Crossen: We want to thank you for taking the time yesterday to meet with our Superintendent, Steve Runci. Our plan to segregate the project for public safety has evidently met with your approval. We will be implementing the plan as follows: Phase # 1. Fencing public safety concerns by March 29, 1996. Phase# 2. Bituminous paving and curbing completed by April 5, 1996. Phase# 3. Turn over building to the Steamship Authority for public occupancy by April 12, 1996. Enclosed please find one(1) original Certified Plot Plan prepared by Bostwick Engineering on March 20, 1996 as you requested. Very truly yours, r _ I � Bernie F. McKernan Project Manager J.K Scanlan Company, Inc. File: Owner File+BU Wes Ewell+BU Steve Runci+BU 700 West Center St. • P.O. Box 9 9 West Bridgewater, MA 02379-0009.508-588-0134 FAX 508-584-0968 Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs Department of Environmental Protection William F.Weld Governor Trudy Coxe - Secretary,EOEA s� (� Thomas B. powers S E P 211994 Acting Commissioner i Wesley J. Ewell Woods Hole, Martha ' s Vineyard and Nantucket Steamship Authority P. 0. Box 284 Woods Hole, MA 02543 Re : Waterways Application No. W94-3435 Hyannis Inner Harbor, Barnstable Dear Mr. Ewell : The Waterways Regulation Program (WRP) reviewed your letter of October 14, 1994, with enclosures . Upon review of that material, and pursuant to MGL c . 91, S . 18, .we require that you provide the Town Clerk' s certification that this project is not in violation of local zoning ordinances. Review of your application will continue upon receipt of a properly E signed and dated copy of the Municipal Zoning Certificate, (Form D, enclosed) . Send a copy of the completed form to my attention at the following address : DEP Waterways Regulation Program One Winter Street, 8th Floor Boston, MA 02108-4746 Thank you for prompt attention to this matter. Should you need to contact me, please call (617) 556-1111 . Sincerely, _ J*fy eonard Leview Engineer Waterways Regulation . Program CC : John Babel, Earth Tech ' Linda Leppman,. Town Clerk Ralph Crossen, Building Commissioner Sam Bennett, DEP OGC WRP file One Winter Street 0 Boston,Massachusetts 02108 0 FAX(617)556-1049 • Telephone(617)292-5500 OF SARNST48LE cc77 /� e �face o�5". C anleG 397 MAIN STREET HYANNIS, MASSACHUSETTS 02601 TELEPHONE 617-77S=1120 EXT. 155 May 20, 1977 Board of Selectmen S _t' �'.• J �`��' ';06 Town of Barnstable 397 Main Street Hyannis, MA 02601 Attention: Paul C. Brown, Chairman Dear Paul: Pursuant to your request for a determination 'relative to the status of the Woods Hole-Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket Steamship Authority and the applicability of local zoning bylaws to that entity, I have reviewed the enabeling legislation, Chapter 701 of the Acts of 1960, as amended, so as to provide for:service from Hyannis Harbor, and a certain case law relating thereto. ` i It i s my opinion that the Authority is an instrumentality of the Commonwealth and as such is not subject to local zoning bylaws unless its enabeling legis- lation specifically subjected the Authority to. such bylaws, as for example, in the case of local housing authorities,(General Laws Chap. 121, Sec. 26S). This rule is in accordancewith the princitAe that "a municipality can exercise no direction or control over one whose duties have been defined by the legislature". Municipal Light Commission vs. Taunton, 323 Mass. 79, 84 (1948). The Supreme Judicial Court has rejected every effort to subject instrumentalities of the Commonwealth to local control. Appleton vs. Massachusetts Parking Authority, 164NE 2d, 137 (1960); Malden vs. Metropolitan Transit Authority, 321 Mass. 491 (1952). It has even been held that private agencies engaged in the provision of essential transportation services pursuant to authorization of the General Court are not subject to local control. Cambridge vs. Boston Elevated Ry. 241 Mass. 374 (1922); New York Central Railway Co. vs. Cambridge, 186 Mass. 249 (1904). Moreover, the Supreme Judicial Court has held that the Authority is subject to control by other governmental agencies only to the extent that such control Board of Selectmen May 20, 1977 - 2 - is expressly provided for by the Steamship Authority Act or by other general or special legislation and that the Authority is not subject to supervision and regulation by the Department of Public Utilities pursuant to its general powers to supervise and regulate those engaged in the transportation of :persons and property by vessels. If the Authority is'not subject to such control by the DPU-an agency of the Commonwealth-it- is certainly not subject to control by the Town of Barnstable. New Bedford vs. New Bedford, Woods Hole, Martha's Vineyard & Nantucket Steamship Authority, 329 Mass. 243 (1952). Chapter 701 of the Acts of 1960 specifically authorize the Authority, without limitation, to build, maintain and operate necessary docks and wharves. The Act further provides for a liberal construction of the legislation "to effect the purposes thereof" and that "all other general or special laws, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are. . . . . . .inapplicable. . . . . . ". Section 17 and Section 19). In these circumstances, it would hardly be a sound construc- tion to subject the Authority to local zoning bylaws of the Town of Barnstable. With regard to your question as to whether or not the owner of property letting the same to the Authority would be entitled to an exemption from local real estate taxatiori, this would depend upon the specific facts surrounding the situation. Assuming that the lease were for fifty years or more, it would be tantamount to a transfer in fee, and therefore might be entitled to preferable tax treatment. However, a lease for a lesser term would not, in my view, entitle the land owner to a-real property tax exemption. It is true that the Authority is exempt from taxation, however, if an owner gave less than a fee lease to the Authority, it would be my view that the owner vw uld not be entitled to a tax exemption. Sincerely, ' enr L. rpW� ) , Town Counsel HLMjr:lr I Woods Hole, Martha's Vineyard 0 -- and Nantucket Steamship Authority AUTHORITY MEMBERS FINANCE ADVISORY BOARD GENERAL MANAGER J r E.B. ROBERT C.MURPHY BARRY O. FULLER,SR. Dukess County County Member.Chairman Martha's Vineyard ROBERT A.SAYERS NORMAN F.BEACH Falmouth Member.Vice Chairman Nantucket TREASURERICOMPTROLLER BERNARD D.GROSSMAN WILLIAM R. ANDREWS WAYNE C.LAMSON Nantucket Member.Secretary Falmouth ROBERT L.O'BRIEN Barnstable Member.Second Secretary August 26. 1992 VIA FACSIMILE Ms. Pat Harrison Tisbury Planning Board P.O. Box 602 Town Hall Annex Vineyard Haven, Massachusetts 02568 Dear Ms. Harrison: As you requested during our telephone conversation of August 13, 1992, this letter follows up on our discussion regarding the Authority's immunity from local zoning ordinances and the materials I faxed to you that day on the subject. At the outset. I want to assure the Tisbury Planning Board that, whether or not the Board and other local authorities legally have jurisdiction over the Authority in connection with its plans to renovate the Vineyard Haven terminal. the Authority intends to cooperate fully with all local agencies and boards to address all land use impacts and community concerns. I understand that as a matter of courtesy and respect the Authority already has met a number of times with local officials, including individual members of your Board, regarding the Authority' s plans, and that more such meetings will occur in the future. In addition. the Authority is conducting a series of public meetings to ensure that community input is received and considered before any commitments are made in connection with the project. Further. two Tisbury community members will be asked to participate in the process by which the Authority will select the project's designer. However, you asked me for my legal opinion as to whether the Authority technically is immune from the Board's jurisdiction. In my opinion. it is so immune, although, as stated above. the Authority nevertheless intends to cooperate P.O. Box 284 Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543 (508) 548-5011 • FAX (508) 548-8410 Ms. Pat Harrison Tisbury Planning Board . August 26, 1992 Page 2 fully with the Board to make certain that whatever concerns it may have regarding the Authority's renovation of its Vineyard Haven terminal are addressed. As way of background, the Authority is a governmental body created and existing by virtue of an act of the Legislature, chapter 701 of the Acts. of 1960, as amended. Pursuant to sections 1 and 3 of that act, the Authority is "deemed. to be a public .instrumentality" for the purpose of providing "adequate transportation of persons and necessaries of life for the islands of Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard. " Furthermore, in section 6 of the act, the Legislature declared that "the operation and maintenance of the steamship line by the Authority will constitute the performance of essential governmental functions" and recognized that the Authority's exercise of its powers "will be in all respects for the benefit of the people of the commonwealth, for the increase of their commerce and prosperity, and for the improvement of their health and living conditions. " In these circumstances, the law is clear that the Authority is immune from municipal zoning regulations, unless a statute otherwise expressly provides .the contrary. Inspector of Buildings of Salem v. Salem State College, 28 Mass. App. Ct. 92, 95, 97 ( 1989) . See also County Commissioners of Bristol v. Conservation Commn. of Dartmouth, 380 Mass. 706, 713 ( 1980) ; Medford v. Marinucci Bros. & Co. , 344 Hass. 50, 54-57 ( 1962 ) ; Teasdale v. Newell & Snowling Constr. Co. , 192 Mass. 440, 442-443 ( 1906) . "All those cases assert the supremacy of the State over local land use regulation in connection with State construction projects, unless the Legislature has made express provision to the contrary. " ' Inspector of Buildings of Salem, supra, 28 Mass. App. Ct. at 97. Those cases also stand for the proposition that an entity or agency created by the Legislature , such as the Authority, similarly "is immune from municipal zoning regulations (absent statutory provision to the contrary) at least in so far as that entity or agency is performing an essential governmental function. " County Commissioners of Bristol, supra, 380 Mass. at 710. " [W]hen the Legislature has intended to confer a 'municipal veto' upon action taken by an entity or agency performing an essential governmental function it has done so in unmistakable terms. " Id. at 713. Ms. Pat Harrison Tisbury Planning -Board . August 26, 1992 Page 3 i My research has not revealed any statute which expressly subjects the Authority to the jurisdiction of the Tisbury Planning Board. It therefore follows, under existing case law, that the Authority is immune from any regulations issued by that Board so long as its services or properties in question are used in connection with the operation and maintenance of its boat line. In this regard, I note that -the Legislature has further declared, in section 17 of the Authority' s enabling act, that " [t]his act, being necessary for the welfare of the commonwealth and its inhabitants, shall be liberally construed to effect the purposes thereof. " If the Board or Town Counsel possesses a different understanding of the law on this subject, I would appreciate the opportunity to sit down and discuss the matter with them. Further information may persuade me to change my opinion, although I am unaware of any such information at this time. Similarly, if either the Board or Town Counsel has any questions regarding any of the issues raised in this letter. I will be more than happy to address them in whatever format they desire. In any event, I feel confident that the. Authority's immunity from the Board's jurisdiction will not hinder the genuine spirit of cooperation that currently exists between the Authority and the Board and which will continue in the future. Very truly yours, Steven M. Sayers General Counsel CC: E.B. Collins, Chairman Barry 0. Fuller, Sr. , General Manager Wesley J. Ewell, Planning & Development Manager Christopher G. Lebherz, Esquire Munson, Lebherz and Turkington July 11 , 1994 Page 3 Even though you contend that your client and/or her family has received permission in the past to park automobiles for a fee on the former Schofield property, suffice it to say that the Authority does not give them any. permission to do so now. -Therefore, let me repeat the notification contained in my prior letter, namely, that your client and her family are prohibited from parking any automobiles, operating any automobiles and/or otherwise entering onto any portion of the Authority' s property, including the former Schofield property, unless and until they receive permission to do so from the Authority. I also take offense at your suggestion that the Authority directs and encourages illegal overflow parking at various residential locations along Palmer Avenue and surrounding side streets. It does not. To the contrary, we do .our best to avoid such a situation. When our lots are filled, however, we have no control over where tourists park. Although once or twice in the past when all of our lots were full we did provide shuttle service between our. Woods Hole terminal and Mr. Sylvester ' s property, which is in fact properly licensed, we discontinued that arrangement last year after receiving complaints from, among others, your client. (With respect to illegal overflow parking, I would also like to point out that your client is permitted to park automobiles for a fee only on the rear portion of her property which is zoned "Light Industrial, " not around her house. ) Your opinion that the Authority is itself somehow parking cars illegally because it does not have the necessary permits from the Town of Falmouth is similarly specious. As Falmouth Town Counsel advised the Town' s Building and Zoning Commissioner in July 1988, that issue has been explicitly decided, and the Authority' s operation of its parking lots in connection with the operation and maintenance of it boatline is immune from the provisions of the Falmouth Zoning By-Laws . See Inhabitants of the Town of Falmouth, et al . v. Woods Hole , Martha' s Vineyard and Nantucket Steamship Authority, et al . , Equity Nos. 28271 and 28414 (Barnstable Superior Court 1966 ) ; Inhabitants of the Town of Barnstable and Inhabitants of the Town of Falmouth v. Woods Hole , Martha' s Vineyard and Nantucket Steamship Authority, et al . , Equity No. 26182 (Barnstable Superior Court 1961 ) . rev' d on other grounds, 343 Mass. 674 ( 1961 ) . See also Freetown v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Dartmouth, 33 Mass. App. Ct. 415 , 417-420 ( 1992 ) ; Inspector of Buildings of Salem v. Salem State College , 28 Mass. App. Ct. 92 , 95 , 97 ( 1989 ) ; County Christopher G. Lebherz, Esquire Munson, Lebherz and Turkington July 11 . 1994 Page 4 Commissioners of Bristol v. Conservation Commn. of Dartmouth, 380 Mass. 70 , 713 ( 1980 ) ; Medford v. Marinucci Bros . & Co . , 344 Mass. 50 , 54-57 ( 1962 ) ; Teasdale v. Newell & Snowling Constr. Co . , 192 Mass. 440 , 442-443 ( 1906 ) . I have offered twice to make myself available to discuss this matter with you, but for some reason you have chosen merely. to threaten litigation instead. I suggest you reconsider your position and accept my offer this third time to sit down and talk. Again, I look forward to hearing from you. Very truly yours , Steven M. Sayers General Counsel i Christopher G. Lebherz, Esquire Munson, Lebherz and Turkington j July 11. 1994 1 Page 4 Commissioners of Bristol v. Conservation Commn. of Dartmouth, 380 Mass. 70, 713 ( 1980 ) ; Medford v. Marinucci Bros. & Co. , 344 Mass. 50 , 54-57 ( 1962 ) ; Teasdale v. Newell & Snowling Constr. Co . , 192 Mass. 440 , 442-443 ( 1906 ) . I have offered twice to make myself available to discuss this matter with you, but for some reason you have chosen merely to threaten litigation instead. I suggest you reconsider your position and accept my offer this third time to sit down and talk. Again, I look forward to hearing from you. Very truly yours, Steven M. Sayers j General Counsel it p! i i i 10-17-1994 09:55AM' FROM WH MV NT STEAMSHIP ALIT TO 15087753344 P.01 r Woods Hole, Martha's Vineyard -� - and Nantucket Steamship Authority SPECIAL PROJECTS OFFICE sr 163 Spring Ears Road (508) 548-5011 Falmouth,NSA.02540 FAX: (508) 540-4654 FACSIMILE COVER , x DATE. 10 19 TO: (Y! oleo S5 e—+ FAX # ( 5aI ) 77 S ' FROM: Wesley J. Ewell Special Projects Manager NOTE: �� - f►�,t, �9<�'� �,•, /7'> `7 11 -?,�l NUMBER OF PAGES, INCLUDING COVER SHEET: r _ I10-17-1994 09:56AM FROM WH MO NT STEAMSHIP AUT TO 15087757344 P.02 rr y �n f .