The Needham Design Review Board unanimously approved a plan to correct an existing noncompliant entrance at 87 Chestnut Street, requiring a continuous railing at the building’s rear entrance as a condition of approval.

The board voted to approve the ramp, landing platform, and railing installation after hearing from the applicant that a building inspector had granted temporary occupancy for the second floor on the condition that the main entrance be brought into ADA compliance. Millie Bridal made the motion to approve, Felix seconded, and votes were Millie — yes; Felix — yes; Chair Mark Losing — yes.

Applicant representative Brett (last name not specified) told the board the existing main entrance ramp has a slope “about 4 times what ADA code allows” and lacks proper guardrails and turning-area clearances. He said the project’s goal is to provide a safe entrance that meets ADA turning-radius and handrail requirements; the site includes an elevator providing vertical access to the second floor.

Plans shown to the board keep the existing sidewalk and building footprint in place while repairing and reconfiguring ramps and railings. The applicant described a 12-inch grade change from the driveway to the building exit at both the front and rear, and said some existing back ramps and sidewalks were cracked and did not meet code. The design adds guardrails on elevated landings where needed, and the front landing will include painted diagonal striping to keep the ramp egress clear of parked cars.

Technical details discussed: the applicant said the front and rear ramp work will not change the building footprint, the front landing will include one 6-inch step to meet existing grade differences, and railings will be primed steel likely painted black to match future facade improvements. Brett said the project team had already received a temporary occupancy for the second-floor interior contingent on the exterior corrections; he also said the work likely meets the town’s $100,000 local threshold that can trigger additional review (applicant stated they “did hit the $100,000” level during the meeting).

Board members asked for the railing details and suggested aesthetic continuity. Millie Bridal and other board members recommended the rear entrance railing be designed as a continuous element around the platform rather than as two disjointed sections; the board made that design continuity a condition of the approval. The board noted structural or code-specific calculations would be reviewed as part of the building-permit process and that Chapter 34 or similar building code requirements might apply depending on the final scope and value.

Motion and vote: Millie Bridal moved to approve the ramp, landing platform, and railing installation with the condition that the rear entrance railing be continuous rather than split into separate sections; Felix seconded. Vote: Millie Bridal — yes; Felix — yes; Chair Mark Losing — yes. Outcome: approved.

The applicant said the railing will be coordinated with a future facade update and that planter boxes are planned for the front entrance for aesthetics. The board asked the applicant to provide revised railing details showing the continuous rear railing as a follow-up in the building‑permit submission.