Zoning Board of Appeal

Thank you for watching!

Good morning. The City of Boston Zoning Board of Appeal hearing for October 7, 2025 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 the practice of holding virtual hearings through June 2027. This hearing of the board is being held remotely via the Zoom webinar event platform and is 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 hearing 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. In order to ensure this hearing of the board is open to the public, members of the public may access this hearing 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 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. If you wish to comment on an 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 are connected to the hearing by telephone, please press star 9 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 comment. 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 hand before the relevant address is called or the meeting host will not know to call on you at the appropriate time. Mr. Stembridge.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Present.

Good morning. Mr. Valencia.

Sorry. Good morning, Madam Chair. Present.

Good morning. Ms. Whewell. Good morning, Madam Chair. Present. Good morning. Mr. Langham.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Present.

Good morning. Ms. Better Barraza. Chair, President. Good morning. Ms. Turner. Good morning, Madam Chair, President. Good morning. With that, I'll turn it over to Mr. Stembridge.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We'll begin with the approval of hearingments. 930. These minutes are from September 18th and September 23rd of this year. With that, I will make a motion to approve the hearing minutes.

Is there a second?

Second.

Mr. Stembridge? Yeah. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Whewell? Are you on mute, Ms. Wuval? I can't hear you. I saw you. I will come back to you because I do see you, Mr. Langham.

Yes.

Ms. Better Barraza?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Whewell?

Over.

Yes.

Perfect. All right, we got you back. Chair votes yes, the motion carries.

Next, we have the extension scheduled for 9 30 a.m. We have 11 cases today.

All these are deemed reasonable in terms of the extensions they are requesting.

Should there be any questions regarding them after I read them in, please direct those questions to Madam Chair.

will begin with case BOA 135-9889 with the address of 400 Melania Castle Boulevard.

Next we have case BOA

1-3-5-9-8-9-6 with the address of 402 Melaneda Calf Boulevard.

Next we have case BOA 1341538 with the address of 2196 Washington Street. Next we have case BOA-13415-28 with the address of 2154 Washington Street. Next we have case BOA-13415-28 1524 with the address of 1121 Harrison Avenue. Next we have case BOA 1341518 with the address of 1105 Harrison Avenue. Next we have case VOA 1593227 with the address of 282 Walnut Avenue. Next we have case BOA 1187855 with the address of 61 Horror Street.

Next we have case BOA 1187855 with the address of 61 Horror Street.

Next we have case BOA 1187855 with the address of 61 Horror Street.

5-3 with the address of 63 Harv Street.

Next we have case BOA.

147-2415 with the address of 351 Vermont Street. Next we have case BOA 1349736. with the address of 906 Dorchester Avenue. Next we have case BOA 1339772 with the address of 33 Davidson Street. Next we have case BOA 898191 with the address of 40 Monkwood Road. And finally we have case BOA

1367246 with the address of 14 Gardner Street.

And those are the extension cases and requests that we have for today, Madam Chair. Thank you.

If there are no questions, may I have a motion to grant the extensions as requested?

Motion to grant the extensions as requested. Is there a second? Second.

Mr. Stembridge. Yeah. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Whewell?

Yes. Mr. Langham?

Yes. Ms. Better Barraza?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Chair votes yes, the motion carries.

Thank you Madam Chair, Members of the Board, Joseph Feaster here.

We'll now move on to the hearing scheduled for 9 30 a.m. Before we go through the cases, are there any requests for withdrawals or deferrals from the 930 AM hearings?

Yes, we have two today. First one being 25 through 27 Edinburgh Street.

Attorney Spitz, so that would be for case BOA 1718356 with the address of 25 to 27 Edmond Barlow Street.

Would you please explain? Yes, Madam Chair, members of the board, attorney Ryan Spitz with Adams and Maranci, business address of 168 B, first floor. South Boston. We're seeking a deferral on this matter for two reasons. One is for some odd reason, there is no recommendation from the planning department on this proposal. I've reached out to the planning department as well and still waiting for a response to see what their proposal actually states for this proposal. Secondly, also too, as you all may be aware, the Chair, Ms. Stone, will need to recuse herself as she heads one of the civic associations for this matter. We would also like Thank you, Mr. Chair. and as well as scheduling to ensure that there's an alternate member that when Ms. Dong does recuse herself that we have an alternate.

So Attorney Spitz, I think we'll have to have that discussion because I recused myself at the Civic Association meeting

and I was clear that I did so in order to continue my capacity as chair.

So I think we can have that conversation offline.

Yes, but, you know, if you're recusing yourself from the actual hearing itself, I'll need an alternate member in order to...

I'm not recusing myself from the actual hearing. I recuse myself from the civic...

Okay, great. I was... We misunderstood that, so okay, that's great. So we'll just like to seek a deferral based upon the planning department's inadvertently not having a recommendation on this proposal in order for us to allow us to read and see what their insight is.

Thank you. Do we have any dates, Caroline?

November 25th. Oh, sorry, Stephanie. That's OK. November 25th. Does that work for the applicant?

That works.

Okay, may I have a motion?

I make a motion to defer to November the 25th.

Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge? Yeah. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Wewell?

Yes. Mr. Langham?

Yes. Ms. Better Barraza?

Yes.

Ms. Turner. Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Seeing none.

Great. Thank you. Mr. Stembridge, the second one is 75 through 77, Dorchester Street.

So moved.

So that will be for case BOA 1765730 with the address of 75 to 77 Dorchester Street.

Go ahead, Attorney Spitz. Great. Thank you, Mr. Stembridge, Madam Chair, members of the board, Attorney Ryan Spitz, Adams & Maranci, business address of 168 8th Street, 1st floor, South Boston. We're seeking a deferral on this matter as the advertisement was incorrect. It was missing two violations and will need to be re-advertised. I believe that we worked out a date of November 18th. If that is still available, we will take it, please.

November 18th is available for this case, yes.

Thank you.

May I have a motion?

Motion to defer this case until November 18th.

Is there a second?

Second.

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

Great, thank you. Are there any further requests for withdrawals or deferrals from the 930 time zone?

Yes, Mr. Secretary, 19 Midland Street.

Uh, deal with me please.

So that, so this request is for case BOA 1760292.

with the address of 19 Midland Street.

Would you go ahead and explain, please? Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is James Christopher of 686 Architects with the business address of 10 Fours Road in Braintree. Here today on behalf of the owners requesting a brief deferral there was some de minimis design changes during the community process which were not filed with ISD. So the plans that the board reviewed do not exactly match the final iteration. So we would like to correct the record there and to have those plans submitted and reviewed by the board.

Stephanie, November 25th. Okay, may I have a motion?

Motion to defer to November 25th?

Yes. Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge? Yeah. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Wewell?

Yes. Mr. Langham?

Yes. Ms. Benebraza?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Chair votes yes, motion carries. Thank you.

If there are no more requests for withdrawals and deferrals from the 9-3 conference, we'll begin with case BOA 171.

4885 with the address of 154 Maverick Street.

Is the applicant in or the representative present?

Will they please explain the case to the board? All right. Hello. Good morning, everybody. I'm here because we were asking to have a proviso lifted. There's been live entertainment at this address for the last, I believe, eight years. But there was a proviso on that when it was granted to our landlord. Our landlord John Tyler who owns the building is actually here today to speak in favor of lifting the proviso so that we ourselves can also have entertainment.

Any questions from the board? May I have public testimony?

Hello Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Eva Jones, representing the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services. Regarding 154 Maverick Street, our office defers to the board's judgment on this matter. Since this location has had existing licenses in this neighborhood on the parcel, we connected them with the Gold Street Neighborhood Association who reviewed their proposal on 4-28-25. and they did not express any concerns to our office. At this time, the mayor's office and neighborhood services defer to the board's judgment on this matter. Thank you everyone for your time and consideration.

Good morning Madam Chair, members of the board, Gabriella Ramirez here on behalf of Boston City Councilor, Gabriella and Coletta Zapata's office. At this time, the councilor would like to roll on the record in support of this proposal.

Thank you. There are no additional comments.

With that, may I have a motion? Motion to approve. Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Wuwo? Yes. Mr. Langham?

Yes.

Ms. Better Barraza? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Chair votes yes, motion carries.

Thank you all.

Our next case has been deferred.

It takes us to case BOA 1772322 with the address of 27 Hancock Street,

If the applicant stands with their representative or president, will they please explain to the board?

Yes, good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board, Attorney Nick Sizzula, McDermott, Quilty, Miller, and Hanley. Just a housekeeping issue, Mr. Stembridge. I wonder if you could also read into the record 29 Hancock Street, which is this project. They're separate parcels, but they are related for this project, and I think we're going to present them together, if you don't mind, Mr. Stembridge.

Not a problem. So the companion case to that was case BOA 1772318. with the address of 29 Hancock Street. Thank you, attorney. Go ahead.

Yes, sir. Thank you very much. Again, Nick Sizzula, McDermott, Quilty, Miller, and Hanley. If you could stay on this page, Mr. or Ms. Ambassador. With me today from Fenway Forward, previously Fenway Community Development Corporation, is Edward Quinn and Sunith John. and from Embark Studios, who is our project architect, is Timothy Jones. Next slide, please. This is just site location again here for both 27 and 29 Hancock Street both in Beacon Hill. They are adjacent properties. As you can see here on the maps, they are located in Beacon Hill, mid-block on Hancock Street between Cambridge. Street, and kind of where Myrtle and Dern meet. And these are both existing lodging house buildings that are proposed to be renovated and changed to multifamily residential uses for affordable housing. Next slide, please. This is just some of the basic information. Again, previously lodging house uses. Interestingly, these were both actually originally part of The Archer Residences at 45 Temple Street, which was a much bigger project, and this is that project's affordable housing off-site obligation. That project was approved with various amendments from about 2016 to 2019. And Fenway CDC or Fenway Forward was recently designated developer for the off-site affordable component earlier this year, and they actually acquired this property in July. And so the proposal, which was again a genesis of that original larger project, to redevelop both of these parcels into 15 affordable homeownership units, 5 units at 27 Hancock and 10 units at 29 Hancock. As you can see here, there's various AMIs, various bedroom count and unit types. And then at 27 Hancock, which you'll see in one minute in the plans, There is a small 350 square foot recapturing of space in the lower level, which was previously uninhabitable, and the proposal is to just add one of the studio units in that space. There will be no change to either of the building's footprint, size, etc. These are all internal changes to make the change from lodging house to affordable home ownership. which, as you can imagine, is much needed in Beacon Hill. And the last thing, if you go to the next slide, Madam or Mr. Ambassador, you can see just the refusal letters. Thank you. Thank you. The MFR multifamily residential uses. If you go to the next slide, I'll toss it to Timothy Jones. He'll quickly go through 27 Hancock and then 29 Hancock, and then we'll be happy to answer any questions. So Tim, over to you.

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. So currently, we're looking at 27 Hancock right now. If you were to, this is the center of the center building in the photo here.

Do we scroll down to the...

Next sheet, I'll quickly go through these. This is, again, the first on the far left is 27 Hancock. On the image in the middle there is the courtyard of 27 Hancock. and the photo at the top right hand corner is the basement of 27 Hancock and that's where we're renovating to make into a 350 square foot studio. The image on the far right corner there is, again, the courtyard of 27 Hancock and that's with our back to the building. That's Egress Path that opens up to Joy Street. If we go to the next slide, please. These are the, this is at the bottom, this is the floor plan of the 27-acre basement existing in what we're proposing. It's an unfinished basement as we've seen from the photos. And what's proposed at the image, the floor plan on the top is the 350 square foot. Studio Apartment. To the back, the other area of the basement we're going to use as mechanical storage and trash and recycling areas noted here. Next image, please. First floor, so the 27 Hancock is four stories. It currently has 14 SROs. And the stories, each floor is pretty much identical. The first floor existing, we have two SROs, and what we're doing is converting that two SRO floor plan into a one bedroom unit. If we go to the next image, you'll see the second floor, which has currently four SROs, which we're again converting into a one-bedroom unit. Sorry, that last image was floors two through four, our typical layouts for 27 Ancon. Next image is 29 Hancock. This is currently, again, as Nick mentioned, is being used as 30 SROs. In this building and this is the front of standing on Hancock Street facing the building. Next image please. To the right is the courtyard of 29 Hancock. and this the extension uh that building that partition that building to the left of there is the extension of 29 Hancock um in addition it was uh was added on at some time from Go to the next image, we'll get into our floor plans. The first floor is existing 29 to 1 in the bottom. Again, two SROs and we're converting and on 29 we have two units. We're making converting those two SROs into two units as shown on the proposed Layout at the top. We go to the next image. Sorry, next slide. All right, so second floor existing is on the bottom. We have nine SROs, and we're converting again into two units. Next image, please. Next slide. Seven SROs on the third floor. This is third through fifth floor, very typical layout for what's existing and also what we're proposing, converting those SROs into, again, two units.

Thank you.

That's the presentation. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Just two points to conclude. We did meet, I'm sure the Mayor's office will speak to this, but we did meet with the Beacon Hills Civic Association on September 3rd. They did submit a letter of non-opposition. and both of these projects got planning recommendations of approval with Provisos. So, thank you.

Thank you. Any questions from the board?

Yes, Mr. Soussouda. The European right now has numerous SROs units. Are those units occupied? I do not need so.

That's me, Thor, or...

Edward can answer that. I don't believe so, Mr. Valencia. They are not. This is Sunit from Fenway Forward. They're not occupied. They've been waiting for a long time.

Thank you, Sunit. And you know what happened with the residents who were there before?

You're on mute, sir. You're on mute, Suneeth, yeah. We don't know. The past owner had it vacant for a long time, six or seven years, so I'm assuming the residents have found housing elsewhere. Okay. Thank you, Senator.