� oF, SARN548t.£ QV Ica p/�pwn �ounle� 3137 MAIN S` REEwT HYANNIS, MASSACHUSETTS 026131 ULGPHGNE 617.775-1120 EXT. 155 May 20, 1977 � Board of Selectmen Town of Barnstable 397 Main Street r''�*- '_ •�S Hyannis, MA 02601 '�+'%'f Attention: Paul C. Brown, Chairman Dear Paul: Pursuant to your request for a determination relative to the status of the Foods Hole-Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket Steamship Authority and the applicability of local zoning bylaws to that entity, I have reviewed the 1960,enal�elzng legislation, Chapter 701 of the Acts of as amended, so as to provide for:service from Hyannis Harbor, and a certain case lawn relating thereto. r It i s my opinion that the Authority is an instrumentality of the Commonwealth and as such is not subject to local, zoning bylaws unless its enabeling legis- lation specifically subjected the Authority to such bylaws, as for example, in the case of local housing authorities,(General Laws Chap. 121, Sec. 26S). This rule is in accordancewith the princi le that "a municipality can exercise no direction: or control over one whose duties have been defined by the legislature". Municij2al Light Commission vs. Taunton 323 Mass. 79, 84 (1948). The Supreme Judicial Court has rejected every effort to subject instrumentalities of the Commonwealth to local control. Appleton vs. Massachusetts Parking Authority, 164NE 2d, 137 (1960); Malden vs. Metroyoolitan Transit Authority, 321 Mass. 491 (1952). It has even been held that private agencies engaged in the provision of essential transportation sezvices pursuant to authorization of the General Court are not subject to local control. Cambridge v_s. Boston Elevated Ry. 241 Klass. 374 (1922); New York Central_Railway Co. vs. Cambridge 186 Mass. 249 (1904). Moreover, the Supreme Judicial Court has held that the Authority is subject to control by other governmental agencies only to the extent that such control 10-17-1994 09:57AM FROM WH MV NT STEAMSHIP AUT TOr 15097753344 P.03 _ C ti Board of Selectmen May 20, 1977 _ 2 � is expressly provided for by the Steamship Authority Act or by other general or special legislation and that the Authority is not subject to supervision and regulation by the Department of Public Utilities pursuant to its general powers to supervise and regulate those engaged in the transportation of .persons and property by vessels. If the Authority is'not subject to such control by the DPU-an agency of the Commonwealth-it is certainly not subject to control by the Town of .Barnstable. New Bedford vs. New Bedford, Woods Hole Martha's Vineyard & Nantucket Stqams�hip .Auth.orit , 329 Mass. 243 (1952). Chapter 701 of the Acts of 1960 specifically authorize the .Authority, without limitation, to build, maintain and operate necessary docks and wharves. The Act furthe7rprovides for a liberal construction of the legislation. "to effect the purposes thereof" and that "all other general or special, laws, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are. . . . . . .inapplicable. . . . . . ". (Section 17 and Section 19). In these circumstances, it would hardly be a sound construc- tion to subject the Authority to local zoning bylaws of the Town of Barnstable. With regard to your question as to whether or not the owner of property letting the same to the Authority would be entitled to an exemption from local, zeal estate taxation, this would depend upon the specific facts surrounding the situation. Assuming that the lease were for fifty years or more, it would be tantamount to a transfer in fee, and therefore might be entitled to preferable tax treatment. However, a lease for a lesser term would not, in my 'mew, entitle the land owner to a real property tax exemption. It is true that the Authority is exempt from taxation, however, if an owner gave less than a fee lease to the Authority, it would be myyview that the owner vould not be entitled to a tax exemption. Sincerely, 4enr L. "Y . rp y, J . Town Counsel HLMjr;lr 10-17-1994 09:574M FROM WH MU NT STEAMSHIP AUT TO 15087753344 P.04 Woods Hole, Martha's Vineyard -- and Nantucket Steamship Authority AUTHORITY MEMBERS FINANCE ADVISORY BOARD GENERAL MANAGER �r. E.5 COLLINS ROSERT C. MURPHY 8ARRY 0. FULLER,SR, pukes Couhly Mcmt)er,ChairMn Martha's ViAtyartl ROBERT A SAYERS NORMAN F BEACH Fatrnoulh Member.Vice Chairman Nantucket TREASURERlCDMPTROLCER BERNARD b.GROSSMAN WIIAIAM R. ANDREWS WAYNE C. LAMSON Nantucket Member.Secretary Falmoutt) ROBZRT L O'BRIEN Barnstable Memtnr,Secorxo Secretary August 26 , 1992 VIA FACSI LE Ms. Pat Harrison Tisbury Planning Board P.Q. Box 602 Town Hall Annex Vineyard haven, Masoachusetts 02568 Dear Me. Harrison: As you requested during our telephone conversation of August 13, 1992, this letter follows up on our discussion regarding the Authority's immunity from local zoning ordinances and the materials I faxed to you that day on the subject. At the outset. I want to assure the Tisbury Planning Board that, whether or not the Board and other local authorities legally have jurisdiction over the Authority in connection with its plans to renovate the Vineyard Haven terminal, the Authority intends to cooperate fully with all local agencies and boards to address all land use impacts and community concerns. I understand that as a matter of courtesy and respebt the Authority already has met a dumber of times with local officials, including individual members of your Board, regarding the Authority' s plans, and that more such meetings will occur in the future. In addition, the Authority is conducting a series of public meetings to ensure that community input is received and considered before any commitments are mane in connection with the project. Further, two Tisbury community members will be asked to participate in the process by which the Authority will select the project' s designer. However, you asked me for my legal opinion as to whether the Authority technically is immune from the Board' s Jurisdiction. in my opinion. it is so immune, although, as stated above , the Authority nevertheless intends to cooperate P.O. Box 284 Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543 (508) 548-5011 • FAX (508) 548-8410 0 1 O-17-1994 09:57R i? FROM WH MQ NT STERMSH I P RUT TO — 15087 r 53341 P.05 a Ms. Pat Harrison s<p Tisbury Planning Hoard August 26, 1992 Page 2 fully with the Board to make certain that whatever concerns it may have regarding the Authority's renovation of its Vineyard Haven terminal are addressed. As Way of background. the Authority is a governmental body created and existing by virtue of an act of the Legislature, chapter 701 of the Acts of 1960, as amended. Pursuant to sections 1 and 3 of that act. the Authority is "deemed to be a public instrumentality* for the purpose of providing "adequate transportation of persons and necessaries of life for the islands of Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard. " Furthermore, in section 6 of the act, the Legislature declared that "the operation and maintenance of the steamship line by the Authority will constitute the performance of essential governmental functions" and recognized that the Authority's exercise of its powers "will be in all respects for the benefit of the people of the commonwealth, for the increase of their commerce and prosperity, and for the improvement of their health and living conditions. " In these Circumstances, the law is clear that the Authority is immune from municipal zoning regulations, unless a statute otherwise expressly provides the contrary. s ectpt of Buildings of Salem y. Sa_lm State College, 28 Mass. App. Ct. 92, 95. 97 ( 1989) . See also County ;oam of Bristol v. Conservation Commn. of Dartmouth, 380 Mass. 706. 713 ( 1980) ; Me for v. N rip cc s4 Co, , 344 Mass. 50, 54-57 ( 1962 ) ; Teapdale v. Newell & Snowling Constr..__Co. . 192 Maas. 440. 442-443 ( 1906) . "All those cases assert the supremacy of the State over local land use regulation in connection with State construction projects, unless the Legislature has made express provision to the contrary. " Inspector of Buil.d_invs of__Sa_lem_, supra. 28 Mass. App. Ct. at 97. Those cases also stand for the proposition that an entity or agency created by the Legislature , such as the Authority. similarly "is immune from municipal zoning regulations (absent statutory provision to the contrary) at least in so far as that entity or agency is performing an essential governmental function. " County Commissioners of Bristol, su ra, 380 Mass. at 71e. " [W]hen the Legislature has intended to confer a 'municipal veto' upon action taken by an entity or agency performing an essential governmental function it has done so in unmistakable terms. " Id, at 713. 10-17-1994 09:58AM FROM WH MU NT STEAMSHIP AUT TO 1508775?344 P.06 J ' Ms. Pat Harrison .�" Tisbury Planning Board August 26, 1992 Page 3 My research has not revealed any statute which expressly subjects the Authority to the jurisdiction of the Tisbury Planning Board. It therefore follows, under existing case law, that the Authority is immune from any regulations issued by that Board so long as its services or properties in question are used in connection with the operation and maintenance of its boat line. In this regard, I note that the Legislature has further declared, in section 17 of the Authority's enabling act, that " [t)his act, being necessary for the welfare of the commonwealth and its inhabitants, shall be liberally construed to effect the purposes thereof. " If the Board or Town Counsel possesses a different understanding of the law on this subject, I would appreciate the opportunity to sit down and discuss the matter with them. Further information may persuade me to change my opinion, although I as unaware of any such information at this time. Similarly, if either the Board or Town Counsel has any questions regarding any of the issues raised in this letter, I will be more than happy to address them in whatever format they desire. In any event. I feel confident that the Authority' s immunity from the Board's jurisdiction will not hinder the genuine spirit of cooperation that currently exists between the Authority and the Board and which will continue in the future. Very truly yours, Steven M. Sayers General Counsel cce B.S. Collins, Chairman Barry 0. Fuller, Sr. , General Manager Wesley J. Ewell, Planning & Development Manager 10-17-1994 09:58AM FROM WH MV NT STEAMSHIP AUT TO 15087753344 P.07 • Christopher G. Lebherz, Esquire Munson, Lebherz and Turkington July 11 , 1994 Page 3 Even though you contend that your client and/or her family has received permission in the past to park automobiles for a fee on the former Schofield property, suffice it to say that the Authority does not give them any permission to do so now. -Therefore , let me repeat the notification contained in my prior letter. namely, that your client and her family are prohibited From parking any automobiles , operating any automobiles and/or otherwise entering onto any portion of the Authority' s property, including the former Schofield property. unless and until they receive permission to do so from the Authority. I also take offense at your suggestion that the Authority directs and encourages illegal overflow parking at various residential locations along Palmer Avenue and surrounding side streets. It does not. To the contrary, we do our best to avoid such a situation. Wheti our lots are filled. however. we have no control over where tourists park. Although once or twice in the past when all of our lots were full we did provide shuttle service between our Woods Hole terminal and Mr. Sylvester ' s property, which is in fact properly licensed, we discontinued that arrangement last year after receiving complaints from, among others, your client . (With respect to illegal overflow parking, I would also like to point out that your client is permitted to park automobiles for a fee only on the rear portion of her property which is zoned "Light Industrial. " not around her house . ) Your opinion that the Authority is itself somehow parking cars illegally because it does not have the necessary permits from the Town of Falmouth is similarly specious. As Falmouth Town Counsel advised the Town ' s Building and Zoning Commissioner in July 1988, that issue has been explicitly decided , and the Authority' s operation of its parking lots in connection with the operation and maintenance of it boatline is immune from the provisions of. the Falmouth Zoning 8y-Laws . See Inhabitants of the__T_own of Falmouth , et al . v. woods Hole , Martha ' s Vineyard and Nantucket Steamshi2 Author_ity,.._ et al . , Equity Nos . 28271 and 28414 (Barnstable Superior Court 1966 ) ; Inhabitants o the Town__ of Barnstable and Inhabitants of the Town of Falmouth v. Woods Hole , Martha ' s Vineyard and Nantu_ck.et Steams_hi,p. Authority, et al. , Equity No. 26182 (Barnstable Superior Court 1961 ) , rev ' d oo other grounds, 343 Mass . 674 ( 1961 ) . See also Freetown v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Dartmouth, 33 Mass . App. Ct. 415 , 417-420 ( 1992 ) ; Inspector of Buildi-ngs of Salem v. Salem State_ College, 28 Mass , App . Ct. 92 , 95 , 97 ( 1989 ) ; County 10-17-195 09:59AM -FROM LIH MV NT STEAMSHIP ALIT TO 1508 753344 P.08 ►'� Christopher G. Lebherz, Esquire Munson, Lebherz and Turkington July 11. , 1994 Page 4 Commissioners of Bristol V. Conservation Commn. of Qartmauth, 380 Mass. 70, 713 ( 1980 ) ; Medford v. Marinucci Bros. & Co. , 344 Mass. 50 . 54-57 ( 1962 ) ; Teasdale v. Newell & _Snowlinct Constr. Co. , 192 Mass. 440, 442--443 ( 1906 ) . I have offered twice to make myself available to discuss this matter with you, but for some reason you have chosen merely to threaten litigation instead. T suggest you reconsider your position and accept my offer this third time to sit down and talk. Again, I look forward to hearing from you. Very truly yours, Steven M. Sayers General Counsel. TOTAL P.08 11-03--1994 10:23AM FROM WH MV NT STEAMSHIP AUT TO 15087753344 P.01 Woods Hole, Martha's Vineyard. - and Nantucket Steamship Authority v r SPECIAL PROJECTS ONCE ur. 163 Spring Ears Road (508)548-5011 Falmouth,MA 02540 FAX: (508) 540-4654 FACSIMILE OVER SHEET DATE: 1 l 3 A TO: L FAx#t_ Sp y 7-7 5'-� '33.4 FROM: Wesley J. Ewell Special Projects Manager NOTE: 4C �.t04 NUMBER OF PAGES,INCLUDING COVER SHEET: �" Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office.of Environmental Affairs Department of _ Environmental Protection William F.Weld Governor Trudy Coxe Secretary, SEP 2 1 1994 Thomas B. Powers Acting Commissioner Wesley J. Ewell Woods Hole, ,Martha' s, Vineyard and Nantucket Steamship Authority P. 0. Box 284 Woods Hole,. MA 02543 Re : Waterways Application No . W94-3435 Hyannis Inner Harbor, Barnstable Dear Mr. Ewell : The Waterways Regulation Program (WRP.) reviewed your letter of October 14, 1994 , with enclosures . Upon review of that material, and pursuant to MGL c . 91, S . 18 , we require that you provide the Town Clerk' s certification that this project is not in violation of local zoning ordinances . Review of your application will continue upon receipt of a properly signed and dated copy of the Municipal Zoning Certificate, (Form D, enclosed) . Send a copy of the completed form to my attention at = the following address : DEP Waterways Regulation Program One Winter Street, 8th Floor Boston, MA 02108-4746 Thank you for prompt attention to this matter. Should you need to contact me, please call (617) 556-1111 . Sincerely, I Je f y eonard Li en e eview Engineer Waterways Regulation Program cc : John Babel, Earth Tech -1 Linda Leppman, Town Clerk Ralph Crossen, Building Commissioner Sam- Bennett., DEP ;OGC WRP file - One Winter Street • Boston, Massachusetts 02108 • FAX(617)556-1049 • Telephone (617)292-5500 i 706 380 Mass. 706 380 Mass. 706 707 . 