Loading...
31B-249 (4) • 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 26, 2012 ARCHITECTURAL ACCESS BOARD By: i ' : AP f;;: Donald Lang, Chairman Diane McLeod, Vice Chair (not present) .144gligegeder4. Aro__ 7Lfe___Ady Andrew Bedar, Member Myra Berloff, Director of Massachusetts Office on Disability y ep, Raymond Glazier, Executive Office of Elder Gerald LeBlanc, Member Affairs Designee 7 .,,,, , , ,., - Oe -7 - Qq Carol Steinberg, Member D. 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 9 of 9 SWAB \KSutton\Agenda's and Results \DECISIONS\2012 \061812 \Dewey House, Smith College, 4 Neilson Dr., Northampton (V12- 040).doc compliance would be excessive without substantial benefit to persons with disabilities. Conclusion After reviewing the matter, the Board voted as follows: - GRANT the variances requested for the lack of compliant pull side clearance (521 CMR 26.6.3) for the doors at Rooms 210, 211, 213 and 214, on the condition that flex space/ meeting room is provided as shown in Exhibit 2, Plan A -1.2. The Board noted that the motion was based on the fact that the cost of full compliance would be excessive without substantial benefit to persons with disabilities. - CONTINUE the discussion regarding the noncompliant thresholds (521 CMR 26.10), based on the lack of specific information available at the time of the hearing, to have the Petitioners submit more information regarding location of thresholds and dimensions of each thresholds no later than July 13, 2012: - GRANT the variances for the lack of compliant clear width (521 CMR 26.5), pull side clearance (521 CMR 26.6.3) and push side clearance (521 CMR 26.6.4) at the third floor doors, on the condition that there is a written policy, requiring professors to make accommodations to meet with people at the second floor flex room/meeting room space. The Board noted that the motion was based on the fact that the Petitioners had proven that the cost of full compliance would be excessive without substantial benefit to persons with disabilities. - GRANT a variance to 521 CMR 30.1, regarding the lack of an accessible toilet room at the third floor, based on the fact that the Petitioners had proven that the cost of full compliance would be excessive without substantial benefit to persons with disabilities. - DENY the variance requested for the lack of a compliant wall side handrail at the curved stairs (521 CMR 27.4), based on the fact that there would be a significant benefit to persons with disabilities and the general public to have a compliant wall side handrail. - GRANT the variance for the lack of compliant height at the interior handrails at the curved stair (521 CMR 27.4), based on the fact that the Petitioners had proven that the cost of full compliance would be excessive without substantial benefit to persons with disabilities, and that it would affect the historic nature of the stairway. - GRANT the variance for the lack of a compliant interior handrail (521 CMR 27.4) and the existing winder stairs (521 CMR 27.2) at the stairs between the second and third floors, on the condition that a compliant wall side handrail is installed at the stair in question. - NO VARIANCE IS REQUIRED for 521 CMR 34.1 and 34.3, since the storage closets and cabinetry are accessed by employees only. - GRANT a variance to 521 CMR 30.2, regarding the location of the accessible toilet room at the first floor, on the condition that directional signage is placed at the inaccessible toilet room. The Board noted that the motion was based on the fact that the Petitioners had proven that the cost of full compliance would be excessive without substantial benefit to persons with disabilities. Page 8 of 9 S:\AAB \KSutton\Agenda's and Results \DECISIONS\2012 \061812\Dewey House, Smith College, 4 Neilson Dr., Northampton (V12-040) doe Krauss stated that the doors at the third floor offices do not meet the width, or pull and push side clearance requirements of 521 CMR. Based on this information, the Board voted to grant the variances for the lack of compliant clear width (521 CMR 26.5), pull side clearance (521 CMR 26.6.3) and push side clearance (521 CMR 26.6.4) at the third floor doors, on the condition that there is a written policy, requiring professors to make accommodations to meet with people at the second floor flex room /meeting room space. The Board noted that the motion was based on the fact that the Petitioners had proven that the cost of full compliance would be excessive without substantial benefit to persons with disabilities. The Board also voted to grant a variance to 521 CMR 30.1, regarding the lack of an accessible toilet room at the third floor, based on the fact that the Petitioners had proven that the cost of full compliance would be excessive without substantial benefit to persons with disabilities. Krauss stated that the curved historic stair does have compliant nosings, but that the Petitioners