Any other questions from the Board? May I have public testimony?

Yes, Madam Chair, members of the board, Connor Newman with the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services. This time the Mayor's Office has gone record in support of this proposal. There was a lengthy Boston planning community process for this involving the Mayor's Office of Housing. As you heard, they worked very closely and extensively with The Beacon Hill Civic Association getting to a place where Beacon Hill felt comfortable to be a non-opposition to this proposal, also securing support from local elected officials as well. unaware of any concerns presently. With that, I'd like to reiterate our support for this proposal. Thank you.

All right, next we have from the City Council, Sam Courage.

Good morning everyone. This is Samantha Courage from Councilor Sharon Durkan's office. The Councilor is in support of this proposal given its affordability components. The Councilor has been involved with this project essentially from the beginning helping secure ARPA fundings for this and is very excited about this project. Thanks so much. Thank you.

Okay, next we have John Gilliver.

Hi, I'm John Gulliver. I'm a resident of 17 Hancock Street. I'm a member of the Beacon Hill Civic Association. I'm a board member and I'm also a board member of Homes on Hancock, a 501c3 organization that supports We worked very closely with the city, our state representatives and Fenway Forward on this proposal and speaking on behalf of Myself and many, many Hancock Street residents voicing our strong support for this proposal. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Next we have Christina Madej.

Good morning everyone, Christina Madek. Here I live at 21 Hancock Street just a few doors down and I am also a member of Homes on Hancock and I just wanted to voice my support for Fenway Forward and this proposal. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. And the last person is Steven Donovan.

Hi, good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Stephen Donovan. I work for the City of Boston as a Housing Development Officer in the Mayor's Office of Housing. And I'm here to say that the Mayor's Office of Housing is in support of this affordable housing development. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other raised hands?

No, Madam Chair, there are no additional comments.

May I ask a motion?

Well, Madam Chair, I think this is a good project. They are reusing an existing building and creating permanent affordable homeownership units to make a promotion of approval.

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

Yes. Mr. Langham?

Yes. Ms. Better Barraza?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Chair votes yes, the motion carries. Good luck.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much.

The next case has been deferred. That takes us to case VO8-170-2915 with the address of 27 Wendover Street. If the applicants and or their representative are present, would they please explain to the board?

I am Mr. Stembridge. Good morning, Madam Chair, Madam Board. This is Mike Ross from the law firm of Prince Lobel, one international place. I'm here with the architect, Peter Banco. The applicant is part of a two-person team, one of which grew up in this very neighborhood. This is a vacant lot of 6,793 square feet within the Dorchester neighborhood zoning district.

You can pause here if you'd like, Mr.

Ambassador. The original plan was to create 11 condominiums and it was reduced to nine condominiums after negotiations with the neighborhood association occurred. The project also proposes 13 parking spaces in order to not impact the on street parking within this neighborhood. This page here shows the various types of buildings throughout the neighborhood, including Actually, the next page, if you would, Mr. Ambassador, including the double, triple-deckers containing six or more units. We are being cited for the following variances. Use, FAR 1.6 and a 0.5. Stories, 3 and a 2.5. Side and rear setback and parking. Though as the BPDA memo points out, if the project were to adhere to these zoning provisions, it would create a project in discontinuity with its neighbors. Next slide, please. This is a rendering on how the site borrows the vernacular of the neighborhood and fits into it. Next slide please. Just another Drawing from above. The project provides for a front ramp for access to the front entrance and also provides or tries to maximize access to the outside through The various units in the forms of Juliet balconies as well as decks. Next slide please. That's another view. Add this rendering here. shows how the property fits in the neighborhood from all sides and also how it's using various materials to break up the massing on all sides. Thank you. There's another view here. And here we can pause. So these are the three floor plans that rise over the garage parking that is assisted by the natural slope of the topography. There's also a bicycle room you can see in the lower right hand corner floor plan with the garage in the front corner of the building and There are, as mentioned, nine units, and the nine units are four one bedrooms. They range from 557 square feet to 629 square feet. Three two bedrooms. that range from 797 square feet to 1,023 square feet, and two three bedrooms that range from 1455 square feet to 1517 square feet. Next slide, please. This is a roof plan, site plan showing how the floor plans stack up. And slides 11 through 15, we can go through. They're just basic. If you want to come back to them, these are four plans that are blown up individually, so they're not just on one slide. Slide 16. One more. Actually, one more, if you would, Mr. Ambassador. There you go. Side 16 shows the front elevations as well as the material that we're using. The left hand front elevations. The left is on the top, the front. is on the bottom and then these kind of wood uh cyber fiber materials that you can see on the left is what the project will be clad in to create the breaking up Next slide, please. This just shows a section which also shows how the topography allows for the lower level of parking. And then there's another section. That's the deck that I have for you. I'll pause there. I just want to confirm with the board that you should have received a letter of support from the Wendover Street Neighborhood Association. Let's see if there are any questions. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Are there questions from the board?

Yes, as many of you have seen the BPD's recommendation, they made a note to the four kind of parking spaces at the rear. And I'm trying to understand through your plans On the site plan, I'm trying to see how it works and I'm having a hard time understanding how those four parking spaces at the rear is entering into the site.

Yeah, if you go up, and Peter, feel free to chime in if you'd like, the architect.

Yeah, and like whether it's necessary, you know, You have nine units. What's the total parking spaces that you have a lot of parking?

Yeah, and we're still getting a violation for it.

We're still below, but... You have, if you have 13 plus... 13. How many, yeah.

And there's nine, so that's like a 1.4 and a 1.5.

So you have 13 total parking spaces.

Right there is good. Yes, we do.

You have 13? Okay.

Member Better Barraza. This slide right here, Member Better Barraza, will show you that the four that the BPDA was talking about in their memo, how they stick out in the back. I mean, you know, there is, it is still somewhat subterranean there. I mean, only slightly. But, you know, there's a lip. So, you know, There is that kind of vacant space there. You obviously could put anything in there.

They called it as raid, so that's why I'm trying to understand the section across.

Yeah, if you go, maybe you go down, sorry, Mr. Ambassador, there's a section that shows kind of how it falls. Keep going about three more. One more, one more. Right there. So the right is the front is Wendover Street and the cars will go straight through the center of the building down that ramp. and and really down and through and then those four cars stick out at the back there it's you know topography helps kind of make this so that we're not going too far down into the ground but Yeah.

Okay. That's very helpful. And would you be okay removing those four parking spaces?

I mean we will if we're being required to it's um you know the neighborhood obviously wanted it was a big issue that came up especially on this in this street in this neighborhood so so we wanted to preserve that we by reducing from 11 to 9 we improved our ratio and we touted that people were happy about that We got close to compliant, but we will do what the board tells us to do.

Yeah, no, that's great. I think I'm good. I think for next time it would just be helpful if there was a survey plot plan that actually showed the boundaries of the building with the parking space. So that's the only drawing that I'm missing. Oh, yeah. I don't have further questions. Thank you. Thank you.

My apologies.

Any other questions from the board?

Mr. Frost, can you briefly talk about how your project responds to the IDP requirement?

Yeah, this 17% of 9 is still 1.53. And if you round up, which you're required to do by Article 79, you I have to do two units. So two divided by nine makes this over 20% affordable.

What's our AMI level?

It's over 17%, it's close to 20. No, no, I mean, I'm sorry, what is 80? 80%, 60%. Oh, these are condos, so they are 80 and 100. Okay. All right, thank you, Mr. Ross. Thank you.

With that, may I have public testimony?

Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Bambury. I'm the Dorchester Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process, which consisted of an abutters waiting facilitation on May 29th, where abutters voiced their concerns for the proposal, lack of parking for the then proposed 11 units. and the size of the proposal being too large, a point that was voiced more than once. A butterspot 11 units at the time was unacceptable, but did state six to eight units would be more welcome as they were also concerned with density, congestion, and maintenance of the property. Following the abutters meeting at the corner as stated changes were made reducing the number of units. Next the proposal was presented to the Wendover Street Civic Association where they voted in support of the proposal. To date, our office has received one letter of opposition and a 35 signature petition in opposition to the proposal sent to the board. Thank you for your time and the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services would like to defer to the board for their judgment.

Hello Madam Chairman, Mr. Boyd-Zamory, Mr. Cossack, and Sarah's office. I also would like to go on record to support this proposal. Thank you.

Madam Chair, there are no additional comments.

Okay, with that, may I have a motion? Madam Chair, I'd like to put forward a motion of approval with a proviso that the project undergoes BPD design review, paying special attention to the parking spaces at the rear and to allow for additional open space. And that the applicant also undergoes a housing agreement with the Mayor's Office of Housing. Is there a second?

Second. Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Whewell? Yes. Mr. Langham? Yes. Ms. Barraza? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Chair votes yes, motion carries. Great, thank you everyone, thank you.

Next we have case BOA. 1763939 with the address of 722 to 730 Shawman Avenue. If the applicant and or their representative are present, will they please respond?

Mr. Ambassador, if you could upgrade William Lee, who is our architect, to a panelist, that would be helpful. He's already... All right, thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board, attorney Derek Small. I'm a business adjuster at 51 Dobson Road. And with me today as part of our team is William Lee, who is the architect. Armando Gonzalez, who is the project consultant. and Imam Farouk of the Islamic Society of Boston. We're here today seeking relief. For our project, our mixed-use project at 722-730 Chabot Avenue. And the relief we're seeking is to demo the existing property, combine lots, and erect a six-story mixed-use building with 38 residential units, a community center, retail space, offices, classrooms, place of worship, A restaurant with takeout, food pantry, and roof deck. Our zoning sub-district here is a MFR. Our lot size is approximately 10,600 square feet. and we have a couple of zoning violations that we are seeking relief for today. One of which is FAR. The required FAR here at this site is one and we are proposing four. Building Height. The maximum number of stories are required as four and we are proposing six. The building height and feet requirement is 45 feet and we are proposing 69. Side Yard Setback Violation as a requirement is this 10. We have approximately four. And so the units themselves are, we are proposing nine one bedroom units, 14 two bedroom units, Three, two, three bedroom units and 13 studios. Madam Chair, in conjunction with the Mayor's Office of Housing, this project is 100% affordable. And at this time, I'll turn it over to William Lee and he can go over the specifics of the plans.

Thank you, Derek. Thank you, members of the board. Yeah, there we go. So this is a rendering from the intersection of Williams and Shawma Ave as you would approach the project. As a mixed-use project, we've tried to express that on the exterior design, so the ground floor you see there is composed of Public retail, restaurant, cafe, and cultural spaces all blending together to activate the street front. The upper two floors you see with the double height windows is a mix of prayer, worship, community, and education spaces, along with some administrative offices for The organization and then the remaining the remaining upper floors of the building as well as the right and further down Chomet is all dedicated to residential units. If you scroll down, we can get to, I think, several pages. You can get to the site plan. That'll keep going. Two more, maybe. There you go. That's the one. So site access is led from Shawmut Ave, so bottom of the screen there. There are four parking spaces on site for the use of Maintenance personnel and administrators of the organization. The remaining portion of the oddly shaped site is dedicated to landscaping and the ground form of the building. We've followed Boston Complete Streets in redesigning the streetscape along Shawmut and Williams Ave, along with the curb extension as requested by the BPDA. Next slide should show... You can skip these. These are just some quick sections through the sidewalk. The basement level is dedicated primarily to food pantry storage.

The organization does a lot of community outreach, so they've got a lot of square footage in the building dedicated to that.

There's also maintenance spaces and bike room

Next slide will show the ground floor, which is again composed primarily of restaurant, cafe, and public event spaces. The small portion to the right has a separate stair and elevator for the residential portion of the building.

and then the next slide will show as you go up the building the left and right half are dedicated to two separate uses the left being the community and

Organization Spaces.

The right portion of the building is all residential units.

The next floor is very similar in programmatic layout.

Go to the next slide.

And then if you scroll one more slide, the remaining upper floors of the building are 100% affordable residential units.

That's the long and short of it.

If there are any questions, I'm happy to dig into them. Thank you, Derek.

Are there questions from the board?

Yes, Madam Chair.

Looks like a good project.

There's a small restaurant that's Fairway recently opened there are they the ones that would be coming back into that space or would it be someone else they're coming back into that space on the right On the left-hand side of the project, there is or was a small parking lot. Will that remain or will that be gone?

Wait, go ahead. Wait, am I re-eliminating that or is that staying?

Yeah, the parking lot that's there will be reduced. Portions of it will go towards the footprint of the new building, some landscaping. There will be a stairwell that comes down. So I would say the majority of the parking lot is being consumed by the building, but there will be a few spaces that are preserved.

As you mentioned earlier. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions from the board? May I have public testimony?

Yes, Madam Chair, members of the board, Connor Newman with the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services. At this time, the Mayor's Office like to go on record in support of this project. This went through a very productive community process led by the Boston Planning Department. involving engagement with residents, especially around concerns related to a tree. I think this will provide critical affordable housing to this area as well as providing a place of worship. for many residents of Roxbury. And overall, this has been a very productive process receiving great feedback. With that, we'll support this project.

Thank you. Madam Chair, there are no additional comments.

Okay, that may have a motion. Motion of approval. Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Newell? Yes. Mr. Langham? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza? Yes. Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. Have a good day.

The next case has been deferred, so that takes us to case BOA 1740957 with the address of 20-22 Rosario Street. If the applicant and or their representative are present, would they please explain the case to the board?

Yes, Mr. Secretary, good morning. Madam Chair, members of the board, excuse me, my name is James Christopher of 686 Architects with business address of 10 Forbes Road in Braintree, Mass. The proposal before you today is 20 to 22 Rosario Street in Dorchester. It is currently a two-family Two family house on a 4,500 square foot lot. We are proposing to construct a third story addition, raise the ridge height by about a foot, no change to occupancy, and then to add some additional about 900 square feet, 971 square feet of living space to the third floor. We need relief in the lot areas that's efficient again. We have 4,500 square feet in the 5,000 district. The FAR is excessive at 0.73. This is required to be 0.5. And the front and side yards are pre-existing non-conformances which are not changing with this project. So with that, I'll turn it over to the board and answer any questions. Thank you. Questions from the board?

