The Commonwealth of Massachusetts                                   Department of Public Safety                           ...
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTSSUFFOLK, ss                                                                              ARCH...
- 14.5.2            For other assembly areas, a permanently installed assistive listening system, or other                ...
- The Complainant also reports that no handrail is provided at the stairs on either side of the                           ...
In accordance with M.G.L. c. 30A, §§ 10 and 11; 801 CMR 1.02 et. seq.; and 521 CMR 4.00, the Boardconvened a hearing on Ma...
521 CMR 26.10.2 requires that, “[c]hanges in floor finish materials shall have an edge strip or thresholdthat is beveled a...
2004 and a Temporary Occupancy Permit was issued in October of 2008, with the building still operating    under this tempo...
The large performance space holds a maximum of 395 people, the mezzanine has an occupancy of 100,        the café has a ca...
27.4.1, and grant a variance to the same section to allow for the historic interior handrails to remain, on thecondition t...
supplementary wiring necessary to support a portable assistive listening system, with the minimum number ofreceivers provi...
! CONTINUE the matters regarding 521 CMR 39.3 and 39.4, to have the Petitioners submit a plan             for compliance o...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Armory Decision May 24, 2010 SOmerville, MA

901 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
901
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Armory Decision May 24, 2010 SOmerville, MA

  1. 1. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Public Safety Architectural Access Board One Ashburton Place, Room 1310 Boston, Massachusetts 02108-1618 Deval L. Patrick Governor Phone 617-727-0660 Thomas G. Gatzunis, P.E. Commissioner Timothy P. Murray Fax 617-727-0665 Thomas P. Hopkins www.mass.gov/dps Lieutenant Governor DirectorMary Elizabeth Heffernan Secretary DECISION OF THE ARCHITECTURAL ACCESS BOARD Date: June 8, 2010 Name of Property: The Armory Property Address: 191 Highland Avenue, Somerville, MA Docket Number: V09-197 and C10-059 Date of Hearing: May 24, 2010 Enclosed please find a copy of the decision relative to the above mentioned matter. Sincerely: ARCHITECTURAL ACCESS BOARD By: __________________________________________________ Kate Sutton, Program Coordinator/Clerk for Proceedings Encls. cc: Local Building Inspector Local Commission on Disabilities Local Independent Living Center Complainant Page 1 of 11 S:AABKSuttonAgendas and ResultsDECISIONS2010052410The Armory, 191 Highland Ave., Somerville - 052410.doc
  2. 2. COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTSSUFFOLK, ss ARCHITECTURAL ACCESS BOARD Docket No. C10-059 and V09-197____________________________________In re ) )The Armory )191 Highland Avenue )Somerville, MA )____________________________________ ) BOARD DECISION Introduction This matter originally came before the Architectural Access Board (“Board”) as a variance requestreceived by the Board on November 27, 2009, pursuant to 521 CMR 4.00, and submitted by Joseph Sater(“Petitioner”). The Petitioner requests that the Board grant a variance from 521 CMR 24.2.1, regarding the lack ofa compliant slope at the existing front entrance ramp; 521 CMR 24.4.1, regarding the lack of a level landing at thetop of the existing front entrance ramp; and 521 CMR 24.4.1, regarding the lack of compliant dimensions for alanding at the top of the existing front entrance ramp (no landing provided). In accordance with M.G.L. c. 30A,§§ 10 and 11; 801 CMR 1.02 et. seq.; and 521 CMR 4.00, the Board convened a hearing on February 8, 2010where all interested parties were provided with an opportunity to testify and present evidence to the Board.William Schaefer, Project Architect; Joseph Sater, Petitioner; and Debra McLaughlin, Arts at the Armory,appeared on behalf of the Petitioner. And Mr. Eddie Nuzzo, City of Somerville Building Inspector, appeared onbehalf of the City of Somerville. At said hearing, the Board voted as follows: ! GRANT the variance for 521 CMR 24.2.1, regarding the lack of a compliant ramp slope (9.8% provided, 8.3% required); 521 CMR 24.4.1, regarding the lack of a level landing at the top of the existing ramp; and 521 CMR 24.4.3, regarding the lack of a landing at the top of the existing ramp. The motion is based on the fact that the Petitioner had proven that the cost of compliance would be excessive without substantial benefit to persons with disabilities, and on the