are . seeking a variance to maintain the existing interior handrail at the existing noncompliant height, and the lack of a handrail at the wall side. The Petitioners noted that adding a second handrail for full compliance and raising the height of the existing one would significantly detract from the grace and beauty of this original architectural element. The estimate for this work is $4,500, but the historic cost is far greater. Exhibit 1 also includes a letter from Brona Simon, State Historic Preservation Officer and Executive Director of the Massachusetts Historical Commission, stating that "if required, these alterations could adversely affect this significant historic building and detract from its historic character and the character and setting of the surrounding National Register - eligible district." Krauss noted that there is a compliant accessible stairway at the end of the corridor, adjacent to the proposed vertical wheelchair lift. Based on this information, the Board voted to deny the variance requested for the lack of a compliant wall side handrail at the curved stair (521 CMR 27.4), based on the fact that there would be a significant benefit to persons with disabilities and the general public to have a compliant wall side handrail. The Board also voted to grant the variance for the lack of compliant height at the interior handrails at the curved stair (521 CMR 27.4), based on the fact that the Petitioners had proven that the cost of full compliance would be excessive without substantial benefit to persons with disabilities, and that it would affect the historic nature of the stairway. Krauss stated that the stair from the second to the third floor is scheduled to remain. It is not possible to fit a fully code compliant stair in the current location. However, the Petitioners propose to install compliant nosings, a new compliant wall side handrail and compliant handrail extensions. The Petitioners seek a variance for the lack of compliant interior handrails and the existing winder treads. Based on this information, the Board voted to grant the variance for the lack of a compliant interior handrail (521 CMR 27.4) and the existing winder stairs (521 CMR 27.2) at the stairs between the second and third floors, on the condition that a compliant wall side handrail is installed at the stair in question. There are many storage closets throughout the building. Krauss noted that the closets within the offices are underused, as they are leftover from dorm use and not designed for office uses. There are no plans to remove or improve them at this time. Krauss noted that the faculty makes use of adjustable wall shelving and file cabinets for storage. Therefore, the Petitioners are requesting variances for any requirement regarding existing storage closets. Krauss noted that any new storage closets or cabinets built will comply in full with the requirements of 521 CMR, and that the new copy room cabinetry and the new kitchenette will both be fully compliant, with compliant storage. Krauss stated that the storage closets and cabinetry are only accessed by the faculty. Based on this information, the Board noted that no variance is required, since the storage closets and cabinetry are accessed by employees only. The Board also voted to grant a variance to 521 CMR 30.2, regarding the location of the accessible toilet room at the first floor, on the condition that directional signage is placed at the inaccessible toilet room. The Board noted that the motion was based on the fact that the Petitioners had proven that the cost of full Page 7 of 9 SWAB \KSutton \Agenda's and Results\DECISIONS\2012 \061812 \Dewey House, Smith College, 4 Neilson Dr., Northampton (VI2- 040).doc and modernization of the first floor back wing were made in 1994. The building is a tree -story mixed use, with primarily faculty offices and two seminar rooms. The total square footage of the building is 8,290 square feet, with 3,493 square feet at the first floor, 3,276 square feet at the second floor, and 1,520 square feet at the third floor, and a full basement that is limited to mechanical uses. Hardware (on all office entry doors) will be changed to accessible hardware throughout the building - no variance requested for this at this time. The first floor doors are of sufficient width (both newer doors and older historic ones). There is sufficient clearance at all of these doors as well. Krauss stated that although most of the doors at the second and third floors do not comply with the width requirements, the Petitioners intend to widen all doorways at the second and third floors. She added that the door maneuvering clearances are noncompliant at the doors at some doors at the second and third floor spaces, and that in the alternative they were offering a flex space /meeting room at the second floor for alternate accessible meeting space if need be. Rooms 210, 211, 213 and 214 