May I have public testimony? Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Eva Jones, representing the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services. Regarding 20 to 22 Rosaria Street, our office differs of board's judgment on this matter. A community process was was included distributing a community flyer on 9-29-25 in which my office did receive five letters of support regarding the proposal. The Cedar Grove Civic Association also reviewed the proposal on 5-14-25 and voted to also support the proposal. At this time, the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services differs as opposed to judgment on this matter. Thank you, everyone, for your time and consideration.

Hello Madam Chair, members of the Board, I'm Liam Remus from Councilor Fitzgerald's office. I also would like to go on record and support this proposal. Thank you.

Madam Chair, there are no additional comments.

With that, may I have a motion?

Motion to approve.

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

Yes.

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

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Chair votes yes, motion carries. Thank you.

Next, we have two companion cases. The first is case BOA 1685960 with the address of 4 to 4R Sherman Street. Along with that we have case BOA 1701024 with the address of 6 to 6A Sherman Street. If the applicant and or their representative present, would they please explain to the board?

Thank you, members of the board. My name is Angelo Musto, and I'm with my wife, John Lee. We live at 8 Sherman Street in Roslindale, and we're here to propose 4-4 Sherman Street which is a new home and a subdivision proposal for an existing two-family home located at 6-6A Sherwood Street. We have grown up in this neighborhood and are very fond of it. And we have children that live next door as well on 6 Sherman Street. So we're proposing a two-family home at 4-4R Sherman Street. This will be a stick-built home, two and a half story tall, 22 feet wide by 70 feet long. The building style is a colonial, but it is a Gaborland duplex totaling 3,000 square feet. There will be a covered porch on the front and an open rear deck overlooking the backyard. The exterior would be siding material would be of the Heidi Plank composite and the decking and handrail will also be of a composite material. Each unit will have off-street parking for two vehicles very similar Two other homes on the street. I understand the BRA may ask me to change that, which I'd be happy to do for them, but I was trying to keep as much open space in the rear as possible. We have received some letters of support from neighbors as well as neighbors who have come by the home and voiced their support for us. So what I want to talk about here is there are two lots involved in this process. and they are both zoned for two-family construction and are assessed as buildable lots. Combined, they are over 15,000 square feet. The first lot, A2, had six, Sherman Street had 7,400 square feet, but after the subdivision we'll wind up with 8,576 square feet. The reason for the increase is because the rail of No. 6 Sherman Street on the right side encroaches over the boundary as shown in the plot plan. So in order for someone to walk to the rear of the yard, a subdivision was created and additional land was added to this lot. Also, number six, Sherman Street is a very well-built home with plenty of architectural character, both interior and exterior. We have very fond memories of the previous owner who was a wonderful man. We never were fortunate enough to meet his wife, but we felt like we knew her through him. So allowing this house to remain on the street as opposed to tearing it down would mean so much to us. I'm not fond of tear down homes because we erase the memory of the people who lived there. I'm working very diligently to avoid that in this case. Now, Sherman Street is a private road that has only three houses built on it on the left side. The right side of Sherman Street is the backyard of the residents who live on Sycamore Street. So there is plenty of open space because there are only three houses on it. Other than a school drop off and pick up, there's very little congestion on the street. So building a two family home with parking should not create any congestion issues. Now this is the hardship. I know variances require hardships. The hardship is that the existing house at Number 6 Sherman Street encroaches over the boundary of number four Sherman Street and because of this encroachment a subdivision is required as well as several other variances. It is important to remember that I'd be able to build this house, this new home as of right because I have over 15,000 square feet of land, but then I would have to tear down the existing house and build another house on that lot, which would require much more construction on the street and inconvenience. So I chose this method because It was the one with the least amount of work. The end result would be very welcomed residents to this neighborhood and an opportunity for family to live here. So we have some issues here on the street. The concerns discussed at the abutters meeting was during heavy rainstorms, floodings, floods occur behind several of the homes on Hawthorne Street, Heathcote Street, Poplar Street, and Sherman Street and in some cases this water is coming Right through the bulkhead of people's homes and flooding their basements. This is due to all the surrounding homes on this block, which are elevated higher in sloping range towards Hawthorne Street. During heavy rainstorms, When I look out my kitchen window, it looks like Jamaica Pond in my backyard. It's important to remember that the proposed house on number 4 Sherman Street does not have any flooding issues. But I am willing to address the flooding issues that is occurring downhill as part of my application. After that meeting, the abutters meeting, I messaged City Councilor Pepén and told him I would be addressing the flooding issues by installing a flood water drain behind number six, Sherman Street, tied to the Boston Water and Sewer Drain located on Sherman Street and install a street drain as well. This would allow the rail yards to drain during heavy rains and prevent the water from reaching dangerous levels. I have reached out to City Councilor Pepén's office after that abutters meeting and he was very happy to hear that I was willing to connect the flooding prob- to correct the flooding problems for the effective affected residents and he would put me in touch with his staff member Diane Braunschweig who also reached out to the boss of water and sewer and came up with a preliminary plan for a flood water drain. We have 21 houses on our block and all of the backyards pretty much drain towards number 69 Hawthorne Street and 6 Sherman Street. So it's no wonder why our flooding water height is rising. So I would just like to sum it up this way. I know I'm asking for relief and variances to build a two-family at No. 4 Sherman Street. But I am also willing to install much needed drainage infrastructure for the residents of Sherman Street, Hawthorne Street area. We all pay our taxes to live here, but we are not receiving any help from the Boston Water and Sewer in this matter because they say it's a private property issue. Every year the water level, Rises a bit more than the year before so I'm sure it's just a question of time before things get much worse. This is an opportunity to correct a much needed problem and at the same time create new housing that is much needed. I do hope I have explained this in a way that's easy to understand and reasonable to accept. and I'm certainly available for any questions that anyone may have on this matter. Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you, and thank you for addressing. I think that was a main concern that has come up in feedback about the project. Are there any questions on the project?

Can you just confirm how many existing parking spaces are in your front yard?

Yes, we are showing four parking spaces and the reason for that is because We're trying to keep the backyard area as open green space. And we did that hoping that our neighbors at number two Sherman Street would appreciate that. We are not showing a garage back there as they did at number 10 and 12 Heathcote Street. for that very reason. So we're trying to make this project as easy to accept as possible. And that's why we're showing the parking on the front of the property as opposed to the rear.

Yes, I think my, I'm sorry, I'm not sure if you understood my question. Currently, how many parking spaces do you have? Four. In your front yard?

Yes.

Four? Four. Okay. I don't have any further questions. Thank you.

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

Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Vembury. I am the Roslindale Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process, which consisted of a very well attended boarders meeting facilitated on April 23rd, for a vote is voiced opposition and concerns for the proposal. The majority of the vote is voiced opposition to the proposal due to flooding. Flooding was the main theme of the opposition, but other concerns such as side yard setbacks, Not enough providing enough space between properties are concerned for tree removal and loss of green space. Again, a major theme of the opposition was the flooding. Our butters continued to voice their concerns for the flooding, saying the water cannot drain in the yard's front and back flood when raining. Next, a proponent presented to West Village Neighborhood Association where they voted in opposition to the proposal, maintaining the flooding concerns from their butters. To date, our office has received four letters of opposition, one from the civic, one from an abutter, and two letters from city officials, Councilors Henry Santana and Erin Murphy, as well as a 62 signature position of opposition. excuse me, Petition of Opposition, and Settlement of 55 abutter signatures and seven non-abutters from a butter street. Thank you for your time, and the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services would like to defer to the Court for their judgment.

Thank you.

We have another person, Alan Gray. Can you please unmute yourself?

Yes, thank you very much, Board. My name is Alan Wright. I'm a longtime resident of Brosendale. I'm also on the board of the West Village Neighborhood Association and was attendant at the WVNA meeting in which Angelo presented. I just have a question, Angelo. At that neighborhood association meeting, I asked you, I want to ask you about your plans Numerous very mature trees at the back of the property which I had noted had been marked with some white markers and I wanted to know what you intended to do with them. I don't remember you giving a clear answer, including as to why they were marked, though you did comment that Thank you. Is there a position that you're also taking? Well, I'm asking him a question. What is his plan for those troops? Okay, thank you.

Any other raised hands?

No, Madam Chair, there are no additional comments. Thank you. There's one more. I'm sorry. There's one more question. Then?

Please state a position. That would be helpful.

Yes, my position is in opposition to this bill. My name, Madam Chair, is Deborah Allen. I live at 2 Sherman Street. With me on this meeting is Andrew Saburoff, my partner. and Carol Gracia, our neighbor at 2 Sherman Street. We are vehemently opposed to this. Our home sits Next to where this proposed build would take place we're concerned for our foundation of our home given the volume of water that sits below because we're because of all the issues we've had with flooding on this location. We are concerned about our foundation, we're concerned about flooding in general, We are also, I'll admit it, very concerned about privacy. This home would literally be sitting on our home, and that's very unpleasant and uncomfortable. And lastly, I'd like to bring up insurance. When does it become that the insurance companies deem us uninsurable here because we continue to flood? Mr. Musto has recommended some remediation efforts in tying into the city. As a private way, that would mean I would need to incur the cost of that unless he says he'll pay for all of it. But we do not have the infrastructure on Sherman Street For any of this type of remediation to be effective. Secondly, on Hawthorne Street, they've been told by the Boston Water Group there is no Thank you. Thank you. We have several other raised hands.

If you could add some information to your position.

Next, we have Nora Basun.

Good morning, good morning Madam Chair and the Board. Good morning, my name is Nora Bastin and I have been a homeowner at 73 Hawthorne Street since 1999. I am here today to respectfully voice my opposition to propose two-family home at 406 Sherman Street. One of my biggest concerns is the severe flooding that already affects the backyards and basements of several homes in our area, including mine. Over the years, the problem has gotten significantly worse. After major rainfalls, my yard and others become completely saturated with water and routinely collects and floods into our basements. In fact, I had to strip my entire basement down to the studs after it flooded and I still have not been able to fix it due to me getting water in my basement even after having a French drain put in my foundation over 15 years ago. Approving this two-family home would make matters worse and another large structure along with more pavement, drainage redirection, and foundation displacement will increase runoff and leave existing homes like mine even more vulnerable. It isn't just a matter of inconvenience, it's about protecting the integrity of our homes and preventing further property damage. We have invested decades into maintaining our homes and community. We're simply asking that new projects not come at the expense of those who have already been living and managing worsened flooding conditions. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, next we have Shirley Ransom. Shirley, if you can go on.

You did great.

Hi. Yes. Hi. I'm a little confused by the list of letters that you got. It sounds like you may not have gotten our letter, which we sent in on Friday afternoon, both from the Sherwin Street Conservancy and also from myself and Amelia Bai. Just sounded like not as many letters as I was expecting to hear of opposition. I don't know if you can check to make sure you have it on record or if I...

In the meantime, can you please state your position?

Yes, I am opposed to the build. I'm very concerned about I appreciate that the Mustos have looked into doing remediation. I would like to know that those plans are realistic. Saying that they're going to do it is different than it being a realistic plan. as mentioned by Deb or maybe it was whoever was mentioned that that the Greenwich on Hawthorne is not adequate. I'd like to know that whatever their plan is is realistic. I've been living here since 1998. and I've watched as the flooding has gotten worse and worse. I would like also to point out in one of the videos that Deb Allen and Andy Espera sent in regarding some flooding that happened in June. That was after a day of moderate rain. If you look in that video, there's a white fence there and you can see a high water line that's several feet high. It's not a small amount of water. It's an enormous amount of water. It's sitting over a floodplain. Thank you.

Thank you. Madame Chair, there are two more people.

Please be brief and add the information.

Jackie DeLisi, please. Can you speak?

And make sure to... My name is Jackie DeLisi. I'm a resident at 46 Sycamore on the corner of Sycamore and Hawthorne, about a block away from the proposed Project. I am very much opposed to this project for a number of reasons, and I think my neighbors have stated it well. The biggest concern that I have is around flooding. My house has flooded twice in the 20 years that I've lived here and I consider myself lucky that it's only happened twice and when as Amelia and Shirley just said it when our House has flooded. It's not just a little bit of water. It's like bailing us out with buckets and pumps. So there's a big flooding concern that I have. I am also concerned that this project is too big for the space. and I'm concerned about how that's going to look and whether it will fit with the neighborhood and the peaceful and calm feeling that we have here most of the time in our neighborhood. And finally, The Mostos came, as was described earlier, they came to two meetings. They presented the project. They took questions. I really appreciated it, but they, I didn't, see them come back with the plans for what will be done as was just described they talked in the second meeting about efforts to mitigate some of the flooding that they would put in place but they don't have those plans and so I would really appreciate More, if this is a project that they really want to push through, I'd appreciate more communication and more concern for the neighbors' concerns. Thank you. Last raise hand.

Okay, the last person is Deborah. Please. You can mute yourself.

Hi, my name is Deborah Donaldson and I reside at 69 Hawthorne Street. Our main concern, biggest concern, is the severe flooding. We've lived here for 52 years and the flooding is just getting worse. It's not just the rainwater or the water coming in from our basement door, it's also coming up from our sump hole. We have an automatic pump in the sump. Thank you.

Thank you. I think we understand the flooding issue. Is there, you know, I'm going to let the last person speak and if it's about flooding, just state that and your opposition will support.

Okay. Marco? Marco Marsinki.