1 Cuullh.celimllc\loner's of Bristol v. Conservation Commission of Dartmouth. - County Commissioners of Bristol v. Conservation Commission of Dartmouth ` islative mandate and after appropriate study.and investiga tion, the county commissioners devised a plan to build the 1 jail within the confines of the town of Dartmouth in an area ' F COUNTY COA4h4ISSIONERS OF BRISTOL VS. CONSERVATION of the town zoned for limited industrial use.2 The county COMMISSION OF DARTMOUTH & anotheI. 1 . commissioners applied, in compliance. with the require- ments of G. L. c. 131, § 40, to the conservation commis-, 1 sion of the town of Dartmouth for a determination of,what A k Bristol. Alarch 4, 1980. —May 21, 1980. `s c, sc� 3Q conditions, if any,'were to be applied to the construction of .; i Prt_sc•nt: Ih:nNesstti,C.1.,Qmruco,BaAucnEn, KAPLAN,&WluuNs, the proposed new jail in order to respond to specified:envi- S ronmental considerations. The conservation commission Zoni:nb, Public authority, Land held by county. Municipal Corpora- N = tion.c, By laws and ordinances, Home Rule Amendment. County, 1 determined that the proposed site felliwithin the seope'of : Municipal zoning by-laws. ' . '` G. L. c. 131, § 40, and that the county commissioners were• . `' F -- - " " therefore required to file with the conservation commission :4 Land on which county commissioners sought to have a new jail construct- a a notice of intent to engage in construction activity,on the { ed, and an , structures to be erected thereon were not subject to a c 1 t� land. ` 1� municipal zoning by-law. [708] WILIUNS dissentin �d: �, ram' The notice of intent was submitted in the recommended form, including complete l `} lete environmental data aon °with P g '� . 131 40 as amended CIVIL ACTION commenced in the Superior Court on �. . ,;" the $25 filing fee. General Laws c , § January 4, 1979. provides that "[n]o such notice shall be sent before all. The case was heard by Garrity, J. After review was sought in the Appeals Court the Su- fi 2The proposed locus is within a district covered by § 5C of the Dart- ,I g PP preme Judicial Court, on its own initiative, ordered direct mouth zoning by-law which reads as follows:"SECTION 5C. LIMITED n i ;r�lyt INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS. Within any Limited Industrial District, as appellate review. indicated on the Zoning Map, no building or premises shall be used and it i 4f James M. Cronin Leonard E. Perryfor the x � > no building or structure shall be erected which is intended or designed to defendants. ( with him) .„ be used, in whole or in part, for other than one or more of the following specified purposes . . .. William F. Long, Jr., for the plaintiffs. nr, (1) Wholesale warehouse, including office and showroom facility HENNESSEY, C.J. In 1973 the Legislature authorized the °� (2) Light industrial uses, including manufacturing, storage, process- s r in , fabrication, packaging, assembly, printing or reproduction, research,' ;* f' counts commissioners of Bristol County to construct a new gY g P g. Y. P g P _ lj t experimentation and•Aesting. jail and to acquire the necessary land by purchase or emi- ' (3) Store or service establishment for retail or wholesale trade display nent domain. See St. 1973, c. 412.1 As a result of this leg- � ,` or service of products manufactured on the same site or at other sites of the {y : same company or corporation. Such store or service establishment shall , . be clearly incidental to the primary industrial use. 'Statute 1973, c. 412, provides in relevant part the following: "Section 1. For the purpose of constructing a new jail, house of correction and (4) Commercial kennel or hobby kennel, subject to the following con ' '+t sheriff's quarters in Bristol County, the county commissioners of said L ditions: county may erect on land acquired for such purpose, a suitable building plc (a) That the Board determine that such use is not injurious to the dis : I ' . t or buildin 5, and may originallya ui and furnish the same. x tih g Y equip } 4 trict. , tl.,t "Section 2. For the purposes of section one,the county commissioners of th� b That the lot on which the kennel is to be maintained have amini- , Bristol county may take by eminent domain,after a public hearing,or ac- " mum area of one acre. quire by purchase or otherwise any land and buildings that may be $ '' rd (c) That the Board may impose other conditions it deems appropri t E necessary for said purpose." I ,� , t. ate." ;��� ;.li 708 380 Mass. 706 380 Mass. 706 709 County Commissioners of Bristol v. Conservation Commission of Dartmouth. County Commissioners of Bristol v. Conservation Commission of Dartmouth. variances . . . required by local by-law with respect to the . �; park commissioners had made a contract with the defend- proposed activity, which are obtainable at the time of such ',' ant contractor for grading and other work on land in Quincy notice, have been obtained, except that such notice may be � � which they had taken for park purposes. The,commission- sent, at the option of the applicant, after the filing of an ap- ' ers authorized the defendant to build a temporary stable on the property to accommodate the large number of horses plication for said . variances . The conservation ,.. .i p p y munici alit < f . h project. The health laws.of the, -municipality us ed in the commission notified .the county commissioners that their ��� � p 1 notice could not be accepted until an application had been �` u, . prohibited such a stable. We held the health laws inappli- cable under the circumstances, reasoning that'a"'general made for a zoning variance from the Dartmouth zoning board of appeals. 4 law made for the regulation of citizens must be held subor- The plaintiff county commissioners of Bristol then filed >t. r�: dinate to this special statute regulating the use of the prop- this action seeking a declaratory judgment that the proposed erty of the State unless there is express provision.to the con - g yl g P P � '?' trary. It is not to be presumed that the Legislature intended county use gave the land in question immunity from the Dartmouth zoning by-law. After a hearing, the Superior �t to give to the local licensing board the authority to thwart r Court issued a declaratory judgment that the land and any ..;-� �. :. the reasonably necessary efforts of the park commissioners„� structures to be erected thereon b the count are not sub- " ri to perform their duty as agents of the State. Id.'at 443. y y The same reasoning which was applied to exempt the ject to the municipal zoning by-law of the town of Dart- mouth. The defendant conservation commission of Dart- c� 3, metropolitan park commissioners from the Quincy health mouth filed a motion to alter or amend judgment under N Y' . laws in Teasdale was applied to exempt the commissioners Mass. R. Civ. P. 59, 365 Mass. 827 1974 , claiming that a {, of public works from a Medford zoning ordinance in Med- ( ) gli, ; presumption of county immunity from municipal zoning Wi ford v. Marinucci Bros., 344 Mass. 50 (1962). 'In that case, asserted as the basis of decision contravened the Home Rule 4 the Department of Public Works had made a contract with Amendment. The Superior Court denied this motion with- the defendant contractor for building a section.of an inter- out ahearing. The defendants appealed. `' state highway. The defendant received permission from There is no error. We therefore sustain the order, rulin ` . the chief engineer of the Department of Public Works to . g and judgment of the Superior Court that the land in Dart- �: construct a railroad loading area at a particular location in mouth in which the plaintiff county commissioners seek to the city of Medford which was zoned for single residences. have anew jail constructed, and any structures to be . , _° The city sued to enjoin this use of the land under the author- erected thereon, are not subject to the municipal zoning by- _' ity of its zoning ordinance. In ruling against the city we law of the town of Dartmouth. `. stated that"[w]e cannot conclude that by enacting the Zon- �J M` ing Enabling Act the Legislature intended to authorize a The general rule in this and other jurisdictions is that "a k , Stage is immune from municipal zoning regulations, absent municipality municipality to thwart the Commonwealth in carrying out statutory provision to the contrary." Medford v. Marinucci s the functions of government.' Id. at 57. Bros., 344 Mass. 50, 56 (1962), and cases cited. This rule �;. Y We reached the same conclusion in Village on the Hill, has its origins in Teasdale v. Newell & Snowling Constr. ,�> 3•. Inc. v. Massachusetts Turnpike Auth., 348 Mass. 107 Co., 192 Mass. 440 (1906). In that case the metropolitan _ (1964). In that case the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority had taken land by eminent domain from a private corpora- tion, Rivett Lathe & Grinder, Inc. (Rivett),;in connection Article 2 of the Articles of Amendment of the Massachusetts Constitu- with extending the Massachusetts Turnpike The authority Lion as ahheann,v in art. 89 of the Articles of Amendment. �f .;,� ",, a• ' 710 380 Mass. 706 V � `.. 380 Mass. 706 i' 711 County Commissioners of Bristol v. Conservation Commission of Dartmouth. County Commissioners of Bristol v. Conservation Commission of Dartmouth. t. diet, agrc ed to sell to Rivett another lot on which Rivett 41 �r� ty stands in the same position as the other legislatively could relocate its plant. In accordance with its purchase i, created entities discussed above for purposes of applying this ; and sale agreement with the authority, Rivett entered the rule. Like the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, -which property and began construction of its new plant before title r Y=' we described in Massachusetts Turnpike Auth. v"Common- had been conveyed from the authority to Rivett. The plain- wealth, 347 Mass. 524, 525 (1964), as ".a body,politic and tiff petitioned for a writ of mandamus to compel the build r corporate . . . and . . . a public instrumentality performing ing commissioner of Boston to enforce the Boston zoning % an essential governmental function," counties also are "or- 1. -= law, which placed part of the land upon which the factory a ! ganized by the General Court for the convenient adminis- t A. building was being constructed in a general residence dis �, tration of some parts of government.-I They are bodies poli- tic and corporate. The exist solely for the public welfare. At the time of the trial legal title to the premises, includ "` I . County of Middlesex v. ,Waltham, 278 Mass.`,,514,` 516 ing the building being constructed there by Rivett, remained (1932). "They may be changed at the will of the Legisla-, in the authority. In concluding that this property was not ture, and the character and extent of the"sovereign powers 1 subject to the Boston zoning regulation we reasoned as to be exercised through them are subject to modification in .. follows: "Although the property held by the authority is y i like manner, according to legislative judgment'of the re- k eventually to belong to the Commonwealth (see St. 1952, `:...: quirement of the interests of the public. '5 =Boston v.' c. 354, § 17); it is not now owned by the Commonwealth - i °d: . Chelsea, 212 Mass. 127, 129 (1912). See also G. L. c. 34,' r Nevertheless, the Legislature . . . made the authority suffi- § 1. What the plaintiff county commissioners seek to ac- complish here is clearly the execution of an essential.govern- ciently governmental in character so that the actual con- struction and operation of the turnpike, its essential`govern- 1* f ' mental function. General Laws c. 34, § 3, as amended rnent function,' and action reasonably related to that func- t through St. 1978, c. 478, § 17, provides in part.specifically tion, should not be prevented by a zoning statute applicable 3T that "[e]ach county shall provide suitable jails, houses of to one municipality or by a local zoning ordinance or by- correction, fireproof offices and other public)'buildings lnw." Villa c on the hill Inc:. v. Massachusetts Turn pike � ��� necessary for its use." Therefore, our reading of Massachu 1 l , ilrrtlr., srr ,ru.r.tl. 1 lfi. setts case law leads to the conclusion that the Dartmouth ;I;r 1 fir. n entity or agency created «: '". zoning by-law is inapplicable in this circumstance As these cases demonstrate, a e y g y .t� .. g Y PP by the Massachusetts Legit is immune from municipal zcntiul; regulations (absent statutory provision to the con- point,on"Medford v.Marinucci Bros.,344 Mass.50[1962),the most recent case i this held that a highway contractor was not required to comply trary) at least in so far as that entity or agency is performing a �* ( , with local zonifig by-laws in carrying out a construction contract for a an essential governmental function. It is clear that a coun -�� *= state highway, even though his contract required him to comply with t local by-laws. This principle is not confined to instances where the land is ; A directly owned by the Commonwealth,but extends to instrumentalities of j 'The Attorney General addressed a question similar to the one at bar in '� the state when engaged in their public function unless the Legislature has l q. S nt'indicated a different inte ton.' - . nuh. Doe. No. 12 197 198 1967 to which an airport com � .�.•': li�i,. A.G.. ( ), P ki mission, a creature of the State Legislature, was refused a zoning exemp- tionx °A variant of this general principle has been applied to counties in by a municipality to build an airport facility. The Attorney General s County of Middlesex v. Waltham, 278 Mass. 514,516(1932),wherein we a wrote as follows: "It is well settled that local zoning by-laws do not apply =# ruled that "[1]and held by counties actually devoted, or designed to be to the Common-wealth,or instrumentalities of the Commonwealth,when t devoted within a reasonable time, to public uses is exempt from taxation acting in pursuance of a public function on land of the Commonwealth [by the town in which it is situated]unless there is special statutory prow- Teasdale v. Newell&Snowling.Construction Co., 192 Mass. 440[1906] t sion to the contrary" (emphasis supplied). t r 7.12 380 Mass. 706 . � 380 Mass. 706 713 Counts Commissioners of Bristol v. Conservation Coil unission of Dartmouth. Count Commissioners of Bristol v. Conservation Commission of Dartmouth. -------- tis Y The defendant nevertheless argues that a proper reading ,, St. 1975, c. 808, states the purposes for which zoning ordi- of the pertinent sections of The Zonin Act g (G. L. c. 40A) nances are authorized in the following terms. "This act is leads to the contrary conclusion. The defendant directs us �=°>` to § 3 of G. L. c..40A (inserted by St. 1975, c. 808, and r+ .�a designed to provide standardized procedures for the admin- �' . istration and promulgation of municipal zoning laws. This F amended by St. 1977, c. 860) which provides in art that "[n]o zoning ordinance orb -law shall . p y ,; section is designed to suggest objectives for which zoning Y prohibit, regu- might be established which include, but are not limited to, late or restrict the use of land or structures for religious pur- �` w the following: to facilitate the adequate provision of poses or for educational purposes on land owned or leased transportation, water, water supply, drainage,I sewerage, t In by the commonwealth or any of its agencies, bdi Qt subdivisions or rx .. z} schools, parks, open space and other public requirements." j bodies politic or by a religious sect or denomination, or by a To say that §.3 exempts only religious and educational insti- nonprofit educational corporation; provided, however, that $; tutions from municipal zoning regulations is inimical to the such land or structures may be subject to reasonable regula- purpose of the act to facilitate the provision of public re- tions concerning the bulk and height of structures and deter- f := quirements. Such an interpretation of § 3 would subject } mining yard sizes, lot area, setbacks, open space, parking ?s most public buildings to municipal zoning regulations and and building coverage requirements . . . ... The defendant `���% �. would give a municipality the power effectively to preempt argues that § 3's explicit exemption for land or structures the construction of facilities at the State or county level. used for religious or educational purposes, and the absence 2 Y Properly construed, § 3 does not allow municipal zoning i of any such exemption for other essential governmental pur- � f regulation of land or structures owned or leased by the poses, indicates an intent that land or structures devoted to Commonwealth or by its bodies politic and devoted to an such other purposes should not be l munici a from exempt r"W m,` �.r +.