Zoning Board of Appeal

Recording in progress

Good morning. The City of Boston Zoning Board of Appeal hearing for September 8, 2026 is now in session. This hearing is being conducted in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Open Meeting Law, including the updated provisions enacted by the legislature this year. The new law allows the Board to continue its practice of holding virtual hearings through June 2027. This hearing of the board is being held remotely via the Zoom webinar event platform and it's also being live streamed. In order to ensure this hearing of the board is open to the public, members of the public may access this hearings through telephone and video conferencing. The information for connecting to this hearing is listed on today's hearing agenda, which is posted on the public notices page of the city's website boston.gov. Members of the public will enter the virtual hearing as attendees, which means you will not see yourself on the screen and you will be muted throughout unless administratively unmuted when asked to comment.

Board members, applicants and their attorneys or representatives will participate in the hearing as panelists. and they will appear alongside the presentation materials when speaking. Panelists are strongly encouraged to keep video on while presenting to the board As with our in-person meetings, comments and support will be followed by comments and opposition. The order of comments is as follows, elected officials, representatives of elected officials and members of the public. The Chair may limit the number of people called upon to offer comment and the time for commenting as time constraints require. For that reason, the Board prefers to hear from members of the public who are most impacted by a project—that is those individuals who live closest to the project. If you wish to comment on appeal, please click the raise hand button along the bottom of your screen in the Zoom webinar platform. Click it again and your hand should go down when the host sees your hand you will receive a request to unmute yourself select yes and you should be able to talk if you're connected to the

Hearing by telephone, please press star nine to raise and lower your hand. You must press star six to unmute yourself after you receive the request from the host. Those called upon to comment will be asked to state their name and address first and then can provide their comments. In the interest of time and to ensure that you have enough time to do so, please raise your hand as soon as Mr. Stembridge reads the address into the record. Do not raise your hands before the relevant address is called or the meeting host will not know to call on you at the appropriate time. We ask that you keep your comments brief and all public testimony will be limited to 90 seconds per speaker. Mr. Stembridge? Are you here, Mr. Stembridge? Okay, I'll keep going. Mr. Valencia?

Good morning, Madam Chair. Present.

Good morning. Ms. Turner? Madam Chair, present. Good morning, Ms. Barbaraza.

Good morning Madam Chair present.

Good Morning, Ms Wewell.

Good Mornin' Madam chair present.

Mr Langham.

Good mornin', Madam Chair Present

Good morning, I'm going to circle back to Mr. Stembridge because I know they're here. Are you here with technical difficulty? Okay, we have a note that says Mr. Stembridge is present. So I hope we can hear you in a second because the floor is yours. All right, waiting on IT for sound. We have to resolve that City Hall IT issue. All right, so let's wait patiently because we need Mr. Stembridge.

Madam Chair, just FYI, people are still returning to the intersection. So sometimes if you call them they will be not allowed to get themselves So, once again if you are in the attendee section please make sure that you are on the panelist section. If not, if you're in the attending section and I will send to you the request yourself.

Okay, so thanks for everyone's patience. Again there seems to be a technical issue at ISD that is being addressed.

Yes, Madam Chair. My name is Craig Martin from Hyde Park. I thought a gentleman, and I think he was a board member just spoke something about if you call in be sure to do this or...

Uh that is uh

There was just a little advice that a gentleman just gave, and I didn't hear who it was.

I think there are some people who are trying to... Go ahead.

Sorry, Madam Chair. Yes, no, you are not allowed to unmute yourself because I think your phone is not allowing me to promote. But you're all set. So you can unmute yourself when it's your turn.

I thank you for explaining that.

Are you able to hear me?

Yes.

Okay, sorry. I seem to have had an audio problem. This is going to be a rough day.

Madam Chair, can you hear me?

Yes I can. Eureka!

Um, bear with us. We're trying to move forward but yes I am present. Yes I'm here.

Okay well... If you want to proceed without video, the floor is yours. If you wanna wait, let us know.

We'll proceed without videos for the moment And then I will try and get ourselves together again once we get help from IT. Okay, that sounds great. So bear with me please. Thank you for watching! I'm still here, I'm just trying to get in the right place. All right, we will begin today's meeting with the approval of hearing minutes scheduled for 9 30 a.m. These minutes are from August 11th

And with that, I will put forth a motion of approval.

Thank you. May I have a second?

Second.

Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr Valencia? Yes Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza?

Yes, Ms. Whewell? Yeah.

Mr. Langham? Yes Chair votes yes the motion carries

All right, next we have the extension scheduled for 9.30 a.m. Here are 12 cases scheduled. I will read through all of them, and then... I'll read through if there are any questions. We can address those after our finished reading, for sure. First we have case BOA. 134-9675 at the address of 4 Deaver Street. Next we have case BOA 1599560 with the address of 7 to 9 Park Street. Next, we have

Case BOA 1304433 with the address of 10 Thompson Square. Next we have case BOA-1153496 with the address of 59 Pillock Street. Next we have case BOA 1625948 with the address of 115 to 121 Boston Street. Next, we have Case BOA 667-111 with the address of 151 Liverpool Street. Next we have case BOA 136

136-9555 with the address of 2207 Norchester Avenue. Next we have case BOA 162-6437 with the address of 58 Cedrus Avenue. Next we have case VOA 134 8765 with the address of 155 Portland Street. Next we have case BOA 155-2342 with the address of 43 Hutchings Street. Next we have case BOA 155 2344 with the address of 43R Watching Street. And finally, we have case VOA 1398736 with the Address of 5 Warren Avenue.

Madam Chair, those are the extensions scheduled for today.

Thank you. Are there any questions from the board?

Yes, I have a question for Caroline and also I wanted to ask board members if they have an opinion about this. Case for the address 151 Liverpool Street This is the eighth request for an extension. So I understand that this case has been extended over a period of six or seven years? and for the record I wanted to ask Caroline How many times a proponent or project can be extended? And then ask my colleague board members if they have an opinion about how many times we can just keep extending cases.

Well, I think the other question for Caroline is what's the alternative?

Yes, exactly. What is the alternative Just for general information, I know this case they have their motives to request the extension. I read that and that seems compelling but just for a general understanding of the process, I wanted to ask again clarification about this. Thank you.

Of course, so it's at the board's discretion to grant as many extensions as you'd like. In terms of the Permit Extension Act under Governor Healey any permit active from 23 to 25 Thank you for joining us. The board, if for some reason the work they still needed an extension, the board could grant it or deny it. And then in that case, the Board did deny the extension. The permit would then be abandoned and they would have to reapply.

Of course.

Okay, any other questions? Yep, is that a question? Okay. If there are no other questions or discussion, may I have a motion to grant the extensions as requested?

Motion to grant extensions as requested.

Is there a second? Second Mr. Stembridge? Yep. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes Ms. Barbraza? Yes Mrs. Whewell? Yes Mr. Langham? Yes Chair votes yes, the motion carries Thank you

Next, we'll move on to the recommendations schedule from this subcommittee. I'll read them all in. If there are any questions, we can entertain those at that time and then go from there. We'll begin with case BOA. 182-2390 with the address of 278 Washington Street. And I'll hold on and please let me interject that all of these cases were approved by the subcommittee, as was this one. Next we have case BOA 1839200 with the address of 587 to 587 A East Broadway, which was approved.

Next, we have case BOA-1807140 with the address of 269 Silver Street which was approved. 182-9000 with the address of 141 to 113 Northchester Avenue, which was approved. Next we have case BOA 183-3903 with the address of 107 Russell Street, which was approved with Planning Department's design review. and Madam Chair, those are the recommendations from the subcommittee.

We see you guys. Nice to see you.

We're getting there.

Any questions from the board? May I have a motion to approve?

Motion to approve. Madam Chair.

May I Have a second?

Second.

Mr Stembridge Yes Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes Ms. Better Barraza? Yes Mrs. Whewell? Yes Mr. Langham? Yes Chair votes yes, the motion carried.

Next we'll move on to a building code case scheduled for 9 30 am This is case BOA 1877958 with the address of 4 Haynes Street. If the applicant and or their representative are present, would they please explain to the board?

Thank you, Ms. Stembridge. Thank you Madam Chair and members of the board Attorney Jeff Drago with Drago & Toscano here on behalf of the applicant developer for Haines Street I also have David Freed from CHOI who's here, who designed the plans. It was a pretty straightforward case. We're seeking building code relief This project was approved for two private exclusive rooftop decks to be accessed by Hatch. Zoning Board as well as the community had supported to keep the height at a reasonable level and they frowned upon having additional bulky penthouses on top. This project was originally approved by a different developer and architectural team. The project was then sold upon after the project had already been granted

at-risk permit to start construction. It was re-reviewed, a new plans examiner, the old plans examiners had left Found additional zoning violations that we actually had to come back This building code variance request was missed. It was only brought up after the full permit was actually issued, so the permit was issued contingent now upon coming back to the board to grant that relief. and so to prevent a hardship this building is already constructed these are going to be sold as condos. This is something The proposed alternative which are shown in the plans is a low-profile roof hatch access rather than Full Penthouse.

The roof hatches, bulkheads would be limited to approximately 30 inches above the roof deck which is consistent with zoning limitations. Proposed 3 foot by 7 foot roof hatch would have assisted opening hold hardware and all required guard rails as well. This project was approved, it was a four unit building and the top units these are exclusive roof decks as I mentioned only for those Top Floor Units Thank you. Are there questions from the board? One question, Madam Chair. Can you hear me now? Yes, sir.

Thank you.

Sorry what was your question?

I'm sorry. My question is just to make sure we're back on track here.

Oh, okay. Sorry.

I thought it was a question for a turn-through.

Okay, sorry. Any other questions from the board?

Now Madam Chair, I had a chance to review the plans and that request seems pretty straightforward.

Thank you. Okay if there are no other questions or comments is there a motion?

Madam Chair, I'd like to put forward a motion of approval to approve a building code relief to allow for the hatches as opposed to the penthouse. May I have a second? Second.

Mrs. Stembridge. Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Turner?

Yes Ms.

Better Barraza? Yes Mrs. Whewell? Yes Mr. Langham? Yes. Chair votes yes, the motion carries, give up. Thank you very much members of the board.

Next we'll move on to the hearing scheduled for 9 30 a.m At this time, we'll ask if there are any requests for withdrawals or deferrals from the 930 AM here. Mr. Currier?

Good morning, Mr. Stembridge. Good morning Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is Ernst Guillorya appearing on behalf of the applicant for 26 Dash 30, Byrd Street. With the consent of the board I'd like to ask for a brief continuance. Madam Chair you may remember this matter was- Can we?

Sorry can Mr. Stembridge read the case into the record? I'm sorry And actually, I'm sorry. You're asking for what? 26 Birch Street? 26 Bird Street, yes. So you'll have to wait until Mr. Stembridge asks about deferrals at the 1130 time frame? We're asking about the 9.30 timeframe right now?

I believe it was scheduled for 9. 30, Madam Chair, but...

No, quite that type. As Madam Chair said, that is scheduled for 11 o'clock here.

I'm sorry.

So yeah, if I can find it now for sure.

Okay so are there any deferrals or withdrawals for the 930? With that, I'll turn it back over to you, Mr. Stembridge, and then I'll see you.

Hearing none, we'll move on to the first case with 930, which is Case VOA-187. 3156 with the address of 8 Lawrence Street. If the applicant and or their representative present would please explain to the board.

I'm you. Good morning. Am I coming through?

Yes, sir.

Thank you. I just hit the panel there. Thank you Madam Chairman, members of the board. Nestor Lemus owner of 8 Lawrence Street as per the refusal letter this is a restricted area for roof Deck, and I am seeking relief for a proposed roof deck on the flat-pitched roof. We submitted the plans as pursuant to what we're seeing here with the survey. And according to the analysis conducted by the architect David Choi, we meet all the dimensional controls by way of high setbacks in the front. and the total building. And so we're seeking relief of the restricted roof area houses located in Charlestown, Mass.

Can we talk about the size and the visibility from the street? How far is it set back?

That particular, if you can go back one slide please. That particular picture is a good dimension. On the bottom is the abutter side, on the right side is the main street and it has a setback I can't read that right now but looks like it's about 10 plus feet From the front, which is Lawrence Street. And in the rear it also has a setback. The total square footage is 250 square feet, which remains within the FAR about 192.

Thank you. Other questions from the board? Hearing none, may I have a public testimony?

Actually, I do have a question and it might be for BPD. Are roof hatches allowed or would they need a relief as well for building code This is just for the last case and it was missed. Is Mr. Hampton with us? Are you on, Mr. Hamilton?

I've seen you.

It's my understanding, if I may input from my architect. Because if we look at the same slide, if you go upward this two air conditioning system, the condensers and if you stay within the height, roof hatch that's already installed as a means of accessing the HVAC systems that are up in the roof. If you stay within certain height requirements, which we are. Right.

The new hatch is proposed, correct?

You know, it's existing.

It's existing, okay. I don't have any further questions. Okay, with that may I have public testimony?

Madam Chair and Board Members, good morning. Siggy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services Petitioner completed the community process. Our office hosted an abutters meeting on June 22nd at which no public comments were made. With that background, ONS defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Next, we have Ashley from Councilor Flynn.

Thank you. My name is Ashley from Councillor Flynn's office. Councillor Flynn would like to go on record in support. Thank You.

I'm sure we have additional comments.

Okay, with that may I have a motion?

Madam Chair, I'd like to put forward a motion of approval. Is there a second?

Second. Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Miss Turner? Yes Miss Better Barraza? Yes Ms. Whewell? Yes Mr. Langham? Yes Yes, the motion carries. Good luck.

Thank you very much. Have a good afternoon everyone.

Next we have case BOA-1849569 with the address of 560 to 562 Tremont Street. If the applicants and or their representatives are present, will they please explain to the court?

Good morning, my name is Chloe Roque-Nicholas. I'm the applicant and first off I just wanted to thank the Zoning Board of Appeals members for being here today. I believe this will be brief as I received an email on Friday that my ISD permit denial, which I spent the past five months appealing was given an error. So my permit never should have been denied. I was asked to withdraw from the hearing, but I reached out to ISD to ask to make sure that my process could be dealt with in a time-sensitive manner and I haven't received any communication from their offices So I let the zoning office know that I didn't want to withdraw until I heard anything from ISD. And so just wanted that on the record, but I don't think I'm going to need a ruling today. Because I'll be going back to ISD, but I just wanted to say thank you again for your time. Okay, Caroline, can you confirm for the applicant?