Actually, it's Lubomir Haida. It's the same residence, the same building that 1828. Am I on? Yes. Are you in support or opposition? Please feel free. I'm the co-owner of the property on 1820 East Coast Street. Lived there as owner since 1973, so it's over half a century. This area in my backyard is about the lowest, I think, area among all the barras to the property. I have put in a great deal of effort and money into fixing problems connected with The flooding, which of course is partly due to nature because of the low-lying ground, but also it is exacerbated every time that there is a rain. I would also add to what other people have said about the flooding problem and the expense and the inconvenience. that we have chosen. This is a play area and whenever there is flooding, as I say, exacerbated by building and construction. The children are deprived and are in danger because of the pond-like area that is created for weeks. on our property. So I am in opposition to this proposal. Thank you. Madam Chair, may I reply?

Yes, this would be your opportunity briefly

I won't take long. I would like to reply to my neighbor, Deb Allen. I am willing to incur the cost of this job. So this flood water drain that's being installed behind 6 Sherman Street that's going to reduce the water level for all of these people who live around this area don't have to worry about the cost of it. I'm willing to accept that cost and I would link it to this permit and as far as Sherman Street itself, it's important to remember we get all the water from Augustus Avenue that comes down Sherman Street because of the speed of the water that hits Parkway. I would be installing a manhole in Sherman Street for drainage just for the Sherman Street water. So I'm installing two systems here, one on Sherman Street, and then one behind number six Sherman Street. And the pipe, I've been told by John Sullivan at the Boston Water and Soil that there's an existing pipe on Sherman Street. It's just for rainwater. It's not for sewage or anything else. that we would be able to tie into that pipe on Sherman Street through Diane Arnshaw. So once again, I feel bad for my neighbors in this water issue, but this has been going on for probably 100 years since this neighborhood was designed. Yet nobody has stepped up and corrected it. So I'm here. and I'm asking for support for my project and in return I'm willing to address this issue not just me it has you know plans have to be designed and submitted But I'll do everything within my power to correct this water problem so all these neighbors can relax in the future when we do have rainstorms. Thank you. Any other questions from the board?

No, but I'm Deb Allen. I'd like to speak as well. I'm sorry. This is the time for the board. Any questions from the board?

Hearing none, is there a motion? Yes, Madam Chair, I'd like to put a motion forward So I guess they're kind of a companion case, so I'd like to put forward the motion first for 668 Sherman Street to approve the property line division so that's going to be a motion for for that and then for the uh for Sherman Street um Two and a half story, two unit townhouse proposal. I'd like to put forward a motion with two provisos, a motion of approval with two provisos. One being that the project undergoes BPDA-designed site planning review to specify specifically permeable surfaces for the parking aisle and parking on 6 Sherman and to remove the other front yard parking on 6 Sherman. So that is to address some of the potential Blockage of water penetration into the soil. The other proviso is that the applicant needs to submit civil engineering drawings to propose a stormwater management system on our property that would not exaggerate the water conditions locally on the site and then this is then a recommendation that the applicant and the civil engineer work with Boston Water Sewer to try to bring forth the concerns of the block but that that should not necessarily address that should not necessarily kind of blocked the applicant's fourth project in regards to building The two and a half store, two unit townhouses on the property.

Okay, that was lengthy. Is there a second?

Yeah, I mean, so I can summarize it, right? So the BPDH is on ravine site planning. We got it. Okay, got it. Great.

Is there a second?

Second.

Okay, Mr. Stembridge. Yes. Mr. Valencia. Yes. Ms. Whewell.

Yes. Mr. Langham?

Yes. Ms. Pettibraza? Yes. Ms. Turner? No. The Chair votes yes, the motion carries.

Thank you. Thank you so much.

Next, we have case VOA 173-2976 with the address of 1082 Commonwealth Avenue.

If the applicant and or the representative were present, would they please explain the case to the board? Yes, thank you, Mr. Stembridge. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Justin Burns. I'm an attorney with Bulginia & Norton, business address 10 Forbes Road, Braindream, Massachusetts. I'm here on behalf of the proponent for 1082 Commonwealth Ave. This is a fairly simple project, so the description will be brief. The 1082 Commonwealth Ave is currently a mixed-use building with 40 residential units. and one garden level commercial unit which is currently vacant. We are proposing to convert that underused commercial unit into a new rental unit to make the building a fully residential building. The new unit would be a two-bedroom, one-bathroom unit and have approximately 634 square feet of living space. The unit in its current commercial form has an entrance up on the corner of Commonwealth and Naples. With stairs leading down to its doors, this entranceway, the store would be replaced with a window and that would be the extent of the external work to be done for this project. All other work would be strictly internal. and the unit will be accessed as all the other garden level residential units are through the communal residential entrance. And that's about it. Very simple project. The developer feels it would be beneficial to take this commercial unit, which is a bit out of place given its location in the building and the use of the building around it. and it's been turned over multiple times in the past few years and we feel that turning it into a residential opportunity would be a greater use for the surrounding community. With that, I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Any questions from the board?

Madam Chair, I have a question for Mr. Hampton if he's on. Are you on, Mr. Hampton? Thank you. My question's mainly around the recommendation. I see that the planning department has recommended a design review, and I'm just questioning whether the scope of work Rises to that level, since I think the applicant just said it's only really a window that would impact the external changes.

Yeah, window, and I believe they were moving just the stairwell down to the entranceway, so yeah, that's the extent of it.

I'm just going to ask that we hide. I see you're on. Can you respond to Ms. Regal-Cole's question?

Or just something for my colleagues to consider as the hearing progresses. Thank you and we can continue and hopefully he'll circle back.

Any other questions from the board? Chair and Don, let's have public testimony.

Good morning Madam Chair and Board Members. Siggy Johnson with the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services. This applicant completed ONS's community process. Our office hosted an abutters meeting on July 28th of this year at which no concerns were raised. The applicant met with the Alston Civic Association which has submitted a letter in support of this application. With that background, our office defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Madam Chair, there are no additional comments.

Okay, with that, may I have a motion?

Motion is approved with Planning Department design review.

Is there a second?

Second.

Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Whewell?

Yes.

Mr. Langham? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Chair votes yes, motion carries. Thank you very much.

Next we have case VOA. 176-6156 with the address of 69 Kilmonock, Kilmonock Street. This is an Article 80 case. is the applicant and or the representative of president. Will you please explain to the board?

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. For the record, my name is Kevin Goggin, Poulston & Storrs, with an office located at 1 Post Office Square. I'm appearing today on behalf of the applicant 69 Kilmarnock Street Properties LLC. The applicant is an affiliate of Samuels and Associates. This project also involves a component for Boston Children's Hospital. We've got members of both teams as well as the group that worked on this to answer any questions at the end once I've had an opportunity to go through our slide. Just for wider context, this project includes two components. Component one provides 45 patient family housing units for Boston Children's Hospital and component two provides approximately 44 multi-family units including eight on-site affordable units. For site context as you can see here 69 Kilmarnock Street is located in the Fenway neighborhood proximate to the Boston Children's Hospital campus.

Next slide.

The existing conditions.

Here you see there is a vacant single-story building previously used for retail and as a temporary construction office with service parking located to the rear. Next slide, please. As noted at the beginning, this project was recently approved by the BPDA. It was a notice of project change that was approved by the board on February 13th, 2005. Thank you very much. As I noted, this is a notice of project change. There was a previously approved program that contemplated eight-story, 77-unit residential building with only three affordable units. As I mentioned earlier, this is a two component project that has institutional patient family housing, These units allow parents and families of children undergoing care at Boston Children's Hospital the comfort of staying in housing near the hospital during obviously a very difficult time in these folks' lives. Component 2, as we said, 44 units residential, including the eight on-site affordable, which is an increase from the previously approved program. This project incorporates passive house design in an all-electric building system, and the zoning relief requested here is actually less than what was less or similar to zoning relief previously granted for the prior program. Next slide, please. Here you see the site plan. This is a corner lot located at the corner of Kilmarnock Street and Queensberry Street. That's a reason for some of the zoning relief that we had to request for this project. As you can see, the two components, component one, component two, component two is on the left, component one is on the right. You can see the red line that divides those. You can also see on the plan east along Kilmarnock Street, There's an improvement for the MBTA bus stop that's there as well. You see the little bump out that promotes accessibility to that bus stop. Next slide, please. Here we just show some typical floor plans. On the left-hand side, you'll see typical floor plans for the first through sixth floor. The left-hand side, you see component two, right-hand side component one. and then on the right hand side where you see the seventh and eighth floor, you just see for component two there, this is the only one that has the seventh and eighth floor. Next slide please. Here's a rendering. This is the street view from the corner of Kilmarnock and Queensberry Street. As you can see here, the project is consistent with the scale of the neighboring buildings, and the design is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Next slide please. And then just to touch on some of the project's benefits, the streetscape improvements include new street trees, new sidewalks with enhanced accessibility, landscaping and bike racks, Transportation, there will be no on-site parking provided here, the enhancements to the MBTA bus travel 55 that we discussed, and then $75,000 blue bike contribution. With housing and social, as noted, there's the eight on-site affordable units. This will also provide additional housing stock to Boston's undersupplied market and permanent temporary jobs creation. On the sustainability and resiliency side, passive house design, all electric, and smart utilities compliance. At this point, we're happy to take any questions that the board may have about the project.

Questions from the board? May I have public testimony?

Yes, Madam Chair, members of the board. Connor Newman with the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services. At this time, the Mayor's Office has adjourned to the judgment of this board. Some background information on the community process. This went through a Boston planning, but community process involving public meetings and engagement with the community. They received support from the Fenway Civic Association which commended this proposal adding affordable units to the neighborhood as well as providing an opportunity affording families of children Receiving Care, Boston Children's Hospital, a place for respite. They also noted the changes where they shrunk the FAR and the height. while also increasing the affordability that was being pursued. We're unaware of any concerns presently. With that, we'll reiterate what we're deferring to the board. Thank you.

Okay, next, we have Sam Courage, please.

Hi everyone, Samantha Courage from Councilor Sharon Durkan's office. The councilor is in support of this proposal. She's really excited about the housing aspect and is looking forward to this project. Thanks so much.

Thank you, next we have Christian Simonelli.

Good morning Madam Chair, members of the board, Christian Simonelli, Boston Groundwater Trust, and we have both G-card letters from the applicant.

Thank you. And we have Evonita Rosa.

Hello, my name is Ebony DeRosa. I'm a Senior Project Manager in the Development Review Division in the Planning Department. This project before you was approved by the BPA Board on February 13th, 2025. The project underwent an appropriate Article 80 review for its size of impact, which included extensive collaboration with the Planning Department, Councilor's Office, and the community. Thank you.

We don't have additional comments, Madam Chair.

With that, is there a motion?

Madam Chair, I make a motion of approval.

Is there a second?

Second.

Mr. Stembridge? Yeah. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Wewell?

Yes.

Mr. Langham? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board.

Have a good day. Thank you.

By the time we reach 11 o'clock, I will ask at this point if there are any requests for withdrawals or deferrals from the 11 o'clock time frame. Hearing done, then we'll move on to case BOA 176-2993 with the address of 17 Bradbury Street.

If the applicant and or their representative are present, will they please explain the case to the board? Thank you, Mr. Stembridge. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board, Attorney Jeff Drago with Drago and Toscano. with the business address of 11 Beacon Street here on behalf of the applicant, Dan Ustiff. And we also have Eric Zacherson from Context, who's the architect. What you're looking at in this first slide is a rendering of the proposed project. It is to erect a new three-story, three-unit residential building. with three exterior parking spaces and that will be accessed through an existing driveway curb cut That'll serve as a shared driveway with 15 Bradbury. My client owns that abutting building at 15 Bradbury, and we are creating three spaces in the rear. For 17, and then we have a garage in the back of 15 that will house two additional spaces. If we can go to the next slide, please. On the left, it's a little hard to see, but there we go. Thank you, Mr. Ambassador. That's just an aerial view of the housing stock. This particular area is a 3F. 4,000 square foot area, which is exactly why we felt that a three unit building would create housing, but also fit the context of this mixed use area. You can see the building directly to the left of us is an existing three unit building at 19 Bradbury. and then across the street you can see the mix of housing of three units and condo buildings across the street. We can go to the next slide, please. The existing conditions, it's a complete asphalt open space lot right now. It's been like that for years. My client acquired it and felt that creating residential housing was the best fit, but also something that fit within the context of the existing buildings. And in the recommendation of approval from the BPDA, they actually state the planner that This particular project furthers the goals for the Alston-Brighton needs assessment to create housing and underutilized lots but housing that actually fits the context of the neighborhood, which we feel this does. If we go to the next slide, please. Now we just get into the plans and you can go to the next slide, Mr. Ambassador. These are all proposed three bedroom units, 1,300. and 20 Square Foot. As I mentioned, they would have off of that driveway. If we could stay in the slide for a moment, you can see there's the driveway is 10 foot 2 inches. And when we go into the back, we actually wanted to accommodate the neighborhood for some parking, but also wanted to create green space where this lot has none right now. So in the front we're putting that whole green area that the rendering showed. We're actually going to be planting two trees in front and a new tree in back. We also have a whole section in the back. There's going to be a paved area. for a paver patio for the first floor, then all of the other area on the back will have running space as well. We tried to accommodate open space that's usable, but also to accommodate parking to take cars off the street. You can go through the plans too. The layout of the building is very consistent with neighboring parcels. So the violations that were mentioned, one, off-street parking, so 1.75 would be required, but we're actually creating three and one for one we felt was fair. We're also creating that green space. We also got cited for lot width in frontage, but this is completely typical of the two lots next to us. So we're lining up very similarly with some green space. Andy Front. And then our FAR, what's allowed is 0.8. We're at 1.1, which is slightly over. And it was actually mentioned in the VPDA context that Most of the lots in this area do not conform with FAR, and the ones right next to the three families are 1.28, so we're actually smaller. and many of the other buildings on the streets. We really tried to conform with the zoning as best as we could We also we do not have a roof deck on the building, but we did put rare decks for just some additional space for the second and third floor neighbors. With that, and just want to mention, we started out, we had asked, the neighbors had asked if we were going to do rent or condo, and we switched to a condo development based on the feedback. that we have heard. With that, I can pause to answer any questions that the board. Thank you.