�� essential governmental function. Instead, § 3 merely per- zoning regulation. p ,a mits formerly exempt land or structures devoted to religious i We do not agree with the defendant's proffered interpre- 11 or educational purposes to be subjected to reasonable muni- tction." The defendant has failed to read the statute as a but not use, requirements. a .- cipal zoning dimensional, whole and to interpret § 3 in light of the statutory purposes. Our interpretation of § 3 is bolstered by the fact that See Massachusetts Cvmrn'n Against Discrimination v. Lib- when the Legislature has intended to confer a "municipal erty Mut. Ins. Co., 371 Mass. 186, 190 (1976); Common- = ;J wealth v. Wvods hole, Martha's Vineyard car Nantucket }�` '` � veto" upon action taken by an entity or agency performing S.S. �1uth., 352 Mass. 617, G18 (19G7). Section 2A of $ an essential governmental function it has done so in unmis- T takable terms. See Medford v. Marinucci Bros., 344 Mass.. J 50, 56 (1962). This legislative practice is clearly exempli `vy o4 v Yl x °The defendant relies in making this argument on the familiar doctnne t Pied by G. L. c. 34, § 25, as amended through St. 1977, of statutom interpretation that express reference in a statute to one matter c. 350 which authorized county commissioners to acquire srliidi ti by inipliculiun olltcr similar matters not ,nent;one& white this � Pz, "such real property within their respective counties as may doctrine can be of help in certain situations, see General Elec. Co. v. �� ' C077171101wealth, 329 Mass. 661, 664 (1953), we do not apply it blindly t w be necessary to maintain, improve, protect, limit the future «hen the results would be illogical or contrary to sound precedent. For = Q" , use of or otherwise conserve and properly utilize open e xaniple. in Aledford v.Marinucci Bros.,344 Mass.50,56(1962),we held spaces, and may control and manage the same; provided that the absence of any language in the old Zoning Enabling Act exempt ing property owned 13y the Commonwealth from municipal zoning could , tt r x'. that such acquisition has been approved by the department not be construed as indicating a legislative intent that the act apply to �_' of environmental management and the conservation eom- such land. 7 ir, . of the cit, ="" Anati'rl ��'il:11111 �371 ynl, the land PPG's; Or �.f 380 Mass. 706 2.. 715 ,1 1 380 Mass. 706 s County Couimissioncrs of Bristol o. Conservation Commission of Dartmouth. County Commissioners of Bristol o.Conservation Commission of Dartmouth.' y cities or towns as corporate entities, alteration of city or r such city or town has no conservation committee, by a two , ,. . t thirds vote of the city council in the case of a city and by a town boundaries, and merger or consolidation of cities and it t! P. X. anyt 7''jl two thirds vote of the board of selectmen in the case of a , towns, or of these matters. town . . ." (emphasis supplied). By contrast, such terms Under the terms of § 6, a municipal by-law is valid in so conferring priority on municipalities over the proposed ac- ?k far as it is not inconsistent with the laws enacted by..the tions of the plaintiff county commissioners appear neither in Legislature in conformity with its reserved powers.''"In § 3ofG. L. c. 40A nor in St. 1973, c. 412. determining whether a local ordinance or by-law is !not in-. �The defendant defendant argues finally that the result reached b .� g y y x consistent' with any general law within .the meaning of k!.ryla the Superior Court is contrary to the spirit and letter of art. those words in;§ 6 of the Home Rule Amendment' the same process of ascertaining legislative intent must be per- 2 of the Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution, as formed as has been performed in the Federal preemption appearing in art. 89 of the Amendments (Home Rule Amend- p p p meat). The Home Rule Amendment has provided a direct cases and in our own cases involving`inconsistent' local ?li 1; constitutional grant of certain powers to municipalities. ¢,; ordinances or by-laws. . . . If the Legislature has made no :Ohl 4 explicit indication of its intention in this respect, a legisla- This grant of power is embodied in § 6 of art. 2 which reads, ; in part, as follows: "Any city or town may, by the adoption, . tive intention to bar local ordinances and by-laws purport- amendment, or repeal of local ordinances or by-laws, exer- ing to exercise a power or function on the same subject as k cise any power or function which the general court hasp State legislation may nevertheless be inferred in all the cir- � " �� cumstances. . . . If the State legislative purpose can be power to confer upon it, which is not inconsistent with the t; constitution or laws enacted by the general court in confor- achieved in the face of a local ordinance or.by-law on the y mitt' with powers reserved to the general court by section ': same subject, the local ordinance or by-law is not inconsis- ter » h the State legislation . . . ." Bloom v. Worcester, eight . . . . Section eight reads in pertinent part as follows: tent with "The general court shall have the power to act in relation to ' 363 Mass. 136, 155-156 (1973). ' tt and towns,vus, but only b general laws which apply like a { The purpose of St. 1973, c. 412,7 is clear on its face — to cities , byI j to .ill cif ies, or to all towns or to all cities and towns or to a ,4 ' r' empower the commissioners of Bristol County to construct a. i t �': jail, house of correction and sheriff's quarters within the class of not fewer than two, and b} special laws enacted �� � �,� tw ` county and to acquire any land artd buildings that may be (1) on petition filed or approved by the voters of a city or � rt It ; necessary for this construction. The municipal ordinance of town, or the mayor and city council, or other legislative �'� . � � y p 1 t 1F the town of Dartmouth is therefore inconsistent with body, of a city or the town meeting of a town, with respect r : , t St. 1973, c. 412, in so far as it impedes the county commis- to a law relating to that city or town; (2) by a two-thirds , votc t,f, :tch branch of the general court following a rccorn k,''` ., sioners from performing their statutory task of selecting the 4 114 rnendation by the governor; (3) to erect and constitute + jail site, acquiring the land and erecting the required struc- k; j metropolitan or regional entities, embracing any two ors ' R tures. The only question which remains under the Home Rule 1 more cities or towns, or established with other than existing x t' city or tt:,tvn boundaries, for any general or special public € `' s`, Amendment is whether St. 1973, c. 412, conforms with the purpose or purposes, and to grant these entities such powers r �i , precepts of § 8. Several of our recent cases have clarified privileges and immunities as the general court shall deem a the requirements of this section. For example, in Del Duca f f ,� r necessary or expedient for the regulation and government ,}. 1 f r ,; r. thereof; or (4) solely for the incorporation or dissolution of x^ 'For the text of this statute see note 1, supra.A. t A � III 1 ' 716 380 Mass. 706 380 Mass. 706 717 1 Counh Commissioners of Bristol v. Conservation Commission of Dartmouth. . County Commissioners of Bristol u. Conservation Commission of Dartmouth. �M•, v. Town Adm'r of Methuen, 368 Mass. 1 (1975), a munici E` spite local nature of subject because there is no restriction in pality had established a planning board in conformity with § 8 on subject matter of statute of general applicability). I I G. L. c. 41, § 81A.8 The municipality later adopted a home 1t The special legislation in question in the instant case, P Y P �" P g� rule charter creating a town council which adopted an ordi ;'' St. 1973, c. 412, states as its purpose the construction of a t nance creating a new planning board with a partially differ "- 7;: new jail in Bristol County. Since Bristol County represents r ent membership. In rejecting the contention that the town a class of two or more cities and towns, this section complies p j g f had been granted the power to do this by § 6 of the Home with § 8. Section 2 of the statute provides that the county j # Rule Amendment, we reasoned as follows: "The powers re h rig :. commissioners may take by eminent domain or. acquire by j served to the general court by § 8 include `the power to actM` purchase"any land and buildings that maybe necessary for in relation to cities and towns, but only by general laws Y '« said purposes." This provision is also valid under§ 8 since it which a 1 $ alike to all cities, or to all towns, or to all cities ': y pp } does not specify the land of any city or town.in particular. and towns, or to a class of not fewer than two. . . . It is P Thus the statute satisfies the requirements of.!§ 8 and is l lain that G. L. c. 41 81A is a general law that in its he Home Rule Amendment. :,,, p § g :� valid under t 1; mandator aspect applies alike to a class of not fewer than fir`'y ' p pp ' In summary, it is instructive to bear in mind that this is l ' two cities all cities except Boston and alike to a class of not neither a "town's rights" case, nor a "county's rights" case, ( p ) g 1 j fewer than two towns (all towns having populations of but rather a question of legislative intent.: Our reading of x � t 10,000 or more). Thus, there can be no question that G. L # f: ) q The Zoning Act convinces us that the Legislature did not in c. 41 81A remains effective as to both of those classes, _ tend b this act to subject essential public buildings of the mx , § Y j p g notwithstanding the Home Rule Amendment" (citations } Commonwealth to municipal zoning regulations. Not only «, a omitted). Del Duca v. Town Adm'r of Methuen, supra at �� _ j is this conclusion consistent with prior case law but it is also #. 8-9. See also Arlington v. Board of Conciliation and Arbz mandated by the language of The Zoning Act itself. More- �;f l s tration, 370 Mass. 769, 773-774 (1976) (arbitration prove ` ;, . over, we are averse to rule that the Legislature can override ' lion in statute which provided for wages and benefits for = �` , p g local zoning only by explicit statutory language lest we police officers and firefighters valid under Home Rule cause undue confusion in a host of other situations in which r ; Amendment since it applies generally to all municipalities ftt°.' the Legislature did not intend to yield to local regulations ` in conformity with § 8); New England LNG Co. v. Fall but did not specifically refer to them in the statute. Finally, River, 368 Mass. 259 267 1975 statute vesting authority '..` 6 and 8 of the Home Rule Amendment ( ) ( g a oraty our reading of §§ in Department of Public Utilities to control storage of natu does not alter our conclusion that the land in Dartmouth on ral gas takes precedence over local zoning law because stat X`` _ which the county commissioners seek to have a new jail con- 1 ute is of general application in compliance with § 8); Doris strutted and any structures to be erected thereon are not ,� v. Police Comm'r of Boston, 374 Mass. 443, 443-447 (1978) subject to the municipal zoning by-law of the town of Dart- 41 (statutory residency requirement for police officers valid de ,'`' . mouth. � , WaVi "General Laws c. 41, §81A, as amended through St. 1961,c. 276, § 2, Judgment affirmed. tf provides in part: "Any city except Boston, and, except as hereinafter pro , i vided, any town may at any time establish a planning board hereunder x4� Every town not having any planning board shall, upon attaining a popu- lation of ten thousand, so establish a planning board under this sec 718 380 Mass. 706 380 Mass. 719 719 County Commissioners of Bristol v. Conservation Commission of Dartmouth. ' Commonwealth v. O'Brien. ----- - VVII.KINS, J. (dissenting). The only issue of any substance _`';i in this case is whether the local zoning by-law (which °�' under the Home Rule Amendment, may be regarded as having the force of a statute) is to be treated as overriden by COMMONWEALTH vs. GORDON O'BRiEN. a statute that is silent on the right of the county commis- 5 sioners to disregard local zoning restrictions. I think the Bristol. March 3, 1980. —May so,lsso, court does a disservice not only to the spirit but also to the ` �t Present: HENNFSSEY,c.J.,QuIRICo,BRAucHER,.K"LAN,&WILMNS,JJ. provisions of the Home Rule Amendment by relying on pre- Home Rule Amendment decisions to attribute to the Legis- Practice, Criminal, Assistance of counsel, Continuance.. ]attire an intention to override local legislation by a statute that is entirely silent on the question. I have no doubt that ds A judge did not"abuse his discretion in denying a continuance of a crimi- nal trial to permit newly-appointed counsel to prepare a defense where tinder the Home Rule Amendment, the Legislature could �g� ' the denial was not based on the judge's misapprehensions of fact, properly have authorized the county commissioners to pro- f where the defendant had advance warning that the trial would com- cced in disregard of local zoning regulations. s� r mence on that date, and where the defendant was adequately repre Is it as clear as the court's opinion suggests that the Legis- sented by counsel. [721] ' lature intended by implication to authorize the county com- S,_ lace the new count 'x~ , missioners to S P y jail in any residential neighborhood of their choice in the county? The count g y y INDICTMENTS found and returned in the Superior Court commissioners happened to select a site in which the pro- on March 3, 1971. poscd use may not be substantially incompatible with other The cases were tried before Leen, J. uses authorized under the town's zoning by-law. However, gN.' After review by the Appeals Court, the Supreme Judicial the principle established by the court's decision is that every t Y' . . Court granted leave to obtain further appellate review. 