32A-138 (95) Yo�J77/jltanaaeeri `3o�'y /3�'
.K
pt/ ��
E S�r�ce a�tQr tri
.
Mitt Romney ( 'A•
iea .%'ate i. caves //Y/ Thom Cmmussones.PE.
r
Governor
i s l/717.2rr76‘oo
Thomas P.Hopkins
Kerry LieutenantGovernort-� rj g.,, "r gag Director
Edward A.Flynn JUL 1 9 2004 1' �(i11,/7��0667 wene.state.m,.u,,,ae
SeVclerk 1 `
• urn.cr Gi lilt,..�I Gi Pi
.ir Mk 01060
DECISION
RE: 21-23 MAIN STREET, Northampton
1. The hearing was held upon a variance filed by Matthew Pitoniak in regards to the following Rules and
Regulations of the Architectural Access Board:
Section 25.1 - General (Entrances)
2. The hearing was held on: Monday, June 21, 2004.
3. The following persons appeared: Matthew Pitoniak, Downtown Association' Fitzwilly's; Fred Gotu,
Fitzwilly's; Thomas Douglas, Douglas Architects. All were sworn in by the Chairman and the hearing was
called to order at 2:00 p.m.
4. JURISDICTION:
The Board took jurisdiction over the facility under Section 3.3.1a, in that the work performed cost less than
5100,000 and less than 30%of the full and fair cash value of the building, therefore only the work performed is
required to comply with 521 CMR,
5. FINDINGS AND DECISION:
The Board having considered the evidence hereby decides and finds as follows:
Let the record show that Mr. Edward Kelly was not present for this hhearing.
Mr. Thomas Douglas, architect for the project, started the presentation by stating that Fitzwilly's Restaurant has
been in Northampton since the 1970's, built in 1904, noting that the main entrance was originally store fronts
with the original main entrance to the Masonic Building(which houses Fitzwilly's) on Main Street which leads
to the main elevator lobby and the current secondary entrance to Fitzwilly's which is currently used as a
"partially accessible" entrance to the restaurant. The main entrance to the restaurant is up three steps. Mr.
Douglas stated that the petitioners intended to take over the current adjoining pizza shop in order to expand the
restaurant, which triggered the need to come before the Board for the variance request to keep the existing
entrance at the pizza shop as is. The entrance in question currently is made up of two existing steps at the
exterior of the door with a ramp from the second step through the doorway and into the retail space, up about 26
%1 inches from grade, as shown in the Existing Plan (see File). Mr. Douglas explained that the current "partially
accessible"route into the restaurant since the 1970's is not fully accessible due to the step at the entrance with a
1:20 slope without a level landing up to the secondary entrance to the restaurant which remains open when the
restaurant is open.
The petitioners' variance request was to create a four-step entrance up to the vestibule space, making the
existing entrance that is "partially accessible", fully accessible with automatic door openers at both doors and an
accessible route through Fitzwilly's into the new expansion space. Mr. Douglas stated that there is a unisex
toilet room at the rear of the restaurant. This option would also create a 1:14 sloped entrance to the elevator
lobby due to the need for a level landing at both doors, creating full access into and throughout the restaurant.
The second option for compliance would allow for a ramp to the expansion space, but would require two steps
into the main area of the restaurant, making access to the toilets of the restaurant impossible. The third solution
would involve a switchback ramp to the new expansion entrance. The ramp would have to be 26 % feet long
with power-operated doors required for the vestibule doors at the entry. This entrance would allow an
accessible route from the main area of the restaurant to the expansion area. The final option that was presented
by Mr. Douglas involved an entry that would again be"partially accessible,"with a step up to a new ramp,
which would require a variance and would not make the entry fully accessible,but would still leave an
accessible route from the expansion space to the main area of the restaurant. Mr. Douglas stated that all of the
ramp options into the expansion space would create a loss of seats, noting that they would like to leave the
existing entrance at the expansion space (existing pizza shop). He noted that with the new expansion, the area
would still be accessible, and the overall accessibility to the restaurant would be upgraded so that there would be
one fully compliant entry to the restaurant. Mr. Matthew Pitoniak, Downtown Association/ Fitzwilly's, stated
that the two current entrances were both used frequently, noting that there is a four-story office building above
the restaurant, which shares the elevator lobby space and main entrance in this area with Fitzwilly's which
creates a large amount of traffic for the elevator lobby entrance as well. Mr. Pitoniak stated that the expansion
door in the current pizza shop would be used more as an exit than an entrance because of the current flow
through the existing entrances and the location that these entrances bring patrons to is where the hosts currently
are located.