Any questions from the board? Hearing none, I'll take public testimony.

Good morning Madam Chair and Board Members. Siggy Johnson with the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services. This petitioner has completed the ONS community process. Our office hosted an abutters meeting on July 30th of this year at which direct abutters raised concerns about rodent issues on the parcel, a deed restriction affecting what could be built on the parcel, concerns regarding density, and concerns about usable open space. The proposal was presented to the Alston Civic Association, which has submitted a letter of support to the board. Our office has also received one letter of opposition that has been forwarded to the board. With that background, we defer judgment to the board. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have Anthony Dizzodoro.

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. Tony Dizzodoro representing the Austin Civic Association. We would like to go on record in support. I want to reiterate Attorney Drago's comment about the neighborhood and many more. Thank you. Thank you. We strongly encourage the proponent to pursue that avenue and to construct free homeownership opportunities.

Thank you.

Thank you. Next we have Moira Cree.

Hello, this is Norma Frey from the Councilor Bates office. Councilor Bates would like to support this project with the understanding that this will be a condominium project and that the product will be used for pavers in the driveway. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Chair, there are no additional comments.

Do I have a motion?

Before a motion of approval with the provisos that plans are submitted to planning for design review to ensure the new building facade aligns with the current buildings on Bradbury Street and ensure that parking meets maneuverability requirements. Is there a second?

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

Yes.

Mr. Langham? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Motion carries. Thank you very much.

Next, we'll move on to the hearing schedule for 11 a.m. Again, we'll ask if there are any requestful withdrawals or deferrals from this doctrine. and with that we'll move on to case BOA 1730672 with the address of 2 Century Hill Place.

If the applicants and or their representative are present, will they please explain the case to the board? Good morning Madam Chair, members of the board. I'm Nick Landry from DRT. We're the architects for the project and I believe that Andrew Brunner is also on the call. I'm not sure if he's been elevated to a panelist. So, uh, yes. We're here. Oh, great. Thank you. So we're here today to present a project at Andy's home on Beacon Hill at Two Century Hill Place. We're looking to increase the living space on the third floor by adding a dormer at the rear and then also a head house and a roof deck. We can go to the next slide, please. So this renovation has triggered two violations, FAR violation and rooftop restriction for the roof deck and the head house. We're currently at an FAR of 2.8. and with this renovation will be an FAR of 3.0. We're adding about 177 square feet in total. It's about 62 square feet on the floor. with that rear dormer addition and 115 square feet at the head house on the roof deck. The reason for the renovation, the runners have been at this home for six years. They currently have three children and they intend to stay here. And this additional space is helping their family grow in place. If we go to the next slide, please. So, Century Hill Place is kind of a walking street off of Revere. You can see on the left is We're the third house in, where it says sidewalk on the right-hand side, that's Revere Street, so we're the third building down on No. 2 Century Hill there, and you can see on the right-hand side the proposed plan shows... The new roof deck in that small, sorry, the new roof deck in the small head house there. Go to the next slide please. So this is a view looking down from Revere Street on the left-hand side. You can see that red outline is our building. You won't be able to see this roof deck or the head house or the rear dormer from the street or from any public street. The view on the right hand side is from Phillips Street and you're looking up the hill and we're kind of behind the brick building on the right hand side. Because of that, We didn't need to go through Beacon Hill Historic because you can't see it from a public street. We did have an abutters meeting and a civic meeting, both of which went very well. If we can go to the next slide. There was one comment that came back from one of the rear neighbors on the abutters meeting. We originally had kind of a We've added this glass to it because they were hoping to kind of make the whole structure feel a little bit more light. So that's why... You might see this skylight in this view. It wasn't in the original design that was submitted for permanent. Everything else is the same. The size of the head house is the same. You can see that head house is kind of toward the back and then there's a deck that surrounds it. The dormers are on the top of the page on the rear as well. Next slide, please. So today it's a three-story house without a roof deck, and we're proposing to add that head house toward the rear. which is about 115 square feet give or take and then a dormer on the rear of the property as well to add some more square feet to the living area to the third floor. Can we go to the next slide please? This is just a view of, so this is a view looking head on. If you're standing in the alley, it's not a view that you can ever, that I think you can see, you know, just because of the elevation, you can see that, the roof deck and the head house. But once you're, if you're actually standing at ground level looking up, you won't be able to see the head house or the roof deck. They're set back far enough that you won't be able to see them. This is a view from the rear. So again, we had added more of that glass at the roof to try to lighten the feel of the head house for the neighbor at the rear. Go to the next slide, please. So you can see we have, we're the house in the middle there with the head house and the roof deck. There's already an existing roof deck to our right and several other roof decks in the area and it's very common up on the hill. And we're proposing all materials will be matching what's there today. So we'll be matching existing full-face brick and slate roofs. And I think that's the end of the presentation. If there's any questions on that, please circle back.

Thank you. Questions from the board? Hearing none, May I have public testimony?

Madam Chair and Board Members, Siggy Johnson with the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services. This applicant has completed the ONS community process. Our office hosted an abutters meeting on July 8th at which no concerns were raised. The Beacon Hill Civic Association is in non-opposition to this application. With that background, our office defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Samantha. Sim.

Good morning Madam Chair, members of the board, Samantha with Councilor Durkan's office, the councillors in support of this proposal. She's been in contact with the letters to this project and with BHCA's comments in mind, she would like to go in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Chair, there are no additional comments. Okay, with that, is there a motion?

Madam Chair, I'd like to- Go ahead, go ahead.

No, no, go ahead, go ahead.

I'd like to refer a motion of approval with a proviso that the project receives Beacon Hill Architecture Commission design review approval. Is there a second?

Second.

Mr. Stembridge.

Yes.

Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Whewell? Yes. Mr. Langham? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck.

Thank you very much.

Next we have case BOA. 176-9201 with the address of 19 to 21 West 3rd Street.

This is also an Article 80 case.

If the applicant and or their representative are present, would they please explain the case to the board?

Yes, thank you, Mr. Stembridge. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is George Maranci. I'm an attorney at the business address of 350 West Broadway in South Boston. I represent Cedarwood Development and its principals, David Winnick and Dave Matteo. Also here today is the project architect, Shane Losey. The project site is approximately 7,752 square feet in size, located at 19-21 West 3rd Street in South Boston. The site is currently the location of a two-story Commercial Office Building with surface parking and is bounded by West 3rd Street to the North, A Street to the East, Athens Street to the South. The proposed project is located approximately 500 feet from Broadway Station on the MBTA's Red Line as well as the number 9 and number 11 bus lines on West Broadway. The proposed project consists of a new six-story mixed-use building to contain 35 residential condominium units for sale, including 17% income restricted units pursuant to Article 79, Inclusionary Zoning Requirements. There will also be a ground floor commercial unit of approximately 821 square feet. Also, the ground level will host a garage parking for up to 10 vehicles as well as long-term secure storage for 35 bicycles and eight short-term covered and secure visitor bike parking spaces within, not covered, but bike parking spaces within the public right-of-way. Shane Losey is the architect. He'll walk the board through the architectural drawings in a moment. I will speak to the zoning and the requested zoning relief. The site is located in the South Boston Neighborhood Zoning District within an MFRLS Multifamily Residential Local Service Zoning Subdistrict under Article 68. There is a violation for insufficient lot size for the additional units over the maximum one supported by a minimum 5,000 square foot lot. Under current zoning, 35 units would require an unbelievably large 39,000 square foot lot. This does not reflect present density in this area of South Boston while the proposed building is contextually appropriate in this mid to high density neighborhood. Relief is required for the side and rear yard setbacks. Opposed building would run side lot line to side lot line. which is typical for this area. With respect to the rear yard setback violation, it should be noted that this is a block through lot and the rear lot line is actually a front lot line on Athens Street. where the modal alignment is being met. There's a violation for excessive floor area ratio. Allowed FAR in this area is a meager 1.5 while the proposed FAR which Again, as contextually appropriate, is 4.6 ace. There are violations for insufficient parking and loading, as well as for the design of the 10 proposed off-street parking spaces. At least 42 spaces will be required here by zoning. This site is an approximately five-minute walk from the Broadway Red Line station as well as the many retail and commercial offerings of West Broadway. This location has a walk score of 94, a transit score of 88, and a bike score of 72. In terms of parking design, all of the spaces are 18 feet in length rather than 20. One space is 8 feet wide rather than 8.5 feet wide, but five of them are over 10 feet wide. While the zoning code still contains the requirement, a dedicated loading bay is typically not required by the City for a building of this size. I'm sorry, I didn't. The proposed project seeks zoning relief for exceeding maximum building height, which is only 35 feet in the relevant MFRLS sub-district. This proposed six-story height is truly appropriate in this area where many other buildings in the same zoning sub-district range from five or six stories with a couple being over ten stories. Finally, before I turn it over to Shane Losey, a bit more detail on inclusionary zoning. As I mentioned, this is a condominium unit project. The project will provide six IZ units for approximately 17.14% of the total number of units. and 17.33% of the residential square footage. The three IZ units will be made available for households with incomes greater than 80% But not more than 100% AMI. If there are no questions on the zoning, I would propose to turn it over to Shane Locey to quickly take the board through the architectural drawings.

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board, I'm Shane Locey, with 1507 Architects, and representing Cedarwood Development, or the Cedarwood Group. So here we have the existing site plan. You kind of see the two-story building that George discussed to the right of the lot. It takes up a small percentage of the lot now. The rest is all asphalt. all the way from the West 3rd Street back to Athens Street. You can see the court shop, the shaped lot, Athens Street is on the narrow end on the summit side of this page. Next slide, please. and so here we have the proposed building on the same lot as you can see the ground floor takes up the majority of the lot at the rear we do step back 15 feet, I believe, at the second floor and up to get a little space in the back, which is a similar situation as the building in front of us on the corner of A and Athens. Next slide, please. This is just rendering of the exit front. We'll get back to that in a minute. Next slide. So here, just location-wise, you can see the site in the orange horchop shape. West 3rd is to the northeast, Athens, to the southwest, A Street is running. I'm going to go diagonally to the southeast on this. You can kind of see the angle of the site where Wes started. West 2nd kind of come together at that point that you can see at the top of the page. Also the T logo represents Broadway Station and you can see the proximity to the site as well. West Bromway ones at that bottom angle from the T logo to the bottom of the page. Next slide, please. Just some more context from aerial views. You can kind of see the buildings around the site. There's newer buildings. Right across the street from West 3rd, you see that six-story building that was recently completed. There's another one at Zero Athens to the right of our site in this picture. And then 50 Broadway Project. There's a building being built at the corner of A and West 3rd to the left of our site in this slide. It's another five stories. Scroll down, please. Again, just some more context, some more just different views. You see the Gillette project across to the left of our site here. Keep going. Here we have the existing street context for our street posts. So we have on the top left, The existing front elevation along West 3rd where we see the existing two-story building, the brick building with the white stripe through the middle of it, that's the existing building on the parcel. To the right behind the fence is the existing parking lot that runs back to Athens. On the top right, we just have the same view from the corner of West 3rd and A Street. Looking back, there's a three-family style building next to us. And then right now, they're being constructed a five-story building to the left of that white building that's here now. And then on the bottom, sorry. You can see that, again, from the other direction, from the corner of West 2nd and West 3rd. Looking back at the site, you can see the white stripe on our building to the middle of the picture. Next slide, please. Here we have the elevation on Athens, the existing sort of narrow piece that runs back to Athens. The building to our right sits four stories. The street front and then there's a step back this is where you can kind of see at the angle here and then again just some more context top right is down happens further looking back towards A street and we see that This story of that building next to us, and you can kind of see the six-story building in the background that was recently completed across the street on West 3rd. If we scroll down to the bottom of the page, we have the view from just a little bit from A in Athens looking back to the site, which is at the end of that.

The bluish-gray building.

Next slide, please. All right, here, we just have that student in. We have a photo again showing that site line, the large parking lot that's existing on the site. Our building is the one labeled Group 1 Partners, so that's the existing two-story building on the site. Next slide, please. And just highlighting that slide again. Next slide. Here we just have a diagrammatic We're proposing to add street trees along And then you can kind of see how we are throughlocked to Athens on the left of the sheet. The driveway accessing the parking will be off the back of Athens, which is sort of a pseudo alley as it is to the buildings that are there now. So we're filling in all the curb cuts along West 3rd Street to create another space or two of parking there on the street. And then we are also proposing planters at the street level along West 3rd that would be inset into the storefront that we have along that street. Next slide, please. Here we just have some renderings of the proposal. We can come back to this in a minute. Again, just some more. So we see the building in context with the other buildings of six stories. Next slide. This analysis of the building matrices. Next slide. Again, we went over the site plan, so we can move on to the next slide. The lighter spaces are the setbacks at the first floor. So the darker orange is the six-story portion, while the lighter orange is the one-story pieces. Here we have the floor plans on the left. The garage plan at street level with the 10 parking spaces accessed off of Athens Street at the back of the building. At the front along West 3rd Street, we have a small commercial space. We have the building entry space for 35 bike spaces and then access. Trash Room and Utilities on the far left. As we move to the second floor, you see the layout, which is pretty typical for the Next four stories, and the fifth story has changed a little bit, but it's the seven units that take up the majority of the site in this sort of similar layout.