condition that an additional actuator is placed at the bottom of the ramp by April 1, 2010, with verification of compliance with the Board’s order to be submitted on or before said date. On March 18, 2010, the Board received a complaint, pursuant to 521 CMR 4.00, from Eileen Feldman,regarding reported violations of 521 CMR at The Armory, located at 191 Highland Avenue in Somerville. TheComplainant reported violations of the following sections of 521 CMR: - 14.5.1 An assembly area shall have a permanently installed assistive listening system if: (a). the assembly area accommodates at least 50 persons, or (b). if it has an audio-amplification system, and fixed seating. - The Complainant reports that no assistive listening system is provided in the performance space, the mezzanine or the café. Page 2 of 11 S:AABKSuttonAgendas and ResultsDECISIONS2010052410The Armory, 191 Highland Ave., Somerville - 052410.doc
  3. 3. - 14.5.2 For other assembly areas, a permanently installed assistive listening system, or other supplementary wiring necessary to support a portable assistive listening system shall be provided. The minimum number of receivers to be provided shall be equal to 4% of the total number of seats, but not less than two receivers. - The Complainant reports that no assistive listening system is provided for a classroom and conference room.- 23.3.1 Handicapped parking spaces are not the closest spaces in the lot to the accessible entrance. - The Complainant reports that the two (2) handicapped parking spaces that are provided are not the closest to the accessible entrance. - The Complainant reports that two (2) of the handicapped parking spaces are located along the side of the driveway and do not provide striped access aisles.- 23.4.7b Each space shall have a sign designating it "Van Accessible" as required by 521 CMR 23.6, Signage. - The Complainant reports that no “Van Accessible sign is provided.- 23.6.1 A sign shall be located at the head of each space and no more than ten feet away, and at accessible passenger loading zones and may also include wording identifying its use. - The Complainant reports that no above ground signage is provided.- 24.2.1 The least possible slope should be used for any ramp. The maximum slope of a ramp shall be 1:12 (8.3%). (There is no tolerance allowed on slope, Refer to 521 CMR 2.4.4d). - The Complainant reports that the ramp slope measures 9.8% at the foot of the ramp, 10.9% mid-ramp, 12.8% by the intercom, and 13.3% measured one (1) foot from the entrance door.- 25.2 The approach to an accessible entrance shall be a paved walk or ramp with a slip resistant surface, uninterrupted by steps. Entrance(s) shall have a level space on the interior and exterior of the entrance doors. - The Complainant reports that the Performance Space Entrance/Exit is not accessible.- 25.6 Any entrance/exit of a facility not accessible by persons in wheelchairs shall have a sign clearly indicating the location of the accessible entrance/exit. - The Complainant reports that no signage is provided at the inaccessible door (Performance Space Entrance/Exit) directing people to the accessible entrance.- 26.10.1 Thresholds shall not exceed ½ inch in height and shall be beveled on both sides with a slope no greater than one-in-two (1:2) (50%). - The Complainant reports that the threshold at the ramped entrance measures approximately one and three quarters (1 ¾) inches.- 26.10.2 Changes in floor finish materials shall have an edge strip or threshold that is beveled at a ratio of one-in-two (1:2) (50%). - The Complainant reports that the Outside/Inside finish strip measures 13.6%.- 27.4.1 Handrails Location: Stairways shall have continuous handrails at both sides of all stairs. The inside handrail on switchback or dogleg stairs shall always be continuous. - The Complainant reports that the stairs throughout the facility only provide a compliant rail on one side of the stairs. Page 3 of 11 S:AABKSuttonAgendas and ResultsDECISIONS2010052410The Armory, 191 Highland Ave., Somerville - 052410.doc