have insufficient pull side clearance. There are no push side clearance issues at the second floor doors. Based on this information, the Board voted to grant the variances requested for the lack of compliant pull side clearance (521 CMR 26.6.3) for the doors at Rooms 210, 211, 213 and 214, on the condition that flex space/ meeting room is provided as shown in Exhibit 2, Plan A -1.2. The Board noted that the motion was based on the fact that the cost of full compliance would be excessive without substantial benefit to persons with disabilities. Krauss noted that some of the doors off the front hall (approximately 5 -6: Room 101, 102, 106 and 107 (two doors)) have thresholds that are thicker than allowed. This thickness takes into consideration significant floor level changes in the adjacent rooms due to uneven settling; therefore a variance is requested for this aspect. Krauss noted that she was unsure of the exact dimensions of the noncompliant thresholds in question. Based on the lack of specific information regarding the noncompliant thresholds (521 CMR 26.10), the Board voted to continue to have the Petitioners submit more information regarding location of thresholds and dimensions of each thresholds no later than July 13, 2012. Access to the third floor level cannot be accomplished without breaking through the historic eave and roof lines of the original back wing of the Dewey House. There are a very limited number of offices (only 6) on that level. An elevator extending to the second floor would be very costly unless it was located exterior of the building. Otherwise it would require significant re- framing of floor structures and remodeling of interior spaces. The only logical place for a new elevator (or lift) addition is in the northwest corner (adjacent to the new 1994 stair tower). This makes sense from the existing floor layout. It also reduces the impact on the historic building, as it would be near the back stair addition and well screened from the Elm Street Historic District. The width requirement for an elevator would extend beyond the original northwest corner of the back wing and the height would extend above the eave line. Neither of these is desirable nor appropriate to the historic massing and details of this building. Additionally, the cost of an elevator would be $88,000 above the cost of a lift, money that is critically needed for maintenance and repair. Kraus stated that based on these facts, the Petitioners are proposing the installation of a vertical wheelchair lift to access the second floor, because it fits appropriately in both width and height in this logical and cost effective location. The Petitioners are also seeking a variance for no access to the third floor, based on the installation of a vertical wheelchair lift to the second floor and the availability of the flex space /meeting room at the second floor for use by the third floor offices as well. Based on this information, the Board voted to grant the variance for the lack of access to the third floor (521 CMR 28.1), on the condition that a compliant vertical wheelchair lift (521 CMR 28.12.2) is installed to access the second floor as proposed, and based on the availability of the flex space /meeting room at the second floor for use by the third floor offices as well. Page 6 of 9 S: \AAB \KSutton\Agenda's and Results \DECISIONS\2012 \061812\Dewey House, Smith College, 4 Neilson Dr., Northampton (V12- 040).doc It also reduces the impact on the historic building, as it would be near the back stair addition and well screened from the Elm Street Historic District. The width requirement for an elevator would extend beyond the original northwest corner of the back wing and the height would extend above the eave line. Neither of these is desirable nor appropriate to the historic massing and details of this building. Additionally, the cost of an elevator would be $88,000 above the cost of a lift, money that is critically needed for maintenance and repair. Kraus stated that based on these facts, the Petitioners are proposing the installation of a vertical wheelchair lift to access the second floor, because it fits appropriately in both width and height in this logical and cost effective location. The Petitioners are also seeking a variance for no access to the third floor, based on the installation of a vertical wheelchair lift to the second floor and the availability of the flex space /meeting room at the second floor for use by the third floor offices as well. (Exhibit 1 and 2 and Testimony of Krauss) 5) Krauss stated that the doors at the third floor offices do not meet the width, or pull and push side clearance requirements of 521 CMR. (Exhibit 1 and 2 and Testimony of Krauss). 