Yes, she is correct. We do not need to issue a refusal letter. Okay, well then do we need any motions here today? Nope. Okay, thank you for your time and I'm glad it worked out. Thank you as well.

With that, we'll move on to case BOA 186-4808 with the address of 460 West Broadway. This is an Article 80 case And if the applicant and or their representative are present, will they please explain?

Yes, thank you Mr. Stembridge good morning Madam Chair and members of the board my name is George Maranci I'm an attorney with a business address at 350 West Broadway in South Boston I represent the petitioner, Cedarwood Development LLC and its principals David Winnick and David Mateo in connection with the redevelopment of 460 West Broadway. Also joining today is the project architect Shane Locey This project is the adaptive reuse and construction of a two-story addition to the former South Boston Savings Bank building. at 460 West Broadway in South Boston. This is a 1948 classical revival structure that is listed in the state's MACRIS inventory. The renovated and expanded building will become the new home of the South Boston Division of the Boston Municipal Court, together with office and administrative space for the Suffolk County District Attorney and the Office of Community Corrections under a long-term lease with the Commonwealth.

This will replace the aging and outdated South Boston Court facility currently located at 55 East Broadway, a short distance from this location. On April 26th of this year The BBDA Board approved this project under Article 80E, Small Project Review. The board memorandum that board members have In front of them sets out the development team design and community benefits in full, so I won't repeat those here but I do incorporate them by reference. As I said, the project architect Shane Losey is here and he'll make a brief presentation on the design directly to the board. And I'll therefore limit my testimony to the zoning relief the project requires. The project sits in an MFRLS Multifamily Residential Local Service Subdistrict within the South Boston neighborhood under Article 68. is on West Broadway near Perkins Square. This is the neighborhood's principal commercial corridor where ground floor commercial uses and upper floor residential uses predominate. A courthouse

and the accessory office space that comes with it is a forbidden use in this neighborhood, so the project does require a use variance. Preserving and reusing the historic bank building together with the two-story addition needed to accommodate the court in the office program also requires relief from the sub-districts height limitation, floor area ratio limitation and yard depth requirements. Specifically variants are needed for Violations attributable to insufficient side yard setback, exceeding maximum building height and excessive floor area ratio. The side yard setbacks are zero, which is an existing condition whereas a three foot side setback is required. The MFRLS sub-district's maximum building height is 35 feet which I may say is almost entirely inconsistent with existing conditions on West Broadway.

The proposed building height is approximately 49 feet, which is highly consistent with surrounding conditions. Likewise, the proposed FAR 2.85 is far more representative of the surrounding density than the 1.5 FAR allowed by code. Finally, the refusal letter cites a violation under Article IX Section 2 for increasing by more than 25% The size of a building containing a non-conforming use. Here the proposed courthouse use is the non- conforming use. This site sits directly on West Broadway where civic and institutional uses are already compatible with the surrounding commercial and residential mix and the project preserves rather than demolishes a historic structure. The development team worked diligently with the planning department, the landmarks commission staff during Article 80E review to ensure that the building's dimensions and design are contextually appropriate to the block, and sensitively respond to the building architecture.

Madam Chair if the board would like a presentation on the design I would turn the presentation over to Shane Locey That is obviously the call of the chair and the board.

Absolutely, so let me see if there are questions from the board? I don't hear any questions from the board, so let's move on to public testimony.

Madam Chair, members of the board. Conor Newman with the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services. At this time, the mayor's office has deferred to the judgment of this board. Some background information on the community process. This went through a lengthy community process overseen by the Boston Planning Board This involved four public meetings last year. There were significant changes made after community feedback regarding the design of the proposal At one point there was a residential component as well as concerns related to residents wanting to see more parking on site. The outcome made those changes. They worked extensively with Gate of Heaven, which is in non-opposition to this proposal, as well as meeting the St. Vincent's Lower End Neighborhood Association, which was very pleased that the existing facade was incorporated into the project Presently, we understand that the community is very pleased with the direction of this project and would now defer to the board. Thank you.

Thank you. I'm sure next we have Ashley from .

Thank you. My name is Ashley from Councilor Flynn's office. Councilor, Flynn would like to go on record in support not only from the critical need for maintaining a presence for the trial court of the Commonwealth and our criminal justice system in South Boston, but also a community process with neighbors and abutters that resulted in a number of good faith compromises. This included removing the entire residential element of the proposal and 22 units originally proposed, reducing the height from six stories down to four stories, changing the design of the building in attention Key Quality of Life Concerns in the Neighborhood. Thank you.

Good morning, board. I'm from the Office of Historic Preservation. The proposed scope of work at 460 West Broadway in South Boston includes adaptive reuse of an existing historic structure The Boston Landmarks Commission would like to state our full support for this project, which preserves an important historic building while providing a much needed new space for the Boston Municipal Court System. The applicant worked very closely with the landmark staff throughout their design process, resulting in an adaptive reuse project which will serve as an important precedent for Boston's future development.

Thank you

Chair, we don't have additional comments.

Okay any other questions from the board? May I have a motion? Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr Valencia? Yes Miss Turner?

Yes Ms.

Better Barraza?

Yes

Ms. Whewell? Yes. Mr. Langham? Yes The motion carries, good luck.

Thank you Next we have case VOA 1838044 with the address of 42 Lambert Street. If the applicants and or their representative are present, will they please explain?

Thank you Mr. Stembridge. Good morning Madam Chair, members of the board, Gary J Webster Jr., TARZ Development & Company LLC. I'm also joined today by Dan Fuggeri, Senior Associate at Stack Architecture and Development The proposed project before you is to combine the existing vacant lots at 40 and 42 Lambert Street in Roxbury and to construct a new residential building with two townhomes and one off-street parking space on a combined 3,366 square foot lot in a three F4000 zone. The violations under consideration include insufficient off-street parking, lot area and an additional lot area. The floor area ratio is excessive and insufficient usable open space front yard in one of the side yard setbacks. At this time, I will turn things over to Dan to discuss the design elements as they relate to the zoning violations

But I'm happy to answer any questions you may have related to the project or community process at the conclusion of the presentation.

Is your architect on?

Yes, he is on.

Jesus, is he a panelist?

He said he's in the room waiting to be elevated. What is his name? I'm sorry, again? Daniel Fugueri.

Daniel, I think I allow him to unmute himself.

He's still listed as a... Hello?

Can you hear me? There we go.

Yes, we can.

Sorry about that. Yeah, so this is a two-family townhome on the parcel here. And there was a lot of back and forth with neighbors and the neighborhood group before coming to this Meeting on setbacks, and so we've revised the project a couple times to appease our neighborhood group and abutters. We can go to... Continue scrolling. So yeah, this is the site Site plan, we have the main entry. If you go back one or go to the ground floor plan which is two slides forward

Yep, right here. So this is the ground floor plan with entries to the units in the middle here with recessed front stoops when you get to the ground-floor we have a bedroom office spaced on towards the street with a primary shared bathroom and den on the back, the next floor up. On the right side as well is the existing curb cut, which is going to remain with the parking on the right-side of the property. On the second floor is the primary living space with a powder room as you come up the stairs, the dining and kitchen in the middle living towards the back. With a small deck for each unit off the back

On this top floor, we have the primary bedrooms with a primary suite towards the rear of the home and an ensuite bathroom. And then a secondary bedroom facing the street with a recessed deck. This is the street wall elevation. Although the unit itself is mirrored, the top floor is not mirrored so that to provide a little more variation along the facade and to reduce the casting shadow on the neighbor on the left-hand side. Yeah, and these are the typical building sections.

Are there questions from the board? Hearing none, may I have public testimony?

Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record my name is Jeremy Pembery. I serve as the Roxbury Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Enabled Services. The applicant has completed the community process which consisted of an abutters meeting facilitated on May 11th With no opposition, many about his voice concerns such as parking The proposal does not provide parking, but is filled with contributing to the congestion they currently experience. Another concern was the shadow buildings may create filling the size and scale is out of character for the neighborhood as well as the design. Abutters pointed out the design's location of the first and second floor porches that are adjacent to the abutting property's bedroom windows, as well as the appearance of the front of the building that looks more suitable as the rear and vice versa. Becoming more out of character for the neighborhood. Lastly, in a butter question, whether fewer units would be more suitable and if two units would have been more aligned with the neighborhood? Next, a proposal was presented to the neighborhood council who voted in support of the proposal.

To date our office has received three letters of support including one from High Park Neighborhood Council. Thank you for your time and the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services would like to defer to the board for their judgment.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, I don't see any interest anymore.

May I ask the applicant to address any of those concerns?

Hi, Madam Chair. Those concerns articulated by Jeremy, our design was in response to that at Butter's meeting. So that Abarters meeting took place prior to this revision. We were originally proposing a 3D family building with no parking, and we then adjusted the plans to be a two-town home building with one parking space as a result of that abutters meeting, of which then the community group issued an unanimous support letter. Thank you.

Any other questions from the board? May I have a motion?

Madam Chair, I'll put forward a motion of approval with the proviso that the plans be submitted to the Highland Park Architectural Conservation. District Commission for Design Review.

Thank you, may I have a second?

Second.

Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr Valencia?

Yes

Ms. Turner?

Yes.

Ms. Better Barraza? Yes Ms. Wuwoe? Yes Mr. Langham? Yes Chair votes yes the motion carries good luck

Next, we have case VOA-185-6279 with the address of 66 Rutland Street. If the applicant can't do it, they're representable present. Please respond to the board.

Yes, thank you Mr. Stembridge. Madam Chair, members of the Board, my name is Timothy Burke. I'm the architect for the project and with me at the hearing today are the owners Gaurav and Naya Mittal. They have purchased this single family house as their primary residence and have embarked on a wonderful restoration of the house, bringing it back to its original beauty. It had suffered some decline As part of the work, we are seeking permission to add a projecting balcony at the kitchen level on the back of the house that would be six feet deep and supported on brackets. and then also to add a dormer and a small roof deck at the roof level that would be very similar to our next door neighbor at 68 Rutland Street. And this space would provide

Some much needed outdoor living space and some living space on the fourth floor due to the, you know, the slope of the roof. And it provides a much better bedroom space. We can go through the drawings if you would like to show on the screen. These are the floor plans with the balcony on the left, and then the next page is the upper levels that shows the roof deck and dormer for the fourth floor. This is an elevation of the rear that you see on the left-hand side of the screen. It shows, again, the balcony and then the proposed dormer and roof deck which would have to be reviewed by the south end landmarks. District Commission as well. With that, I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have.

Thank you.

Are there questions from the board?

I do have one question. Can you please remind us what the setback is for the roof deck railing from the building's edge?

Five feet is required, yes. Okay great thank you.

Any other questions from the board? May we have public testimony?

Hello Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Devin Jones representing the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services. Regarding 66 Redland Street, our office defers to the Board's judgment a community process was conducted including an abutters meeting held on 6-30-26 that was well attended by South Bend community members and feedback from this meeting was overwhelming support by their neighbors who felt that they were happy for the applicants and felt that the project was a good fit for the neighborhood. Additionally, we did receive two letters in support expressing the proposal was a good fit for the neighborhood and the proposal is not in the catchment area of any civic associations and was not required to meet with any organizations. At this time, the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services defers to the Board's judgment on this matter. Thank you everyone for your time and consideration.

I put forward a motion of approval. Is there a second? Barraza, second.

Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr Valencia? Yes Ms Turner?

Yes

Ms. Better Barraza?

Yes.

Ms. Whewell?

Yes Mr. Langham?

Yes Chair votes yes the motion carries good luck thank you very much

Next, we have case VOA 1827453 with the address of 11 Ashley Street. The applicants and or their representative present, please explain to the board.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is Michael Chavez. I'm the architect and co-founder of Social Impact Collective at address 26 Elm Hill Park in Dorchester. This project is owned by Julia Silva. It's a single family home and it's a multi-generational household so they're looking for an additional bedroom in the existing single family that's there now. I think the next slide, second slide really kind of sums it up there There's three variances that are being requested. Two of them are existing nonconformities, which is the lot area minimum and the front yard minimum Our addition of the bedroom makes the FAR go up from .58 to .67 when the FAR is a .6. and on the bottom left corner you can kind of see that essentially what we're doing is infilling that little back third floor area above the existing footprint.

To fill in that space for that additional bedroom, as well as converting that existing small porch on the right-hand side there into a little bit of a larger mudroom with some balconies with existing bedrooms up above that. And updating the porch and proper landing and entrance on that side. The proposal does not impact the existing driveway, the existing off-street parking or any of the other heights or net of zoning variances that would be required of this space. And then the subsequent drawings just kind of show the floor plans that we're adding there with the first floor on the right-hand side, that mudroom space with the door. Moving into that kitchen in the rear. And then the upper floors, essentially just getting a balcony on the second floor and then a new bedroom on the third floor up to that rear side which is right above that existing bedroom on And then we're just matching exterior finishes, siding, trim. Everything is kind of essentially matched to existing.

I'll pause there.

Thank you. Are there questions from the board? Hearing none, may I have public testimony?

Madam Chair and members of the board for the... My name is Jeremy Burry. I'm the Jamaica Plain Community Engagement Specialist The applicant has completed the community process, which consisted of an abuttors meeting facilitated on April 14th with no abutters present. Next, their proposal was presented to Jamaica Plain Neighborhood Council who voted in support of this proposal. To date, our office has received approval from the Jamaica Plain Neighborhood Council. Thank you for your time and the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services would like to defer to the board for their judgment.

Madam Chair, we don't have a discussion.

Okay, with that may I have a motion?

Motion to approve.

May I have the second?

Second.

Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes Ms. Better Barraza? Yes Mrs. Whewell? Yes Mr. Langham? Yes. The motion carries. Good luck.

Thank you all very much. Have a good day.

Next, we have case B08. 186-8487 with the address of 388 Hopperway. If the applicants and or their representative present, will they please respond?