  4. 4. - The Complainant also reports that no handrail is provided at the stairs on either side of the foyer. - 28.1 In all multi-story buildings and facilities, each level including mezzanines, shall be served by a passenger elevator. If more than one elevator is provided, each passenger elevator shall comply with 521 CMR 28. Accessible elevators shall be on an accessible route and located within the space with which it is intended to serve. - The Complainant reports that a new staircase was constructed within the performance area and access by the elevator is located outside the performance area. - 28.3.2 Elevator Call Buttons; Such call buttons shall have visual signals to indicate when each call is registered and when each call is answered. - The Complainant reports that the elevator call buttons located on the first floor do not have a visual signal. - 28.5 Door Jamb Markings; Both jambs of all elevator hoistway entrances shall have raised and Braille floor designation jambs that are visible from within the car and the elevator lobby. - The Complainant reports that the elevator landing in the basement does not have Braille or raised signage. - 29.2.3 Changes in level greater than ½ inch are not allowed unless a ramp, walkway, or means of vertical access complying with 521 CMR is provided. - The Complainant reports that the Manager’s Office, Suite 1-A located in the entrance foyer alcove on the right side is not reachable via an accessible route. - 39.3 Controls; Height; The highest operable part of controls, dispensers, receptacles, and other operable equipment shall be placed within at least one of the reach ranges specified in 521 CMR 6.5, Forward Reach and 521 CMR 6.6, Side Reach. - The Complainant reports that the Public Communications System at the entrance door has controls higher than fifty-four (54) inches. - 39.4 Controls Location: All such controls shall be located at least 18 inches from an interior corner. - The Complainant reports that the Public Communication System at the entrance door measures 16.25 inches from the corner. - 41.1.1 Signs that designate permanent rooms and spaces shall comply with 521 CMR 41.2, 41.5 and 41.6. These include toilet room signs, room numbers, stair signs, etc. - The Complainant reports that the signage for classrooms in the basement are all handwritten and that the men’s and women’s toilet rooms in the performance space do not have Braille. The Petitioners were notified of the reported violations on April 23, 2010 via a “First Notice” and werealso sent a “Notice of Hearing” for the May 24, 2010 hearing. A “Complaint Dismissal” was also sent to allparties concerned, dismissing the reported violations of the following sections of 521 CMR: 24.5.4, handrailsextensions at the ramp are exempt due to their intersection with the sidewalk being a potential safety hazard;26.6.1, which was previously granted a variance by the Board; and 28.9.1, the car position indicator is located inthe appropriate location. Page 4 of 11 S:AABKSuttonAgendas and ResultsDECISIONS2010052410The Armory, 191 Highland Ave., Somerville - 052410.doc
  5. 5. In accordance with M.G.L. c. 30A, §§ 10 and 11; 801 CMR 1.02 et. seq.; and 521 CMR 4.00, the Boardconvened a hearing on May 24, 2010 where all interested parties were provided with an opportunity to testify andpresent evidence to the Board. William Schaefer, Project Architect; Joseph Sater, Petitioner; and Alan Carrier, Witness for the Petitioner,appeared on behalf of the Petitioner. Mark Dempsey, Compliance Officer for the Board, and Thomas Hopkins,Executive Director, appeared on behalf of the Board. Eileen Feldman, Complainant, appeared on her own behalf.John Kelly, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the Complainant. All those offering testimony were sworn in. Applicable Laws The Board’s jurisdiction is established pursuant to 521 CMR 3.3.2 which requires that,”[i]f the workperformed, including the exempted work, amounts to 30% or more of the full and fair cash value (see 521 CMR5.00) of the building the entire building is required to comply with 521 CMR….” Pursuant to 521 CMR14.5.1, “[a]n assembly area shall have a permanently installed assistive listeningsystem if: a. the assembly area accommodates at least 50 persons, or b. if it has an audio-amplification system,and fixed seating.” Per the requirements of Section 14.5.2 of 521 CMR, “[f]or other assembly areas, a permanently installedassistive listening system, or other supplementary wiring necessary to support a portable assistive listening systemshall be provided. The minimum number of receivers to be provided shall be equal to 4% of the total number ofseats, but not less than two receivers.” 521 CMR 23.3.1 requires that, “[a]ccessible parking spaces serving a particular building, facility ortemporary event shall be located on the shortest accessible route of travel from adjacent parking to an accessibleentrance.” Under Section 23.4.7b of 521 CMR, ‘[v]an [a]ccessible spaces shall comply with the following:…b. Eachspace shall have a sign designating it "Van Accessible" as required by 521 CMR 23.6, Signage.” Pursuant to 521 CMR 23.6.1, “[a] sign shall be located at the head of each space and no more than ten feet(10 = 3048mm) away, and at accessible passenger loading zones and may also include wording identifying itsuse….” 