6) Krauss stated that the curved historic stair does have compliant nosings, but that the Petitioners are seeking a variance to maintain the existing interior handrail at the existing noncompliant height, and the lack of a handrail at the wall side. The Petitioners noted that adding a second handrail for full compliance and raising the height of the existing one would significantly detract from the grace and beauty of this original architectural element. The estimate for this work is $4,500, but the historic cost is far greater. Exhibit 1 also includes a letter from Brona Simon, State Historic Preservation Officer and Executive Director of the Massachusetts Historical Commission, stating that "if required, these alterations could adversely affect this significant historic building and detract from its historic character and the character and setting of the surrounding National Register - eligible district." Krauss noted that there is a compliant accessible stairway at the end of the corridor, adjacent to the proposed vertical wheelchair lift. (Exhibit 1 and 2 and Testimony of Krauss). 7) Krauss stated that the stair from the second to the third floor is scheduled to remain. It is not possible to fit a fully code compliant stair in the current location. However, the Petitioners propose to install compliant nosings, a new compliant wall side handrail and compliant handrail extensions. The Petitioners seek a variance for the lack of compliant interior handrails and the existing winder treads. (Exhibit 1 and 2 and Testimony of Krauss). 8) There are many storage closets throughout the building. Krauss noted that the closets within the offices are underused, as they are leftover from dorm use and not designed for office uses. There are no plans to remove or improve them at this time. Krauss noted that the faculty makes use of adjustable wall shelving and file cabinets for storage. Therefore, the Petitioners are requesting variances for any requirement regarding existing storage closets. Krauss noted that any new storage closets or cabinets built will comply in full with the requirements of 521 CMR, and that the new copy room cabinetry and the new kitchenette will both be fully compliant, with compliant storage. Krauss stated that the storage closets and cabinetry are only accessed by the faculty. (Exhibit 1 and 2 and Testimony of Krauss). Analysis The Board established jurisdiction pursuant to 521 CMR 3.3.2, which states that, "[i]f the work performed, including the exempted work, amounts to 30% or more of the full and fair cash value (see 521 CMR 5.00) of the building the entire building is required to comply with 521 CMR." Since the Petitioners are proposing to spend $2,600,000.00 (including exempted work) and the assessed value of the building is $1,037,630.00, the spending is well over the overall assessed value of the building, therefore requiring full compliance with all applicable sections of 521 CMR. The Dewey House was built inl827 in the Greek revival style and converted to dormitory use for Smith College in 1875. The building was moved twice. It was moved in 1898 to its present site when the back wing was added to make room for more students. Modifications for access (new ramp and accessible toilet room) Page 5 of 9 S:\AAB \KSutton\Agenda's and Results \DECISIONS\2012 \061812\Dewey House, Smith College, 4 Neilson Dr., Northampton (V12- 040).doc Pursuant to 521 CMR 34.1, "Mixed storage facilities such as cabinets, shelves, closets, and drawers that are required to be accessible shall comply with the following requirements." Section 34.3 of 521 CMR states that, "[a]ccessible storage spaces shall be within at least one of the reach ranges specified in 521 CMR 6.5, Forward Reach and 521 CMR 6.6, Side Reach. See Figure 6k, 61, 6m and 6n. Clothes rods or shelves shall be a maximum of 54 inches (54" = 1372mm) above the finish floor for a side approach. Where the distance from the wheelchair to the clothes rod or shelf exceeds ten inches (10" = 254mm) (as in closets without accessible doors), the height and depth to the rod or shelf shall comply with Fig. 34a and 34b." Exhibits Exhibit 1: Board Packet, AAB1 -22, including all correspondence and plans submitted by the Petitioner. Exhibit 2: Revised Floor Plans (Kraus -Fitch Architects, A1.1- A1.3), submitted by the Petitioners. Facts The Variance Hearing was held on June 18, 2012 and based on the credited testimony of the witness, and the documents submitted, the Board finds the following facts: 1) The Dewey House was built inl827 in the Greek revival style and converted to dormitory use for Smith College in 1875. The building was moved twice. It was moved in 1898 to its present site when the back wing was added to make room for more students. Modifications for access (new ramp and accessible toilet room) and modernization of the first floor back wing were made in 1994. The building is a tree - story mixed use, with primarily faculty offices and two seminar rooms. The total square footage of the building is 8,290 square feet, with 3,493 square feet at the first floor, 3,276 square feet at the second floor, and 1,520 square feet at the third floor, and a full basement that is limited to mechanical uses. (Exhibit 1). 