Thank you, Ms. Stembridge. Thank you Madam Chair and members of the board. Attorney Jeff Drago with Drago & Toscano with a business address of 11 Beacon Street here on behalf of the applicant petitioner Paul Bell and with me we also have David O'Sullivan from O'sullivan Architects who is the architect on the proposal. Pretty straightforward project in Jamaica playing at 388 Arborway We're proposing to change the occupancy from its existing form, which is a two-family dwelling, to a three-family A basement unit, it's actually a garden level because it is elevated. The back of this building has a very steep decline that goes in the rear and then add some additional space into the unfinished basement area

Basically combining those spots to create habitable living space and also improving egress with some minor improvements. Interior Renovations. Note changes are proposed to the contours of the building so building will remain, the envelope and structure will remain in terms of height and the boundary lines The project also has to note, off of the Arborway, three off-street parking spaces that can be utilized by the residents of the building. My client recently purchased this property and this particular unit was already built out on that garden level. It's 840 square feet currently with the proposed expansion that would go up slightly over 1,200 about 1,240 square feet I'm sorry 1,407 square feet which would add

Two bedrooms, two bath unit to the bill for legalize that space and add some additional space. If you go to the next slide please these are just the layouts of existing plans Thank you. You can keep sliding through and this just shows, actually if you go back one This just shows the site plans. You can see off of the side of Arborway is where there's a shared easement access for parking in the back of the property for those three spaces. The new legalized unit would have 1407 square feet that would combine the 840 existing plus 570 in the basement. The unit will have 7 foot 8 inch ceiling height above and 7 foot 6 below in the basement. It'll be sprinklered unit.

13D fire suppression system and completely code compliant with two egresses as well. BPDA recommendation as you know was to support this fits right in their guidelines of keeping existing buildings but also adding residential housing We're available. This location is 500 feet from Forest Hill Station, so it makes it ideal for commuters. There's actually a lot of existing green space in the front and sides of this property. As well, just to quickly go over the variances needed. The use because it is a 2F district would be required for variance for use FAR goes up slightly, existing is 0.92 would be proposing 1.02 and then The minimum lot size 7,000 required were at 6,167.

So those we're hit with for violations. It also mentioned Greenbelt Protection Overlay District Because it does fall next to the Arbor Way. However, when you look in the code because we're not adding a certain number of additional square footage or new building mass that actually we believe was incorrectly cited for that one variance, but we can deal with ISD on that as well. We did get the Jamaica Plain Neighborhood Council support at subcommittee and with that we can answer any questions that the board may have. Thank you.

Thank You. Questions from the Board? Hearing none, May I have public testimony?

Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record my name is Jeremy Benbury. I'm the Jacob Lane Community Engagement Specialist for the Office Services. The application has completed the community process which consisted A borders meeting facilitated on June 17th with one concern and addressed in no opposition. The proposal moved forward and met with Jamaica Plain Neighbourhood Council who voted to approve the proposal. To date, our office has received one letter of approval from the Jamaica Plain Neighborhood Council. Thank you for your time and the Mayor's Office of Neighbors would like to defer to the Board for their judgment.

Madam Chair, we have additional comments.

With that, may I have a motion?

May I have second?

Second. Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr Valencia?

Yes.

Miss Turner?

Yes.

Is Better Barraza? Yes, is Wewell? Yes Mr Langham? Yes Chair votes yes, the motion carries. Good luck. Thank you very much

Next, we have case BOA-1837050 with the address of 17 Copley Street. If the applicant and or their representative are present, would they please explain to the board?

Yes. Thank you Mr. Stembridge and good morning Madam Chair, members of the Board For the record, my name is Matt Eckel and I'm an attorney with Fletcher Tilton here on behalf of the applicant. With me this morning, I have Jennifer Ha from Kew Architecture. We're here this morning seeking relief to renovate the existing structure including erecting a rear addition and new dormers as well as the change The occupancy from the existing two-family dwelling to a three family dwelling. The project also includes expanding the driveway for a second parking space The zoning district is a 2F4000 and the lot size is 4,000 square feet. Now the property as you can see here on the plan is located at the corner of Copley Street and Atherton Street with the front door on Coplee there to kind of a top right where the street dead ends. The existing structure has many unique

We'll be preserving most of that and maintaining it as part of the project, however the renovations will allow for a more functional Interior layout and the addition will allow for the existing cantilevered second floor porch to be squared off and provide more living space for all three proposed units. The proposed third floor unit will be done with very little changes to the footprint. Again, there's a cantilevered porch That extends beyond the first and third floor currently, so we'll be squaring that off. And it will look not very different than what it is today other than being squared off at the lower level and the third floor level. The project also includes a new sprinkler system to make the building and neighborhood safer as well as energy efficiency upgrades. In terms of zoning violations, the majority of the violations for floor-air ratio, side yard and parking are all pre-existing.

We are also seeking relief for the use as this is a 2F district and we're seeking a third unit. All three of the units are proposed to be 3 bedroom units with 2 bathrooms. The basement will contain a common mechanical and storage area The first floor will house unit one which is 11,000 square feet and again contains three bedrooms two baths. The second floor will have unit 2 which is 1,061 square feet and the third floor will house unit three which is 1024 square feet. This project did go through a community process including in the Butters meeting as well as meeting with the JPNC, the Jamaica Plain Neighborhood Council who voted unanimously to support the project. With that, I'll pause and Jennifer the project architect and I will happily take any questions the board may have.

Thank you. Go ahead. Good morning Madam Chair and Board Members. My name is Jennifer Ha, I am the Principal Architect at Hue Architecture located at 53 H Harvard Street in Dorchester. There was some technical problems on the platform this morning so that's why i'm not a panelist Let me know if you have trouble hearing me. So 17 Copley Street is an existing two-family building built in 1900 and designed in classic Queen Anne Victorian style The project is to convert the existing two-family into three, while strictly respecting the historical character of the home. To achieve this design we add strategic dormers and a rear addition that squares off an inefficient rear section of the building So the priority is to preserve the signature hallmarks of the beautiful architectural style and create much needed housing. One of the best features of the property is the large, beautiful green space in the front and side yards and so to emphasize the project will entirely be contained within these existing setbacks, and does not exceed the existing building footprint.

If you go towards the floor plans The basement level will be dedicated entirely to mechanical systems, utilities, fire sprinkler and storage. The first floor which is centered is similar to the current existing condition where the residents will enter from the main front porch, from Copley Street directly into a three bedroom two bathroom unit. and on the second floor, which is accessed by a common stairwell will also have a bright open concept three bedroom two bathroom unit. And third floor is from the same common stair well it's unique

I think we're losing you, Jennifer. Attorney Echol, do you want to pause here since we...

Yes, Madam Chair. I think Ms. Ha was getting to the conclusion of her presentation so if she comes back and wants to add more but I think we can pause here and see if there's any questions from the board. Thank you. Any questions from the board?

Hearing none, we have public testimony.

Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record my name is Jeremy Benbury. I'm the Roxburgh Engagement Specialist with the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process which consisted of an abutters meeting facilitated on May 18th It was very well attended. A direct abutter voiced concerns for parking specifically with their driveway and maintaining accessibility during construction. The construction timeline and noise were also a concern for abutters. Lastly, the current resident with a concern for displacements. They were not notified of the proposal.

Are you on your phone number or something? Please proceed.

Lastly, our resident with a concern for displacement stated that they were not notified of the proposal and would not have taken the property if they were aware of the upcoming construction. The residents said they would need more time if the proposal was approved to move a second time at least one year. To date, our office has received one letter of support from Eggleston Square Neighborhood Association and one letter approval from Jubilee Complaint Neighborhood Council. Thank you for your time, and the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services would like to defer to the Board for their judgment.

Go ahead. I saw somebody raising the hand. Sorry, probably not this case.

Okay. Any other questions from the board? We have a motion.

Madam Chair, I'd like to put forward a motion of approval.

May I have a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr Valencia? Yes Ms Turner?

Yes.

Is Better Barraza?

Yep.

Ms. Whewell? Yeah. Mr. Langham? Yes. Chair votes yes, the motion carries. Thank you very much.

Next, we have a VOA 1747507 with the address of 32 Wycliffe Street. If the applicant and or their representative present, will they please explain?

Yes. Thank you Mr. Stembridge. Good morning Madam Chair, members of the board, Attorney Derek Small. I have a business address on 51 Dobson Road in Braintree. Madam Chair, we're here today seeking relief to change the legal occupancy of the building from seven residential units to eight residential units. Actually, Madam Chair just to confirm The eight residential units. We went to pull permits to do work on the building and there was an error at ISD with regard to the occupancy of the building, so we are here to square away records at ISD and legalize the basement unit. If you scroll down one slide or maybe two, you can see from the picture on the left... Down one more please. On the top left, it is a walkout. The building sits on a hill and the typography is such that the rear

Means of Egress. Again, most of the basement units are above grade and so we are here again to legalize the unit. With regard to the violations, Madam Chair, all of the violations are pre-existing nonconforming again as the units do exist currently and we are not proposing any work outside of the scope or the mass of the building. Just to note, the violations that would probably be most interested in the board would be the FAR which requirement is 0.8 and we are proposing .16. Again, it's already existing and we're just seeking to legalize that unit. I'll stop there to answer any questions that the board may have.

Thank you. Any questions from the board? Hearing none, we have public testimony.

Madam Chair and members of the board, first of all my name is Joey Bembry. I'm the Roxbury Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed a community process which consisted of an abode as facilitated on March 11th and was lightly attended. and a butter expressed concerns regarding the current maintenance of the property, noting that they thought the property could be better maintained. Additional concerns were raised regarding the proposed occupancy and whether eight units would be excessive for the property. Parking and traffic congestion were also concerns, particularly given the number of development projects currently taking place in the surrounding area and the potential overall impact on the neighborhood. Next, the proponent was encouraged to reach out to Roxbury Path Forward where a few inquiries were made and addressed. To date our office has two letters of support one from Roxbury path forward

There but it feels adding an additional unit would exacerbate such as tenants limbering on the property, loud noises after hours, no snow trash or property maintenance complaints that go unaddressed without a known property manager. Thank you for your time and the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services would like to defer to the Board. Thank you. We don't have additional comments.

Okay, with that may I have a motion?

Madam Chair, before I make a motion, I wanted to see if an applicant had anything to say around some of the concerns that Mr. Benbury just thought up.

Madam Chair, members of the board. Most of those issues were addressed. They came up at the abutters meeting and subsequently we met with The Nobles Neighborhood Group which is Roxbury Path Forward and I know that Lorraine Wheeler and the group has submitted a letter of support for the project as most of the issues that were brought up by Mr. Bembry were addressed later on we met several times with Roxbury Path Forward and some of the Director Butters Addressing such issues as the trash, and we removed the satellite dishes that were on the front of the building. And we also did a number of repairs to the exterior of the buildings so work is ongoing and we will continue to work with the neighborhood group and the abutters on any outstanding issues.

Thank you. With that, I'll put forward a motion of approval.

Thank You. Do I have a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge?

Yeah.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes, Ms. Barabarraza?

Yes

Mr. Langham? Yes. There are votes yes, the motion carries.

Thank you Madam Chair and members of board have a good day.

Next we have case BOA 186 3179 with the address of 772 to 778 Adams Street. If the applicant and or their representative are present, would they please explain to the board?

Yes, thank you. Good morning Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is Edward Brooks and I'm a property owner at 772 Adams Street and also the owner and operator of the business at 771 Adams Street Landmark Public House I'm here today respectfully requesting the board's approval to continue operating our outdoor patio at Landmark located on private land at the rear of our building. I think it's important for the board to know that this patio is not new. We've been operating approximately for five years during COVID When outdoor dining became an important part of keeping restaurants operating. We have successfully operated this patio for the past five years without any issues or problems with our neighbors, This year, we went to apply. We were informed that we needed to come before the zoning board because the patio is determined to be non-conforming use. Since then I've worked closely with City of Boston's outdoor dining program led by Adam Lesko To make sure we follow the proper processes and did everything that was required to get us to this point today.

We've also gone through a neighborhood process which I'm very proud of support we receive from our director Butters as well as Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services, and City Councilor John Fitzgerald's office. Landmark has been a part of this neighborhood for 10 years now and a responsible neighbor, and this patio is extremely important to us. It's simply an extension of our existing restaurant and provides the customers with a great outdoor dining option when business is somewhat tough in the summertime. I believe our fire beer Track record of operating the patio while issue is the best demonstration that this works well at this location and we can coexist with the surrounding neighborhood. And I respectfully ask that we be granted the relief as needed by the board That's it, I'll stop there. Thank you very much for your time and consideration. I'd be happy to answer any questions anyone may have.

Thank You. Any questions from the board? Hearing none, we have public testimony.

Hello Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Eva Jones representing the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services. Regarding 772 to 778 Adams Street our office defers to the Board's judgment as our office does not conduct a community process on this type of proposal and we were informed that the patio is existing, and we are unaware of any concerns related to this proposal. Our office is aware of support from the local neighborhood and the Cedar Grove Civic Association who are all eager to see the applicant continue through with the process and have the patio open. Again, at this time the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services differs his board's judgment on this matter. Thank you everyone for your time and consideration.

Thank You Next we have Leon Rimas

Hello, Madam Chair and members of the Board. Liam Remus from Councilor Fitzgerald's office. The council would like to record strong support for this proposal as Landmark is a strong community partner in the neighborhood. Thank you.

Madam Chair, there are no additional comments.

With that, may I have a motion?

Madam Chair, I'll put forward a motion of approval. May I have the second? Second.

Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Turner?

Yes Ms.

Better Barraza? Yes Mrs. Whewell? Yes Mr. Langham? Yes Chair votes yes, the motion carries. Good luck.

Thank you. Next we have case BOA 184-7298 with the address of 97 Milton Street. If the applicants and or their representatives were present, would they please explain to the board?

Hello, this is Christopher McEachin. I'm the owner of the property It's a single-family home what the proposal is to do is there's existing structures on the property from the kitchen on the first floor and It's a walkway and on the second floor right above this walkway is a balcony attached to the bedroom. The proposal is just to enclose these structures so it will create additional living area. Okay, questions from the board?

May I have public testimony?

Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record my name is Jarumi Bemburi. I am the DOJ Justice Community Engagement Specialist with the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the process which consisted of an abutters meeting facilitated on June 8th with two supporting abutter present who saw no issues with the proposal. So next the proposal presented to Greater Codman Square and Neighborhood Association completing their community process. Thank you for your time, and the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services would like to defer to the Board of Directors.

Madam Chair, there are additional comments.

Okay. May I have a motion?

Motion to approve.

Is that a second?

Second.

Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes Ms. Pettibraza? Yes Mrs. Whewell? Yes Mr. Langham? Yes Chair votes yes, the motion carries. Goodbye.

Madam Chair, I have a question for the applicant of what I believe are our next three companion cases that should be read together. That is correct.

Yes, that's correct, Mr. Stembridge.

Thank you. So with that then we will go to case BOA 183-4435 with the address of 72 Readville Street. Along with that, we have case BOA 1834445 with the addresses 74 Readville street. and along with those two we have case BOA 1834452, with the address of 5 Waterloo Street. If the applicant and or director of attorney progeny, could you explain to the board please?

Thank you, Mr. Stembridge. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board, Attorney John Pagini here on behalf of the three properties, 72 and 74 Reedville Street as well as 5 Waterloo Street in High Park. The zoning in this neighborhood is two-family 5,000. With me this morning is Michael Bannon who's the owner of the property. Michael is a lifelong Hyde Park resident as well as currently a Boston fireman and he actually lives in 5 Waterloo Street. The proposal before you is to combine the two existing lots. of 74 Reedville Street and 5 Waterloo Street, and then subdivide those into three lots. Each of the new lots will be approximately 4,130 square feet. Of these new lots, the five Waterloo two-family home will remain as is with no work contemplated on that. On the other two new lots both which affront Readville Street Two new single-family homes will be constructed.

They will be addressed as 72 and 74 Readville Street. This is a small, single family house. It's one bed, one bath currently there that will be taken down. Both of these new single families will be two and a half stories. They will include four bedrooms, they're approximately 2,100 square feet. Each will have garage at the ground level of the building. These new homes will provide home ownership opportunity to IPOC and will serve to improve and better utilize this lot. Happy to answer any questions, appreciate your time.

Thank you. Are there questions from the board? Hearing none, may I have public testimony?

Madam Chair and members of the Board, for the record my name is Jeremy Bembry. I am the Hyde Park Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process which consisted of an abutters meeting facilitated on May 4th During which the majority of attendees expressed opposition to the proposal. Primary concerns centered on the scale of the project, which many felt was too large for the lot and surrounding area. But it has also raised significant concerns regarding parking and traffic congestion, noting existing vehicles obstructing driveways particularly near 72 and 74 refill. make an egress challenging. The street was described as already congested and further impacted by its designation as a bus route. Additional concerns were raised about their introduction of two new driveways on Tarikville Street, which Nevada believed would reduce available on-street parking and exacerbate traffic conditions. Overall the proposal was viewed by several attendees as an overdevelopment of a relatively small site.

One attendee expressed support for the project, noting that it presents a positive opportunity to accommodate more families in the neighborhood. Next, the proponent presented to Readville Watch Neighborhood Association who reached a three-way split with a third opposed to the entire project A third recommending a duplex as opposed to two family homes. And a third okay with two homes provided the curb cut on Revo Street that design would need to be reworked to have the curb cuts on Waterloo where they currently are for access in the property. To date, our office has just received two letters of support. Thank you for your time and the Mayor's Office of Papers would like to defer to the board for their judgment.

Thank You. Any other raised hands?

Yes, next we have Laura.

Good morning, good morning Madam Chair and members of the board my name is Laura A Sims I live at 75 Readville Street and Hyde Park, directly across from the proposed new construction. I oppose this construction vehemently I've lived here all my life and this home construction would be We would lose parking on the street for residents who do not have A driveway. The curb cuts would be directly across from my property at 75 Readville Street as well as The property at 73 Rietval Street. This new construction is in a corner lot

of Reedville Street and Waterloo Street. So far this summer, there have been two car accidents directly in front of 74 Reedville street and Waterloo Street. One was a car that was parked on Readville street going the wrong way, A parking and a car rammed into his front end, and another was parked on Waterloo Street in which a U-Haul truck could not make the turn correctly. Reedville Street is a cut-through street to a State Road, Defensive Valley Parkway. Please wrap up ma'am Yes, thank you. Two car accidents, buses and school buses use this property in the street constantly. We are opposed against it. Thank you for your time.

Okay, next week we have the person with a number that ends on 445.

Yes, good morning Madam Chair. This is Craig Martin of Reedville High Park. It's just not the practice of this board to take two appropriate sized parcels, combine and subdivide it into three undersized parcels. That was suggested to the proponent at the neighborhood meeting that to get closer to allowable plot size, let's do a nice duplex on this at the 7274 location instead of the two single family homes. You have to get the two units and you can engineer to have one curb cut to Riebel Street. Those are the two that are currently proposed which would surrender parking spaces, which are very limited at this location As the prior caller just said, this is a cut-through street to a state roadway on the Plata Valley Parkway. And we should do the best we can to maintain the street and make it doable

And so I suggest that we again send this for a duplex development, which will leave more open space. and is much more manageable at this location. Rather than subdividing this lot to three undersized lots, let's do it to two smaller lots not legal but at least closer to legal And I think that's the best interest for the neighborhood and be more in harmony with the current construction. Thank you.

Thank You Next we have Beth

My name is Mary Beth Benson. I live at 73 Readville Street, directly across from the property While we feel that tearing down the existing house and building something new would be an improvement to what is there right now, We feel that the plan to cram in as much Building on two lots and make three lots out of it is excessive, and not in the best interest of the community. In addition to the driveways Bus and the traffic patterns on our Readville Street. I just think that it doesn't do anything to add to our community of Readville to have two big houses crammed on that property. Thank you. Thank You

Thank you and we have one more person, Jeremy.

Hi yes my name is Jeremy I live at 71 Readville Street um i'm actually in favor of this proposal I'd like to say that Turning this lot into two houses and tearing down the existing one is only netting the street positive one house. So I think this is a great idea, be great for this neighborhood to have two new single families. Thank you. Thank you.

Madam Chair, we have no additional comments.

Can the applicant address the concerns about curb cuts, loss of parking and size, et cetera?

Absolutely. First of all, the current single-family that we're talking about is a one bed, one bath. It's a tiny little bungalow We have two off-street parking spaces with garage parking. So when we did the community meeting, everyone was talking about how Reedville Street's a heavily traveled street. It's not a heavily Basically, there's street parking everywhere in addition to that we're providing off-street parking. If you look at the BPDA recommendation for approval it states clearly that is consistent that there are several buildings on this lot Houses on the street that are sub 5,000 feet. Additionally we have a 16 unit building basically to our left if you were looking at the building and If there's any issue with respect to access off of Readville Street, I would just say that any sort of proviso to continue working with the Boston Planning Department with respect

Warranted, but in all like that last gentleman stated you're building two single-family houses. We are not cramming anything on the lot If you look at what the violations are, we have a .5 FAR requirement. We are at a .52. That is certainly not cramming anything onto the lot and again rely back on the BPA recommendation wherein it states that this is extremely consistent and recommends approval. Happy to answer any questions the board may have.

Thank you.

Questions from the board?

Hearing none, oh okay. Just kind of an observation, I do feel that with the amount of land The density seems pretty appropriate in terms of the size 2 single family residence. It's literally underneath 35 feet in height is two and a half story the construction seems pretty conventional So I just wanted to address, is this the appropriate type of density? I think it is. So it's just kind of some observations.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments? May I have a motion?

Madam Chair, I'm going to put forward A motion of approval in that the project undergoes BPD design review to take a look at ways of enhancing It says to Carr in terms of the site planning, I do believe that two separate stories, I mean two separate structures is the appropriate kind of urban use of the lot. But I do think if there's a way that the garage access and site planning can just be reviewed by BPD to minimize any issues with maneuverability being close to that corner lot. Thank you.

Is there a second?

Sam, I think with Board Member Better Barraza that the other dwellings in the area as well as lots.

Ms. Stembridge?

Yeah.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Miss Turner? Yes Miss Better Barraza? Yes Ms. Whewell? Yes Mr. Langham? Yes Chair votes yes, the motion carries. Good luck. Thank you everybody.

And next we have case BOA 183.

Sorry to interrupt, Secretary Stembridge. Do you want to ask about 11 o'clock?

Thank you for the reminder, Madam Chair. As we have passed the 11 o clock hour Are there any requests for withdrawals or deferrals from the 11 a.m., Harry?

Yes, Mr. Stembridge.

Bill Willoughby.

Mr. Guerrero, yours is at 1130. It's part of the 1130 rediscussion so you just need to wait 30 more minutes. No problem. Again my apologies Madam Chair. That is okay. Attorney Spitz?

Mr. Stembridge, 350 Athens Street please.

So this request is for case VOA 18270832

with the address of 350 Athens Street. Would you go ahead, Attorney Spitz?

Yes, thank you Mr. Stembridge. Madam Chair, members of the board, attorney Ryan Spitz with Adamson Maranci business address of 168 8th street first floor We're here. We just became informed of the planning department's recommendation, so we'd like to make changes based upon their recommendations. So we're looking for a short deferral please.

Okay.

Caroline?

We can do October 6, October 27 or November 10.

October 6 would work perfect please.

Okay with that may I have a motion?

Motion to defer this case until October 6th.

May I have a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr Valencia?

Yes

Ms. Turner?

Yes.

Better Barraza? Yes Ms. Whewell? Yes Mr. Langham? Yes Chair votes yes, the motion carries, see you then Thank you

If there are no further requests, will withdraw. Yes, correct.

Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Stembridge. Thank You Madam Chair. Madam chair members George Maranci I'm an attorney with the business address of 350 West Broadway in South Boston. I represent the petitioner on the matter of 336 E Street which unfortunately was advertised as 336 East Street. The Inspection Services Department is aware of that, ZBA staff I believe that a new hearing date has already been assigned of September 29th. I guess we could let Caroline speak to that. Okay, well can we read the address incorrectly as we've been for the record?

This request is for what's listed as case VOA 18332-92 with the address of 336 East Street.

So yes Madam Chair, George is correct. So we did schedule it and it's already advertised for September 22nd.

Okay so with that may I have a motion?

Motion to defer this case until September 22nd.

May I have a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr Valencia?

Yes

Ms. Turner?

Yes.

Ms. Better Barraza? Yes, Ms. Whewell? No. Mr Langham? Yes Chair votes yes the motion carries thank you

Any further request for withdrawal of the referrals from the 11 o'clock here?

In that case, we will return to the 930 hearings going to case VOA 1830082 with the address of 21 Couture Street. The applicant and or their representative are present.

Will they please respond? Yes, thank you Mr. Stembridge and good morning once again Madam Chair members of the board for the record Attorney Matt Eckel with Fletcher Tilton on behalf of the applicant and I have a business address of 100 Franklin Street in Boston. We're here this morning seeking approval to erect a new single-family home at 21 Katuit Street in West Roxbury 21 Katuit Street is currently a vacant lot which contains just under 4,000 square feet approximately 3,800 square feet. Katowice Street itself is a small side street which intersects with Baker Street on one side and overlooks VFW Parkway as it dead ends on the other side. The street is predominantly made up of similar sized lots, all with single family homes located on them. And this is kind of the one missing tooth left in the street. We're proposing a new two-story single family home with two parking spaces.

In terms of the floor plans, just to run through them briefly, we're proposing an unfinished basement for storage and mechanicals The first floor will have a garage at grade, which will contain two parking spaces as well as living space, which includes the kitchen, living room, dining area, a half bath and a laundry area. The second floor will have the primary bedroom and bathroom suite located above the garage, and then towards the rear of the proposed building there'll be three additional bedrooms as well as a playroom. This project went through a community process which included meeting with direct abutters several times as well as a formal official abutter meeting. We also presented twice before the West Roxbury Neighborhood Council. We did implement some changes to the project, including that second parking space as well as reducing the overall size of the structure which increased the side and rear yard setbacks

Based on these changes, the West Roxbury Neighborhood Council did vote unanimously to support the project. But with that I'll pause and I'll be happy to take any questions the board may have. Thank you. Any questions from the Board?

All right. I'm curious as to why are elevations missing of the project? Part of our job on a zoning board is to review kind of the character and I find the application incomplete for me to even begin Any other comments or questions?

Do you want to respond to that, Attorney Echol?

Sure, yeah. Apologies for any confusion or oversight. This is a proposed two-story structure. The majority of the structures along Katuit are similar in two stories with kind A couple steps entry, gradual entry into the first floor. I'm not sure exactly why those elevations are not included within the set but it is a fairly standard two-story building that aligns with the current streetscape

May I have public testimony?

Madam Chair and Board Members, Siggy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This petitioner completed the community process our office hosted in a Butters meeting on April 16th at which there was some discussion but no opposition was stated. The West Roxbury Neighborhood Council is supporting this application with that background ONS defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Any other questions or feedback from the board?

I'm sure the project has merit. I would like to put forward that the project be deferred to the next hearing until we are able to see the project in its full. I don't think we want to unnecessarily delay anything.

It's really important that we have the patience

I also want to make a comment about that. I'm reading the recommendations from the planning department and there is a proviso Special attention to elevations as well. What I mentioned with elevations, I'm wondering if maybe Jeff Madam Chair, can you hear me?

Yeah, but I think, Giovanni, I think that sets a bad precedent because then we're going to be always getting incomplete drawings in front of the board. And it's a lot of it. Sorry. Go ahead.

That's fine.

Love to hear from you, Mr. Hampton.

So our recommendation was based on the fact that it was a one family, right? A one family and a one-family district. We went back and forth here in the department and I would completely understand in agree with you if you want to defer this to see the elevations but because it was a one family That's why we put that specific proviso in there. But I will agree with you that it is rare that we never see elevations. So that's I just wanted to explain why we put it in there because it was a one family.

Thank you, that is helpful. Okay, so there is a motion and a second. I will proceed and you can decide if the recommendation from PD stands or you want to deferral.

I don't think there was a motion forward. I was just putting an observation.