521 CMR 24.2.1 states that, “[t]he least possible slope should be used for any ramp. The maximum slopeof a ramp shall be 1:12 (8.3%). (There is no tolerance allowed on slope, Refer to 521 CMR 2.4.4d).” Per the requirements of Section 25.2 of 521 CMR, “[t]he approach to an accessible entrance shall be apaved walk or ramp with a slip resistant surface, uninterrupted by steps. Entrance(s) shall have a level space onthe interior and exterior of the entrance doors complying with Fig. 25a and 25b.” Under 521 CMR 25.6, “[a]ny entrance/exit of a facility not accessible by persons in wheelchairs shall havea sign clearly indicating the location of the accessible entrance/exit.” Pursuant to Section 26.10.1 of 521 CMR, “[t]hresholds shall not exceed ½ inch (½" = 13mm) in heightand shall be beveled on both sides with a slope no greater than one-in-two (1:2) (50%).” Page 5 of 11 S:AABKSuttonAgendas and ResultsDECISIONS2010052410The Armory, 191 Highland Ave., Somerville - 052410.doc
  6. 6. 521 CMR 26.10.2 requires that, “[c]hanges in floor finish materials shall have an edge strip or thresholdthat is beveled at a ratio of one-in-two (1:2) (50%).” Under Section 27.4.1 of 521 CMR, “…[s]tairways shall have continuous handrails at both sides of allstairs. The inside handrail on switchback or dogleg stairs shall always be continuous. See Fig. 27c.” 521 CMR 28.1 states that, “[i]n all multi-story buildings and facilities, each level including mezzanines,shall be served by a passenger elevator. If more than one elevator is provided, each passenger elevator shallcomply with 521 CMR 28. Accessible elevators shall be on an accessible route and located within the space withwhich it is intended to serve….” Pursuant to 521 CMR 28.3.2, “[s]uch call buttons shall have visual signals to indicate when each call isregistered and when each call is answered.” Per the requirements of 521 CMR 28.5, “[b]oth jambs of all elevator hoistway entrances shall have raisedand Braille floor designation jambs that are visible from within the car and the elevator lobby.” Section 29.2.3 of 521 CMR, “[c]hanges in level greater than ½ inch (½" = 13mm) are not allowed unless aramp, walkway, or means of vertical access complying with 521 CMR is provided.” Under 521 CMR 39.3, ‘[t]he highest operable part of controls, dispensers, receptacles, and other operableequipment shall be placed within at least one of the reach ranges specified in 521 CMR 6.5, Forward Reach and521 CMR 6.6, Side Reach.” Pursuant to Section 39.4 of 521 CMR, “[a]ll such controls shall be located at least 18 inches (18" =457mm) from an interior corner.” 521 CMR 41.1.1 requires that, “[s]igns that designate permanent rooms and spaces shall comply with521 CMR 41.2, 41.5 and 41.6. These include toilet room signs, room numbers, stair signs, etc…Exception:Building directories, menus, and all other signs that are temporary are not required to comply. ExhibitsExhibit 1: Board Packet, AAB1-51, including all correspondence and plans submitted by both the Complainant and the Petitioner. Facts The Complaint and Variance Hearing was held on May 24, 2010 and based on the credited testimony of thewitness, and the documents submitted, the Board finds the following facts: 1) The property in question was bought at auction by the current owners and is a three-story building, plus a basement, with offices, an art gallery, café, studios/apartments, and a performance space. The building is a total of 39,040 square feet, with approximately 12,000 square feet at the basement, first and second floors, and 3,000 square feet at the third floor. (Exhibit 1). 2) The project in question was a $3,000,000.00 renovation to the historical structure, which included the installation of a fully compliant elevator and accessible toilet rooms. This work was done is September of Page 6 of 11 S:AABKSuttonAgendas and ResultsDECISIONS2010052410The Armory, 191 Highland Ave., Somerville - 052410.doc