1 grant of the power of eminent domain to a State entity or Daniel F. Featherston, Jr., for the defendant. agency w. g- (at Least if enacted after the Home Rule Amend- William A. Schroeder, Assistant District Attorney, for the ment.) contains an implied right to disregard explicit, law- Commonwealth. ful, local restrictions. The inference that the Legislature in- ,,;' BRAucHER, J. In 1971 a jury found the defendant guilty ' tended to bar the application of local zoning regulations is of rape, kidnapping, unnatural acts, sodomy, and assault not warranted in all the circumstances. Particularly, there with a dangerous weapon, and he was sentenced to forty to 9 has been no showing that the county commissioners cannot " fifty years of'fmprisonment for rape and to lesser concurrent t achieve their objectives without acting contrary to local . terms for kidnapping and sodomy. The other charges were zoning regulations. It would be wiser under home rule + } ' placed on file. The defendant appealed pursuant to G. L. principles to require the Legislature in cases such as this to c. 278, §§ 33A-33G, and after a long delay he now contends be explicit on the subject of overriding local regulations. that the judge abused his discretion in denying a continu- ance to enable counsel to prepare the defense. The Appeal s 4 " Court affirmed the judgments. Commonwealth v. 411`; O'Brien, 8 Mass. App. Ct. 925 (1979). We granted the de- �� fendant's application.for further appellate review, and we affirm. La Woods Hole, Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket Steamship Authority AUTHORITY MEMBERS FINANCE ADVISORY BOARD ACTING GENERAL MANAGER BERNARD D. GROSSMAN ROBERT C. MURPHY TREASURER/COMPTROLLER Nantucket Member,Chairman Martha's Vineyard WAYNE C. LAMSON RONALD H. RAPPAPORT NORMAN F. BEACH Dukes County Member,Vice Chairman Nantucket GENERAL COUNSEL WILLIAM R. ANDREWS PAUL R. KELLEHER STEVEN M. SAYERS Falmouth Member,Secretary Falmouth ROBERT L. O'BRIEN Barnstable Member,Associate Secretary November 3, 1994 Mr. Ralph Crossen Building Commissioner Barnstable Town Hall 367 Main Street Hyannis, MA 02601 Dear Mr. Crossen: On October 31, 1994, I delivered to your office a request from the Massachusetts DEP for a Municipal Zoning Certificate, along with a Form D certificate ready for your signature, and several legal opinion letters that clearly cite the case law that exempts the Steamship Authority from local zoning jurisdiction. Included in this packet was a letter from former Barnstable Town Counsel Henry L. Murphy, Jr. to the then Board of Selectmen stating that the Authority is not subject to local zoning bylaws of the Town of Barnstable. You and I have also had several telephone conversations about this issue. Notwithstanding any question of exemption, the Authority follows a policy of complying with local zoning to the extent that the regulations do not unduly interfere with operations. In this case, we have made every effort to comply with Barnstable zoning regulations, and we are not aware of any aspect of this project that is not in compliance. The Hyannis ferry terminal reconstruction project has been through not one,but two courtesy site plan reviews: on February 4, 1993 and again on June 9, 1994. We have also presented the plans to any groups and individuals who expressed interest, have negotiated a detailed mitigation agreement with the Town Council, and have made substantial changes to the plans in response to requests from neighboring property owners. Furthermore, we_have put the project through complete MEPA review and have a Final Environmental Impact Report certified by the agency. Please sign the DEP certificate as soon as possible and return it to me. The Massachusetts Highway Department is prepared to advertise for construction bids, and needs this document in order to proceed. Sincerely . r Wesley J. Ewell Special Projects Manager P.O. Box 284 Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543 (508) 548-5011 • FAX (508) 548-8410 I� I 784 380 Mass. 762 380 Mass. 785 -185 Purity Snlrremc. Inc. c. A(lorne\'General. � \\',Kids llole. Martha's\in \ard& Natituc krl S.S.Atith. r. Martha's \inc%ard(;-nun n. that the regulation carried to absurd limits potentially allows the Attorney General to require price affixation to each piece of loose fruit. Exemption of such items, as long as the exemptions are applied to all sellers of similar items, is I WOODS 110LE, MARTHA'S VINEYARD & NANTOCKP71. a reasonable exercise of the Attorney General's discretionary SrcnN-rslul,AuT11011rry us. Dintt'rlln's Vw1,:rnitD C0ststtss10N. enforcement power as granted by G. L. c. 93A, §§ 4-8. There is no due process violation. Barnstable. February 5, V)SO. --line 4. 19SO. 8. The cases are remanded to the Superior Court, where judgments shall be entered as follows. In case number 77- I 1'nscnt: Ilr:nnrssii, (.:.J.. Qh1naa,. Hnnrcnra, KAPLAN. & I.,n„I.,ll. 3436, that the injunction was validly issued and shall con- tinue in full force and effect. In case number 77-3530, that Woody Hole, rlfar(ha'c Vineyard and Nanttickr( S(ranrship Arr(horih/. the Attorney General had the statutory authority to adopt f; Martha's Vim-yard Cormnission. Jnrisrli(-(iorr, I)l•claratt,r\ retie(. Ile rulation hII A 1 that he complied with t11C pro- cedural A[lnrinislrulice r1);enCr/. Hrgrrlu(ion. Words, ••Amens\'.•• ( ) O, I l I+ cedural requirements of law in adopting it, and that the An action by the Woods Hole, \Martha's Vineland and Nantucket Steam- regulation may constitutionally be applied to Purity. shin Authority seeking it declaration that it \N as not suhjc•ct to the j regniatory V ow(Irs of the Martha's Vineland Commission \\ith rc�:lyd Su ordered, to the Authority's lrrola sed construction of a tern\ slily and rt-pairs to ! an existing slip c:m Martha's Vinc•yard presented an actual contro\cis\' in which both parties' interests were suffic•icnt to warrant dec•laralor\ relief. I M2-7931, l The Woods Hole, Martha's Vint-Yard and Nantucket Steamship Authoril\' is not an agencY.exempt from rcl;ulation by the Martha's Vine\'ard Connnission under St. 1977, c. 831. § 2. [795-8011 Discussion of tlic sclrlrc Of the regidalory powcr of the Martha's Fine\and Commission aver the wolsds Ilole, Martha's Ville\'ard and Nantucket Steamhship Authority. [801-804] The standards, criteria and regulations authorized by St. 1971, c. 831, §§ 7, 12, need not be filed with the Secretary of the Coi nnonwealth pursuant to G. L. c. 30A in order for them to become effecti\r. [80•il i Y; CiVIL ACTION ContnlC.nccd in the Snperior Court Depart- nlent on July 2, 1979. i The case was reported to the Appeals Court by Kcat- ink;, J. The Supreme Judicial Court, on its ov,-n initiative, r ordered direct review. Laurciwe S. 1'ordhaur (Terry S..Kogali with hitn) for the i plaintiff. Donald L. Connors (Lemra J. C:oldin with hint) for the ., defcnclunt. t ' 786 -------- - -------------.---- 380 IV1 ass_7 85 I 880 M ass. 785 787 111, ds IloIc, Martha s VincYard tk Nantucket S.S. At it u. Martha's Vines ard Cnnun'n. � \Ccxxls Hole, Martha's Vincvard do Nantucket S.S. Auth.t:. Martha's ard Cunun'n-- Quuuco, J. This case was reserved and reported without tain, repair and operate a boat line," to issue bonds, fix rates decision by a judge of the Superior Court. The plaintiff i (subject to a-limited power of regulation by the Department (Authority) brought an action there"for declaratory and in- of Public Utilities), to "adopt by-laws for the regulation of junctive relief . pursuant to Section 18 of Chapter 831 of I its affairs and the conduct of its business," to make con- the Acts of 1977, M.G.L. c. 23[1]A, § .1, and M.G.L. tracts, to employ and insure persons, to seek and accept- c. 30A, § 14," to the effect that the Authority is not Subject Federal grants, and "to acquire, hold and dispose of real to the regulatory powers of the defendant (Commission) and personal property, including additional vessels and fix- with regard to the Authority's proposed construction of a tures, for its corporate purposes." The Authority is exempt second ferry slip and repairs to an existing slip in the Vine- from State taxation. Id. § 6. Should the operating expenses Ward Haven Harbor of Martha's Vineyard. The Authority of the Authority exceed the combination of its income and also asked the Superior Court judge to"annul the decision of the statutory reserve fund, the Commonwealth is directed the Commission dated June 7, 1979 pursuant to [St. 1977, to pay the deficit and is authorized to recoup those funds 'c. 831, § 18J." We hold that the Authority is, within cer- from certain municipal and county governments, in certain tain limits, subject to regulation by the Commission. Be- stated proportions. Id. § 9. cause there was no evidence heard in the Superior Court N The Authority's enabling legislation further provides that concerning the validity of the Commission's decision pur- ';- the act, "being necessary for the welfare of the common- ; Suant to St. 1977, c. 831, § 18, we,remand the case for fur- ,,$)wealth and its inhabitants; shall be liberally construed to ef- 1 ther proceedings on that question. i.. feet the purposes thereof," and that "[a]ll other general or 1. 71te Authorial. The Authority was created by I� special laws, or parts thereof, inconsistent here-with are St. P)(i0, c. 701,' as a "body corporate . . . which shall be. hereby declared to be inapplicable to the provisions of this cleaned to be a public instrumentality for the purposes of � �,��act." Id. §§ 17, 19. this act." Id. § 3. Its purpose is "to provide adequate trans- The Authority's enabling act has been amended several portation of persons and necessaries of life for the islands of �` times since 1960'. Most of the amendments have involved Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard;" and to that end it is details such as financing and membership in the Authority empowered to "purchase, construct, maintain and operate and in its financial'advisory board.2 Others have mandated necessary vessels, docks, wharves, other vessels, equipment, certain service routes or allowed other routes in the discre- furniture and supplies." Id. § 1. It consists of three tion of the Authority.' Other amendments dealt -with sari- members: one resident from the town of Nantucket ap- ous functions of the Authority not relevant here.' Two 1979 pointed by the selectmen thereof, one from the county of amendments required the Authority to hold annual public Dukes County appointed by the county commissioners, and Bearings in towns serviced in order to determine schedules, one resident from the town of Falmouth appointed by the and to publish notice of the hearings. St. 1979, cc. 102, 140. selectmen. Id. § 3. See St. 1963, c. 494. The Legislature has enumerated specific powers of the Au- thority in St. 1960, c. 701, § 4, as amended through St. 1965, 1Sm St. 1962, c. 675. St. 1903, c. 494, c. 528: St. 1964. c. 313, c. 563, c. 437. These include the power to "acquire, main- §§ 2. 17. St. 1965, c. 779: tit. 1968, c. 317: St' 1909, c. 779; St. 1978, c. 502, c. 524: St. 1979, c. 316. 'See St. 1965, c. 413; St. 1974, c. 392;.St,. 1979 c. 133. I'hc Anthotrity'.s predecessor was created by!St. VMS, c. 544, which is 'Se4•St. 1962,c. 276,c. 700: St. 196-1,c. 278;:St. 1973, c. 9-12: St. 1976, *; disc.nucd biter in this ctltiniott• c. 517; St. 1978, c. 427. 380 Mass. 785 � 380 Mass. 785 789 788 --- — -- %%,Odds llole, Martha's Vineyard&Nant(rcket S.S. Auth. V. Martha's Vineyard Cbmnl'n, f' 11'r(etc Ilolr, Martha's In('cerd& Nantucket S.S. AIIIII C. �1Jftha 5 Ines aid( rnm�n. t The Authority is no stranger to th-island other courts of islands, and have *ranted extensive powers to the Secretary the coin monwealth- Oil several occasions we have been (if the Interior, but local reaction to the hill was ncgative .asked to decide questions involving the scope of its adminis= because of a fear of Federal control. See id. at 418-433; 119 Cong. Rec 17576-17578 (1973).6 trative powers and related matters.' The provisions of the 1974 Commission statute were de- 2. The Comniissiort. The Legislature created the Mar- tailed in IslandI'ro1�erties, Inc. v. 1llartlta's Vitu�t and tha's Vineyard Commission by St. 1974, c. 637. The en- Comm'n. 372 Mass. 216, 218-222 (1977). Rather than abling act was superseded by St. 1977,. c. 831. A further itemize the relatively minor changes which were made in amendment in 1979 changed the process of making Com- the 1974 statute by the 1977 statute; we shall describe the mission regulations to include participation by a greater 1977 statutory scheme. number of town bodies. St. 1979, c. 319. The purpose of the Commission is to "protect the health, The Commission was created in response to studies which safety, and general welfare of island residents and visitors predicted that, unless action was taken, the unique natural, by preserving and conserving for the enjoyment of present cultural, and historical beauty of the Nantucket Sound and future generations the unique natural, historical, islands would be lost in the quest for private development, ecological, scientific, and cultural values of Martha's particularly for the second=home market. Gifford; An Vineyard which contribute to public enjoyment, inspiration Islands Trust, 11 Harv. J. on Legis. 417, 418, 425=428 and scientific study, by protecting these values from cle- (1974). In 1972, a bill was introduced in the United States velopment and uses which would impair them, and by pro: Senate which would have created a Federal trust in the moting the enhancement of sound local economies. St. 1977, c.. 831, § 1. The statute was enacted in response. to .,See Dattglas v. Woods Hale, Martha's Vineyard v Nantucket S.S. legislative declarations of facts concerning threats to the Auth., 366 Mass. 459 (1974) (whether vessel is"equipment" for purpows island's unique value.7 of competitive bidding requirement); Ballantine v. Falmouth, 363 Mass.. 760 (1973) (whether town can lease to Authority land taken by eminent domain); National Shawtnut Bank v. Woods Hole, Martha's Vineyard& "This bill, S. 3485, 92d Cong., 2d scss. (1972), was rc•plac•ed by two Nantucket S.S. Auth., 361 Mass. 219 (1972) (disposition of funds); Nair- bills in 1973. S. 1929, 93d Cong., 1st secs., 119 Cong. Rec. 175 7 6-17586 tucket Express Lines, Inc. v. Woods Hole, Martha's Vineyard & Nan- (1973), and H.R. 8318', 93d Cong., 1st secs., 119 Cong. Rec. 17537 tucket S.S. Auth., 350 Mass. 173(res judieata),cert. denied,384 U.S. 952 (1973). These bills were referred to committee, and apparently never (1966); Woods Hole, Martha's Vineyard & Nantucket S.S. Auth. v. Bax- brought to a vote after the passage of the State statute creating the Mar- ter, 349 Mass. 288 (1965) (tonnage of competing ship) Nantucket BOO tha's Vineyard Commission. Inc. v. Woods Hole, Martha's Vineyard & Nantucket S.S. Auth„ 345 Mass. 551 (1963) (standing); Barnstable v. Woods hole, Alartha's 'Those legislative declarations of facts are essentially the same in the Vineyard & Nantucket S.S. Auth., 343 Mass. 674 (1962) (whether 1974 and 1977 acts. As expressed in the latter, they are: "The island of Authority may provide transportation to and from Barnstable): New Bed )Martha's Vineyard posscsses unique natural, historical, ecological, scien- ford v. New Bedford, Woods Hole, Martha's Vineyard & Nantucket S.S. tific, cultural, and other values and there is a regional and stateside in. Auth., 336 Mass. 651 (contractual and constitutional issues), S. C., 358 terest in preserving and enhancing these values. "These values are being threatened and may be irreversibly damaged U.S. 53 (1958); County of Dukes County v. New Bedford, Woods Flole, uncoordinated or inappropriate uses of the land.. ,Martha's Vineyard Nantucket S.S. Auth., 333 Klass. 405 (1956) by "The protection of health, safety, and general welfare of island (whether Authority has duty to suspend winter.service to New Bedford): New Bedford v. New Bedford, Woods Hole, Alartha s Vineyard Z Nan- residents and visitors requires the establishment of it regional c•onnnissio n tucket S.S. Auth., 330 Mass. 422 (1953) (whether Authority may suspend whose purpose shall be to ensure that henceforth the land usages which syill be permitted are those which will not.be unduly detrimental to those winter service to New Bedford); New Bedford v. New Bedford, Woods values or to the econimiy of the island. Hole, Martha's Vineyard & Nantucket S.S. Auth., 329 Mass. 243 (1952) (whether Department of Puhlic Utilities may order Authority to continue "The preserving anti enhancing of those ,values requires lsicl the designation of districts of critical planoingcone•crn and the recognition of service to New licdford). 