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought that was emotion Okay, well let's try again. Is there a motion?

I would like to, Madam Chair, I'd like to go for a motion to defer the project to the next hearing so that we can review the project as a whole. Is there a second?

Second. Okay. Mr. Stembridge. Yes. Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Miss Turner? Yes Miss Better Barraza? Yes Ms. Wewell? Yes Mr. Langham?

Yes.

Chair votes yes, the motion carries. Caroline is there a bill going to be at the next hearing?

Would September 22nd or October 6th work best in terms of timing to get the elevations? I guess that's a question for Matt.

I'm confident we can get them submitted by September 22nd. Obviously that's two weeks away, so as long as Inspectional Services is okay, there's not going to be any changes to any advertisements. So let's go with September 22 please.

Okay, we'll see you then. If possible could you send those directly to me as well so that we can take a look at them? Of course. Thank you. Thank You. See you then!

Next, we have case BOA-184-8753 with the address of 24 Stimson Street. It's the applicant and or their representative or president who they put complaints on board.

Thank you, Mr. Stembridge. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board, Attorney John Pagini here on behalf of the owner of this property, Andreas Wong Thank you for having us here this morning. 24 Simpson Street, the lot size is 20,097 square feet zoning as neighborhood shopping Originally, it was a three-story condominium building with 13 residential units and 21 off-street parking spaces in the first floor commercial space that was designated as a daycare center. As they went forward, the daycare center pulled out and the lender was concerned because this area of Simpson Street is kind of really not a business district. It's more residential. We're kind of on the edge of the residential and they thought it would be... Make more sense as a residential unit. The plans were submitted to ISD, again, to convert the first wall commercial into a residential space of two bed, two bath It satisfies the parking requirements.

However, as you all know in a neighborhood shopping district residential on the first floor is a commercial excuse me conditional use The Neighbor, when we went to the community meeting as well as the West Roxbury Neighborhood Council, the neighborhood was very supportive of this because you can imagine a single family or a single unit You know, two-bedroom condominium unit would be a lot less traffic in the neighborhood than you know just say 15 children in the morning. Fifteen parents dropping off picking up whatever leaving coming back picking up and leaving and then when we presented to the West Roche, Maine Neighborhood Council because it was just a change of views that made sense to them. We received their unanimous support. Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Are there any questions from the board? Hearing none, may I have public testimony?

Madam Chair and Board Members, Sig Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. Does petitioner complete the community process Our office hosted an abutters meeting on June 2nd at which no public comments were made. The West Roxbury Neighborhood Council is supporting this application. With that background, ONS defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

They have no additional account.

Okay, with that may I have a motion?

Madam Chair, I'll put forward a motion of approval.

Very second. By the hand. Mr. Stembridge.

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes, Ms. Pettibrasa? Yes Ms. Whewell?

Yes

Mr. Langham? Yes. Chair votes yes, the motion carries. Good luck.

Thank you everybody.

Next we'll move on to the hearing scheduled for 11 a.m. We'll begin with case BOA-1840166, with the address of 90 to 92 Elk Street. If the applicants and or their representative are present, would they please explain to the board?

Hello? Can you hear me?

We can hear you now.

Oh, perfect. That was muted. All right. Hello, my name's Don Juan Campos. I'm working with the owner to present the project is what used to be an existing laundromat That the owner would like to turn into ice cream. and Ice Cream Froyo actually to be more exact a froyo shop so as you can see here he's gonna be using an Reutilizing the existing space to create the Photoshop. The business hours are going to be from 11 to 10. The reason why we're here, Marquentile is not in allowed use so we would like to do that change of use for this project. I don't know if there's a way I can share.

I don't know if there's a way for me to share that. I can share that, if you like, as additional information.

Were there questions from the board? Hearing none, may I have public testimony.

Madam Chair and Board Members, Siggy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This petitioner completed the community process. Our office hosted an abutters meeting at which comments were made supporting the concept Some of others raised concerns about traffic in the area caused by other food pickup businesses, concern about whether mitigation is needed due to the former use of this site as a dry cleaner and a concern about the possibility of street tables congesting the sidewalk. The City Point Neighborhood Association voted to support this application. With that background, ONS defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Next we have Ashley from Consulate Flynn's office

Thank you. Councilor Flynn would like to go on record in support, thank you.

Thank you Next we have Eilwan Yes good morning board

Lou Anne O'Connor, President of the City Point Neighborhood Association. This is exactly the type of business that we want in our neighborhood. It's something for everybody all ages it doesn't contain alcohol The seating on the sidewalk was taken off the table, so the owner committed to no outdoor seating. And insofar as parking this is on the L Street corridor and there are more businesses in this particular section because it's very close to our business district of East Broadway, so this is a perfect business for The community and we fully support this type of establishment in our neighborhood. Thank you.

Thank You. May I have a motion?

I'll put forward a motion of approval.

Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr Valencia? Yes Ms Turner?

Yes

Better Barraza?

Yes.

Wuwell? Yes Sir Langham? Yes Chair votes yes, the motion carries. Good luck Thank you

The next two cases have been deferred, so that will take us to case BOA 185-7851. with the address of 368 Athens Street. Excuse me, if the applicant and or their representative are present would they please explain to the board

Thank you Mr. Stembridge, good morning Madam Chair and members of the board my name is George Maranci I'm an attorney with a business address at 350 West Broadway in South Boston I represent the petitioner David Winnick, the owner and developer of 364-368 Athens Street. This property is located one block northeast of West Broadway. It is currently used as employee parking for a local bank. My client proposes to legally combine the two parcels constituting the site into a single site of approximately 4,325 feet. Thank you for joining us. and three bedroom units, two at 1,241 square feet and one at 1.660 square feet.

The surrounding area is developed with a number of parking lots serving West Broadway commercial uses, as well as numerous dwelling buildings ranging from two to four stories. with a five-story mixed use building located directly across Athens Street from the site. As to zoning, the proposed project requires variances for insufficient side and rear yard setbacks in sufficient lot area and insufficient parking. With respect to setbacks, the MFR subdistrict here requires a minimum side yard of three feet and a minimum rear yard of 20 feet, which is reduced to 15 feet pursuant to the provisions of the shallow lot exception. On the right side of the lot near zero first floor side setback is proposed with the upper story set back approximately two feet. The left side setback is compliant. Because this lot is L-shaped, there are effectively two rear yards and two rear yard setbacks.

A five foot setback along the majority of the property and a 10-foot setback to the rear of the deepest portion of the building where the setback area accommodates a patio in a small rear yard. The upper stories are also stepped back in the rear. As the planning recommendation notes, near zero lot line conditions are prevalent in this area and the majority of this lot is in fact only 45 feet deep. With respect to minimum lot size, Article 68 requires a minimum lot of 7000 square feet in this MFRI district for six unit residential building. Dare I not? Many 7,000 square foot lots in the neighborhood including those on which multi-families of six or more units currently sit. These combined parcels total approximately 4,325 square feet with lot sizes in the neighborhood Ranging or averaging about 2,000 square feet as the planning recommendation notes.

Finally with respect to parking there are two violations arising under article 68 section 22 first the Project will provide six ground floor parking spaces beneath the residential units, three fewer than required. And the second violation with respect to parking is that each space is proposed at 9 by 18 feet, which is less than the 20 foot standard depth required under Section 33. which permits up to 50% of the spaces to be built as compact. Here, the proposed design and parking count are calibrated to allow for new housing creation with adequate off-street parking in this case set at one to one which conforms with city residential parking policy and I would even suggest with the desires of this board in terms of previous cases. With that, Madam Chair I'll pause and be happy to answer any questions that members may have.

Thank you. Are there questions from the Board? Hearing none, may I have public testimony?

Madam Chair and Board Members, Ziggy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This petitioner completed the community process our office hosted an abutter's meeting on June 29th at which two abutters supported the proposal The St. Vincent's Neighborhood Association is supporting this proposal. With that background, ONS defers judgment to the Board. Thank you.

Next we have Ashley from Council of Friends Office.

Thank you. Councilor Flynn supports based on a good community process. He respectfully asks that the proponent continue working closely with the community during the construction phase. Thank you, thank you.

Next we have David Nagle

He's muted. Are you able to unmute him?

Yeah, I allow him to unmute. David if you can unmute yourself please

Hello, this is David Lenhardt with Coulson Stores. I think I just heard for that I should be Unmuted, is this the right David? There are more Davids in the world.

No, it was for another person. This is a public comment from 368 Athens.

Is there anyone else? Okay. Any other questions or feedback from the board? Is there a motion?

Madam Chair, I would like to put forward a motion of approval With a proviso that the project goes through the BPD design review, just paying special attention to the extra material on the first story and then the continuation to the top story. so that it works with the neighboring contacts. Is there a second?

Second. Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Mrs. Better Barraza? Yes, Ms. Whewell? Yes Mr. Langham? Yes Fair votes yes, the motion carries. Good luck.

Next we have case BOA 185-5511. with the address of 555-567 East Broadway. If the applicants and or their representative are present, will they please explain to the board?

Good afternoon Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Francis Adams I'm an attorney with a business address at 350 West Broadway in South Boston I represent the owners of the property, Eric Fitzgerald and Nam O'Byrne. They're current owner-archivists for the property. This property is a six unit townhouse condominium that was approved by this board about three years ago I represent the owner of this last particular unit here. It shows a roof deck. We are seeking relief for a variance for excessive building height, which this board has previously granted and a conditional use permit for the roof deck As you can see from the plans, this is an existing roof hatch. The deck is proposed here. There are no rare staircases or any other access to the roof. It's exclusive use to the unit owners used by the two people that live there right now. It will not be shared. As I said, it's not a common deck. It will provide valuable open space to the homeowners.

Rather, it is not a large deck. Its 10 feet wide by 16, not including the walkway right here and it's set back from Broadway about five feet as you can see from the dimensions. And on this side, it's sent back a little over a foot as shown in the plans. As I said we're seeking variants as well as a conditional use permit for the project We are aware of the planning department's recommendation for approval as well as To add a guardrail set back a little closer to the deck, and our project architect is committed to submitting plans to ISD showing the guardrail in the appropriate Are there questions from the board?

Here are none. May I have public testimony?

Madam Chair and Board Members, Siggy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This petitioner completed the community process. Our office hosted an abutters meeting on June 17th at which three direct abutterers were opposed to the application due to quality-of-life concerns The Gate of Heaven Neighborhood Association does not support roof decks in their catchment area. With that background, ONS defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Next we have Ashley from Consulate Friends Office

Thank you. My name is Ashley from Councillor Flynn's office. Over the weekend, Councillor Flynn sent a letter to the CBA in the city requesting a deferral due In recent weeks, the City informed Councilor Flynn's office that the Office of Neighborhouse Services will now decide what requires community process within a butters meeting and what does not. Respectfully with the presence of zoning violations In Article 68, updated as of 2019, Councilor Flynn believes ONS should not be making subjective determinations on what deserves public process for his neighbors and taxpaying residents. Similarly, this past spring the city disregarded the concerns of City Point residents and Councilor Flynn on having an abutters meeting. The ZBA both deferred and denied that project over the course of two hearings due to the very same issues of community process. This is not about Councillor Flynn's concerns on roof decks, it's about what has always been traditionally shared values are respect for transparency

Public Process, and residents of the neighborhood deserving a say in what takes place there. Councilor Flynn will be filing legislation to require abutter meetings for all proposals seeking zoning relief so that neighbors are able to provide feedback to the city. He believes we cannot leave the door open for human error or questions regarding whether all proposals are being held to the same standard. Thank you.

Madam Chair, there are no additional comments.

Can someone from ONS respond?

Yes, Madam Chair. I'm somewhat confused by the commentary as an abutters meeting was hosted which was attended by myself and the petitioner's attorney at which the proposal was discussed with the community. I'm not sure if the testimony was intended for a different case or...

I would also like to add, Madam Chair. We have an email and a letter from the Gate of Heaven Civic Association who declined to have a meeting on this particular project so In accordance with the current practices of the mayor's office, we did complete all parts of the process. We had the abutters meeting as well as a request The Gateheaven Neighborhood Civic Association and they declined to have a meeting on this project. As stated, they oppose every roof deck in the City Point neighborhood, I mean the Gateheavn Civic Association so they don't They don't believe it was important to have a meeting on this particular project, so I respectfully decline with the statement made by Councilor Flynn's office.

Okay any other public testimony?

Okay, any other questions or comments from the board?

Is there a motion?

I make a motion with the provision that the gut rail be set back from the roof edge in accordance with Article 68, Section 29.

Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia? Yes Miss Turner?

Yes Ms.

Better Barraza?

Yes

Ms. Whewell? Yes. Mr. Langham? Yes Chair votes yes, the motion carries Thank you very much Floyd, appreciate it

And as we have now passed the 11.30 a.m. time frame, I will ask if there are any requests for withdrawals or referrals from the 11 30 a. m. here?

Good morning again Mr. Stembridge, Madam Chair, Ernst-Guerrilla, third time would be the charm I'm Ernst Guerrilla with an office address of 299 Gallivan Boulevard I represent the applicants for 26 30, Birch Street. Madam Chair if you remember the last time you approved a short continuance to allow us to have an opportunity to meet with the neighborhood association.

Please let Mr. Stembridge just read their piece into the record.

Good to talk to you again, Attorney Curie. This request is for case VOA 1749423 with the address of 26 Byrd Street. Go ahead, attorney.

Good morning again, Madam Chair Ernst-Guerrier. With an office address of 299 Gallivan Boulevard I appear before you on behalf of the applicant for 26 Birch Street. We'd like to ask for a short continuance to allow us to have further communication with the neighborhood association. I received a letter from the co-chair who has granted us an opportunity to meet with them this afternoon, this evening at 7 o'clock. And out of respect for them, we'd like to ask for a short continuance match. Thank you. Do we have a date, Caroline?

We could do October 6th or October 27th.

October 6th will be fine.

Okay, with that may I have a motion?

Motion to defer this case until October 6.

May I have second? Second. Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes Miss Turner?

Yes Ms.

Better Barraza? Yes Mrs. Whewell? Yes Mr. Langham?

Yes.

Chair votes yes, the motion carries. See you then. Thank you Madam Chair.