Next slide.

Here we have the upper floor. This is the sixth floor where we have a step back of the bay along Athens Street as that flattens out. And then we have the roof level where we have Some roof space and amenity space for the building. Next slide. Here we have the front elevation. This was working off of some of the angles of West Second, Miss Third, and the adjacent building. So we have this sort of folded brick facade that kind of plays off of some of those pieces. The decks get inset into it so that the form remains. The decks don't come off, but they set into the building to really emphasize that form of the folded angles they were trying to achieve. Next slide. Just some renderings of that. So we see sort of in place, the top right is the corner of a Western, the five-story building Blocked out in the foreground that I discussed earlier on the corner that's being built right now. You see our building beyond with the Woodley III family in between.

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

Madam Chair, members of the Board, call an agreement with the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services. At this time, the Mayor's Office would like to defer to the judge from this Board some background information on the community process. This went through a Boston Planning-led community process. involving various public meetings. This applicant also connected with two civic associations, the West Broadway Neighborhood Association which was supportive of this proposal as well as St. Vincent Lower End which expressed concerns related to parking as well as density concerns. That information will defer to the board. Thank you.

and then we have a City Councilor Phineas.

Hi, thank you Madam Chair, members of the board. This is Sydney Scanlon from Councilor Flynn's office. Councilor Flynn would like to go on record and support based on a good community process and work with the neighbors and the West Broadway Neighborhood Association. At the same time, however, Councilor Flynn acknowledges remaining quality of life concerns. He believes it is also critical that the City of Boston begins to genuinely listen to legitimate concerns from neighbors, on similar projects and impacts to South Boston's existing parking crisis by abandoning recent Boston Transportation Department parking guidelines of 0.5 parking spots or lower. and adhering as closely as possible to the actual local zoning laws and regulations. Councilor Flynn respectfully asks the proponent continue working with neighbors on any quality of life issues that arise during the construction phase and thereafter. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. There are no additional comments.

That may have a motion.

Madam Chair, this is a good project. I'm happy to support and make a motion to approve.

Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge? Yeah. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Whewell? Yes. Mr. Langham? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Chair votes yes. Motion carries.

Thank you. Will we move on to the rest of the preliminary hearings? We'll ask at this time if there are any request for withdrawals or deferrals from the 1130.

Yes, 100 Huntington Ave. Let's make poor use. And that request is for case VOA-170-3445 with the address of 100 County Avenue. Would you please? Go ahead and explain, Attorney Drew. Thank you, Ms. Stembridge. Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Board, Attorney Jeff Drago with Drago & Toscano, the business address of 11 Beacon Street. Here on behalf of the applicant, we are seeking a short deferral. We've been working with the The Back Bay Business Improvement Association on a community benefits package for this proposal and we are scheduled to go late this month. to meet with them again and go over some more of the details. So we would ask for a deferral until that is finished. I'm sorry, I didn't hear that.

November 25th.

Yes, that would be perfect.

Thank you.

May I have a motion?

Motion to defer till November 25th.

Is there a second?

Second.

Mr. Stembridge?

Yeah.

Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Whewell?

Yes. Mr. Langham?

Yes. Ms. Better Barraza?

Yes.

Ms. Tarnoff? Yes. Chair votes yes, motion carries.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, we received an email for an 1130 hearing. This is for Hardeman.

Address 26 North Crescent Circuit.

They're putting in a request to withdraw this proposal.

Okay, is there a motion? I don't know if there, do we need a motion? Yes, dismissal of questions.

Okay, let me read in the fall court. This is for KCBOA. 170-3386 with the address of 26 North Preston Circuit.

I will make a motion to withdraw this case.

Is there a second?

Second.

Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Wewell? Yes. Mr. Langham? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza?

Yeah.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Chair votes yes, motion carries. Mr. Lins, you have your hand up.

Yes, thank you. Mr. Stembridge, 87 Ward Street, please.

So this will be for two companion cases. The first being case VOA.

148-2368 with the address of 87 Morris Street along with case BOA 148-2368.

2374, also at the address of 87 Morris Street.

I'll go right ahead and turn it on.

Thank you, Mr. Stembridge.

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. For the record, Richard Lins, business address at 245 Summer Street, East Boston, on behalf of the petitioner, requesting a deferral while we complete the GCard requirements for a conditional use permit. So I think we should have that ready. Hopefully by November, so our November date would be great.

Stephanie? November 25th.

I'm sorry?

November 25th.

Yes, that's fine.

Okay, may I have a motion?

Motion to defer these cases until November 25th.

May I have a second? Second. Thank you. Mr. Stembridge? Yeah. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Whewell?

Yes. The Langham.

Yes. It's Better Barraza.

Yeah.

Miss Turner. Sorry, Miss Turner? Yes. Chair votes yes, motion carries. Thank you.

If there are no further requests, we'll return to the hearing scheduled for 11 a.m. and go to case BOA 1717961 with the address of 438 Talbot Avenue If the applicant and or their representative are present, would they please explain to the board?

Good morning, everyone. My name is Yasmin, and I'm here representing 438 Talbot Avenue. So our zoning violation was insufficient of rare yard. You can go to the second one. Yes, so we started the work, so the house had a fire damage and we started the renovations with a short, Permit, short form permit, but then the inspector realized that actually we needed a long form because we had to rebuild the whole deck. One of the decks from outside because it was way too damaged by the fire, the structure, and that's what triggered zoning. You can go ahead. Yes, so the required rear yard is 15 feet, and our proposed setback is approximately five feet. and so violation again, we are yarding sufficient due to flush set configuration. So next. Yeah, so here's the plans. But you can go next, because I have pictures. Yeah, so our hardship justification for the deck rebuild was because we didn't realize that That they built out, like there was a bump, and it was way too damaged due to the fire, so we didn't realize that we would have to rebuild everything. And the old bump was part of the house, it wasn't just a deck, but that deck is used for egress. So we had to rebuild the deck to comply with safety and egress codes and now the new configuration doesn't have that bump so the deck is actually attached to the house. You can go next. Yeah, so here you can see a before and after picture. So before there was a bump. Actually, the next slide, a better picture. Yeah, so there we go. So before the fire, we had that little bump and then the deck. But as you can see, the deck was already damaged from previous homeowner, I guess. And then that bump was very damaged inside. So for safety purposes and to meet the code, we decided to just remove everything and rebuild the deck completely. And now that's an egress and that's why It has like an emergency from the top floor because there's a door there and from the bottom floor. So next. Yeah, so the rear deck only slightly increased in footprint due to the flush stair landing. It's not visible from the street level. The house is like in the corner, so you don't really see from the street that back. It's a quiet residential use. There's no commercial activities. So there's a very low impact on the neighbors. So we are requesting the mention of variance from Article 69, Paragraph 9. which allows five feet rear yards and back instead of 15. And it's just because of, you know, it was a unique hardship due to the fire. We figured since the lot It's kind of weird, it's kind of tricky to do like a better design so it was very limited options on the design and we decided to do what looked We also didn't want to cause any impact on the neighbors. It's compliant with the code. All right now and it's way better as it was before. As you could see in the picture, it was everything was rotten. It was, you know, It was basically falling apart and right now actually we are closer to the house than to the lot line. So the rebuild tech improves safety, egress, and even aesthetics. So it does look better. And we didn't have any intention on expanding the use. It was only to restore what was lost and to have the egress due to the doors. and it was a slight setback encroachment is due to the required safety updates and the approval allows a family to safely use the rear yard access again and for dairy grass. Thank you.

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

Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Bembery. I'm the Dorchester Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process, which consisted of a very lightly attended department meeting where no opposition or concerns were raised. Next, the proponent presented the comments for a civic association, which completed the community process and the proponent was approved to move forward. To date, our office has received two letters of opposition to the building of the rare decks. One from my brother with the concerns for privacy as the stairs would be to the side of their apartment. They request that the stairs be rebuilt properly away from their property. 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, there are no additional comments.

That may have a motion. Motion to approve. Is there a second? Second. Sorry, Mr. Sett? Yes. Cambridge? Yes. Okay, thank you. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Whewell?

Yes.

Mr. Langham? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza?

Yeah.

Ms. Turner. Yes. Chair votes yes. Motion carried.

Next we have case BOA 1738631. with the address of 475 Wells Street. If the applicant and or the representative are present, would they please explain to the board?

Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the board. Can you hear me okay? Yes, ma'am. Good, thank you. I'm Anad Beck-Nachtigal from Derek Rubinoff Architects, West Roxbury, and I'm here to present homeowners Beth and Roger Badillo from West Roxbury as well. They own a single family home, detached, and they want to put an addition, and the addition will be part of the second unit. We originally requested an ADU, but it was denied, so we had to come back with a second unit. If you please go down to sheet 2.0, I'll just go over the floor plans. Thank you. So the addition is mostly, it's a rare addition to the story, but the story starts at the basement level and first floor. So it's only two stories, but lower. And the site is sloping toward the back. On the basement level, it was already existing partial finished area. We're taking part of that to the additional units and then adding that addition to the back and to be a living space. And on this first story, if we go to the right side, so actually stay there please, there's a one bedroom. So the added unit is a one bedroom, it is for the in-law unit. If you go to the last sheet, I'll just show the 3D views. So on the right side, it's the existing and the lower images are on the back. and the middle is the demo, to the right is the added unit. So the owners requested that the addition will be flat roofs so they can actually use it for open space. So there are two decks there. So it's also... Lower the entire addition. The back is surrounded by trees, so it's really lovely. It's private, and it doesn't feel intrusive to the back. If we go to sheet... G0.1, I believe. Yes, thank you. So you see that the building is set a bit crooked on the lot. The lot is very small. It's only about 4,400 square foot. But the violations are FAR. It's 0.4 requested. We have 0.38 already existing, so pretty much any added Finished area will set us above the allowed. Of course, it's a forbidden use in a single family district. and we have deficiency of usable open space, deficiency of parking, the rear yard, the existing room is already within the setback issues but then the added addition is There's a setback. And then also the same for Rio Yard. The addition is a little bit protruding over the setback. And that's pretty much conclude. Thank you.

Any questions from the board?

Yes, could you please expand on the reasons why the request for an ADU was denied?

Well, okay, so because we're putting in addition, currently in the West Roxbury zone, we are not allowed to request an additional unit within an addition. Only within existing footprint. Okay. Thank you.

You're welcome. Any other questions? May I have public testimony?

Madam Chair and Board Members, Sadie Johnson with the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services. This petitioner completed the ONS community process and our office would like to defer to the judgment of the board on this application. Our office hosted an abutters meeting on July 30th at which no concerns were raised. The West Roxbury neighborhood council is in support of this application. Our office also received six letters of support that have been forwarded to the board. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, Madame Chair, we don't have additional hands raised at the moment.

With that, may I have a motion? Motion to approve. Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge. Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Whewell?

Yes. Mr. Langham?

Yes. Ms. Better Barraza?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Chair votes yes, motion carries.

Thank you.

Next, we have case VOA 175-0079. with the addresses 2, Bonad, Rowe. If the applicant and or their representative present, will they please explain to them, or

Is anyone here for 2 Bonner Road?

Then we'll move on for now and come back to that.

That's good.

which takes us to case BOA 175-5706 with the address of 106 Sanborn Avenue.

If the applicant and or the representative is present for this case, would they please explain? Good morning. I'm James Risling, architect of Ms. Sud Sanborn and Ms. Sutliff, the owners of 106 Sanborn Avenue. and West Roxbury. They have a growing family and would like to replace the existing half story on their cape with a new second floor and walk-up attic. This is to build over the existing building footprint only. The project was sited with an insufficient side yard on the right hand side of the property. So in this slide you see the one and a half story Cape House, the existing front elevation. The roof and half story would be removed for a full second story and a walk-up attic. And this is the proposed elevations. You can see the front elevation. Again, this occupies only the existing footprint of the existing accounts.

Are there questions from the board? Hearing none, is there public testimony?

Madam Chair and Board Members, Siggy Johnson with the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services. This petitioner completed the ONS community process. Our office oversaw distribution of an informational flyer to all abutters in a 300-foot radius which solicited no comments to our office. The West Roxbury neighborhood council is in support of this application. With that background, our office defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, there are no additional comments.

Okay, is there a motion?

Motion to approve.

Second? Second. Mr. Stembridge? Mr. Stembridge, John. Yes. Thank you. Mr. Valencia. Yes. Ms. Wewell.

Yes. Mr. Reinold.

Yes. Ms. Better Barraza.

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Chair votes yes. Motion carries. Good luck.

Thank you very much.

So now we will return to case BOA 175-0079 with the address of 2 Monad Road. It's the applicant and or their representative present. Would they please explain the case to the board?

I don't see anyone from that case.

Okay, I have a motion to defer.

Make a motion to defer. Stephanie, can you give a...

Sorry, can we get a deal with that, Stephanie? Let's do December 16th. Okay, thank you and thank you. Mr. Stembridge? Yeah. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Whewell? Yes. Mr. Langham? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Chair votes yes, the motion carries. With that, let's take a 15 minute break. Thank you.

Recording in progress.

Present Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Valencia. Present Madam Chair. Ms. Whewell.

Present Madam Chair.

Mr. Allen?

Present, Madam Chair.

Ms. Better Barraza?

Present.

Ms. Turner? Present, Madam Chair. Thank you. The floor is yours, Mr. Stembridge.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Before we go into the discussion cases for 1130, scheduled for 1130 a.m., I'll ask again if there are any requests for withdrawals or deferrals. from this time frame. And with that, we'll begin with case BOA 1729459. with the address of 89 Condor Street. If the applicant and or their representative are present, will they please explain to the board?

