Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Residential Addition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Applicant seeks code‑driven roof changes at 9 Bramfield Street; ZBA continues request for more alternatives
Summary
Attorney Douglas Shane said the work at 9 Bramfield is aimed at fixing hazardous, non‑code stairways and providing legal headroom on a taxed third‑floor bedroom; neighbors on either side spoke in support. The Zoning Board continued the application to May 26 for more design alternatives and clearer neighborhood precedent material.
Douglas Shane, an attorney representing the homeowner, told the Zoning Board of Appeals the plan for 9 Bramfield Street is “about safety and sustainability” rather than enlarging the house. Shane said existing stairways are non‑compliant and hazardous — describing tread depths of “only eight and a quarter inches” and head heights as low as “5'7"” on the third floor — and that proposed roof modifications and a dormer‑style upward extension would allow the stairs and third‑floor rooms to meet code.
Shane said the project would add a net of about 154 square feet while improving circulation and bringing stairways into compliance. He told the board the Historic Commission reviewed a revised design, unanimously lifted a demolition delay and approved the design changes that reduced the visual impact from the street.
The board pressed the applicant for alternatives. Several members asked whether the applicant had explored relocating the new stair within the house footprint, expanding a rear kitchen area to avoid a visible front‑facing insertion, or rotating the requested geometry so less massing would be visible from the street. One member said the lot’s narrowness and small size make changes to roof massing especially consequential.
Neighbors said they supported the work. Stephen Ro and other nearby residents who live at 7 and 11 Bramfield told the board they were “in full support,” saying they had been consulted and did not expect the change to be substantially detrimental.
After deliberation, the board voted to continue the application to its May 26 meeting and asked the applicant to: provide clearer, labeled photographs of street precedents shown in the presentation; document why lower‑visibility alternatives (for example, a rear stair or rotated pool‑style layout) are impracticable; and supply any additional structural or code analyses that explain why the dormer/upward extension is necessary to achieve compliance. The continuance was granted by roll call.