Madam Chair I believe there's also a request on 151 Lenox Street.

Correct, can folks hear me? Yes sir. Excellent. Jacob Taylor, Klein Hornig 101 Arc Street. I'd like to request a deferral for the 151 Winnick Street matter.

Okay let's have Mr Stembridge read it into the record and then we'll hear from you.

So this request is for a deferral for case VOA 1857936 with the address of 151 Lenox Street. Would you go ahead and explain, please?

Sure, the applicant is working with the Boston Planning Department on revising plans and revisiting some details of the project. We'd like to request a deferral until October 6th.

Okay, Caroline is that date still available? Yes it is. Okay with that may I have a motion?

Motion to defer this referred-to case until October 6th.

May I have a second?

Second.

Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr Valencia? Yes Ms Turner? Yes Ms. Better Barraza? Yes. Ms. Whewell? Yes Mr. Langham? Yes Chair votes yes the motion carries see you then

Any further requests for withdrawals or deferrals from the 1130 hearing?

Hearing none, we'll return There may be one, members of the board. This is Ethan Riddershaus on 44 Granger Street. I just received some communications from Ms. Hayes that they were Wishing to reschedule to October 6th because of the notice that went out. I didn't know if that was going to be done on a referral, but I'm happy to move for the payroll. This is BOA 18363. 44 Granger Street. 44. Caroline, can you confirm that? Yes, you can.

Okay, so let's read that into the record.

So this request is for case VOA 1836310 with the address of 44 Granger Street. Is there anything else you'd like to say about it? No, that does it thank you.

Okay so may I have a motion for deferral to October 6th

Motion to defer this case until October 6th. I'm second.

Second. Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr Valencia? Yes Ms. Turner?

Yes.

Ms. Better Barraza? Yes Ms. Whewell? Yes Mr. Langham? Yes Chair votes yes, motion carries, see you then

I appreciate it, thank you. Y'all have a good day.

And again any further requests for withdrawals or deferrals from the 1130 era? Hearing none We'll return to the 11 o'clock cases and we will go through case BOA 1850688 with the address of 442 East 5th Street. If the applicants and or their representative are present, will they please explain to the board?

Thank you Mr. Stembridge, Madam Chair, Members of the Board, Attorney Ryan Spitz with Adams & Maranci Business Address at 168 8th Street 1st Floor With me today are the owners Michael Regan, Joe Santoro and Andrew Langone as well as the project architects Peter Sandorci and Stephen Dufaro. This proposal seeks to convert from a three-family to a four family by converting the basement into a new residential unit, No addition to the building footprint or height is proposed. The exterior envelope essentially stays the same. The fourth unit is allowed as we are within an MFR sub-district, but will need relief for use as basement units are forbidden. This is essentially aligned with the by right ADU policy in the city of Boston, except that the properties that have been subjected to the condominium statute are ineligible despite that all of the units are occupied.

The basement will be approximately 825 square feet, three bedrooms a full bathroom kitchen living area with their proposed recess stairwell slash patio cut into the rear yard for egress and light. The front elevation is virtually unchanged The notable exterior work is at the rear and side where the proposed recessed stairwell patio is cut into the rear yard at grade level to serve the basement unit. That's what drives the rear yard setback reduction, which requires relief for insufficient rear yard despite being a pre-existing nonconformity. Window wells will also be composed on the front facade at the basement level to bring in more light into the new unit. We have additional violations for FAR. The required FAR is a 2.0 and the proposal calls for a 2,71. Open space insufficiency 800 square feet of open space would be required in the proposal call for 429 total square feet Additional lot area is insufficient as we would need an additional 1,000 square feet of lot size but again this is a pre-existing condition of the lot.

Off Street Parking Code requires 1.5 parking spaces for any new unit of housing, and the proposal doesn't have the ability to provide any parking. In concluding we feel that the proposal would not create any adverse impacts on the neighborhood and is aligned with the planning department's recommendation of approval. At this point, Madam Chair I'm going to turn it back over in the board for any questions or comments.

Thank you are there questions from or comments from the board? May I have public testimony?

Madam Chair and Board Members, Ziggy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. Our office hosted an abutter's meeting on June 10th at which one abutter was concerned about a precedent in the area for basement conversions The Gate of Heaven Neighborhood Association chose to take no position on this proposal. Our office is aware of one letter of support that has been submitted to the board from just outside the 300-foot Butters radius. With that background, ONS defers judgment to the Board. Thank you

Next, we have Ashley McFlynn's office.

Thank you, Councilor Flynn. Lights go on record in support due to a good community process. We respectfully request that the proponent continue to work closely with neighbors on any equality of life issues during the construction phase. Thank you.

Madam Chair, we'll have additional comments.

With that may I have a motion?

I'd like to make a motion of approval. May I have second? Second.

Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Valencia? Yes Miss Turner? Yes Ms. Barraza? Yes Mrs. Whewell? Yes Mr. Langham? Yes. Chair votes yes, the motion carries. Good luck.

Thank you. Next we have case BOA 1854862 with the address of 120 to 120 D Old Harbor Street. If the applicant and or their representative present would please explain through book

Yes, thank you Mr. Stembridge. Good morning Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is George Maranci. I'm an attorney with a business address at 350 West Broadway in South Boston I represent the petitioner David Murphy, the owner and developer of 120-120D Old Harbor Street. Tim Johnson, the project architect is also present The lot here is a 35-foot wide, 127-foot deep parcel containing approximately 4,445 square feet in the South Boston Neighborhood District's multifamily residential zoning subdistrict. It is currently improved with a two-story residential building with accessory parking off a side driveway in a large rear yard. My client purchased this building untenanted, unoccupied. The petitioner, my client wishes to demolish the existing building and construct a four-story five unit residential structure.

with an at-grade parking garage serving each townhouse style unit individually, as well as a modest private roof deck for each town house unit. Each unit will be an independent four story three bedroom two and half bath unit Each with a two-car garage, small front balcony and 168 square foot private roof deck. The proposed project requires a variance for insufficient additional lot area 2 variances for insufficient side yard and insufficient rear yard setbacks, and conditional use approval owing to the main entrance configuration. And also for the building's height in both of those last two Thank you very much.

With respect to the side yard, a three foot minimum side yard and a 20 foot minimum rear yard. The project proposes a left side yard set back of a half foot, but it should be noted that that side of the lot in the building is boarded by a driveway serving the abutting property. and that the separation distance between the two buildings will be over 14 feet. The proposed rear yard setback is approximately four feet Here, it also should be noted that the lot backs onto a large parking lot serving a townhouse-style multifamily building that is addressed on East 8th Street. There's no residential abutter in the rear. Finally, with respect to the lot's size, it is approximately 1,555 square feet shy of the 6,000 square feet the code requires for five-unit development.

These are dimensional constraints of what is a narrow pre-existing lot, not deficiencies of Design. In fact, the design was adapted to the size and dimensions of the lot each unit is provided private open space through balconies and roof decks. The adjacent lots provide As I noted, sufficient off-site setbacks from the residential uses that would otherwise be affected. The Planning Department reviewed these same facts and reached the same conclusion that given the scale of surrounding development The narrow lot dimension, the on-site open space provided and a setback conditions on adjacent lots. We believe that relief here is justified and reasonable with respect to the location of the main entrances The code requires that the main entrance of a dwelling face the front lot line.

But given this site's 35 foot width and 127 foot depth, it is proposed here to access all five units from the drive aisle Thank you for joining us. will remain active and inviting even without a door opening on Old Harbour Street. This configuration is not unusual for the block, other nearby buildings take their access off the side of the building in the same way Thank you for watching. limits allowable building height on any lot to the height of an existing building subsequent to demolition. The existing vacant building is a 17-foot

Two-story outlier on a block otherwise built up to three and four stories. This proposed 40 foot building is zoning compliant with respect to the actual table requirements for the sub-district but for the restricted roof structure provisions even with the additional height The site design places the drive aisle along the side closest to the adjacent building on the right. There's a drive aisle that's existing on the lot to the left. and both of these conditions serve to preserve access to light on air in both sides of the building, satisfying the conditional use approval conditions under Section 29. With that Madam Chair I'll pause and I'd be happy to take any questions or comments from the Board.

Thank you. Are there questions from the board? Hearing none, may I have public testimony?

Madam Chair and Board Members, Siggy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This petitioner completed the community process our office hosted at a Butters meeting on June 30th at which there was a mix of support and concerns from residents primarily at the 1306 Columbia Road Building. Concerns were raised by two abutters, residents of that building about water runoff, garage door noise, the number of decks and insufficient setback Two others were supportive of the design stating a preference for townhouses and a need for this type of housing in the area. The Dorchester Heights Neighborhood Association is in non-opposition to this application. With that background, ONS defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Ashley from Councillor Flynn's office. Councillor Flynn would normally want to support a case like this due to two parking spaces per unit in attention to South Boston's existing parking crisis. However, he has a long-standing policy of opposing roof decks due to the quality of life issues impacting our seniors, veterans, persons with disabilities and young families. Thank you. Thank you.

Next, we have a tuner

Kimberly Turner, I live at the 1306 building and we're not opposed to the building of this townhouse. It's how it's being built that we have an issue with. The fact that the garage doors are Basically, on the side of our building one, basically where our bedrooms are going to be and that's something that needs to be pointed out. So the garage door, the cars coming in and out. Definitely the side yards of three feet and the 20 feet being drastically reduced is not okay according to how we feel about this building. And I know that you mentioned, the attorney mentioned The back of the building actually backs into East 8. That's not true.

It actually backs in to our parking lot, so I don't know. There just seems to be a lot of misinformation that is being shared here and We don't agree with some of the proposed designs that are being presented.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, there are no additional comments.

Attorney Morenci?

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. With respect to the rear of the building it does as I indicated Back up into a garage, a multi-space garage. I think there are 22 parking spaces.

No, that's not true. That is not true Please mute public comment

I believe the previous speaker said that the building backs up onto the 1306 parking lot. I believe that's what the testimony was. Regardless of whether it's a parking lot serving 13 or 6, or the building on East 8th Street is a townhouse-style building. I may have misidentified the building for which the parking lot is being used but it does back up to that parking lot With respect to garage door openers, my understanding I'm not a builder but I believe that most garage door opener today operate at something like 40 decibel levels. Thank you for watching. I think that addresses all of the comments.

Any other questions or comments from the board? May I have a motion? Is anyone prepared to make a motion or do you still have questions?

Madam Chair, I'll make the motion to approve.

Is there a second?

Better Barraza second.

Mr. Stembridge. Yes. Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes Ms. Better Barraza? Yes Mrs. Whewell? Yes Mr. Langell? Yes. Chair votes yes, the motion carries.

Thank you.

Thank You Madam chair Next we have case BOA 1861457 with the address of 2073 to 2189 Washington Street. If the applicants and or their residents Do the representative are present? Would they please explain to the board?

Good morning, Chair and members of the Board. I guess good morning for another four minutes. This is David Lenhardt at Koolstein Stores, 1 Post Office Square Permanent Council for New England culinary arts training and thank you for the opportunity to present Our zoning request in connection with a new location in Nubian Square for culinary training, career readiness. I'm here with several team members Martin Hemsley, Madry Good Kevin Diebler. I'm going to pass it on to Martin to continue the presentation and I'll stick around for any questions. Thank you.

Is this, are these folks panelists? Yes. Who needs to be elevated to panel?

Martin Hemsley should be elevated and you'll continue with that.

Now she's allowed to unmute herself?

Yeah, oh here we go. Thank you.

You can hear me alright? Yes. Thank you Madam Chairman and members of the board. Martin Hemsley, I'm the founder of NECAT New England Culinary Arts Training and i'd like to turn over with the first two or three slides to Madre Goode who's our executive director

Please let us know if you're having trouble locating the names.

Jesus, can you please elevate my drink good?

I'm not sure if... I should be.

Hi, good afternoon. Good morning, sir.

We can hear you.

All right. You can move to the next slide. My name is Marjorie Good, I'm the Executive Director here at New England Culinary Arts and Training.

Who's advanced? Can you advance the slides Madam Ambassador? Can the ambassador advance the slides for him?

Thank you, thank you Madam Chair. So NCAT is a culinary training program really focused on folks who may have barriers to employment we have four three pillars one is Culinary Arts which is the technical Wellness and Mindness, Yoga from staff and students. And then our career readiness is really focused on helping folks get into the culinary industry as well as progress within that pathway to have sustainability for their families and themselves. Next slide please. All of our programs are tuition free. Our four programs, our flagship which is currently at 23 Radisson Street here in the South End

We do a Spanish bilingual ESOL cohort as well, as well as the Haitian Creole cohort. And we serve folks right behind the walls here at House of Correction It is a 14-week program, as I stated before. And then we have a social enterprise that will provide catering and event space, typically seven weeks for our students, and they have access to real live experience as well as stipend opportunity as well. Thank you for hearing me today. I will now turn it over to Martin Hemsley.

Thanks, Marjorie. The building that you can see here is... Sorry, could you go back a slide? Um, In Nubian Square, this represents a significant move for us. We're currently on Bradston Street in an area that's not easily accessed by our students and is close to the Mass and Cass intersection. We've been looking for new space for a couple of years because Lisa's up next year in her current space. And we've identified this building as being perfect for our students, it's close to Nubian Square Thank you for joining us. Mass Development with supportive financing to cover the purchase price of $9 million. We're scheduled to close early in October.

Next slide, please. We have launched a capital campaign which has been underway for some months. We expect to invest an additional $9 million to renovate the second and third floors, in particular to put in a significantly larger kitchen than we now have to support our teaching and also social enterprise catering. Next slide. There are three zoning reliefs requested, which I've outlined here. I can't describe them technically. Perhaps our lawyer can do that.

Yes, I can jump in. Although it's pretty straightforward in terms of the relief that's needed. Again this is moving into an existing building So the request around parking has to do with the existing building for loading as well. So a couple of conditional use permits and a variance. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there questions from the board? Hearing none, may I have public testimony?

Madam Chair and members of the board for the record, my name is Jeremy Bembry. I'm the Roxbury Community Engagement Service with the Office of Services. The applicant has completed the community process which consisted of a neighborhood services subcommittee flyer distributed to abutters for awareness, which completed the committee process. To date our office has not received any further community feedback at this time. Thank you for your time, and the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services would like to defer to the Board with their judgment.