  7. 7. 2004 and a Temporary Occupancy Permit was issued in October of 2008, with the building still operating under this temporary certificate. (Exhibit 1).3) An automatic door opener was installed at the middle and, based on the condition of the previously granted variance, at the bottom of the existing ramp as a means of alleviating the need for a level landing at the entrance door. (Exhibit 1 and Testimony of Schaefer).4) The Petitioner had previously stated that the existing ramp has a slope of 9.8% over 20 feet of length, when 8.3% is required by 521 CMR 24.2.1. The Complainant contests that the slope of the ramp is 9.8% at the foot of the ramp, 10.9% mid-ramp, 12.8% by the intercom, and 13.3% measured one foot from the entrance door. (Exhibit 1).5) The Petitioner seeks to maintain the existing ramp design to preserve the overall look of building entrance, which resembles a drawbridge across a moat and into the castle, which is considered an “integral element of its original design”, as noted in the Letter from the Somerville Historic Preservation Commission. The Petitioner noted that although the entrance was constructed originally to resemble a drawbridge over a moat, there is no water feature adjacent to the building or under the ramp “drawbridge.” (Exhibit 1 and Testimony).6) There are 44 parking spaces provided at the rear of the building for patrons of The Armory to utilize, with four (4) of the existing spaces currently being accessible parking spaces, with the proposal to remove two of the four accessible parking spaces. The Petitioners noted that the complaint regarding the location of the spaces was addressed by removing the two accessible parking spaces at the rear lot and creating the two accessible parking spaces along the driveway to the rear parking lot. These parking spaces are parallel parking spaces along the building, and therefore do not comply with the requirements of 521 CMR. In addition to the “accessible” parking spaces, the Petitioner noted that there is a drop-off area along Highland Avenue. (Exhibit 1 and Testimony of Carrier).7) The side door to the building, which was cited as the “Performance Space Entrance/Exit”, is not used as an entrance, but only as an emergency egress. The permit for this project was issued prior to the change in 521 CMR to require accessible means of egress in 2006. (Testimony of Sater and Hopkins).8) The Complainant reports that the threshold at the front entrance doorway is 1 ¾ inches and that the “outside/inside finish strip” measures 13.6%. (Exhibit 1).9) The Complainant reported that there was no access to the Manager’s Office, which is at a level three steps above the ground floor. The Petitioners noted that the office is accessible via another set of doors that could be marked with signage. (Exhibit 1 and Testimony of Schaefer).10) The Complainant reported that the elevator call buttons at the first floor do not have a visual signal to indicate when each call is registered and answered. The complaint regarding the indicator light at the interior of the car (521 CMR 28.9.1) was dismissed, based on the fact that information was provided that the location indicator was provided within the elevator. (Exhibit 1 and Testimony of Dempsey).11) The Complainant reports that the intercom system at the exterior of the front entrance has controls that are higher than 54 inches. The Petitioners noted that the intercom is used for after-hours communication with any of the businesses within the building. The Complainant also stated that the intercom system is located on a portion of the ramp that has a slope of 12.8% and that the system is located 16 ¼ inches from the entrance door, when 521 CMR 39.4 requires that controls shall be located at least 18 inches from an interior corner. (Exhibit 1 and Testimony of Schaefer).12) The Complainant reports that the signage for classrooms in the basement is all handwritten and that the men’s and women’s toilet rooms in the performance space do not have Braille. (Exhibit 1).13) The Complainant reports that there is no access to the mezzanine level of the performance area, but further clarified that she thought that there may be access from the elevator to said mezzanine via a set of doors, which were locked during her visit. The Petitioner stated that the mezzanine is accessible via a set of doors that are open during performances and are accessible from the elevator lobby. (Exhibit 1 and Testimony of Feldman and Schaefer).14) The Complainant reports that no assistive listening system is provided in the performance space, the mezzanine, the café, the existing classrooms and a conference room. The Petitioners stated that there are no fixed performance spaces within the building, since events are held at different portions of the building. Page 7 of 11 S:AABKSuttonAgendas and ResultsDECISIONS2010052410The Armory, 191 Highland Ave., Somerville - 052410.doc