2) Hardware (on all office entry doors) will be changed to accessible hardware throughout the building - no variance requested for this at this time. The first floor doors are of sufficient width (both newer doors and older historic ones). There is sufficient clearance at all of these doors as well. Krauss stated that although most of the doors at the second and third floors do not comply with the width requirements, the Petitioners intend to widen all doorways at the second and third floors. She added that the door maneuvering clearances are noncompliant at the doors at some doors at the second and third floor spaces, and that in the alternative they were offering a flex space /meeting room at the second floor for alternate accessible meeting space if need be. Rooms 210, 211, 213 and 214 have insufficient pull side clearance. There are no push side clearance issues at the second floor doors. (Exhibit 1 and 2 and Testimony of Krauss). 3) Krauss noted that some of the doors off the front hall (approximately 5 -6: Room 101, 102, 106 and 107 (two doors)) have thresholds that are thicker than allowed. This thickness takes into consideration significant floor level changes in the adjacent rooms due to uneven settling, therefore a variance is requested for this aspect. Krauss noted that she was unsure of the exact dimensions of the noncompliant thresholds in question. (Exhibit 1 and 2 and Testimony of Krauss). 4) Access to the third floor level cannot be accomplished without breaking through the historic eave and roof lines of the original back wing of the Dewey House. There are a very limited number of offices (only 6) on that level. An elevator extending to the second floor would be very costly unless it was located exterior of the building. Otherwise it would require significant re- framing of floor structures and remodeling of interior spaces. The only logical place for a new elevator (or lift) addition is in the northwest corner (adjacent to the new 1994 stair tower). This makes sense from the existing floor layout. Page 4 of 9 S:\AAB \KSutton \Agenda's and Results \DECISIONS\2012 \061812\Dewey House, Smith College, 4 Neilson Dr., Northampton (VI 2- 040).doc measured from the face of the stop on the latch side to the face of the door when the door is open 90 degrees. For door types such as bifold, accordion, and pocket, the clear opening is measured when the door is in its most fully open position. See Fig. 26b and 26c. Section 26.6.3 of 521 CMR states, "[p]ull side clearance shall comply with the following: a. A minimum of 18 inches (18" = 457mm) of clear floor space shall be provided on the latch, pull side of the door when the clear floor space in front of the door is a minimum of 60 inches (60" = 1524mm). see Fig. 26d...b. A minimum of 42 inches (42" = 10667mm) of clear floor space shall be provided on the latch, pull side of the door when the clear floor space in front of the door is more than 54 inches (54" = 1372mm) but less than 60 inches (60" = 1524mm) see Fig. 26g...c. A minimum of 24 inches (24" = 610mm) of clear floor space shall be provided on the latch, pull side of the door when the clear floor space in front of the door is a minimum of 54 inches (54 "= 1372mm) and the door has a closer. see Fig. 26d...Pull side clearance shall comply with Fig. 26d." 521 CMR 26.6.4 requires that, "[p]ush side clearance shall comply with Fig. 26e." Pursuant to the requirements of 521 CMR 26.10.1, "[t]hresholds shall not exceed IA inch (' /z" = 13mm) in height and shall be beveled on both sides with a slope no greater than one -in -two (1:2) (50 %)." 521 CMR 27.1, states that, "All stairs are required to comply with the following:...27.2, Treads and Risers;...27.3, Nosings;...27.4, Handrails;...27.5, Detectable Warnings at Stairs; and 27.6, Outdoor Conditions." Section 27.4 of 521 CMR requires that, "[h]andrails shall have the following features:...27.4.1 [,] Location...27.4.2[,] Height...27.4.3[,] Extensions...27.4.4[,] Size...27.4.5[,] Shape...27.4.6[,] Surface...27.4.7[,] Clearance...27.4.8[,] End condition... [and] 27.4.9[,] Handrails shall not rotate within their fittings." Pursuant to 521 CMR 28.1, "[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 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." Section 28.12.2 of 521 CMR states that, "[v]ertical wheelchair lifts shall comply with the following: a. 521 CMR 24.4, Landings, 521 CMR 29.00: FLOOR SURFACES, and 521 CMR 39:00 CONTROLS; b. Platform size shall be a minimum of 36 inches wide by 54 inches deep (36" by 54" = 914mm by 1372mm)...c. The wheelchair lift shall be recessed into the floor, at all levels, so that it is flush with the finished floor or grade. Where recessing the lift is not possible and a ramp must be used, the ramp shall comply with 521 CMR 24.00: RAMPS... d. If the wheelchair lift is key operated, a buzzer and intercom system must be installed at the lift and connected to a location within the building where the key is maintained... e. Doors or gates shall comply with the requirements of 521 CMR 26.5 through 521 CMR 26.11.4. Exception: Where a door or gate is provided in the wider side of any lift platform that is less that 54 inches (54" = 1372mm) in any dimension, the door or gate shall be a minimum of 42 inches (42" = 1067mm) wide and shall comply with the applicable requirements of 521 CMR 26.6 through 521 CMR 26.11.4...f. Wheelchair lifts must be permanently installed and maintained in operating condition at all times." 