Patrick, if you can unmute yourself now.

Oh, hi. I was just trying to get back as a panelist. I'm with the city. I had to jump off and jump back on the call.

All right. So then, Madam Chair, I won't see additional comments.

Thank you. With that, may I have a motion?

I'd like to put forward a motion of approval. May I have second?

Second. Mr. Stembridge? Yeah. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes Is Better Barraza? Yes Ms. Whewell? Yes Mr. Langham? Yes Chair votes yes, the motion carries. With that can we take a 15 minute break?

Thank you, yes.

Sorry, I'm going to check. Yes. Yeah, we're ready. So let's start recording. Thank you. Mr. Stembridge?

Recording in progress.

Present. Thank You. Mr Valencia? Present. Ms Turner? President. Thank you, Ms. Whewell. I see you, but you might still be having technical problems. Mr. Lang?

Oh, I'm here Madam Chair, sorry. It looks to me like everybody's having some kind of issue today. I can hear lots of static, so it seems...

This is the issue of the day. Mr. Langham?

Present, Madam Chair.

All right, excellent. The floor is yours, Mr. Stembridge. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

We'll return to the 11 o'clock hearing and we will go through the last two which are companion cases. Those being case BOA 269100 with the address of 18R Plain Street along with Case BOA 1869799, also with the address of 18 Plain Street. If the applicant can do what they represent on the present, would they please respond to these cases to the board?

Good afternoon Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is David Higgins with an address of 20 Plain Street in Dorchester We are proposing to combine number 20 Plain Street and 18 Plain street today into a single lot resulting in a total square foot lot of 13,707 square feet. The new house on the combine lot which will now be number 18 Plain Street. I'll have, if Tim Sheehan would like to just explain the plans of the house and then once he's finished I will continue. Thank you.

Hello everyone, my name is Tim Shan. I'm the architect for the project at 9 Wall Street in Charlestown and yes to David's point we'd like to build a single family house on the site as you see on the Site Plan It would be very similar to the last project we did in a left corner of the site, the way you're looking at the lot. Except we would have a family room to enlarge the living space on the first floor. I'd call it family-run master bedroom because if somebody wanted that to be a master bedroom suite, it would work well for that. Basically the first floor will be kitchen, dining, living with a half bath and a forwardly justified set of switchback stairs. The middle floor, you know, the upper floors would be identical to what we do next door so it'll be two bedrooms, a master and two bathrooms. Top floor, what we're calling a bonus room up in the attic on the third floor and the slope. We would have a playroom sort of another living space in the front right corner as you came up the stairs

A bathroom sort of for everybody, and then to the left in the sloped area with a small dormer we would have a bonus room. And basically that's the house it would be would come in at total 25-25 gross square footage, which would result with a net of 2345. And that's the single family we'd like to build.

Thank you. Thank you very much for presenting that, Tim. Madam Chair, members of the board, I would like to emphasize the 13,700 square feet which is half of the lot Thank you for watching. My side yard setbacks would be 10 feet each side of the house and I have a rear yard setback which is insufficient but I would have 20 yards, 20 feet. We are set back for the families. Again, this house works nicely on the lot. We did get approvals from the board for the number 20 R Plain Street and number 12 R Plains street on previous

I do have a number of entrances to this particular house. I have three entrances to the house. One is on the very right hand side of the plot plan that you see right now, I have one in the middle which hasn't been The curb cut has not been cut yet because we may have some issues with PPD, with the fire department in regards to access but if it's approved we will move forward with that. With that I'll open it today to the board for questions thank you

Can you confirm, so how many units or how many houses are on the site with this proposal?

This proposal is actually for... House on this proposal with combining the two lots, number 20 and 18. There is three on it right now. With this proposal, there will be four on a total of 13,700 square feet.

Questions from the board?

Yes, I would like to know if you have had conversations with BPD on the overall site planning of Have you had conversations with them? Well, we have had a lot of conversations.

I mean, as the houses get approved You know, we go through design review. But other than that, you know, there's not much really that we talk about. I mean, I'm obviously willing to work with them anywhere and even...

I've just said the only reason I'm asking is because it looks like there's been over time has been that there is a vision urbanistically and then over time we've been approving project by project. And so internally, where there's parking and open space it needs to be look at a holistic versus because you're all the properties are sharing a driveway and so It's not necessarily, it's being looked at as a project per project but if you look at the site plan there's a lot of shared amenities between each of the houses so that's why I was asking.

Yeah, thank you for that. It has been an ongoing project going on since 2000 like 15 or 16 so In order for me to get these houses built, it just takes time and we go through them in phases. They do share the driveways. There is one driveway in the middle there where that car is, in the center of the site plan That is the main entrance to the property, but it is like 20 feet wide and then on the right hand side I also have a driveway with access which is a 24-foot driveway as well.

Other questions or comments from the board? No public testimony.

Hello Madam Chair, Members of the Board. My name is Eva Jones representing the Mayor's Office and Neighborhood Services. Regarding 18R Plain Street our office differs to the board's judgment A community process was conducted including an abutters meeting held on Wednesday, January 14th, 2026 that was well attended by the Dorchester community members where overwhelming opposition was expressed with concerns expressed regarding the quality of life, the applicant's ongoing proposals and community members' concerns about the site storage for construction, construction trash that had not been cleaned up, and what they felt to be excessive zoning violations. as well as the increased stress on street parking that this property would amplify. Additionally, we received five letters in opposition citing many of the same concerns expressed in the abutters meeting as well as concerns that the proposed changes to rear parcel access including the lack of a documented curb cut approval and the need for clarification regarding emergency access combined with the number

of requested variances and the cumulative impact of prior approvals on this lot and the abutting lot warrant further review of the project's access, scale, and overall impact on the neighborhood. We have also received six letters in support from the two abutting parcels owned by the applicant and one from the parcel currently being reviewed at 18 Plain Street where community members indicated they had no issues with the proposal. The project was also reviewed by the Popes Hill Civic Association, where no significant concerns were shared. At this time, the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services defers to the Board's judgment on this matter. Thank you everyone for your time and consideration.

Next, we have Liam Rimas from Council of Fitzgerald.

Hello Madam Chair, members of the board. Lee Marimus from Councillor Fitzgerald's office. The councillor would like to go on record in opposition to proposal due to concerns he moves our office from Butters. Thank you.

Okay, next we have Zack.

Hi, how you doing? My name is Zach Yachteen. I live at 16 Plain Street in Dorchester. I'm here to express my full support for Dave's proposal to build a new single family home on Plain You know, Dave's given me and my wife the opportunity to potentially have a family and remain in the city. And we would love to see another young family get the same shot. With that being said, I fully support Dave's project. respectfully ask the board to approve this proposal. Thank you.

Thank You. And we have Martin Sweeney. Martin, you can unmute yourself.

Here we go. Can you hear me? Yes, sir. Hi, I'm Martin Sweeney. I'm a director directly behind the development. I am in opposition to this. Thank you for joining us. and Green Space in the back. That's currently been chipped away at, there is now a fourth building back there. There has never been any green space and this one would be a fifth thing on the property. There is no, we've lost trees. We've lost tree cover. The fourth property was supposed to be geothermal that never materialized There's been a lot of issues.

It's been under constant construction for more than 10 years, with backhoes on piles of dirt looking over the fence at every neighbor's house. And again, I just can't say enough. He's been chipping away at this from what the original proposal was and what everybody agreed to And it would be a crime to allow this to continue and to get into abusing his neighbors in the about us. I put something in the chat that's more concise and has some more issues in it, but I'm on my way to check-in right now to the hospital. Thank you so much.

I don't know what's happening. I post an additional comment.

Okay, can the applicant respond to those concerns and feedback?

Yes Madam Chair. In regards to that last comment, it wouldn't matter what I built. I've been under construction here. I built three houses here in the back and that's why the excavator has been there working For a number of years now, hopefully we can finish up with this project and move on and get this site back to original and plenty of green space, parking space and get it finished.

Thank you Questions or comments from the board?

Yes, I have one other question. From the site plan that you showed they should there's seven structures 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 seven structures and You currently are the developer for those seven structures, correct? Or six and then one is being proposed, correct.

Correct that is correct yes

Okay, and the only thing that is different from what we're seeing in a site plan The new curb cut that you're mentioning in between the properties on Plain Street, is not being proposed yet, correct? The main access to 18R Plain Street is from the top right of the site plan.

That is not correct. I just haven't pulled the permit for the curb cut yet because I'm not sure... Thank you for watching. When I originally got number 18 Plain Street, which was an as-of-right house. The houses on the front were all as of right stuff. I got a curb cut permit. Well, no approval. I haven't got the permit to date but it has been approved at Public Works. I just haven't received it yet at the moment. But it has

And you've had a fire department reviewed your plans for fire access trucks behind the properties?

It is an application. I guess they don't fully review it until it's approved by you guys. Okay.

And so when you were proposing your property, you never proposed an overall site plan to BPD. You've just been doing it smaller by increments. You never had a larger vision for the property?

That is correct. Okay, great.

Okay, thanks. I don't have any further questions.

Any other questions or feedback from the board?

Yes. It seems that there's a large impact to the community with the ongoing construction. And so I'd like to get a good sense of what, if any current construction is happening and then also like a timeline or for these projects like when can the neighbors expect some of the current construction to be finished and then for this new proposal what is the timeline that you're considering? Thank you.

Thank you, well I'm just finishing up number 20 Plain Street which is it's in the process of uh i just finished the landscape and planted a lot of trees out the back So I'm hoping to close out that particular permit within the next month. And subject this being approved, you know, I would expect it takes six to eight months To complete, to finish out this. Get the foundation done and get the house built We did have to take some of them down, but I have kept several big trees. which will get trimmed again if needed. Again, it works on the site but that's all I have to say.

Okay, thank you. And one more follow-up. Are you considering building more in this area after this?

No, no. What you see in the site plan is approximately what we're going to do. I don't plan to... I've had this property since 2017 and it's been a long, drawn-out process. I had proposed different projects before through previous administration but It never went anywhere, so it just takes time. I'd like to try and get it finished and get my daughter moved in here and finish it up.

Okay, thank you very much.

Thank you.

I have one question are there six other properties like single-family condominiums as well?

They're single families, yeah. Actually there's one that was originally... It's a two-family. The one on the very right hand side is a two family That I bought as a two-family, and then I got the carriage house at the rear converted to it. A single family. Okay.

But all of this is under a condominium?

It will eventually be...

and the improvements of the driveway is all shared costs among, it would be among the seven.

It will be yeah because of Because of the way it's been developed, I got to develop the single families. But once it's all going to get done, it'll all be one kind of project.

Right. And so the last one, this... 18R is the last one that You own or do you own any of the other condominiums?

I own them all. I still own all the houses.

Oh, so you own all of these but like the person that just came in and... He's a renter, but I couldn't sell these until everything gets done.

So if you understand my situation.

yeah no i understand so you're you were um building as you went along and then is your intention to sell these eventually okay i don't have any further questions thank you

Okay, if they're not, are there, sounds like Ms. Whewell, do you have a question? Yeah, Madam Chair, sorry. So questions about the relationship of the A proposed dwelling to the other buildings around it. You know, it looks to be three stories which Exceeds the buy rate of two and a half by half. So I'm just wondering what that relationship is like to your properties, but also the properties and it I think generally when something's so internal, it's usually subordinate to its surrounding building. So could you tell us about that?

Yeah, I mean... I'm happy to make it two and a half stories. There's a dormer, if you went to the plant, there's a I'm happy if it goes to the design review and we can go up to two and a half stories, I'm okay with that. It's very similar In design to the house that was just approved and that I just built at number 20, our place. The only difference is it has a family room on the side. This new property.

Sorry, I have one more question. No, no, it's okay. I'm not sure if they can go back to that survey plot plan. Can the ambassador go to the survey plot The Servant Plot Plan. Okay, here this one so You know, I just reviewed your overall site access and to the right if you have to maintain a 20 foot width for fire trucks It would conflict with the three parking spaces right in front of Unit 5. And then the only other observations I see that if you do move ahead and put a fire access in between

Unit 3 and the unit next to it, it would not provide clearance because you have some structures next to a 20-foot clearance. So are the parking spaces in front of Unit 5 flexible?

Yeah, actually I don't really park them that way right now. I park them in tandem.

Okay, so I think what this is suggesting and I'm just having observations to my colleagues is that your project almost needs to go through a site plan Review, Fire Access, Overall Parking, Open Space, Safety, Sidewalk, I'm just making some observations now. Thank you for watching! Thank you, Ms. Barraza.

That makes sense, given all seven properties belong to him and they should be... effectively working with the neighborhood. Mr. Hanson, do you have any comments on the suggestion? Especially as a potential proviso?

No I don't.

Okay. With that, is there a motion?

Yes, Madam Chair. I would like to... I'm sorry.

Was there another member comment? Okay, if not then Miss. Better Barraza?

Okay. Madam Chair, I'd like to put forward a motion of approval with the proviso that the project undergoes urban design site planning review with BPD Um... and potentially BTD to review car access to the development, to ensure life safety fire truck access. and to review the overall final location of the proposed building and to promote A good balance of open and green space to that of

driveway area, and also to allow for adequate vegetation to abutter the rear of butters to provide privacy due to the proximity of the proposed project.

So, Mr. Barraza just to clarify when you say site planning do you mean to encompass all seven properties or just?

Correct to the site planning which is um to look at it as a Completion of a Development.

Just wanted to be clear, we're referencing all seven properties. Is there a second? Correct. Mr. Stembridge?

Yeah.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Miss Turner?

I'd personally like to see a better community process with the current projects and then maybe seeing where to go forward from there. But depending on how this vote goes, I just really would like to ask the applicant to have a better process with their neighbors. Thank you.

Ms. Barraza? Yes Ms. Wuwell? Yes. Mr. Langham? No. The chair also votes no, the motion does not carry. Is there a second motion?

I'd like to put forward a motion of denial without prejudice so that the applicant can go and talk to their neighbors, then come back to us with a better proposal. Is there a second?

