Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Northampton commission approves two hotel accessibility variances but rejects rear-lift plan for 3 Elm Street
Summary
The Disabilities Commission approved variances for shower-control location and winder-stair treads at a proposed 3 Elm Street hotel but unanimously voted against allowing a rear wheelchair lift to replace a front accessible entrance, citing unequal access and staffing concerns.
The Northampton Disabilities Commission considered three accessibility variance requests for a hotel conversion at 3 Elm Street and took separate votes on each.
Applicants sought (1) a variance allowing an enclosed vertical wheelchair lift at a rear entrance instead of a compliant front ramp (identified in the application as variance 25.1), citing preservation of a historic façade and excessive cost of front ramping; (2) relief for non-uniform treads and risers on a rear winder stair (27.2), arguing the stair is technologically infeasible to rebuild; and (3) a variance to place shower controls on a long wall 22–27 inches from the sidewall near a foldable seat rather than centered at 30 inches as required by 5.21 CMR (4.6.0.2.e), to improve reachability.
On the shower-control request, commissioners agreed that locating the controls nearer the shower seat improved access for some users and voted to approve the variance. Councilor Dubs moved to approve; Sydney Meininger seconded, and the motion passed by roll call with all voting yes.
For the back winder stair (27.2), staff presented drawings showing a narrow wedge tread that would be difficult to reconfigure without removing an interior passageway; commissioners noted compliant central stairs remain in the building and moved to approve relief for the rear winder stair. The motion passed by roll call with all voting yes.
The commission debated the larger 25.1 request at length. Multiple commissioners said a rear lift does not provide the same safe, independent access as a front ramp and expressed concern that the applicant’s intent not to staff the building 24/7 could make the lift unusable for visitors when staff were not present. Councilor Amy Lawton said she did not see a rear lift as providing "equal safe and functional use of a space" compared with a ramp. Commissioners also questioned language in the application invoking historical preservation and the use of the word “excessive” in describing cost. After discussion, the commission voted on a motion to approve the rear-lift solution; the roll-call vote recorded multiple named "No" votes and the motion failed.
Commissioners recommended that applicants pursue a front ramp solution where feasible, consider internal lifts to upper floors to improve vertical access, and preserve or provide an accessible drop-off or parking option at the rear if a ramp is infeasible during construction. Staff will include these observations in the packet sent to the state reviewers.
Outcomes (roll-call): - Shower-control variance (5.21 CMR / 4.6.0.2.e): approved (unanimous yes). - Winder-stair treads (27.2): approved (unanimous yes). - Main-entrance rear-lift (25.1): motion to approve failed (commission recorded no votes).
