jj welch backhoe 15 cottage.jpg

A backhoe owned by the Salem-based J.J. Welch & Co. stood parked behind Cottage Square on Tuesday.

(Mary Serreze photo)

EASTHAMPTON -- Fire officials on Tuesday accused a Salem-based contractor of providing false information in its bid to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy for the problem-plagued mill redevelopment known as Cottage Square.

The project at 15 Cottage St., the site of the former Easthampton Dye Works, was granted an occupancy permit Monday by the city's building commissioner after a series of delays and failed inspections. Tenants who had been promised an April 1 move-in date were seen picking up their keys on Tuesday, after enduring nearly seven weeks in limbo.

James J. Welch & Co. "basically perjured themselves" by submitting two letters on May 12 and 14 falsely attesting that smoke detector and sprinkler systems at 15 Cottage Street were fully functional, said Easthampton Fire Chief David Mottor. Fire Captain Wayne Henneman, who conducts fire safety inspections for the city, called the written assurances by company principal Michael J. Welch "false and inaccurate:"

"We have walked the building and inspected it and removed all smoke detector covers and made sure all fire protection eschusions (sic) are installed," read the nearly-identical letters signed by Welch. "All material including taping, bagging, etc. has been removed from all sprinkler heads."

The two fire officials said on-site inspections following the receipt of the letters revealed blocked sprinkler heads and other problems that should have been dealt with before calling city inspectors to the scene.

"It was a huge waste of everyone's time," said Mottor. "They wasted their own time, and they wasted ours."

The 50-unit affordable housing project is owned by the Boston-based Arch Street Development, LLC, and managed by the Holyoke-based Appleton Corporation.

Mottor and Henneman said they doubt construction manager John Gaspar conducted any type of walk-through inspection before Welch twice assured city inspectors that all fire safety systems were functional.

Henneman said he was first called by Gaspar to conduct an "acceptance test on life safety systems" in the early spring. His job was to certify that sprinkler, smoke detector, carbon monoxide detectors, notification devices, and emergency access systems were correctly installed and functioning.

"We found a lot of items," said Henneman: the emergency lights, alarm system, and sprinkler system had not been tested. A state elevator inspection had not been completed. There was no rapid entry key box allowing firefighters access in case of emergency, and no one on the scene knew where it was. Stairways were not keyed properly to allow firefighter access to "stand pipes" which allow for upper-story firefighting. The sprinkler and alarm subcontractor were not on the scene, he said.

Henneman said he told Gaspar that "next time, you need to get everyone on the same page."

For a second inspection, Mottor and Henneman headed to the building together. Changes had been made, but the alarm contractor did not have essential paperwork prepared, said Henneman.

"What we want is a printout of all devices on the alarm system," said Henneman, who explained that each detection device is wired to a specific location within an electronic monitoring panel, and will send an alarm signal to fire department headquarters if activated.

"We could have cancelled the inspection right there," said Henneman. "But we went through and tested each device -- every smoke detector, every pull station, and the entire sprinkler system."

The two helped subcontractors remove orange hats from smoke detectors and tape from sprinkler heads that had been placed by painters. Some sprinkler heads were missing, said Henneman.

Frustrated at that point, the fire department asked J.J. Welch for assurance in writing that all obstructions had been removed from sprinklers and smoke detectors before the city expended any more time with fruitless inspections.

The first letter from Welch arrived on May 12, and Henneman headed back over to the site, only to find 35 obstructed sprinkler heads, five completely covered sprinkler heads, missing escutcheons, lingering problems with locks and keys, and improper signage. Wall penetrations were noted, and that information was passed on to Interim Building Commissioner Russel Ducharme.

After receiving a second letter of assurance from Welch on the Thursday, May 14th, Henneman visited the building once more and conducted another walk-through. Everything looked good, so he signed off on the project.

But later in the day, Ducharme spotted several more covered sprinkler heads in an upstairs common area during his final inspection, and gave Hanneman a call.

"I was headed home by then," Henneman said. "I told Ducharme to pull my signature from the certificate."

Over the weekend, all problems were apparently resolved, as Ducharme signed off on the final occupancy permit on Monday. By Tuesday, the first wave of tenants, some of whom had been living in hotels since April 1, were pulling cars into the parking lot, meeting with an on-site manager to sign lease documents, and moving belongings into their new apartments.

Henneman said he felt irked when at least one tenant, who had apparently been told that the delays were the fault of the fire department, contacted him to complain about the fact that he didn't sign off on the occupancy certificate on Friday.

"I was covering a fire department shift on Friday, so could not contractually leave the shift to inspect Cottage Street again," said Henneman. "What's more, our job is life safety, and we're not going to put a deadline on that. If I'm going to be vilified for doing something right, I'm OK with that."

Mottor added that he had never seen such a disjointed relationship between a general contractor and subcontractors in his career dealings with major construction projects.

"In most large projects, everyone's lined up and standing tall for safety inspections," said Mottor. "All the subs are there, with their work completed and paperwork in hand. That was not the case here. It was not as harmonious as other jobs we've worked on."

Mottor said he thought the building's tenants, who were selected by lottery, were given an unrealistic time frame for their move-in date, based upon the scope of work for the project.

He added that the department learned a valuable lesson in its dealings with J.J. Welch, which he characterized as a company that would "do anything" to get a Certificate of Occupancy.

"Trust but verify," said Mottor. "We were thinking that they were a trustworthy company, and that their signature means something. But apparently, that's not the case."

A simple Google search reveals that James J. Welch & Co. has been fined and censured numerous times for safety, environmental, and contract violations in projects around the country.

Michael Welch declined to answer questions from a reporter about the veracity of his May 12 and May 14 letters when contacted by telephone Monday.

The city charges a flat fee of $75 for the issuance of an occupancy permit. Mayor Karen Cadieux on Monday was not able to give an estimate of city staff time devoted to the recent inspections. Cadieux said there was nothing the city could have done, short of making its inspectors available after-hours, to pressure J.J. Welch to finish the job properly and on deadline.

"It's a private project," she said.

Work on the $88 million Cottage Square began in April 2014; contractor J.J. Welch was cited three times by OSHA and fined $93,370 during the construction process for "serious, repeat, and willful" safety violations.

Mary Serreze can be reached at mserreze@gmail.com