  8. 8. The large performance space holds a maximum of 395 people, the mezzanine has an occupancy of 100, the café has a capacity of 52, the classrooms have a capacity of 15-25 people and the conference room has a capacity of 15 people. (Exhibit 1 and Testimony of Schaefer and Feldman). Analysis The Board’s jurisdiction is established pursuant to 521 CMR 3.3.2 which requires that, “[i]f the workperformed, including the exempted work, amounts to 30% or more of the full and fair cash value…of the buildingthe entire building is required to comply with 521 CMR.” See 521 CMR 5. The value of the building was$4,000,000.00 and $3,000,000.00 was spent in September of 2004 for extensive renovations of the building;therefore, under 521 CMR 3.3.2, the entire building is required to comply in full with all applicable sections of521 CMR. Based on the fact that there are 44 parking spaces provided at the rear of the building for patrons of TheArmory to utilize, with four (4) of the existing spaces currently being accessible parking spaces, with the proposalto remove two of the four accessible parking spaces. The Petitioners noted that the complaint regarding thelocation of the spaces was addressed by removing the two accessible parking spaces at the rear lot and creating thetwo accessible parking spaces along the driveway to the rear parking lot. These parking spaces are parallelparking spaces along the building, and therefore do not comply with the requirements of 521 CMR. In addition tothe “accessible” parking spaces, the Petitioner noted that there is a drop-off area along Highland Avenue.Therefore, the Board voted in favor of the Complainant in regards to 521CMR 23.3.1, 23.4.7b, 23.6.1, withfurther conditions set forth below. In regards to the slope of the existing ramp, the Petitioner had previously stated that the existing ramp hasa slope of 9.8% over 20 feet of length, when 8.3% is required by 521 CMR 24.2.1. The Complainant contestedthat the slope of the ramp is 9.8% at the foot of the ramp, 10.9% mid-ramp, 12.8% by the intercom, and 13.3%measured one foot from the entrance door. The Board noted that variances were granted for 521 CMR 24.2.1,24.4.1, and 24.4.3, based on the Petitioner’s testimony at the February 8, 2010 hearing that the slope of theexisting ramp was 9.8%, when 8.3% required under 521 CMR 24.2.1. Therefore, the Board voted in favor of theComplainant, and to continue this matter to July 1, 2010 to have the Petitioners submit plans for compliance forthe ramp, with further conditions set forth below. The Complainant filed a complaint regarding 521 CMR 25.2 and 25.6, pertaining to the lack of access andsignage at the “Performance Space Entrance/Exit”, i.e. the side door to the building. The Petitioners noted thatthis doorway was not used as a way to enter the building, only as an emergency egress. Based on the date of theinitial building permit for the project, the Board voted that there was no jurisdiction to require the emergencyegress door at the side of the building, therefore dismissing the complaint regarding 521 CMR 25.2 and 25.6, withthe understanding that the Petitioner will post directional signage at the entrance in question as proposed. In regards to the complaint filed on 521 CMR 26.10.1 and 26.10.2, regarding the threshold at the frontentrance, the Complainant reports that the threshold at the front entrance doorway is 1 ¾ inches and that the“outside/inside finish strip” measures 13.6%. Therefore, the Board voted to find in favor of the Complainant,based on the submitted testimony and documentation. The Board further ordered that plans for compliance at thefront entrance threshold shall be submitted by July 1, 2010. The complaint regarding the handrails at the stairways throughout the interior of the building, 521 CMR27.4.1, was based on the fact that the Complainant reported that a compliant handrail is only provided at one sideof the stairs, and in the case of the foyer stairs, no handrails are provided. The Petitioners seek a variance to installcompliant handrails along the wall side of the stairs and maintain the existing interior, historic, handrails.Therefore, the Board voted to find in favor of the Complainant regarding the reported violation of 521 CMR Page 8 of 11 S:AABKSuttonAgendas and ResultsDECISIONS2010052410The Armory, 191 Highland Ave., Somerville - 052410.doc