380 Mass. 785 380 Mass. 785 790 791 %%I,x,ds I lole, Niartha's Vine}ard& Nantucket S.S. Atith. v. Martha's VisieNard Cmnrn'n. W(xKLs HoIc, Martha's Vineyard& Nantucket S.S. Auth. u. Martha's Vineyard Comm I, 'File Commission is composed of twenty-one members, I directed to adopt "standards and criteria" for determining nine of whom are elected from the towns on the island, and i I DIII's, and the Legislature has designated certain n0lICXUlU- the remainder of whom are appointed by town boards of sive considerations which should enter into these standards selectmen, the county commissioners, and the Governor. and criteria." Id. § 12. Within each municipality, the: Four of the five members whom the Governor appoints are governmental agency responsible for issuing development "persons whose principal residence is not on Martha's permits (in this case the Tisbury conservation commission Vineyard," and these four have "voice but not vote."' All discussed below) must determine, according to the Commis-' members serve for terms of two years. Id. § 2. sion standards and criteria, whether a proposed develop- The principal substantive.areas of authority of the Com- merit is one of regional impact, and if so it must refer the ap- mission are the designation of areas of critical planning con- plication to the Commission for approval. Id. § 13. cern (CPC areas) and of developments of regional impact After notice and public hearing pursuant to G. L. c. 30A, (DRI's), and the. regulation of development in these desig- § 2 (except that notice may be fourteen days instead of twell- nated areas or projects. Id. §§ &12. Because the Commis- ty-one), the Commission may grant approval for the local sion designated the proposed construction in the present body to grant the development permit only if it finds that: case a DRI, we shall describe the statutory provisions for "(a) the probable benefit-from the proposed development DRI's in some detail. -.vill exceed the probable detriment as evaluated pursuant to of The Legislature has furnished a general definition section fifteen; DRI's: "the types of development which, because of their "(b) the proposed development will not substantially or magnitude or the magnitude of their effect on the surround- unreasonably interfere with the achievement of the oI' ing environment, are likely to present development issues )jcc- significant to more than one municipality of the island of Martha's Vineyard." Id. § 12.1 The Commission is shore, beach, seacoast, river, stream, lake, pohd,,or canal, including coastal construction; or demolition of a structure; or the clearing of land developments of regional impact, and the review thereof by the regional as an adjunct of construction;or the deposit of refuse,solid or liquid waste or fill on a parcel of land." St. 1977, c. 831, § 6. commission. "Such a program can protect the natural character and beauty Of mar- ""Inadoptingstandal'Cls and criteria pursuant to this section, the corn- tha's Vineyard and can contribute to the maintenance of sound local mission shall consider, but shall not be limited by the following considera. economics and private property values. tions: "The people of Martha's Vineyard did, on March fourteenth, nineteen -(a) the extent to which a type of development would create or hundred and seventy-four vote to endorse the provisions of chapter six alleviate environmental problems, including, but not limited to, air, hundred and thirty-seven of the acts of nineteen hundred and seventy- water, and noise pollution; four." St. 1977, c. 831, § I. "(b) the size of the site to be developed; "The 1971 statute provided that, if the Commission shall adopt re-gula- 9"M the amount of ix,destrian and vehicular traffic likely to 1w. cneralvd: tions for districts of critical planning concern (discussed later in this opin- (d) the number of persons likely to be residents; employees, or other- ion), four additional members, known as the"town review committee," wise present; were to be added. St. 1977, c. 831, § 2, par. 3. The town review com- (e) the extent to which a type of development is intended to serve a re- millet was abolished by St. 1979, c. 319, § 1. gional market. "The statute defines a"development" as"any building, nrininv, dredg- "(() the location of a type of development near a waterway, publicly- ing, filling, excavation, or drilling operation; or an), material change in owned land, or a municipal boundary, and tire use or appearance of any structure or in the land itself;or the dividing "(g) the extent to which the development would require the provision of of Ian(] into parcels; or a change in the intensity of use of land, such as an the following municipal or regional services: waste disposal, public increase in the rl'uniber of dwelling units ill a structure; or alteration of water supplies, sewage trentment facilities, parking facilities and tourist services, and public education facilities.- Id. § 12. i 380 Mass. 785 380 )\lass. 785 793 792 _ --_ --- -- ---- --------— - _ 1l'c.xis 19ole. Martha's Vines and& Nantucket S.S. Auth. c. Martha's Vincvard Gnnm'n. Woods Hole, Martha's Vineyard& Nantucket S.S. Auth. u. Martha's Vineyard Cori tives of the general plan of any municipality or the general Commission's action, an(] the Authority's continuation of the project will proceed either in the manner it desires or in plan of the county of Dukes County; the manner prescribed by the Commission or the trial "(c) the proposed development is consistent with munici f it is incon- judge, if he modifies the Commission's decision in any re- gal development inconsistency necessary by-laws, enablela substantial spect. Thus, the Authority has a clear interest in the out- sistent, the inconsistency y come of our decision. See id, at 423. segment of the population.of a larger community of which The Commission's primary interest is in vindicating its au- for housing, education or recreation; and the municipality is a part to secure adequate opportunities thority to protect what it considers to be the values expressed "(d) if the proposed development is located in whole or in in its enabling act. It has no real financial interest in the out- part within a designated district of critical planning con- come of the litigation, since-the towns within its jurisdiction cern, it is consistent with the regulations approved or adopt- and other towns, and not the Commission, are charged with meeting any Authority deficit by St. 1960, c. 701, § 9. We ed by the commission pursuant to section ten. Id. § 14 hold that the Commission's interest is sufficient for us to pro- The Commission, in making a finding of probable benefits and detriments "shall consider also the impact of the pro= Geed to the merits of this case. See id. at 424. p4. The facts. We summarize only those facts which are osed development on the areas within other municipalities. undisputed as shown in the complaint ,and answer, and the Such probable benefits and detriments shall be not readily amended complaint and defendant's answer thereto. In even if they are indirect, intangible or > 1 tifiable." The statute lists eight factors which the Com: December, 1978, the Authority filed with the Tisburi, con- mission shall weigh, "together with other relevant factors,' servation comi-nission (TCC) a statutory notice of intent, as when assessing probable benefits and detriments. Id. § 15. required by G. L. c. 131, § 40 (the Wetlands Protection There is no express requirement that the Commission main- Act), concerning proposed repairs to its existing facilities in tain a record of the hearing or state its reasons for approving Vineyard Haven Harbor. In January of 1979 the Authority or disapproving an application, except that it must make the filed a similar notice of intent with regard to its proposed four findings listed above. The Commission may specify construction of a new ferry slip to act as a."standby slip.''" conditions under which a development may proceed, id. As discussed above, the Commission's statute requires all § 16, and has certain enforcement powers, id. § 17* local planning authorities on Martha's Vineyard to deter- 3. Jurisdiction. This court may grant declaratory relief mine, according to standards and criteria issued by the only in cases "in which an actual controversy has arisen. Commission, whether a proposed development might be a DRI or might fall within a CPC area. St. 1977, c. 831, G. L. c. 231A, § 1. Department of Community Affairs v. Massachusetts State College Bldg. Auth., 378 Mass. 418, § 13. Accordingly, the TCC determined that each of the 422 (1979). Questions of statutory interpretation, by them- notices of intent involved developments with potential re- selves, do not rise to the level of actual controversy. Id. at 422-423, and cases cited. The interests of the parties in this "Apparently the two notices of intent were filed separately in order to case are identifiable. If we hold that the Corr mission may sir»hl;fy application for Federal funding. not promulgated standards,I'}ie Commission had criteria, and re�ula- not in any circumstance regulate the Authority, the latter " will be free to proceed with its construction project. If we Lions for DRI's which are in the record before us. The Authority main- tains that these have no validity because they Nvere not filed with the Sec- " hold that this case presents a proper area for Commission retan• of the Conunonsvealtli ptirsuunt to G. L. e. 30A, § 5, an issue validity of the regulation, the case will proceed to trial on the svhic•lt is discussed later in this opinion. 794 380 Mass. 785 380 Mass. 785 795 Woods Hole, Martha's Vineyard& NantUcket S.S. Auth. u. Martha's yincjar om'm rb. "'("di Holt. Martha's \iotl ar(I& hantncl(R S.S Ai0h. Martha c \(ri(•t ar(f gional impact, and referred the applications to the Commis- construction of the existing slil)."13 Orr )t►1y 2, 1979, the lion. On or about April 19, 1979, the Commission conduct- Authority brought suit in Superior Court to obtain declara- ed a public hearing to consider the applications of the Au- i tory and injunctive relief on the principal ground that the thority. On May 3, 1979, the Commission voted to approve C: Commission had exceeded its statutory authority. both projects. r At oral argument, the Commission moved to SUi)plellyef)t" On May 10, 1979, however, the Commission, in its own the record. The Authority opposed the motion but, if it ryas words, "reconsidered its action of May 3, 1979 and again re- to be allowed, the Authority moved further to su y )lernent viewed the matter of automobile and pedestrian traffic vol- the record. We allow both motions to supplement. The umes, financing of the project, including the assessment of supplementary material indicates that the Commission reconstruction costs against the Island communities in the granted an Authority request to begin construction of a sec_ event of the Applicant's deficit [pursuant to St. 1960, and ferry slip, on the basis of an engineer's report that the c. 701, § 9], and the regional economic impacts resulting existing slip is in serious disrepair and probabl will not 1 the summer season st from potential increases in traffic." After``extensive discus- sion," but no further hearing, the Commission voted to dis- Commission is ultimately successful in this litigation, the allow construction of a second slip and allow repair of the new slip will be the only one used, f. 5. Scnpe Of Petition and tssries be ure the corirt.• The Au- existing slip. It found that, in considering the factors enu- t J merated in St. 1977, c. 831, §§ 14, 15, and its own standards thority's petition in the Superior Court combined two Sella-. and criteria promulgated pursuant to id., § 12, the probable rate approaches to its alleged right to the relief whir►► it detriments of construction of a second slip would outweigh i seeks( One phase of the petition is an appeal rfndcr l n St. 1977, c. 831, § 18, from the Coiilissior) S dECISlOn-.of the probable benefits. _ _ uJune 7, 1979, authorizing the Authority an to reconstruct In assessing the probable benefits and detriments, the existing ferry slip and related facilities but denvi.ng its re- quest considered the following factors: (a) "Oak l- quest that it be allowed to construct a second or reserve Bluffs and Vineyard Haven serve as major points of entry to ferry slip, concluding with a request that the decision be an- the Island during the summer season, and a single slip will nulled. Another phase of the petition is a request for declar- insure that Oak Bluffs, which receives 12% of seasonal traf= atory relief i! n the form of a judgment "declaring Nyhethcr fic, will remain economically viable as a port of entry and to what�i extent, if any;, the [Con)nrission] has jurisdic construction, - 1 (b) "already serious Vineyard Haven traffic conditions ill tlon over the repair, or maintenance by tile,' not further degenerate"; (c) future pressures on the Authori- Authority of its property on the Island of Martha's Vineyard ty to increase the volume of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and further"'declaringw hether and to xvllat exten va t might have an impact on local economies,; and (d) a second the Ulm- slip may affect the business activity of the town of Tisburv. The Commission also was concerned that 1t]he people of "TheCnny►niCsion also imposed two (.;)nditintts: (:,) the Antbt(ril, "riraintauy the 'doll} freight' cun(rpt" for the(v tinrniri,cr of 1),Nir,t\sm('n, Martha's Vineyard are fiscally responsible for deficit spend- and I, e Y Y p 1 ( ) the Authorise not Ix•f;in (vayst7ucti(yn tiiytil the l: onunissiun "h;>_s re_ ing by the Applicant [and they] could not sustain the `'ieWCd the Applicant's plans arid sfxcifications [in terms of] criteria iden- tified in the Comnyi,csion's Information Lists for Dceelopnu nts of licgional extra burden of solelyfinancing the Applicant's ro osal." g pP proposal." Impact." The "dolls• freight" sy:sten, is on(• %%.,r D v lopillen(•rs an(I small Accordingly, the Commission allowed the TCC to grant bnsin(ssll)eo can (Iclieer ,uul pick op freight ((wreb emir at the rid smrd the Authority a development permit "to allow only the re- (Maven dock. The Autliorit%, ss•ished to change to an off-site location. - •4 i 796 380 h•f ass. 785 380 Mass. 785 797 -------- =----- _ Woods Bole, Martha's Vineyard& Nantucket S.S. Auth, u. Martha's Vineyard Comm n. 11'r ids Ilnle, Martha's\'ine'aYttBi Nantucket S.S. Anth. r. Martha's \i ursard Gmun'u. mission's decision dated June 7, 1979 is a lawful exercise, in ( is invalid for many reasons, some of \which <ire legal in whole or part, of the Commission's powers:" ` nature, but some of which are factual, including the bri)acl but not all The Commission by its answer admits some, reason that it is allegedly "arbitrary, capricious, is based of the Authority's factual allegations. After the filing of the upon an error of law and is not supported h\• suhstanti�., al answer and before there were any discovery proceedings of evidence. It does not appear from the recur• d that the record or any trial on the unresolved factual issues, the Au- Commission has in'an way waived it e Y Y s right to resent \''- g eI P thority filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings and a dense before the Superior Court on factual issues which motion for a report of the case without decision to the Ap- must be resolved before this court can pass on some of the peals Court. The judge of the Superior Court did not act on alleged grounds of illegality of the Commission's decision. the motion for judgment, and he allowed the motion to To be sure; the pleadings present some purely legal clues- report the case. This court, acting sua sponte, caused the tions which this court can consider, but unless \we conclude case to be transferred here from the Appeals Court. that the Commission is entirely without authorit' to aet on We now proceed to a consideration of the several major the Authority's proposed construction project, and to the ex- issues placed before us by the report of the case on the tent that there are unresolved factual questions which might pleadings, limited to the facts alleged by the Authority and have a bearing on the legality of the Commission's decision, admitted by the Commission, without evidence, findings or we shall transfer the case to the Superior Court for the stipulation of any additional facts. resolution of those factual questions. That will be in keep- 6. Appeal by Authority under St. 1977, c. 831, § 18. Sec- ing with the language of the Legislature in § 18 of the Com- tion 18 of the Commission's statute provides in part as mission's statute. follows: "Any party aggrieved by a determination of the 7. Is Inns! of Authority subject to regulation by C,'omnlis- commission may appeal to the superior court within twenty lion? The answer to this question requires a close examina- days after the commission has sent the development appli tion of the Authority's statute, of the statutes creating other cant written notice, by certified mail, of its decision and has governmental authorities, the relationships between such filed a copy of its decision with the town clerk of the town in authorities and other. governmental bodies or entities; and which the proposed development is located. The court shall decisions of this court interpreting relevant statutes. hear all pertinent evidence and shall annul the determine- A State-created authority is a "hybrid entity, jiosscssing tion of the commission if it finds that said determination is attributes both of a prig ate corporation and of an executi\c unsupported by the evidence or exceeds the authority of the agency of the Commomvealth." Department of Conrrnur� - commission, or it may remand the case for further action by t A airs \ Massachysctts_ State-ColTe e 73iilcTiii the commission or may make such other decree as is just and 378 Mass_ 418, 425 (1979). See opinion of the .1uslic c.c, 33I equitable." Mass. 721, 734-735, 739 (1956). In New Bc'dforcl v. New The Commission argues that; assuming for the moment Bedford, Woods Hole, Martha's Vineyard c; Nantricket S.S. that it has the power of regulation over some phases of the Auth., 329 Mass, 243 (1952), decided tinder tile: predecessor Authority's proposed construction or reconstruction project, statute to St. 