Yes, a second.

Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr Valencia? Yes Ms Turner? Yes I'm sorry, I keep the... Miss Better Barraza.

Yes, and I would encourage that the revised proposal now looks at it holistically and has conversations with BFD, the Boston Fire Department, BTD, Boston Transportation Department. And it might also be helpful to have conversations with BPD to address some of the issues that was raised in this meeting.

Thank you, Ms. Lewell?

Yes.

Mr. Langham? Yes Chair votes yes, the motion carries

Thank you. Next, we go to the rediscussion cases scheduled for 1130 a.m.

We'll begin with the first case, which is Case BOA-1826508, with the address of 401A to 401 Chelsea Street. If the applicant and or their representative are present, would they be going to report?

Yes, thank you Mrs. Stembridge. Good afternoon Madam Chair and members of the board. For the record Richard Linz with a business address 245 Sunridge Street East Boston here on behalf of Petitioner which is the 348 Bennington Street LLC. I believe we may have our architect, David Choi with us as well but I'll run through the presentation and if there are any specific questions that require his response, we'll call him up. We could probably jump down to slide three to start the conversation. This is a pre-existing three story building located at Gate Square neighborhood in East Boston. It sits on a roughly 1800, almost 1890 square foot lot and it currently is occupied by a building that's mixed use with ground level retail facing Chelsea Street, with two residential units above. Our proposal would involve the renovation of the existing structure

A vertical and rear addition to the building, change of occupancy from existing occupancy to residential units and retail. to retail with a total of nine residential units. Because this would be increasing The total number of units over the Article 79 threshold, the seven units that are being proposed would be subject to the IDP requirements at 17%. would require a commitment of one IDP unit, which we will deal with the Mayor's Office of Housing in connection with this application. We want to jump down to slide five Next slide, please. So a good overview here of the board showing the surrounding media context that this section of Day Square

is where the former Giavelli's restaurant location used to be. This property was part of that assemblage of properties that were recently sold in connection with the Giaveli's property. This is not attached to the buildings adjacent to it, but as you can see we do have a little bit of space behind our building. Most of the buildings along this corridor do have front to back build-out conditions. You can see the relationship here, which I think is relevant to the discussion about the type of relief that we need If we could jump down to slide, let's put a slide of eight. That's probably better for street. You can see the building here, it's the gray building with the ground level retail. As you can see, the adjoining buildings are similar in height. The current condition our building would be increasing to build two stories

I would point out this is in the, and I'll use the term relatively newer zoning sub-district known as the mixed use five district. That was part of the change that was out of the planning's Boston zoning changes for the neighborhood, which allows for up to five stories and 65 feet in height. One thing I will point out is because this property is located in relative close proximity to runway 15 at Logan Airport, we did a critical height evaluation for this property and the critical height limit. for this area is 98 feet above mean sea level. Our building with its current site elevation of 18 feet, with the total building height of 48 feet will still be below the critical height limit. We still are required to provide notification of the FAA in connection with any approvals that are received before our building permit is issued.

So I just want to point out for the board that we are sensitive to its proximity to runway 15, especially anything in the Bay Square area. Next slide, please. Just a different view here, and you can see the other surrounding context. It is generally mixed use in this area so we do have a number of ground level retail with upper-level residential units. Next slide please. It's disowning or refusal. I'll go through that in a moment. Maybe just jump down to slide 14, that will get us to probably what we need for the purpose of this site plan. Just need to zoom in a little bit on that right side there, yeah. So you can see the images here do illustrate how we propose to develop the site with the addition and what the context of building would be like. I know this came up in a community process that our building

Certainly we'll be taller than the buildings that are near it, but that is I guess one of the outcomes of Planning Boston that areas like this were targeted for additional height and density based upon The size of the streets, these are main thoroughfares through East Boston. and the planning department in its wisdom decided that these areas could accommodate more height, more density. And that has been the focus of a lot of the new development that's happening around the Day Square neighborhood. As you can see on the right side, if we were able to zoom in Mr. Ambassador, we do show the area that we are filling in And we can see the setback on the Bennington Street side is roughly about 4.25 feet, which directly addresses one of the violations that were cited and referenced in the Planning Department's recommendation. We go down to the next slide.

On behalf of the refusal letter, I'm going to go further down maybe two more slides. Here's slide 14. Slide 15. Okay, we can stop here. So again just a couple of different views and images to give an idea of what the finished product will ultimately look like and what it looks like in context with the surrounding area. Next slide please. Existing condition floor plans, just showing the existing retail on the ground level with the existing residential. Next slide. and then our proposed conditions. The ground level is at the bottom portion of the screen, Madam Chairman of the Board. We do show an ADA accessible unit At the ground level, we are not located in a flood zone so no issues with respect to our elevation that would affect having habitability at that level. We do provide an appropriate means of access into the unit

We can just jump back to that in a second. In the middle, we see the typical floor layout for the units that are maybe on levels two through five. And then our roof plan showing that we do incorporate and the mechanicals above the roofline. Next slide, please. Just our elevations showing that overall height I think we indicated that just over 48 feet total height and this would be preserving the existing structure I'll turn quickly to the relief cited. First would be the roof structure restrictions under Article 53, Section 25. The Boston Zoning Code requires a conditional use permit any time you're altering the roofline of an existing structure

My position is that this typically involves when you are proposing either a head house or roof deck, or some other type of structure on an existing roof. because we are proposing complete renovation with a vertical addition that is within the height limit. We believe that is all Thank you for joining us. without the need for even a conditional use permit. However, we have applied for that to be set before de-inflation is necessary We're also excited for insufficient off-street parking. This comes up right early now with the mixed use districts. Mixed use districts in East Boston, New York regardless of whether or not they are subject to Article 80 are exempt from the minimum parking requirements. Footnote 4 to Table L specifically spells that out,

We did raise that with the examiner. It was not removed. We do not believe this is a violation based upon the plain reading of Table L and therefore would ask that the board not require any relief from parking We were also cited for the condition of a through lot because we do have frontage on both Bennington Street and Chelsea Street. The rear yard requirements are not applicable. The front yard requirements would be. We have two options to achieve compliance. One would be the setback that we're currently showing at 4.25 feet. We could also elect to do a modal study, and we're happy to deal with that within the design review component should the board approve this. So we feel that we can comply with the front yard requirement or the modal setback In either instance for the Bennington Street frontage. The maximum lot coverage for this area is 75%.

I do believe we are in excess of a lot coverage, but as I showed before The surrounding context of buildings both left and right, and anything within that sort of island within Day Square pretty much occupies most of the lot. If not, while in excess of 75%, we would not be much different than any of the buildings that are in the community. We therefore believe relief would be appropriate in this instance. We were also cited for the minimum permeable lot area not being met. It's a very low threshold, and for this site I believe we will need about 275 square feet of permeable area. Based upon where we're set back currently, both side and front I should say I'm on the Benson Street side of building. I don't think we're that far off, so if compliance is necessary, I believe that it's achievable and you can certainly again address that through a design review.

We were cited also for insufficient side yard setback, and that I believe involves looking at it from the Chelsea Street side, the right side of the building which is already in pre-existing nonconforming condition. The addition that we're proposing actually does set back on that right side line. We don't set it back on the left, but again, that being a pre-existing nonconforming condition, we are exempt from compliance provided that we don't increase the non-conformity any more than it already is. and I believe in both instances we do not do that. And so therefore, we wouldn't be in compliance with the exception for the institution side merit setback that was cited. Again, cited for insufficient front yard which we believe we've already addressed. And then there is an additional citation from minimum ground floor ceiling height into

In the MU5 district, any new constructions requires a minimum of 14 feet for the ground level ceiling height. Because we do have an existing conviction it would be a tremendous hardship to change that floor ceiling height Especially since we are preserving the upper levels, level two and level three. And therefore we think that a variance would be appropriate to the extent that is applicable. With that, Madam Chair I will pause to see if there are any questions from the board and address any comments the Board may have.

Thank you. Questions from the Board?

Yes, Mr. Lins. Have you considered adding a step back on the top floor from the street to reduce the massing and the appearance from the streets? Just make it I mean to make the perception list, I mean toll for the street?

Yeah Mr. Valencia is a great question and that is actually required in certain areas in the mixed-use districts The MU5 district does require a step back to the extent that we are flooding a residential district because we are completely enveloped in the MU5 District. We would be exempt from a step-back requirement, but something we can certainly review as part of any design review if that's the desire of the board. Thanks.

Thank you. Other questions or comments from the board?

I think the biggest hurdle for this project is to really meet the maximum Coverage. The maximum coverage of 70% and the minimum permeable 15%. because I don't really see, I think it'll be great that this would be the first building that works with the new East Boston zoning to allow five stories. I don't really see that as an issue. I think the last story could be set back a little bit, maybe three feet. I would be more than happy to approve the project if there was a proviso that you could work with BPD on the actual lock coverage.

and to work within the 70, even 75%, that to me is the big kind of zoning issue that I see and that I've read from the BPD recommendation.

If I may, Madam Chair and Ms. Better Barraza, I agree that if we could do that, we certainly would have gotten there. But in order to make that lower level unit At least on the ground level, a size that would be feasible especially for persons with disabilities. Especially with the access issues for the building It is going to be difficult to get to within 75%. And I think that our total footprint in that instance would be about 1400, around 1400 square feet. if we needed to comply with that. That's going to trim that addition of a rear area Significantly, and I think it's going to create a condition that's gonna make that unit really small. So happy to work with planning on some ideas to help soften that

but I don't know that we're going to get there otherwise and i don't think it's very viable why did you say accessibility because there's no you're not changing it was noted that you're leaving steps at the front that the front entrance is not accessible

That's for the retail. The rear addition on the Bennington Street side does have a residential unit here.

Has a residential what?

We're proposing a residential unit at Great.

Oh, at Great, okay, that is accessible.

Yep, correct.

Yeah. Yeah, I think something has to give right? And so then it takes you to is your client willing to reduce it from nine units because we're asking you to comply with the new zoning. The other issue is do you try to strategize and go to four-story, and try to get through with just one means of egress which you can now do. Because I know there's a financial condition that you have to also review in regards to density and construction costs. So that's why I was wondering how flexible were you willing with the nine units? Because then, the other way would be that the board says does not approve it, has you to redo the

Request for you to revise the whole project. So I was trying to get a gauge whether your client was willing to work with BPD on that massing concern.

Always willing to work with planning. The one thing I will point out is that ISD and practice, even though I don't disagree with you that at four stories, one means of egress would be... I think unless there's been something that's changed as of most recently, and we've just dealt with this in the last two weeks at ISD is that they are requiring the two means of egress regardless.

Regardless, okay.

So I agree. I would love them to review that But we're still running into that issue depending on who examined. So even at four stories, we're going to require that to address that.

Great thank you I don't have any questions.

Okay, any other questions from the board? Quick question. How many IDP units will you be providing to a city and what will be their income level?

Yeah, I believe on this one Mr. Valencia the requirement is on a seven unit, the seven additional units We're required to address at 17%, which comes to one unit plus a buyout at 0.19 for Zone C, so I believe this is intended to be rental. Therefore, there would be a maximum AMI of 60%. Thank you. We could opt to go to a second unit and avoid the buyout, but it all depends on what the numbers look like. but maximum 60% Hamont.

Thank you, with that let's have public testimony

Hello Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Eva Jones representing the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services. Regarding 401 Chelsea Street our office differs to the Board's judgment. A community process was conducted including an abutters meeting held on 4-9-26 that was not attended by any East Boston community members. The proposal was also reviewed by the Eagle Hill Civic Association at their meeting on 3-25-26 and the association expressed support with a vote of nine in favor and two opposed. At this time, the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services differs to the Board's judgment on this matter. Thank you everyone for your time and consideration.

Okay, any other questions or comments from the board? Is there a motion?

Okay, Madam Chair. I would like to put forward a motion with the proviso that... A motion of approval or... Oh yes, sorry. Motion of approval? with provides so that the planning department works with this proponent to improve a project and special attention to consider and step back from the street on the top floor and I'm open to any of my colleagues if they want to add another proviso. And if not, that is a motion.

Okay, is there a second?

Second.

Mr Stembridge? Yes. Mr Valencia?

Yes

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza? Yes Ms. Wewell? Yes Mr. Langham

Yes.

Chair votes yes, the motion carries.

Thank you very much. Have a great day.

The next case has been deferred So that takes us to the following case, which is Case VOA-182-0617.

The address of 722 R East 8th Street. If the applicant and or their representative present, would they please explain the case to the court?

Thank you Mr. Stembridge, good afternoon Madam Chair and the Board My name is Scott Simon and I am the owner and reside at 722 East 8th Street in South Boston I am the fourth generation of my family to live here and I am respectfully requesting zoning relief to change the use. of my existing detached carriage house to a single family under the ADU guidelines for my parents to move into. Just a little background, this would be the neighbors on each side had rear Detached structures that have been converted into units 102, 103. We are requesting to change this 2A1 with parking underneath.

Are there questions from the board? May I have public testimony?

Madam Chair and Board Members, Siggy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This petitioner completed the community process. Our office hosted an abutter's meeting on June 1st at which abutters were supportive and no concerns were raised The City Point Neighborhood Association has taken no formal position on this proposal. With that background, ONS defers judgment to the Board. Thank you.

May I have Ashley from Councilor Flynn's office?

Thank you. Councilor Finn would like to go on record in support based on a good community process. We respectfully request that the proponent continue to work closely with neighbors during the construction phase, thank you.

Madam Chair, there are no additional comments.

Okay.

Yes. I'm sorry? Are you commenting on this project? Yes, I am. I'm at 724 East 8th Street. My name is Dan Lazarchik, my wife Jill Shortliffe and I have lived here for over 26 years and we fully support the ADU proposed next door.

Thank you Okay, with that may I have a motion? I'll put forward a motion of approval. May I have second? Second. Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes Ms. Better Barraza? Yes Mrs. Wewell? Yes Mr. Langham? Yes Chair votes yes, the motion carries. Good luck.

Thank you Madam Chair. Madam Chair that is all we have for today.

Okay, well thank you everyone. Thank you for everyone's patience with everyone's technical issues. We will see you next time.

Thank You.

Have a good day.