32A-255 (116) STA71 BUILDING CODE APP1,.,ALS BOARD
Docket *89-85
Dote: September 26, 1989
the building and its occupants. Clearly, the five story addition would be required to meet the requirements
of the present building code, but the Appellant could le.:tve the existing building alone and not install the
sprinkler system. If allowed to construct the additional one story to the existing building, the Appellant xviii
install a sprinkler system and make other fire safety related changes which will considerably upgrade the
entire structure. The Board considers the fire safety of the building to be the factor causing the Board to
grant the variance to Table 30:5.
SO ORDERED
The following Board Members were present and voted in the above manner:
Chairman,
U
William P. Kramer Paul Piepiora John E Grover
A true copy attest, dated
I Clerk
Peter Larkowich
Any person aggrieved by a decision of the State Building Code Appeals Board may appeal to a court of
competent jurisdiction in conformance with Chapter 30A, Section 14 of the General Laws.
STATE BUILDING CODE APPEALS BOARD
Docket #89-85
Date: September 26, 1989
Docket Number: 89-85
Dates of Hearing: June 29 and July 11, 1989
The Appellant testified that he was the architect for the renovation of an existing hotel located in
Northampton. The proposed renovations would be extensive and call for renovations to an existing building
and the construction of a five story addition as well as the addition of a sixth story on the existing five story
building. The building contains several types of building construction as the result of additions over the
years, but because of a one story porch on the front of the building, the entire building must be classified
as 4B construction. However, the main five story building is of type 2A construction. A recent addition
on the rear of the building has joined the main building to an existing older building. The Appellant plans
to add additional rooms on the roof of the main building and to construct a new five story addition to the
main building which would contain additional rooms. According to the Appellant, it is not feasible to
separate the existing buildings to create a series of buildings thorough the construction of fire walls. The
Appellant indicates that this project would violate the height and area requirements of Table 305 and
Section 2200.3.5 of the Building Code. In the opinion of the Appellant, since the building already exceeds
the requirements of Table 305 but is allowed to remain as a non-conforming, existing use, the Appellant
feels that this proposed project will enhance the fire safety of the building due to the construction of
additional safety features as a result of the proposed construction. The Appellant proposes to install
complete fire suppression system throughout the building and to enhance the egress from the entire building
by installing new fire doors at stairways and other egress points. The Appellant feels that these steps would
more than compensate for the additional height of the existing building and will make the building a much
safer place for occupants.
The local inspector testified that he had reviewed the plans and feels that since the building currently has
no fire suppression system, that the requested variance meets with his approval since the Appellant will
install a sprinkler system in this entire structure which will make it a safer place.
Following testimony, the Board found that the inspector had correctly interpreted the requirements of the
Building Code. The Board reviewed the proposed plans submitted by the Appellant and agrees that this
is a Type 4B building without any fire suppression system. The proposed plans will exceed the height and
area requirements and a variance to Table 305 would be required. Given the extent to which this building
is in non-compliance with the Building Code, the Board considers the installation of a fire suppression
system as of paramount importance and reviews the proposed additions in the light of the overall safety of
W, 0/ Mae alwy
Michael S. Dukakis -OB' W"�
Governor
Kentaro Tsutsumi
Chairman 0,00,08
Charles J. Dinezio (617) 727-3200
Administrator
STATE BUILDING CODE APPEALS BOARD
Docket #89-85
Date: September 26, 1989
In accordance with MGL c143, Section 100 and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts State Buildipp Code
this Appeals Board has found the following:
The appellant, Hotel Northampton, on June 7, 1989 appealed to this Appeals Board the decision of the
Building Official, Town of Northampton dated May 22, 1989.
On June 29 and July 11, 1989, a public bearing was held in Boston before members of the State Board of
Building Regulations and Standards who acted as the State Building Code Appeals Board in which a
majority of the said Appeals Board found in its opinion the enforcement of the Massachusetts State Building
Code would do manifest injustice to the appellant and the relief requested would not conflict with the
general objectives of the State Building Code and any of its enabling legislation.
There were present at the said hearing:
Bruce A Palmer, 212 Main St, Northampton
Harold R Cutler, 165 Landham Rd, Sudbury
Tristram Metcalfe, 150 Main St, Northampton
J,�tq--51i ass-
r : •, 3 � 6 '333
r
Michael S. Dukakis 4c�ai�maca (ic �uuiru
Governor `��s
Kentaro Tsutsum �i � '�' �Q ayr. G ; - ✓1,00M :/Jo
Chairman ✓�rxo�c, /���czartucfutaNd s t�,°70cQ
(617? 727-32(4)
Citaries J. Dinezio
Administrator
STATE BUILDING CODE APPEALS BOARD
September 26, 1989
Tristram W Metcalfe
150 Main Street
Northampton, MA 01060
RE: Docket: #89-85
Property Address: Hotel Northampton
Northampton, MA
We are pleased to enclose a copy of the decision relative to the above-mentioned case wherein certain
variances from the State Building Code had been requested.
Sincerely,
S, TE BUILDING CODE APPEALS BOARD
l
Pe er Larkowtc
Clerk
cc: State Building Code Appeals Board