196U, e. 701,14 we said of the predecessor Ail- the case is not ripe for this court to attempt to determine thority that it "is a corporation established as an agency of whether the action taken by the Commission in its decision the Comilion�vealth to exercise certain delegated govern- , of June 7, 1979, is in excess of its powers or is otherwise in- valid. The Authority alleges that the Commission's decision "St 19-1 i 544 ---- i i 380 Mass. 785 1 380 NJ ass. 785 799 798 _ - -- \\'Duds Hole. Martha's Vinecard& Nantucket S.S. Auth. u. Martha's vineyard Conun'n. ' \Ccxars 11o]c• !Martha's Vine-Nard be Nantucket S.S. Auth. cc. Martha's\•inecard Conun•n. The powers granted by the Legisla- Our reasons for holding that the Building Authority is an mental pclwcrs. I agency distinguish that case from the present case,ture ho\\ever. exercised is the Authority he control of anys an agency of otherr7governmeental First, the statute under which the Department of Comnru- exercised free f nity Affairs sought to regulate the Building Authority de- by unless these powers are made subject to such control fined "public agency" to include -in "uuthorit}•." The Conr- oy the statute creating the Authority or by some other mission's statute, under which the Authority seeks exelnp- general or special law. Id. at 248-249. tion, contains no such definition. See St. 1977, c. 831. Sec- supervision by the Commission. Therefore, we must deter- ond, the Building Authority's statute provided an exemption mine the question whether the Authority is subject to any from regulation. See St. 1963, c. 703, § 2. The AUt}roritv's control by the Commission by reference to the Commission's statute contains no such exemption. See St. 1960, c. 701. statute. The latter statute provides that the Commission Because of these differences between the statutes being con- s all be a public body corporate and . . . shall have the strued in the Dc/part»lr nt of Ctrnununity Affairs case and responsibilities, duties, and powers established herein over those we are construing here, and because the Department the lands and waters in the county of Dukes County [except of Community Affairs case held the Building Authority to certain designated areas, not here relevant] and to the ex- be a public agency only for the purposes at issue therein, we tent they are excluded from the responsibilities, duties and do not regard the apartment of Community/ powers of the towns, all lands own Affairs case as ed by the commonwealth controlling. .It does, however, provide precedent for the or any of its constituent agencies, boards, departments, proposition that an authority may be subject to regulation commissions or offices." Id. § 2. The Authority argues that by another governmental agency. it is a "constituent agency" of the Comnronwealtlr and In Boston v. Massachusetts Port Arrth., 364 Mass. 639 therefore subject to the § 2 exemption. (1974), ,v e faced the question whether the Massachusetts.created authority is subject to regulation by other State en- We have previously faced the question whether aState- port Authority (1\1PA) was subject to air pollution control II regulations of the Department of Public Health and an- i ,,ve . In that the Buildin of g created pra sunder severed the question in the affirmative despite a provision we held that the g St. 1963, c. 703, was a "public agency" for purposes of the that the MPA shall not be subject to the . . . regulation . . . Relocation Assistance Act, G. L. c. 79A, §§ 1-15. The latter of any department . . . of the commonwealth except to the statute provided that "any public agency . . . shall provide extent and manner provided in this act." Id. at 653, In both the Massachusetts Port Auth. case and the De- relocation assistance . and defined "public Building Auth'' to partment of Community Affairs case, we poked to the en- include any "authority.'jrc did§a that theBBuildin AAuthori`' g tire statutory scheme creating the powers of the agency enabling act, however, provided which N as seeking to regulate another State agency, and ty would not be subject to regulation or supervision by "the department of education or of any department, commis. concluded that the Legislature did not intend to exempt the lion, board, bureau or agency of the commonwealth INvith latter agency from such regulation. 364 Mass. at 655, 658. certain inapplicable exceptionsJ," St. 1963, c. 703, § 2. The See 378 Mass, at 432. enabling act provided, as does the statute creating t rc u- The State Administrative Procedure Act defines "agency" thority in the present case, that any inconsistent general or as "any department, board, commission, division or author- special law would be inapplicable to the provisions of the ity of the state government or subdivision of any of the fore- act. Id. § 24. Sec St. 1960, c. 701, § 19. going, or official of the state government, authorized by law 380 i`f ass. 785 380 Mass r85 801 ..... _ _ 800 I I„Ic Martha s 1 inv%ard& Nantnc kr t S.S. Auth. V. M.rrtha c uu Ward �1'cwdt Bole; Martha's Vineyard& M Nantucket S.S. Auth.U. artha's Vrirccard Cnriim_n. to make regulations or to conduct adj'udicatory procet'dings statement in New Bedford v. _Nr tv 13cr1/nrd, 1Voorl.c llnlo , Martha's Vino•rturcl '& Alantric•kot S.S. Auth., 329 Mass, 243, G. L. c. 30A, § 1 (2). '1'lie Authority is fairs nd to 248-2�49 (1952), that the powers of the Authority "are to be make only "by-laws for the regulatio701f it 4(��)•1 and is not conductexercised free from the control of aril other governmental �, conduct of its business," St. 1960,. c agency unless these powers are made'stil5jcct to such control authorized to conduct adjudicatory proceedings. 'We ha` by the statute creating the Authority or by some other gen- consistently recognized the "hybrid" nature of a State au- era] or special law.' This statement was made in reference thority, and have on occasion likened authorities to munici to an attempt by the Department of Public Utilities to pal corporations. New Bedford v. New Bedford, Woods regulate the rates of the Authority, however, and St. 1948, Hole, Martha's Vineyard rlr Nantucket S.S. Aitth., 336 c: 544, 5 ,set out the procedure'for rate setting. Fiere, the tnion o the § , p Mass. 651, 656, S. C., 358 U.S. 53 (1958); Op' f Commission is not seeking to regulate or supervise 'the Justices, 334 Mass. 721, 735 (1956). Authority; it is simply exercising its power with respect to There is no need for the Legislature to amend an author- lands and waters over which it has jurisdiction with respect ity's enabling statute each time the authority f Comnade bjeit to development. Nothing m the Authority's enabling act to regulation by another entity. Department Ives it absolute power to construct ferry slips free from i111V ty Affairs, supra at 432. Boston t hc the Massachusetts Authority regulation,"' and we think it is subject to some regulation by Auth., supra at 654-655. The project seeks to undertake in this case, the Commission. We turn nosy to the question of the nature pose, could conceivably affectt1 r n land use and other h eviron and extent of regulation NVhich is permitted. � f 8, S"IPC of CMllmission'c7)o'tvcr over Anthori r/ mental interests which t t : As we he Commission was created to pro- have already stated above, because the validity of the Com- tect. We hold that the Authority is not an exempt agency mission's decision of June 7, 1979; depends on factual issues under St. 1977, c. 831, § 2. which were not resoled by the Superior Court before it It is within the purview of the Authority to repair its'ex-as necessarv. reported the Authority's appeal from that decision, xyc shall fisting harbor facilities and construct projectsoares subject to ap- not pass oil that appeal, but shall remand it to the Superior See St. 1960, e. 701, §§ 1, 4. Such Court for decision. We take this opportunity, llowever, to Federal, and local j proval and regulation by various State, provide some guidance as to ghat factors the CO11)iItlSSloil` bodies, as is any private development. The Authority cites P can legitimately consider in ruling on an application, since cases decided by this court under St. 1948, c. 544, holding these questions will arise on remand:. that it has the power to make certain administrative oieci- sions. Sec County of Dukes County v. New Bedford, Woods Hole, Martha's Vineyard v Nantucket S.S. Auth., "'In 1956, the Lcgislalnre anu ndi'd the Authority's pro.,decessor statnlc•, St. 1948. c. 544, to add a new § 5A. St. 195(i, c. c47. 'Phis ncyy section 333 Mass. 405, 408 (1956); New Bedford tucketc S.S. Auth., provided among Tither thing..,that"(t Jhe Authority'shall provide adequate Woods Hole, Martha's Vineyard transportation of persons and necessaries of life for the islands of Nan- tucket Mass, 422, 431 (1953). The Authority also relies on our and lylartha's vineyard thrcrttl;hoill tire;car . . . and adc(ltiate ferry sl.ii,s or transfer hridgcs shall he construc•te(I and rit tintained al lnnnu.d 15 rlie record Before us illustrates the number of approvals which must I xrrts, including Vineyard 1laycnl to facilitate arul acco,iunodatc said Ile sought from,among others,the Army Corps of Engineer.,and the State vehicr,lar traffic.' When the prcdevessor statute yyas replaced Ihy ee.ring. St. 1960, c. 701.•no similar langnage was include d. The present act clots I)ctrartinent of i:nvironniental Quality E11V the Authority authorize the Authority to ••c•oiwruct. Maintain and operate necessary avers, and the Commission admits, that these approvals have hcvn Sought vessels, docks, wharves'- . ." St. 1960, c. 701. § 1. and obtained. i 802 380 Mass. 785 38011 Mass. 7 85 ------ - 803 ----- - Woods \5'crldc . r. (:rnnm'n. ovds F{ole, Martha's Vineyard&Nantucket S.S. Auth. v. Martha's Vineyard Comm'n. Hulc. Martha's \'inccarcl& Nanim ket S.S. Awh \la"ha" Vilw%arrl The purpose of the Commission is broadly stated in the statute atrthorizcs the Conurlission to consid I ,c ul enabling act: "to protect the health, safety, and general Inks but only in tcrrits of t]Ic it{)pact of devcloler erI(llt and land welfare of island residents and visitors by preserving and uses on those economies. That the project may run a deficit conserving the unique natural, historical, ecological, which may eventually affect town fin,trtces is too tenuous 't -scientific, and cultural values of Martha's Vineyard . . . connection to justify Conunission disapproval of the project:, from development and uses which would impair them, and See general])' Cornet y of Dukes Count supra at by promoting the enhancement of sound local economies." also express some reservation about \�hether the Con}IOSssi(`Jl...J St. 1977, c. 831, § 1. To these ends, it has "responsibilities, may require the "dolly freight" system, brit ]cave that to the duties, and powers . . over the lands and waters in the Superior Court to determine on the evidence. county of Dukes County [with certain exceptions]." Its The other main concern of the Commission, and a theme - regulations for CPC areas may be of the type "adopted by which runs throughout this litigation, is that the Authority ,- any city or town" under G. L. c. 40, § 8C (conservation may increase its passenger service and thus bring more peo commissions); G. L. c. 40A (zoning); G. L. c. 41, §§ 81E- ple and automobiles onto Martha's Vineyard. This presents. 81H (official maps); G. L. c. 41, §§ 81K-81GG (subdivision a close and complex p question. The Authority,steadfastl\• control); G. L. c. 111, § 27B (regional health boards); and maintains that it has no plans to (10 so. Furtherrrtore, the G. L. c. 131, §§ 40, 40A (floodplains and inland wetlands). Authority contends that St. 1979, c. 102, \which mandates St. 1977, c. 831, § 3. Regulations may exceed "in their annual public hearings on scheduling, governs the question scope and magnitude" local development ordinances "when of ho\V much service the Authority \will pr(wid . Z'I,c. estio- such ordinances are clearly restrictive of the purposes of the mission st�itnte, ho\acvcr, exllressly alltltorizcs the CorCmn commission." Id. Regulation for CPC's are incorporated sign to consider "the amount of pedestrian and vehicular into a town's ordinances and by-laws. Id: Thus the Com- traffic likely to be generated" in determining \\'hat is a DIU. mission may adopt regulations or specify conditions "which St. 1977, c. 831, § 12 (c). This provision, alld the fact that would not otherwise be permitted or required by existing the stated purpose of the Corrtmission to protect "vallles . . local development ordinances and by-laws, [and in doing so which contribute to public enjoyment, inspiration and 1 describe in writing and resent evi= scientific study"' n shall P ud the Commission] g \, id. ] 1 in health safety - to § indicate'that the Legislature in- Of demonstrates that the public tended to resew which P dence preserve the uniq ue 1 features of Martha's Vulc_ and welfare would be endangered or that irreversible yard. «'e emphasize, ho\\ever> that the present case is one damage would result to natural, historical, ecological, of statutory construction, and we do not here decide other scientific, or cultural values on Martha's Vineyard by the questions,such as the constitutionality' of restrictions on �t continuing application of the existing local development or- travel. e note that the validity c.If the Conrnlission's (]cci_ dinanee or by-law." Id. See Island Properties, Inc. v. {11ar= sion may depend on whether a substantial increase in pas_ tha's Vineyard Comm'n, 372 Mass. 216, 229 (1977). senger and vehicular service Would affect in a negative ntan- Of the factors which the Commission said it considered in ner the "values" it has the power to protect. The (111('st ion reaching its decision, only one seems to be totally outside its whether and to \\hat extent the Autltorit\ Will in( r( ;,�,•"•,\ purview under St. 1977, c. 831. That is its consideration of ice, and the effect of su(•h ,Ill III(•r( ,L\, ,,,, tl„• \ ,rite, I,. a possible deficit in the Authority's financing of the project, question, is n()w a s1„ (,,,I;,I;\•„ (1,I, ,ti,1(t t f �l „Ilr l,t tt'hlt'1I, If I111'lll•red, \N()111(1 have to he ass.urned by certain Vtl1(:I� 'T ,.••rl -1 P. 804 380 M ass 185 380 '� Liss. 805 8o: - -- -- - - \•.'raid+11,I1e, Slarlha•s Vineyard& Nantucket S.S. Anlh. u. Itiartha•s vincciird C:onuri'll. ---- ---` ------ Ward I-. I(ako(k Most of the other factors the Comrission said it con- sidered in reaching its decisiorn are, it Scenic to us,.within.it'' authority under St. 1977, c. 831, but we must reserve final decision thereof] until we have before Lis a complete record Jt.HN NN711,1JANI `VAIID I001'0fsl US I I INDICO-17.PEA ItODY, oil appeal front the decision of a judge Of the Superior Court pursuant to St. 1977, c. 831, § 18. We stress once again that Suffolk. Fetimai- 'S. 1980. —June 4, NMI- the trial judge will first have to decide; upon the evidence I'MWIlt: 11i:NNINSFi C).. (1i,,rilCo. fl1UC(iIU71. KAP AN• & 1,IACIIC,JJ presented, whether the Commission "determination is un- supported by the evidence or exceeds the authority of the SpCcia! Co innrission. Investigating Body: Cunsrirrrtiona! Law. Federal commission, or [he] may remand the case for further action Supremacy, Subpoena. Witness, Subpoena. Privacy. Attornct} at by the commission or may make such other decree as is just L-oty, Work product. and equitable." ICI. § 18. The investigatory power of the Legislature's Co)rlra)issiin, Cotrccn,ing 9. Filing with Secretory of the Conttnomt( ealth. TheState and County Buildings did not expire .Then the commission standards, criteria and regulations authorized by St. 1977, caused proposed rernedial legislation to be introduced on its behalf c. 831, §§ 7, 12, are not of the type which must be filed with where the resolve creating the conlinission stated that the coil)if)iti•ion should c a.e its investigation "upon filing its final rcp(rrt." (1;1•t-RIiJ the Secretary of the Commonwealth and published in the Federal should of two State Senators on charges arising rn,t of their, Massachusetts Register, pursuant to G. L. C. 30A.. They are extortion of moneys from an architectural fir)n �s•hich had a large con- more analogous to local zoning ordinances and by=la«s, e = ex o St.ruct'ion contract .riot the State did not preclude a Stare contn,i.ci(,,, cept that they are promulgated on a regional basis and.