Yes, good afternoon again, Mr. Stembridge. Madam Chair, members of the board, for the record, Richard Lintz. For the business address of 245 Summer Street, East Boston, we have the petitioner, Fernando Galfiore. With me is Eric Sackerson, who's also the project architect. Can you jump down to the next slide, please? Madam Chair and members, this project involves the demolition of the existing structure and the construction of a new four-unit four-story residential dwelling. As you can see from the sort of bird's eye view of the context here, this is the Lower Eagle Hill section of East Boston on Conroe Street. You can see in the screenshot here that we have The evolving landscape of housing along this section of Condor Street and that has been reflected in new zoning that's been adopted last year by the Boston Zoning Commission. designating this site as an EBR for zoning district. Go to the next slide, please. The existing conditions are here. We have done an analysis of this property and to determine whether or not there is a historical significance, we find none. This will go through a full Article 85 process regardless. but just to point out to the board that there's no particular historical significance with this structure based upon our research and our review. We expect that the I believe front five process will not result in any type of determiners of significance either. Next slide, please. Just to give you a context here, this is looking down Condor Street, which is a main thoroughfare through the lower end of East Boston. Across the street is some waterfront industrial, but also has been recently rezoned to allow for mixed use with higher density and higher heights. Next slide, please. Looking up the street, this is heading towards Day Square. You can see a mix of some industrial buildings, which have recently been approved for conversion to residential. You can see some newer construction on our side of the street as well. Next slide, please. Just our zoning abstract showing width of our lot is 25 feet, very typical for this area, about eight, seven and a half feet deep. Next slide, please. You can see our site plan and I'll talk more about that in detail. Let me just give the board a quick overview of sort of the history here of where we're at. So this was before the board previously. Under prior zoning, this was only limited to two units, and the dimensional controls that were in place for plot size and other regulations were a bit more strict. This would have required a number of variances under prior zoning. The board, based upon Plenty's Boston ongoing conversations with Plaintiffs Boston denied the application and we waited until the zoning was amended. Based upon the amended zoning we were able to go back and We work to plan a little bit so that we're essentially by right for dimension. The only significant variance that's required is parking. So as you can see here, we do meet our Our rear yard setback as well as our front yard setback. There are existing conditions on the site that are non-conforming with respect to both side yards. In the EDR-4, you're required to have five foot minimum setback. however there is a provision in the amended article 53 that allows for existing non-conformities to remain if we were to preserve a portion of the existing structure We would get the benefit of both vertical and horizontal additions up to the height for the rear setback regardless of whether or not there's non-compliance. We do maintain the two feet on the right. We've had conversations with a neighbor who was okay with that setback, and we've maintained 3.5 on the left, which we understand the neighbor there is. Next slide, please. This is just showing our site plan with our permeable area as well as lot coverage. The minimum permeable area for this district is 30%. We're at 42%. and our lot coverage is below the 60% maximum that is permitted. Next slide, please. I won't bore the board with floor plan layouts. These are all one plus bedrooms or they could be two bedrooms as well, depending upon how the They want to be laid out. They're roughly around 950, 960 square feet each. And we do not propose any habitable space in the basement level. Strictly limited to storage and utilities. Next slide, please. just showing the upper levels as well as the roof deck that would be exclusive to the upper unit four. Next slide, please. So when we start our elevations, we did incorporate some aesthetics that we do find in Eagle Hill with this modified mansard roof. As you can see, we do set the roof deck towards the rear. We show no windows on the right side of the building based upon our setback on the right side. Next slide, please. Showing our left side, we do have sufficient setback from the left side property line, so therefore we can incorporate the windows. And we have eliminated, based upon comments that we did here in the community process, some rear decks off the back of the building. making it a little, create a little bit more privacy buffer between us and the properties behind us. Next slide please. And just a rendering that's prepared by the architect to show the context as we see here this four story under 50 foot building would be compliant with the height and stories limits for the amended article 53. So a couple of things I will point out for the board. So with respect to the relief of parking, There is no parking currently on the site because we are proposing a total of four units. We are required under the code to provide one parking space per unit. I would point out ironically for the board that If we were to reduce this to three units and create two parking spaces at the bottom, those parking spaces would not even be required. Amended Article 53 does not require parking for one to three units. It's only going to get to that fourth unit you have to have a spot. We would point out that the introduction of a curb cut at this section of Condor Street would be somewhat challenging. Condor Street is a very highly traveled street. and the you know the proximity of the buildings the closest to the front property line I think would make some of the hazard backing out of driving out onto the onto the street for this location. So even with two parking spaces and adding a curb cut to the site, we don't see a net benefit. We think a variance is appropriate for the parking, as has been the case on other projects similar to this. We were cited, I will point out, just for purposes of the notice in the refusal letter, we were cited to the Side Yard Step Act. But as I mentioned, Article 5329 has provisions that allow for non-conforming conditions to remain provided we do not exacerbate any of the non-compliance. So in this particular case, as long as we're staying within three and a half feet or two feet on either side, we would be in general compliance with the purpose and intent of that section. Last we were cited for front yard, there is a modal calculation that could be applied. We believe that can be easily addressed as part of any design review that the board may , but the sliding of the building either forward or back should not be an issue from a design standpoint. and we do believe and we understand that the Boston Planning Department has recommended approval for this project based upon its alignment generally with Plan East Boston. I'll pause there and answer the question with the board.

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

Yes, Madam Chair, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Unmute fast enough. Does your neighbor know the Blue House and you have their support, correct?

Yes, the house to the right, Mr. Robinson.

Yes, they're fully in support. Are they aware that going up one more story at two feet would be completely blocking Their view, they're only going to have really minimum kind of distance within that their story window.

Yeah, so they've participated in the community process. My client has done direct outreach throughout the entire process, even from the original proposal. There is some commitments to be made to that neighbor. I believe there's some landscaping and some other improvements to their property that we will incorporate as part of our project. And they were satisfied with those commitments that we made.

Okay, on their first and second story, first and second floor, are there windows along that alleyway that's already kind of being blocked by the existing structure? That's 89 Condor.

I'd have to jump back and take a look. I do know that 89 Condor is on that side, it's within two feet of the boundary. I do see, you can see on the dorm right here, I believe, I'll take a look on the street view, if we could go to the next street view, yeah. It's hard to see. I don't know off the top of my head.

Maybe the architect can just let me know because I do appreciate that you you know in your new proposal there's like no windows because it is literally an alleyway you're not you can't do that you have to have rooms uh I could have all kind of bedrooms that have access to light and air so I just wanted to make sure that The existing conditions, you know, what is your adjacent structure in regards to the first and second story wall, adjacent wall? If the architect can just let me know, that would be great.

Yeah, I know we may have a street view as well that may show a little bit better of this barraza. I'm not sure if we get on two slides, one or two slides. Yeah, this is probably it.

Yeah, is the question, do they have windows on their side of the building? Yes, they do.

Correct, on the first and second floor, correct, on that narrow alleyway.

I don't believe on the dormer, however. I think that's just framed out, but I do not believe it's open on the dormer.

I'm sorry, I didn't hear Eric's answer.

Yes, they do have windows on the first and second floor facing our wall.

So it's not going to be anything unfamiliar to them when you build up? When you try and convert that gable and you basically build all the way up. Okay, great, thanks. I don't have any further questions.

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

Hello Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Eva Jones representing the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services. Regarding 89 Condor Street, our office differs from the board's judgment. The community process was conducted including an abutters meeting held on 5-5-25 which was attended by three community members. The feedback from this meeting was opposition to the proposal and concerns were primarily concerning the uniformity to the neighborhood, the density of the area, retaining wall, and that was shared by direct abutters. The proposal was also reviewed by the Eagle Hill Civic Association at their meeting and they voted to 6 in support and 11 opposed. At this time the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services supports judgment on this matter. Thank you everyone for your time and consideration.

Thank you. Next, we have Steven Marine.

Yes. Hi, everybody. My name is Stefan Marin. I'm from Councilor Coletta Zapata's office, and we just wanted to go on record opposing this project.

Okay, thanks. And next we have the person with engineering. Hello?

Person with engineering, are you here to speak?

For the next project, please. Okay, next project.

All right, no additional comments, Madam Chair.

May I respond briefly, Madam Chair? Yes. So with respect to the report by the Mayor's Office of New Bed Service, I just think for contextual purposes, I believe most of the opposition was based upon the fact that we're not providing off-street parking for the project. We did again have that conversation with the community that Introducing off-street parking at ground level would not really have a net benefit because of the curb cut. We would just be creating two spaces, two private spaces as opposed to taking away spaces on the street. and with respect to, you know, I understand Councilor Coletta's position to stand with the Eagle Civic Association in this instance, but this is exactly the type of project that Alliance with Plenty's Boston. This is the new zoning that a lot of time was spent on, so we worked to try to address those uses and dimensional requirements in fashion in this project.

Thank you. Any other questions from the board? Hearing none, may I have a motion?

Madam Chair, I'll put forward a motion of approval. I think the lot's width lends itself to the variance as requested. Is there a second?

Second.

Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Whewell?

Yes.

Mr. Langham? Yes. Ms. Barraza? No. Ms. Turner? No. Chair votes yes, the motion carries.

Thank you. Next, we have two companion cases. The first is case BOA. 167-1558 with the address of 390 Meridian Street along with that we have case BOA 167-1561 with the address of 355 Porter Street. If the applicant and or their representative present, would they please explain these cases to the board?

Okay, thank you again, Mr. Stembridge and Madam Chair, members of the board, for the record, Richard Lentz, 245 Summer Street, East Boston. We have the petitioner, Michael Polanco. I believe he is here as well. Corey McPherson is our card executive. We can jump down to slide three. I'll try to be brief. I know you've got a lot of cases on that chair. So a quick site overview. This involves an existing through lot at 390 Meridian Street is the original address. A little over 5,000 square feet, 390 bridge views and existing three-unit drawing. This building does have a bit more significance and therefore preservation of this building is something that we Eagle Hill Civic Association thought very strongly about with respect to any development of the site. Because this is a deep through lot that essentially has frontage on two main streets, We are proposing a subdivision and creation of a new four-unit residential dwelling on the border street side. Can we go to the next slide, please? So currently, there is an existing garage. It's not functional. It's more or less used for storage, relatively narrow. A pretty extensive curb cut on this side. This section of Water Street is somewhat mixed industrial, but with new zoning there seems to be certainly a lot of interest in redevelopment of a lot of the sites along this side of Water Street. Our proposal would involve the demolition of this particular building and then let the subdivision create a new four-unit residential building. Next slide, please. So just showing the zoning district that's EDR 4, very similar to the last presentation we made. You can see we got this lot. Pretty far, and with it being a through lot, the rear yard setback, ironically, for the existing structure, there is no rear yard setback currently because of the through lot condition exceptions. and Article 53. Because of the subdivision, where we add the property line, if we jump to the next slide, we have maybe one more after this. Yeah. So with the subdivision, we do create two lots, which are generally similar in the size of lots that we do see in neighborhood. The 390 Meridian, we're proposing no work so that we know demolition. There's a very small portion of that building, which I've highlighted in red, that would be in the new Weirgaard setback. However, because we're not proposing any changes to the existing building, we believe that's a and many more. at 355 Border Street, which for all intents and purposes complies with all setback requirements, including five feet in each side that is required in the five feet minimum, I should say, it's only required in five feet. In the EBR 4, we do set back the building at 29.4, which would be consistent with the required rear setback. There are rare balconies and the code does not count in the calculation of building depth anything that's an uncovered balcony stair. So while we do technically require relief for that rear setback condition, the building itself complies with the intent of the code when it comes to setback. Go to the next slide, please. Just showing the existing conditions. Next slide, please. The proposed conditions on the survey plan. Next slide, please. Let me go one more from here. Just our floor plans. Just I'll point out quickly, I know it may interest the time. These are all two-bath, roughly 1,000 square foot units. Flat style unit on each level, so starting at lowest level one. which would be ADA accessible with the similar units above with the exclusive roof deck on the upper level. Next slide please. Pass this here. Showing a roof deck, next slide. Just showing our elevations. Four stories under 50 feet, which is allowed, so this would be compliant with the height. And showing the roof deck in this elevation, one of the things that the Eagle Civic Association asked us to consider is eliminating the head house. We do have buildings behind us. We will submit for that separately. That's just to give the board an understanding of what the orientation behind the building looks like. Because of our setbacks on both sides, we're able to provide windows on both sides of the building as well. Next slide, please. Just showing the left side and the rear. Next slide, please. and just some renderings. So I will point out on the right side, in the past rendering, we did show the head house, which we will eliminate in favor of the hatch. That will cut down on certainly the visibility issues looking over our roof. One of the things you will see, too, is we did set our building back consistent with the minimum setback requirements of the front yard. There is a modal exception that does apply on this part of Water Street. As you can see, generally it's garages and other smaller residential structures. We felt that it was important to include some of that open space in the front to start creating the, hopefully a pattern, along this section of Border Street that has some greening and some landscaping. Even though it doesn't exist, both left and right, We believe that there's likely development happening on those processes in the future and therefore we're trying to sort of set the standard a bit to allow this setback consistent with the front yard requirements. Certainly we can look at that as part of our design review and it's one of the reasons why I believe we were cited for rear yard. We did present this to the neighborhood that seem to be more in favor of having this front yard buffer rather than the decks being removed from the building. So that's one of the reasons we're requesting the relief on the rear yard for the decks. But certainly we can address that in design review if the planning department believes a modal setback is more appropriate. We have room to do that and certainly would eliminate the rare setback violation for the PACs. Next slide, please. Oh, I think that might be it. Just so with respect to the relief that would be required, we do for this one as well, for the same reasons, require parking. Again, if we were to incorporate parking at the lowest level, likely not even required because we've been eliminating units as well. In addition, as I mentioned, we were cited for the Railroad Setback, and that's based upon just the positioning of the building here. We could move it forward and eliminate it or maintain the open space in the front and the landscaping and request the relief. Other than that, I believe that the remainder of the regulations under Article 53 are compliant. I believe the Boston Planning Department has indicated their recommendation for approval for this project as well. Happy to answer your questions.

