Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Residential Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors and permit holder at odds over 9 Douglas addition; board continues case to confirm concession drawings
Summary
Neighbors urged limits on a proposed second‑story addition at 9 Douglas Street, citing shadowing and demolition concerns; the permit holder said concessions were made. The board continued the appeal one week to allow the permit holder to produce drawings confirming a offered ceiling‑height reduction and to explore roofline compromises.
Neighbors and the permit holder for a contentious addition at 9 Douglas Street returned to the Board of Appeals on May 7 for further argument over size, shadowing and whether the work amounts to de facto demolition.
Stephen Williams, representing long‑term neighbors, said the rear addition effectively doubles the house’s living area and would cast new shadows on a 100‑year‑old garden. Williams pointed to demolition calculations in the plans indicating extensive removal and urged the board to require a redesigned roofline (flat rather than peaked) and enforce concessions that he said had been promised to the neighbors.
Permit holder Lawrence Nathanson said the project was vetted at discretionary review, agreed to multiple concessions and reduced the second‑floor plate height from 10 feet 11 inches to an 8‑foot header. He said the project meets residential design guidelines and that structural and geotechnical reports satisfied DBI. DBI Chief Building Inspector Lawrence Kornfield said his inspection and reports showed no immediate use violations and that the permit before the board is intended to remedy prior code concerns.
Commissioners pressed both sides on specifics. Several commissioners suggested a potential compromise—raising interior ceiling height slightly while adopting a flatter roof profile to reduce shadow impacts. The board found lingering uncertainty about whether the claimed ceiling‑height reduction was reflected on exterior elevations and voted to continue the matter one week (to May 14) to allow the permit holder or architect to submit or confirm the drawing that documents the exterior height change.
The continuation is procedural: it asks the permit holder to submit 11 copies of any existing drawing that documents the concession by the following day at 4 p.m., or to prepare and submit such a drawing for the May 14 hearing.