`h£n' front inve.tigating the s,lnt'c• congeries cif lmp1w„iog . 181 5-ti1(i) incorporated into town ordinances and by-laws. St. 1917, I'lie L.egishiture's Cour ini:ssi(in Concerning stab• anti cmnity Itr,ilding% teas not prcTluded from obtaining certain materials from aaw firr 1 .n`s c. 831, § 3. The Commission's statute provides that the into a large.files in ronne�ction Frith its int'cstigat;ori e constructionrriii- regulations, standards and criteria must be submitted for tract which had been awarded to one of tile firiWs clients (In tl,c slue approval of the Secretary of the Executive Office of Envi- ground that the fliaterials constituted work product of law\ers s l;i ri ronmental Affairs. Id. at § 7. Here, that proce-dure.�vas it did not appear that any of the material .:as refaced to pending or followed w Is when the Commission adopted its DRI regulations prospective litigation, wliere the act:i:-ities of counsel were themselses, in 1975. a subject of investigation by the commission, and where the client slid 10. Conclusion. Judgment shall enter that the Martha's not itself claim aft}• privilege in connection with the materials. [sr,=sls] Vinevard Commission has jurisdiction to regulate proposed Upon remand of an action is the Lc l;tlature's Commission Concern- Nantucket of the Woods Hole, Martha's Vineyard and ;nJ State and County Building.,;tile to g .l� enforce a .suinf o u ns n< uiri ,r fire ket Steamship Authority, and that the Commission res i(> I � Nantuc I Y� I ndc>nt to trcidoc•c certain t, , ck c , 1 uritents, the resptlncicnt \\cntld-lie need not file its regulations, standards; or criteria with the entitled to press privacy c•omiderations with respect to items or Secretary of the Commonwealth in order for them to be- categories of documents having attenuated or remote relevance to the come effective. The case is remanded to the Superior Court commission's investigation. [819-820] for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. CIVIL nz~rtc)N c:onlnunced in the Stlprz°nlc Jrlciicial Court So ordered. for the county of S- uffolk on November 16, 1979. 1'ranc•is X. liell(Mi. FI'Mices Iturkc. Peter l•mbc�. Dalliel t). Nlaho c\, +J�, Walter J. NiCCarthy, and lxxvis I.I. Weinstein. 10-17-1994 09:56AM FROM WH MU NT STEAMSHIP AUT TO 15087753344 P.01 727 Woods Hole Martha's Vine and o7sr� Y -�;OL- and Nantucket Steamsh i p Authority s� SPECIAL PROJECTS OFFICE r ,M 163 Spring Bars Road (508) 548-5011 Falmouth,MA.02540 FAX: (508) 540-4654 FACSIMILE COVER SJ` EEI DATE TO: Ala[ k f's e+ FAX 77 S r -3 -3-4 1 FROM: Wesley J. Ewell Special Projects Manager NOTE: -7; 1 NUMBER OF PAGES,INCLUDING COVER SHEET: : . . ; The Town of Barnstable ► anxxsTnBM ' A�� Department of Health, Safety and Environmental Services 16 Building Division 367 Main Street,Hyannis MA 02601 Office: 508-790-6227 Ralph Crossen Fax: 508-775-3344 Building Commissioner FAX TRANSMITTAL #of pages To: MM: fC, Co. Co. DepL Fax# Fax Fax# (508)790-6227 T D� (508) 775-3344 i 1 Assessor's office(1st Floor): A P i' F, O V E D T N 7• f r Assessor's map and.lot number � /3 a � rnstab Conservation Commission Board of Health(3rd.floor): w Sewage Permit number A"STODLL i Engineering Department(3rd floor): Signed Date r+ud House number °o 1639• Definitive Plan Approved by Planning Board 19 APPLICATIONS PROCESSED 8:30-9:30 A.M.and 1:00-2:00 P.M.only TOWN OF BARNSTABLE BUILDING INSPECTOR APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO CQ,N,$Tei X7— /SSX 30 B4,06 TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION WAD `ief�A1F I'Miell- 9 19 91-7 TO THE INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS: The undersigned hereby applies for a permit according to the following information: 4 Location Soc, ` 11YANNIS, /y 4 Proposed Use PAefltiU6 477-CA40,44-rS 6114,01ye C Zeoe4c-e 6,c/s7.;' -326 10,11 ,ec4-e -130 �L— 3 Zoning District P k eOA,-t S 560?.4 S`if?-e-el- Fire District M ,' /5� Zlv 6 Wd ,pS 6focE /NA,2TftAS l//NF�i4�� Name of Owner 4&jQ of .�r 44re77777 9�1Sft/P R tldress .&tlW 641A4WV AM SIX Name of Builder D4W1Vdr ' A949INT, fi'' Address Name of Architect Address Number of Rooms 2 Foundation �D" �1UMr9- TIJB�'S Exterior CAWAC -V2WWa Roofing ASAaW&14T SSff/ey,Cea' Floors �✓I402A/rla, &AVA/N InteriorAW AlW6 &6' Heating Plumbing xylm Fireplace &114- Approximate Cost k4 Area Diagram of Lot and Building with Dimensions Fee �� 12";-, N OCCUPANCY PERMITS REQUIRED FOR NEW DWELLINGS I hereby agree to conform to all the Rules and Regulations of the Town of Barnstable regarding the above construction. Name Construction Supervisor's License _4-OODS3 .HOLE, MARTHAS VINEY-iRD & NANTUCKET TEAMSHIP AUTHORITY No 33774 Permit For Replace Existing Building Frame Location South & Pleasant Streets Hyannis Owner Woods Hole, Marthas Vineyard & Nantuc-ket Steamship Authority Type of Construction Frame Plot Lot r Permit Granted May 23 , 19 90 Date of Inspection 19 Date..Completed 19 «. .p � w' - S t Assessor's office(1st Floor): APPROVED Assessor's map and lot number 326-130 - ftTustable Conservoti6+� Board of Health (3rd floor): Sewage Permit number • Engineering Department(3rd floor): $1gt188 t9 rasa House number o +639- Definitive Plan Approved b Planning Board 19 4" a MAY 6 PP Y APPLICATIONS PROCESSED 8:30-9:30 A.M.and 1:00-2:00 P.M.only TOWN OF BARNSTABLE BUILDING INSPECTOR APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO Build a weigh scale pit �4 TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION Piles and concrete October 20 19 89 TO THE INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS: The undersigned hereby applies for a permit according to the following information: Location South and Pleasant Street, Hyannis, MA Proposed Use Weigh Station Zoning District BL—BLB Fire District Hyannis Name of Owner WH, MV & NT Steamship Authority Address South Street, Hyannis, MA Name of Builder Barbato Construction Co. , Inc. Address 27 Eastman St. , P.O. Box 248, Easton, MA 02334 Name of Architect Steeco Engineering Corp. Address P_n- Rnx 632, Falmouth, MA 02541 Number of Rooms N/A Foundation N/A Exterior N/A Roofing N/A Floors N/A Interior N/A Heating N/A Plumbing N/A Fireplace N/A Approximate Cost $159,000.00 Area Diagram of Lot and Building with Dimensions Fee N/A OCCUPANCY PERMITS REQUIRED FOR NEW DWELLINGS I hereby agree to conform to all the Rules and Regulations of the.Town of Barnstable regarding the above construction. Name PETER M. BARBATO i Construction Supervisor's License- #017923 - 6/30/89 WH,- MV & NT STEAMSHIP AUTHORITY l No 33307 Permit For Build Weigh kale Pit Weigh Scale Location South & Pleasant StrcnPts ' Hyannis Owner WH, MV & NT Steamship Authority s Type of Construction Frame s • Plot Lot a Permit Granted October 20, 19 89 - Date of Inspection 1 k Date Completed 1 •es a n � 4 a +� a a q M R3 O A ,.P'... .... ..'3c ^"k�i•w.' '� `-.d+T'n.s.;�"14f1'':E�.:�""^ .�k,�.aar-r—^.-n.,,{:+c',•-. .,. a i . . . 'Y• - } Assessor's office(1st Floor): Assessor's map and lot number b of TNE,To Board of Health(3rd floor): Sewage Permit number Z DAR13"Ti1OLL i Engineering Department(3rd floor): NAB& House number - °o �a3_o• `��" Definitive Plan Approved by Planning Board 19 APPLICATIONS PROCESSED 8:30-9:30 A.M.and 1:00-2:00 P.M.only TOWN OF BARN STABLE BUILDING INSPECTOR APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO CQ1-)v5 TI C/C l /.S x r TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION 19 9v TO THE INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS: The undersigned hereby applies for a permit according to the following information: Location SU v7141 d /�l F�l it �T ST. };1 y11 AI11//,,, /n A ST'&AA11 S111P 146J7H0-"/7Y } Proposed Use �/(1I/U6 147 A/7S 1,361/z12///c� Zoning District+ 4K 560LA S'?r!-r�7' Fire District yl� a✓t�r ,AAl.'4 Name of Owner Ati� A A..-7r/eKf-7- /61'Xddress -t262F 0 OA11,170A� AOF wC4 �-���G� Name of Builder UG!/NEB�' ���� TO �� Address Name of Architect Address Number of Rooms 2 Foundation Exterior Roofing =,�f/<7U�7 Sy/�/6Cc Floors f •f r,>,� c 'f t: ! 7it. Fl�'�/'i/,C InteriorP&O Heating EC ����/C Plumbing Fireplace Approximate Cost Area 7 G Diagram of Lot and Building with Dimensions Fee -/i/cc i / r / OCCUPANCY PERMITS REQUIRED FOR NEW DWELLINGS I,hereby agree to conform to all the Rules and Regulations of the Town of Barnstable regarding the above construction. Name 411D�/ Construction Supervisor's License 4'JOODS HOI,E, iIARTHAS VINEYARD & NANTUCKET =` ` ;STEAMSHIP AUTHORITY A-326-130 No 33774 Permit For Replace E ,itinq Building Frame 1? Location South & Pleasant Stree-�.s Hyannis Owner. Woods Hole Marthas Vint.yard & Nantucket Steamship Authority Type of Construction Frame i Plot Lot Permit Granted May 23 , 19 90 Date of Inspection 19 Date Completed 19 PERMIT COMPLETED 1/1I�L F 30 ------� A N.W/NDOw' 1� 3zx2a o• _— —hNN6E'D c0u,rc1Z —_ Coue/reR 2` 131 II � ►S• ® 0 � 1 4X6 W1NDow Y. i 3 LEFT END Va' i FONT VIEW /en FLOOR PLAN- fler ' qz6 wiNDow R 1 REAR SIMILAR- NODOOROR WINDOWS r NOTES ® 0C. � STRINGER$ �CT HEADERS RAFTERS = ;ex 6° to" SIaUNH TUQF (TYP) �, ® SILLO FOOMD104 AS SHOWN ON DWG4- ROOF TO BE OF EQUAL PITCH SHINGLED WITH T`HICK iWTI— BIRD WINDSEAL 80 WH17E SHINGLES - - EXTERIOR DOORS TO BE 30 NINE LITE STEEL INSULATED ! FOUNDATION- 'fie' COMPLETE WITH FRAME,It THRE5N0L D. RIGHT END '�a" STD GLAMSNELL MOLDING GYPSUM WALLBOARD CEILING W— 19`x24' ACCESS zxq STUD /Z C DX (-,rYP) /�• PANE;_WC 16 @ WHL! 3'/z F6 jk1 �CEDPlL SHAKE S NS 9tY �CUO/= ccouc- c �O J0IST5 2 x 161, r $EE TAr-HE �3/v T'G PLY A-- DW6 s$ STEAMSHIP AUTHORITY WH, MV4 N 6" R 161 D F"oA M � ---- � INSULATtalot --- - HYANNIS TERMINAL- PLAN — M.Ts ATTENDANTS BUILDING SCALE' S NV D JDS_ - 2 Z I-q DwG NY-0090 SHOEI OF C� GENERAL �PECIFIGATI01,1f2- 1. THE INTENT OF Tw IS DTZAw(s.1Oa 15 To P20V1 DE SU FF1G1El,1T pETA%1LL5 TO LOCATE AND POUF- T"E- 2EQUIRED F=007rINC�S FOCZ A 30' X IS' 51NGLLS L_F_vr__ _ WOOD BUl L01 K.14 TO BE LOGATEt� - AT THE HY4,NrJ1S TE12M1NAL OF rWE WOODS HOL-E-, MAiZti~NA"s a VINEYARD AND P Au"r"O21T`(, n• g•. 1MM NWEALT"H OF MA5e 5rATE BU1�U t-i9a COOES TNE , G0 W GHO D TO THE 51 LL EVV_1ZY 4S MI IQ t�L AN fZE Ft_oofz JotST_S S><►A 8E ¢� -IU2P1GAtJE TiZAPS OR At,10THEp APirFeOVED MET1-SOD SHAI.t_ o- BE EMPLp`(EO. 4, TNfr ►..11NIMUM SPEGIFlGAT1ONa FOIZTHE co"cFZET-S Mix A1QE AS 3 a FOLLOWS: GLASS " D1� "' Mt N CEMEP.IT CONTENT 1080 a GOM P1��531 V� ST2Et.l Ei7'1--1 350o P51 la�i o MAX A4��E 0a�.rE a I0E E e a. a M E tD � cD E 00 c N m 00 X O rl C a p a O ci o e D- O N N � NORTH AMERICAN MARINE ASSOCIATES INC. v P.O.BOX 433.76 PARK PLACE ROCKLANO, MA.023T0 \ (s) 6/7- BTB-6G23 \ NAMA CONTRACT Na N m ? NYAs�tN I-5 TERMINAL VREYARW + P6 zfT` CONG4z>rtE FOOT1 I�IG �PytH OF 6+, J.6WI1JptLlGtZ G . �R x ROBERT Q O C3 pa.ADAAlS H1. %CtEPTED FOR Ho.23570 O NORTH AMERICAN MARINE PRAWINO NO. REY sneEr SCALE- . AS NOTE O t of -au-LC:_ lIJGti 4�C-G .P._.T. L SI t_L PLATE L So- 0 _ T 7 TYP -O 7-6 Co 7- - O � 15? ASPHALT _ n _ FOOTING (IS) PLGS o O D>rTAll_ A-A 1/2 DI,�X3G,lr6 Ga.LV. 1-�E 2 � _ w/N u S_R WAS - LIDS . BOTH E c I i E0 �IA0�.IGRETI= FD07-tNGi PDU 2�fl � � � I I Itd SO�IOTUBE -- -- + — — L.1NE OF BUIL_D!N flETAI L- la-.A. - 7 :11.0 .!GALE a P, T 51 LL PLATE V V 9 --- - �OoT.L�J.�.__LOGA1r1ONS SCALE: 114- - NORTH AMERICAN AIARINE D&AiY/NG AIO REV .. .: SCALE., t�10'r"EC) SKEET OF N O5 15'25' E =.00' ———� . f i co t 1 {'*1 1 42 I 1 N I A D- - \ON --------------m--------------� o p>� O N G I $ 1 ��� �2• I 1 S3 62 3I . c� l 3 N- � 1 I , I I I ' OR I� 1 IN L 1 I i 4�a����� ®� - SCHOOL STREET CERTIFIED PLOT PLAN THIS SHOWING THE LOCATION(S) E PURPOSE �i OCATION(S) OF PROPOSEDSED OR � HYANNIS FERRY TERMINAL EXISTING STRUCTURES AND IS NOT INDICATIVE OF Off` NK�,>DlAS �yG A BOUNDARY RETRACEMENT SURVEY. W. RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT CDeuwpw v p .2 75/tIIQ SCALE '1'=20' DATE 03/20/98 1 ACAD: hymnta JOB NO: 950711 + �G1,0,r Q FOUR FIRST STREET �SURv�yO 11BOSIViCK BRIDGEWATER, MA E N G I N E E R I N G ,I N C 02324 Af(� (MA) 1-508-697-6911 DATE 17 MAR 2 21996 cl c , I � 1 PLAN BOOK 248, PAGE 5. 4a�ms 1 1 MANHOLES 1 1 �_ ---- - - ------ • 1 LOCUS SCHOOL i 1 STREET - • FSLIC - 33 ' WIDE) LEWIS BAY M(`TEL, Gct RE` TAURANT, ANC MAnIN4;, INC _ C, ; W3 SOLID CATCH BASIN C z 1, 2 w/ SORBENT PILLOW Y J ?��00 ri RIM ELEV.= 12.60 ��' ? POLE INV IN = 11.98 • Z n S Q L 1A :S CAY MiCTEL , 07 45 53' w INv. ouT = 9.60 W 00 _�, _ RESTA ANT, AND MARINA, INC W 62.75• 3 SUMP • SHRU 8 3Y f 1 I _ es s ' 45 0,• w '�. w 3 -5: c 3 4-7.8 Required Procedures For Site Plan Review: I'T , /�� _ S 5° 15. P8• w S 1Qo 48'31' w o j 7) Upon camnlc'ion of all work, a letter of certification Made upon J _, - oo' knovrl �, g profcsSional landards, shall be I — 27'x 76' LEACHING.AREA �h ! 10- �9e and �clie$ according to - s p / �l / o- x 2 suut;^itt d to tare Building Cap�-pis is j 2 0 r LJSE INFILTRATOR$ (SEE DE IL SHEET g n..r or his designee by a r- a - -_ _ . r j �/R,A1N Re—ist:�r,-d Enameer or Rc ;5E r�_d Land .•� r ,� 9 " . �r�„y�„ appropriate to 5 k d that a!l work v I! .f SHED'/ MANHOLE i' - ,� SHED ��, � i �L►N� t� e v�^:. E��ttolV�:� I POLES ;f $ S/00 • 160 c - � FE N E his cen d.. n suaLtan,iall in — _ �f t S7X RE 4s'�►' ly 06 13' 31' w `C corr!gxtiar:cQ wttlti ifre a roves I� y L HAND LOCATE ONE STORY • pp �d Site Plan, except that the Building Commissioner or his designee may certify compliance. SIGN . � '_- l I �CAF1°ED S ACES ' BUILDING ,.� WAITING z POSTS '- - �rr G T I I I` ■ SHED CONCRETE • G J ENTRANCE GATE AREA To i I` _ BEREPAyE B�TH 12"PVC FLAG �s/'�` 4 O,q OFREA s=0 01 _ POLE�.�r AD LLJ Ljj F--- �r— . 1 �o�i� �P CH1 �(�P� • MAIN LOADING DICK t---- _ ' r-- , _ • ( 8 z l ! TICKET PO 0 5 t'f'�C l Z s �{ Cn E/ Iss A r AD ITIO BOOTH 000 'a;�Fs L E !'� 1 S POLE _ • I CI - ❑ 1 M [ H pso� 0' E /3 . 100 BUFFER ECHANI.A� RAMP �� 140 09' S TO .A V E /.�4N OS' .� js -- /O x I PEA 0 NCRE TE / .5 SX 3oi ON ■ ZONE pr - ❑ ® CATCH EIASIN 78' TRENCH DRAIN AREA TO BE lO x 1OrH ❑ ■ • w;TYPE P GRATE COJEfR-E - -- /2�3 DEP�TURE //,ram O p ■ ADD SORBENT FILL NOTES : INV. AT END OUTLET = 11.98 REGRADED a ❑ 'I r • z '� ❑ ■ CATCH BASIN® w REPAVED ■ ADD SORBENT--PttCOW 1 RIP RAP WALL I. SAWCUT EDGE OF EXISTING PAVEMENT, REGRADE • KA L I R 7 i S►�r i�DE - ❑ � •�\� AND REPAVE AREA SHOWN ON PLAN. 1B CATCH BASIN ❑ ---�"■ ®CATCH ': z► N RAISE RIM T G E I ■ BASIN i t .- --- ❑ �_ ��, -OP 2, F LOO D HAZARD ZONES - A 10, B a C • ADD ISORBkN OW p ■ q SF { { ..1--# p oo❑ 0000 RI'F� BOARDING 3 . HAY BALES ARE TO BE 1NPLACE BEFORE WORK BEGINS. I ■MANHOL I - I $ SHAY B q/� �•• `�t. N 4f* 'JOCK • fl t 1c _ _ EROSION CONTROL SHOULD BE INSPECTED DAILY ! r-- 1 lc``� �� i T'"'W - r �- PAVED ELECTRICdL o � PLATFORM AND REPAIRED AS NECESSARY. ft n ! `-� -^-'� — -- ---- BOX -' _ _ f /�RAMPS� 4 . FLOOD HAZARD ZONES DELINEATED FROM FIRM MAP tiR'��TA +LE "� v_ -t— 2 STEEL PIFjES , g r, COMMUNITY PANEL NUMBER 250001 0005 C & 0006 C 'rl 1 MICHAEL M. TULMAN Z AUGUST I I = r 1 O PLATFORM DATED S 9, 985. -�. 5. REPAVED AREA WILL USE 1 1/2 BINDERCOURSE AND F- O� v \ SAMUEL W- MACEY r IPLlRK//�/* 1 -� - Z Z RAMP 1 1/2" FINISH COURSE OF TYPE I BITUMINOUS PAVED '� ,_ 11 / / / � � CONCRETE. CIO 0i "`- 6. HAYBALES SHALL BE MOVE WITHIN CUT EDGE ,)F Q - ; z T GATE I __T- �� _ I x 2'M�*L 6�OX/ t"%. � PAVEMENT FOLLOWING INITIAL EXCAVATION. - PA R K/N G rn _ — z - � �-: ` —ClHAIN LINK FEI(10E ! ��, "� e /x m __ 7. TRENCH DRAIN AND CATCH BASIN SHALL BE MAINTAINED �� rn AREA Z ��� _ _ -- ® CATCH BASIN ate, AS REQUIRED TO FUNCTION AS DESIGNED. m o s ?� e. SORBENT PILLOWS ARE TO BE INSTALLED AS SHOWN .pQ �•` \0` ;.y�.s� .! �.� ��i CATCH BASIN z 2 AND MAINTAINED AS SPECIFIED BY MANUFACTURERS. `• ay. ZONE A9r.i'-•�'�s Q TICKET BOOTH .` -` Q �— GFAvEL r � •��.a,.�.s,.s.s EXIT --- c, • �� GATE Q L HT PO T I ( ! f 1 3 PARKING �� ZONE B r_ I I ; 1 11 gLIGHT POST Ix2 t * BOXE a �. AREA O� N 4' P E i L � - � o �• °— C I N N 07 5 POLE ---- � !'j08" E C' '�PoLE _ POLE - - - - - -�----___ LINK 2 6.33' ' '--,— TWO STORY �� - - PLEASANT STREET < < — ---- FENCE PUBLIC _ V4R148L —�� --_`__�L=_ -- -__.- OP BUILDING 0- aIhIL.TH) OLE ' ; 12/19/88 Added drainage structures. =M.S.E. j DATE - DESCRIPTION _DRAWN CHECKED R E V 1 S 1 0 N S SITE PLAN 0 PREPARED FOR W . H . M . V . & N . STEAMSHIP AUTHORITY I N 7 Ta !"l7 1 SIKA Wy,,_ HYANNIS BARNSTABLE MASS SCALE: 1 " =40 ' DATE: NOV. 15 , 1988 Iholmes and mcgrath, inc .. lcivil engineers and land surveyors ,< r / y1200 main street falmouth, ma . 02540 DRAWN: MSS , BRB ICHECKE©: IU-o � - s A o JOB N0: Bg 166 ;; DWG . N0: 33-2-40 SHEET 2 jOF 3 0