At this point, Mr. Jerry LeBlanc, Chairman of the Board, opened the hearing to questions from members of the
Board. Mr. LeBlanc questioned the need for handrails at the new compliant entrance since it would have a
slope of 1:14 and be considered a ramp, requiring the installation of compliant handrails. Mr. Douglas stated
that there would be one handrail installed at the left side of the ramp since this is the side of the lobby that the
door to the restaurant is located on, noting that the only reason that the entrance would be ramped was because
of the need for the level landings. Ms. Myra Berloff stated that if the petitioners only wish to install one
handrail, then they will need a variance for the lack of the second handrail. She then questioned where the
host/hostess was stationed in the restaurant. Mr. Douglas then pointed out the area where the hostess was
located. adding that the hosts/hostess' are trained to look for people entering the building, but stating that the
main hostess station was near the inaccessible entrance, with bar tenders at the second lobby entrance sending
people to the hostess station upon their arrival. Ms. Berloff then questioned if the door in the expansion area
would be used as an exit-only door, adding that all that would have to be done would be that the exterior
hardware be removed and the second vestibule door could be removed since the door would be an emergency
exit only. Mr. Pitoniak stated that the only problem with this idea was that they wanted to keep the draft out of
the building via the second vestibule only. Ms. Berloff clarified that if the door was an emergency exit only
then the door would only be open during emergencies. Mr. Douglas then questioned how this door was
managed over time, questioning what would happen if the tenant changed and the door was needed to be turned
into an entrance again. Ms. Berloff stated that the door would have to be brought into compliance. Mr. Thomas
Hopkins. Director of the AAB, stated that changing the door from an emergency egress only to an entrance
would be considered a change of use under 521 CMR and therefore require that the entrance be brought into
compliance. Mr. Paul Moriarty added that the Board could stipulate that the variance was for this use/tenant
only. Ms. Berloff then asked if the petitioners would propose signage at the inaccessible door directing people
7
to the accessible entrance. Mr. Douglas stated that there is minimal signage at this point, but that they intend to
update the signage when the fully accessible entrance is updated. Mr. Moriarty then questioned what the new
space would be used for. Mr. Pitoniak stated that the new space would create more seating, more bar space,
noting that at this point, they would like to keep the entrance at the expansion space as an entrance and not make
it an emergency exit. Mr. Fred Gohr stated that although the space would have an entrance, it would not be
perceived as a main entrance since there would not be a host/hostess at this entrance. Mr. Moriarty noted that
the door to the expansion space would not have to be an emergency exit only, stating that if the door was simply
marked as exit-only, the door would not need a variance.
At this point, Ms. Berloff made a motion to GRANT the variance request for the use of Option 1,
provided that there are compliant handrails at one side of the ramp and that the petitioner's apply for a
variance for the lack of a handrail at the other side of the ramp, that there are auto-openers on both the
exterior door to the lobby and the lobby entrance to Fitzwilly's, and that signage is installed at the
inaccessible doors directing people to the accessible entrance. Mr. Moriarty seconded the motion for
discussion. He also proposed an amendment to the motion that the variance was granted on the condition
that the area was always one space and cannot be subdivided, and that the variance is for Fitzwilly's
only. Ms. Berloff accepted the motion and upon a vote from the Board, the motion carried unanimously.
A true copy attests:
The Board voted to waive the site visit.
This constitutes a final order of the Architectural Access Board entered pursuant to G.L. c. 30A. Any aggrieved
person may appeal this decision to the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts pursuant to
Section 14 of G.L. c.30A. Any appeal must be filed in court no later than thirty (30) days of receipt of this
decision.
DATE: July 13, 2004 ARCHITECTURAL ACCESS BOARD
Gerald LeBlanc, Chairman '
cc: Local Building Inspector
Local Disability Commission
Independent Living Center
3