  9. 9. 27.4.1, and grant a variance to the same section to allow for the historic interior handrails to remain, on thecondition that compliant wall side handrails were installed at all stairs by July 1, 2010. The Complainant reported that there was no access to the Manager’s Office, which is at a level two stepsabove the first floor. The Petitioners noted that the office is accessible via another set of doors at the other side ofthe office, and that this direction could be marked with signage. Therefore the Board voted to find in favor of theComplainant regarding the cited violation of 521 CMR 29.2.3. The Board further voted that signage should beinstalled and verified as such, with both written and visual verification, directing patrons to the accessible route tothe Manager’s Office, by July 1, 2010. In regards to the lack of a visual signal at the elevator (521 CMR 28.3.2), the Complainant reported thatthe elevator call buttons at the first floor do not have a visual signal to indicate when each call is registered andanswered. The complaint regarding the indicator light at the interior of the car (521 CMR 28.9.1) had already beendismissed, based on the fact that information was provided that the location indicator was provided within theelevator. Therefore, the Board voted to continue the matters regarding both 521 CMR 28.3.2 and 28.5, to allowthe Petitioners to review this item and submit either visual verification or a plan for compliance to the Board byJuly 1, 2010. The reported violation of 521CMR 39.3 is in regards to the height of the intercom system at the frontentrance, which is reported to have some controls that are higher than 54 inches. The Petitioners noted that theintercom is used for after-hours communication with any of the businesses within the building and that they wouldlike to examine the possibility of moving the intercom system to within the reach ranges. The Complainant alsostated that the intercom system is located on a portion of the ramp that has a slope of 12.8% and that the system islocated 16 ¼ inches from the entrance door, when 521 CMR 39.4 requires that controls shall be located at least 18inches from an interior corner. Therefore, the Board voted to find in favor of the Complainant in regards to thereported violations of 521 CMR 39.3 and 39.4. The Board further voted to continue this matter to have thePetitioners submit a plan for compliance or a variance request for this item with cost estimates by July 1, 2010. The Complainant reports that the signage for classrooms in the basement is all handwritten and that themen’s and women’s toilet rooms in the performance space do not have Braille. The Petitioners stated thatcompliant signs would be installed. Therefore the Board voted to find in favor of the Complainant in regards tothe reported violation of 521 CMR 41.1.1, regarding the lack of compliant signage for permanent rooms andspaces. The Board further voted that the signage must comply in full with 521 CMR 41 et. seq. by July 1, 2010,with both written and visual verification submitted to the Board on or before said date. The Complainant reports that there is no access to the mezzanine level of the performance area, but furtherclarified that she thought that there may be access from the elevator to said mezzanine via a set of doors, whichwere locked during her visit. The Petitioner stated that the mezzanine is accessible via a set of doors that are openduring performances and are accessible from the elevator lobby. Therefore, the Board voted to dismiss thiscomplaint regarding 521 CMR 28.1, since, based on the testimony of the Petitioner, vertical access is provided tothe mezzanine via the existing elevator which creates access via a set of doors to the mezzanine of theperformance area. The Complainant reports that there are no assistive listening systems are provided in the performancespace, mezzanine level, or café, per the requirements of 521 CMR 14.5.1 and 14.5.2. The Petitioners stated thatthere are no fixed performance spaces within the building, since events are held at different portions of thebuilding. The large performance space holds a maximum of 395 people, the mezzanine has an occupancy of 100,the café has a capacity of 52, the classrooms have a capacity of 15-25 people and the conference room has acapacity of 15 people. The Board noted that in any room with an occupancy of more than 50 people, apermanently installed assistive listening system is required, per 521 CMR 14.5.1; and that, per 521 CMR 14.5.2,other assembly areas are required to have a permanently installed assistive listening system or other Page 9 of 11 S:AABKSuttonAgendas and ResultsDECISIONS2010052410The Armory, 191 Highland Ave., Somerville - 052410.doc