521 CMR 30.1 requires that, "[e]ach public toilet room provided on a site or in a building shall comply with 521 CMR... a. In each adult public toilet room, at least one water closet and one sink in each location shall be accessible to persons in wheelchairs, or a separate accessible unisex toilet room shall be provided at each location. Adult water closets shall comply with the provisions of 521 CMR 30.1 through 30.13." Page 3 of 9 SWAB \KSutton\Agenda's and Results \DECISIONS\2012 \061812 \Dewey House, Smith College, 4 Neilson Dr., Northampton (VI2- 040).doc COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUFFOLK, ss ARCHITECTURAL ACCESS BOARD Docket No. V12 -040 In re ) ) Dewey House ) Smith College ) 4 Neilson Drive ) Northampton, MA ) ) BOARD DECISION Introduction This matter originally came before the Architectural Access Board ( "Board ") as a variance request received by the Board on February 14, 2012, pursuant to 521 CMR 4.00, and submitted by Peter Gagnon, Capital Construction Director for Facilities Management for Smith College ( "Petitioner "). The Petitioner requested that the Board grant variances to the following sections of 521 CMR: 26.1, regarding the lack of accessible doors and doorways; 27.1, regarding the existing stairs; 28.1, regarding the lack of vertical access; 30.1, regarding the lack of accessible toilet rooms; 34.1, regarding the lack of accessible storage; and 34.3, regarding the lack of compliant storage shelve height. The application further noted that specific variances to the following sections of 521 CMR: 26.5, regarding the lack of compliant door width; 26.6.3, regarding the lack of compliant pull side clearance at doors; 26.6.4, regarding the lack of compliant push side clearance at doors; 26.10.1, regarding the lack of compliant thresholds; 27.4, regarding the lack of compliant stair handrails; and 28.12.1, regarding the use of a vertical wheelchair lift. 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 June 18, 2012 where all interested parties were provided with an opportunity to testify and present evidence to the Board. Mary Kraus, Kraus -Fitch Architects, and Peter Gagnon, Smith College, both appeared on behalf of the Petitioner. Both were sworn in by the Chairman. Applicable Laws The Board established jurisdiction pursuant to 521 CMR 3.3.2, which states that, "[i]f the work performed, including the exempted work, amounts to 30% or more of the full and fair cash value (see 521 CMR 5.00) of the building the entire building is required to comply with 521 CMR." Section 521 CMR 26.1, requires that, "[a]ll doors and openings along accessible routes shall comply with the following requirements...26.2, Revolving Doors...26.3, Turnstiles...26.4, Double -Leaf Doorways...26.5, Width...26.6, Maneuvering Clearance...26.7, Two Door In Series...26.8, Door Opening Force...26.9, Door Closers...26.10, Thresholds... [and] 26.11, Door Hardware." Pursuant to the requirements of 521 CMR 26.5, "[a]ll doorways and openings that are required to be accessible shall have a clear opening of not less than 32 inches (32" = 813mm). Clear opening of a door is Page 2 of 9 S:\AAB \KSutton\Agenda's and Results \ DECISIONS \2012 \061812 \Dewey House, Smith College, 4 Neilson Dr., Northampton (V12-040) doe l e/Aeldaaarleeetl f 9- 94ariee ,.. e igf aze. , 9 d ep e W _ A o,M SVe gte eJ�/�O n V Wei 7Jlt �Jod4 e� O,��0 Thomas G. Gatzunis, P.E. Deval Commissioner L. Patrick • Governor Timothy P. Murray •. Thomas P. Hopkins Lieutenant Governor . �s e/7 7 270 , 65 Director Mary Elizabeth Heffernan %G www.mass.govldps Secretary JUN 2012 CT DECISION OF THE ARCHITECTURAL ACCESS BOARD Date: June 26, 2012 Name of Property: Dewey House, Smith College Property Address: 4 Neilson Drive, Northampton, MA Docket Number: V12 -040 Date of Hearing: June 18, 2012 Enclosed please find a copy of the decision relative to the above mentioned matter. Sincerely: ARCHITECTURAL ACCESS BOARD By: 1 Kate Sutton, Program Coordinator /Clerk for Proceedings cc: Local Building Inspector Local Commission on Disabilities Local Independent Living Center Page 1 of 9 S:\AAB \KSutton\Agenda's and Results \DECISIONS\2012 \061812 \Dewey House, Smith College, 4 Neilson Dr., Northampton (V12-040).doc