Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Residential Addition topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Zoning board approves vertical addition at 6 Stillman Street

2314011 · February 12, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Framingham Zoning Board of Appeals approved a finding allowing a second-floor addition within the existing footprint at 6 Stillman Street after public comment and confirmation the work will not change the building footprint.

The Framingham Zoning Board of Appeals on Feb. 12 approved a finding permitting a vertical extension to the preexisting nonconforming structure at 6 Stillman Street.

The vote allows a second-floor addition and attic conversion that will stay within the home’s existing footprint. The applicant, Anna Aloha, sought the finding under the zoning provisions cited in the public notice and confirmation from her architect and builder that the work is limited to increasing height and interior headroom.

The board’s approval followed brief public comment from a next-door neighbor and answers from the applicant’s architect and contractor. Jan Sinclair, a neighbor, said she had watched the property decline for years and asked whether the project would convert the house to a two-family; the board and applicant both said no conversion was included in this filing. The contractor explained the work addresses low attic headroom and unsafe stair placement and that the footprint will not change.

Board members also noted a typographical error in the public notice (the notice read “6 Stillman Road” while the correct address is 6 Stillman Street) and recorded that administrative corrections would be made. The application materials showed an inconsistency in reported lot size on the application versus the plot plan; the contractor said the plot plan’s figures would be verified. The board said the lot-size discrepancy did not affect the board’s finding because the work does not change property lines or the horizontal footprint.

After discussion, a motion to approve the finding as presented carried unanimously by the panel present.

The board did not attach additional permit conditions beyond those required to ensure the work remains within the existing footprint. The applicant may proceed to the building-permit stage subject to applicable building-code review and any required permits or inspections.