  10. 10. supplementary wiring necessary to support a portable assistive listening system, with the minimum number ofreceivers provided to equal 4% of the total number of seats, but not less than two receivers. Therefore, the Boardvoted to find in favor of the Complainant in regards to the reported violations of 521 CMR 14.5.1 and 14.5.2. TheBoard further voted to continue this matter to have the Petitioners submit a plan for compliance by July 1, 2010. ConclusionAfter reviewing the matter, the Board voted as follows: ! Find in favor of the COMPLAINANT regarding the reported violations of 521 CMR 23.3.1, 23.4.7b, and 23.6.1, regarding the lack of compliant accessible parking. The Board further voted that the parking must comply in full with 521 CMR 23 et. seq. by July 1, 2010, with both written and visual verification submitted to the Board on or before said date. ! Find in favor of the COMPLAINANT regarding the reported violations of 521 CMR 24.2.1, regarding the lack of compliant slope at the existing front entrance ramp. The Board further voted that the Petitioners must submit plans for complying with the requirements of 521 CMR 24.2.1 by July 1, 2010. ! There is NO JURISDICTION to require the emergency egress door at the side of the building, based on the date of the permits; therefore DISMISSING the complaint regarding 521 CMR 25.2 and 25.6, with the understanding that the Petitioner will post directional signage at the entrance in question as proposed. ! Find in favor of the COMPLAINANT regarding the reported violations of on 521 CMR 26.10.1 and 26.10.2, regarding the lack of compliant threshold at the existing front entrance doorway. The Board further voted that the Petitioners must submit plans for compliance by July 1, 2010. ! Find in favor of the COMPLAINANT regarding the reported violations of 521 CMR 27.4.1, regarding the lack of compliant handrails at both sides of the existing historic stairways. ! GRANT a variance to 521 CMR 27.4.1, to allow for the historic interior handrails to remain, on the condition that compliant continuous wall side handrails are installed at each stairway by July 1, 2010. ! Find in favor of the COMPLAINANT regarding the reported violations of 521 CMR 29.2.3, regarding the lack of access at one of the two entrances to the Manager’s Office. The Board further voted that, as proposed, directional signage shall be posted for the accessible route to the Manager’s Office by July 1, 2010, with both written and visual verification submitted to the Board on or before said date. ! CONTINUE the matters regarding 521 CMR 28.3.2 and 28.5, to allow the Petitioners to review this item and submit either visual verification of compliance or a plan for compliance to the Board by July 1, 2010. ! Find in favor of the COMPLAINANT regarding the reported violations of 521 CMR 39.3 and 39.4, regarding the location of the exterior intercom system at the front entrance. Page 10 of 11 S:AABKSuttonAgendas and ResultsDECISIONS2010052410The Armory, 191 Highland Ave., Somerville - 052410.doc
  11. 11. ! CONTINUE the matters regarding 521 CMR 39.3 and 39.4, to have the Petitioners submit a plan for compliance or a variance request for this item with cost estimates by July 1, 2010. ! Find in favor of the COMPLAINANT in regards to the reported violation of 521 CMR 41.1.1, regarding the lack of compliant signage for permanent rooms and spaces. The Board further voted that the signage must comply in full with 521 CMR 41 et. seq. by July 1, 2010, with both written and visual verification submitted to the Board on or before said date. ! DISMISS the complaint citing 521 CMR 28.1, regarding the lack of access to the mezzanine level of the performance area, since, based on the testimony of the Petitioner, vertical access is provided to the mezzanine via the existing elevator and through a set of doors to the mezzanine. ! Find in favor of the COMPLAINANT regarding the reported violations of 521 CMR 14.5.1 and 14.5.2, regarding the lack of permanently installed assistive listening systems. ! CONTINUE the matters regarding 521 CMR 14.5.1 and 14.5.2, to have the Petitioners submit a plan for compliance by July 1, 2010.PLEASE NOTE: All documentation (written and visual) verifying that the conditions of a variance have been met, or the required work has been done, must be submitted to the AAB Office as soon the work is completed.A true copy attest, dated: June 8, 2010ARCHITECTURAL ACCESS BOARDBy:Donald Lang, Chairman Diane McLeod, Vice Chair (not present)Myra Berloff, Director of Massachusetts Richard Flippin, Executive Office of ElderOffice on Disability Affairs DesigneeGerald LeBlanc, Member Carol Steinberg, MemberD. Mark Trivett, Member Walter White, Executive Office of Public Safety Designee (not present)A complete administrative record is on file at the office of the Architectural Access Board. Page 11 of 11 S:AABKSuttonAgendas and ResultsDECISIONS2010052410The Armory, 191 Highland Ave., Somerville - 052410.doc

×