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

Hello Madam Chairman, President of the Board, my name is Eva Jones, representing the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services. Regarding 390 Meridian Street and 355 Border Street, our office defers the Board's judgment on this matter. A community process was conducted including an abutters meeting held on 3-27-25 and was heavily attended by community members. Additionally, we also received letters in opposition to the proposal. The feedback from both the meeting and the letters received by my office were strong opposition centering on the loss of green space, parking, and increased density. Traffic and noise burdens, as well as cumulative overdevelopment of the Eagle Hill neighborhood, school-related congestion, and strong documented community opposition through letters. Community members also expressed opposition to the garage being removed and as well as the fact that they believe that the applicant is subdividing the property to not adhere to the new Plan East Boston zoning changes. The proposal was also reviewed by the Eagle Hill Civic Association at their meeting on 3-27-25, and they voted 5 in favor and 15 opposed. At this time, the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services refers to the board's judgment on this matter. Thank you everyone for your time and consideration.

Okay, thank you. And next, okay, we have engineer, please. I can say your name and address.

Yes, my name is Gabriela Dimitrescu, and good afternoon, Madam Chair, all the members of the board. So my name is Gabriela Dumitrescu. I own 388 Meridian Street, which is directly abutting both lots from Meridian Street to Border Street. So our concern is about our existing garage structure, the yellow building in the presentation. Since the new building is going to be two yards away from our structure, that's a slab of gray building as far as we know. We might face serious structural issues during the construction. Also, we are concerned about the integrity of the retaining wall, which varies between 5 and 12 feet along the common property line. There is a conclusion in the proposal where it says that it's a new retaining wall proposed and We don't understand what that means and how the work is going to be done if they want to build a new wall between the properties. Our property is going to be affected also because you can't build from one side only. We are worried. My husband and I invested a lot of money on our property to restore this historical building. and because of the new construction our lot In the backside where the garage is, if us or future owners are gonna want to develop that part, our lot is gonna become unbuildable with this new construction. Also, we are very concerned about the green spaces conceptually, originally. This area was aimed to be a unified green island by transforming the back of adjacent lots. The design was intended to establish a large Green area aiding in temperature moderation fostering biodiversity. Currently the existing surrounding green area sustains an impressive number of diverse species of animals and birds that are expected to be disturbed by The disappearance of a green area due to the new building, which is oversized, There is an existing very old Magnolia tree. It's a landmark which is not shown in the proposal. Also, we are concerned about aesthetically and architecturally about the proposed property. Facing our property is just walls with windows, no concern about aesthetics. There is also... Thank you. Please wrap up. Yeah, so 30 windows facing our property. The proposed rooftop is clearly intending to leverage the harbor view as a selling point for the developers effectively denied us a view that we currently enjoy. We purchased our property base for this, for the views also, and we're gonna lose that. Thank you.

Thank you. And next we have Steven Marine.

Hi, just from Councilor Coletta Zapata's office and we wanted to go on record opposing this project. Thank you.

Thank you. Were you for response, Madam Chair?

Please.

So I appreciate this is Demetrescu's comments. We have been on-site, my client, engineer, architect, myself. have met with them personally. We went over all of their concerns, including the retaining wall that they're concerned with. We see no issues with the construction, certainly are going to take All necessary precautions steps to address any of those concerns. Ultimately, the real issue we believe was that they wanted us to build Something for them on their site. It was a little bit more of an ask than we are usually accustomed to. We're happy to continue working with them, but we believe that many of the issues that she's raised and she's concerned with being addressed including the creation of significant open space that's more usable between the two buildings and to do everything we can to preserve any trees on site. We will also be incorporating street trees on the border street side. So I believe all of those concerns were addressed through this process. And certainly the Eagle Hill Civic Association vote was, you know, reflective of the fact that the neighbor who recently spoke was adamantly opposed to the project and we believe it had more to do with what we're not willing to do with respect to building on their site as it does with the overall issues for this project.

Thank you. Are there other questions from the board? Hearing none, is there a motion?

Madam Chair, I will put forward a motion of approval with the proviso that the front yard setbacks increase to three feet and plans are submitted to planning for design review with attention to site planning design including detailed views of the ground floor and entrances as well as building placement. Is there a second?

Second.

For bridge. Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Wewell?

Yes. Mr. Langham?

Yes. Ms. Better Barraza?

Yes.

Ms. Turner?

No.

No. Chair votes yes, the motion carries. Thank you very much.

Next we have case 08-157-5584. with the address of E1 Lexington Street. If the applicant and or their representative are present, will they please explain to the board?

Once again, thank you, Mr. Stembridge. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the board. For the record, Richard Linz, business address at 245 Summer Street, East Boston. On behalf of the petitioner, Allison McHale. With me is James Christopher, project architect for this project. We're going to jump right down to the second slide to just sort of orient ourselves what we're looking at. So what we do see here, Madam Chair, are three lots. We see the one parcel at 81 Lexington Street, which is and then we have the two lots on the corner which are corner lot conditions with a roughly 18.5 feet wide by about 50 feet in depth. Our proposal would be to demolish the existing structure at 81 Lexington, combine all of the lots, and propose a single structure containing a total of seven units. I would point out to the board that because this is free lots in the EBR3 district, there are scenarios in which an Azawite project With no parking for up to seven units works, and it's one of the reasons why we've considered the number of seven units and why we're at where we're at. If you look at the two lots here in the corner, those would certainly accommodate a semi-attached two-family dwelling with three-foot setbacks in the sides, no setback in the middle, and a 10-foot setback in the rear. We could meet all of the requirements if there's a reduced amount of permeability that's necessary and an increased amount of lot coverage that's permitted. So a total of four units could be on those two lots, but a standalone three on the one at 81 Lexington. Once again, because those would all be individual projects on separate lots, the number of units on one particular lot would not require any off-street parking. Our proposal, rather than doing three separate projects or three separate buildings, three separate services, is to combine and do it as one single building with a total of seven units. With that said, we understand that some relief would be necessary. And considering that this was filed, and I will say this with some confidence, this may be the last case. This board will appear under prior zoning. So a lot of the violations that were cited in the public notice have been eliminated, and we are left with only the remaining violations that will be Triggered under Article 53 as amended. So first of all, I would point out that the floor area ratio that was cited, minimum lot size, lot area for additional dwelling unit, the lot width, frontage, are no longer applicable under amended Article 53. So those are no longer even triggered under the current conditions. For a lot coverage, we're below the 75% maximum that's allowed for a corner lot. Because we would combine these into one parcel, a corner lot condition would exist, and 75% of lot coverage would be permissible. I believe we're just over 51% of lock coverage. Same when it comes to permeable area, we're about 26% total of permeable area. 15% is all that's required for the corner lock condition EBR3, so we would be in compliance with that. Our building depth, where we would be at the longest point, this would be somewhat of an L-shaped plot, would be compliant. We would be less than 70 feet. And our total building footprint would be less than 3,000 square feet. That is also allowed. So again, General alignment with the amended Zonomic under Article III and it's one of the things that James had done throughout this process is to ensure that the project evolved as planning sparsely was becoming online and certainly to address a number of items. We are allowed to have up to six units on a single lot in the EDR-3 provided that you have at least 55 feet of front. If we would have that, along Lexington Street. And therefore, because we exceed 55 feet, a six-unit building would be permitted as a matter of right and would be allowed use. Once again, we understand we are proposing a total of seven units, but I think I've explained to the board our philosophy in arriving at seven units is that the as-of-right scenario would certainly... We do require relief in this instance for parking. We did look at some alternatives for parking or some options for parking. It is a bit tight based upon the The topography of this land, Lexington Street, sits higher than the back portion of the lot, and the best entrance point would likely be off of Marion Street, mid at some of the channels leading to the appropriate parking site. With respect to the planning recommendation, we understand that they do recommend denial, but once again, I would point out that the project would be a compatible fit. We do have a number of multifamilies that have been recently approved and recently built this section of Eagle Hill, especially the first two blocks of Lexington Street. So I'm going to run through the plans quickly. I think James just jumped in as well. Let's try to get through this as quickly as possible. We can jump over that. So just showing how our building footprint sits. Screen bottom would be Lexington Street. The back of the property would move towards screen top with bearings to the right. You can see that we do meet the setback in the rear for the deepest portion of the lot. It's interesting because even though we are 10 feet on the right side, if you're looking at it from Marion Street, that would be in excess of a side yard condition. which is typically employed when you have a corner lot condition such as this. So we do meet the intent of what a side yard would be allowing enough of a buffer between our building and the building that's located directly adjacent to us on Marion Street. The same could be said on our left side with our four-foot setback on the left side. Next slide, please. just showing the existing conditions of the building that's on the site. It does illustrate the slope difference and the grade difference from Lexington towards the back of the block. Next slide, please. Yeah, an existing condition, we can jump over this. We can jump, we can skip over this as well, sorry. This is our parking study, we can skip over that as well. Okay, so showing our ground level, we show Building Storage, Sprinkler Room, and our bike storage. We incorporated that in lieu of the concept of parking. We think the bike storage had an addition for that. We do indicate some landscaping buffering that would happen. That condition on the right side of Marion Street view would allow for Thank you for watching. with the new regulations on Article 53. Next slide, please. Just showing our layouts of our units, and they're pretty typical layouts as we go out the building. This being the first level, we can jump to the next slide. Second level here, and we do a mix of one and two bedrooms, four one rooms and three two bedrooms. Slide here. And then our upper unit, and I'll let James jump in in a moment when we talk about the elevation, but our upper unit does not extend all the way across. So we do have a three-story condition on the Marion Street side and a slightly taller condition as we get further down Lexington Street courts. and some of the other structures. So next slide, please. So James, if you want to just jump in quickly and talk a little about the elevations here, that would be helpful.

Thanks, Richie. As a matter of note, when we first started this project and met with the Civic Association and the Butters, it was a much larger project. It was an eight-unit building with retail at grade, four stories. And when we went through the Plant East Boston discussion, I think we got a much prettier building. The comment with the community was that they would prefer to see something that was more Historically intriguing, so we went with the mansat roof on the elevation one. You can see that it's a one-story mansat roof on the front. But it does go up to two stories on the left end. You can see that on elevation two. That's looking towards the back of the building. That second story man side is recessed for only the top floor unit. Next slide, please. So you can see that in this iteration here. This is the right side when facing and the rear. Next slide, please. This is the existing site. You can see just for context the grade changes. We did study whether adding parking at grade was feasible, but even with the site constraints as they are, we really couldn't make And we thought for the access and the location that the living space is a more viable option. Next slide, please. And then this is our proposed building. Again, we have that two-story man's out on the left end. The eyebrows over the windows, very historically intriguing, and I think a much prettier building than what we started with. Next slide, please. This is the Marion Street view. Next slide. And there we see that one-story mansard and the two-story off in the back, which again, helps to minimize the height and keep the overall feeling of the massing of the building down. and then next slide. And this is just some context, aerial context views. This is the existing area now. If you get out of the next slide, that's the proposed building there.

Thanks, James. And I would just add for the board, as I mentioned, there's been a lot of development activity in this section, Beagle Hill, where the housing stock has been somewhat Lesser quality, in need of certainly a lot of TLC and renovations. And as you can see, some of the newer buildings that are along this corridor of Lexington Street all stand at four stories. and the church across the street certainly has a pretty decent height precedent as well. The idea was to sort of lower the corner when you're coming around Marion Street, As you got a little bit further into Lexington Street, you can see that one building over where four stories and then dialing across from us as well. So that's one of the reasons why we've adjusted the building to not make it a full four story all around. I believe that's it. I'm happy to pause there and answer any questions from the board.

Thank you. Are there questions from the board?

Madam Chair, I have a question. I understand the topography of the site, but I'm just wondering You know, what was the choice of so much storage in the basement? You know, that whole kind of partially, mostly below grade areas, storage or storage for bicycles. And it just seems like a lot of empty space.

James, do you want to take that?

Yeah, so sorry, Rich. I think in general, with the basement, we wanted to keep the... The FAR down, we know that basement units are not seen as desirable from a city perspective or frankly from a neighbor's perspective. and as I mentioned originally we had programmed a commercial space into this building so we thought that maintaining the basement to provide So amenity space for the building, which would include storage and that stuff, as well as the bicycle storage room, which is accessed off of a ramp to the rear so that you have one door entry and exit into the bicycle ramp we thought was a viable option. and, you know, in terms of the unit count and the height, the seven units is frankly where this project is financially viable. Our client at this point has had significant delays, not through the ZBA's fault, through ISD and the review process to get to this point. And we feel like she's been very amenable to work with the community and try to bring a project that meets the inherent intent of the zoning code changes.

Any other questions from the board?

I just have a comment. Are you able to work with the required height limits of 35 feet or would that not allow you to do I guess the fourth floor layout. Are you able to do this project within the 35 foot height limit?

I think it certainly is going to reduce the unit or requires to reprogram a building. I know we have a mix. We try to get to a mix of larger one beds and certainly almost half two beds. My concern would be to get to that number. We probably would lose some of the two beds. We've become a lot smaller units at that point. So that's one of the reasons why we've tried to I don't want to say give half a loaf here and take it off of the Marion Street side, but we feel that that square footage makes this a much more viable project. We certainly think it's a much better fit than what's there today on the plot.

I mean the other thing is the only thing that looks kind of out of context is like the width of the building and it was noted on the BPD that you proposed 68 but 50 foot is required and You know, I don't have so much issues with the amount of units, but I do have an issue with it kind of not fitting in context. So like the Marin Street facade works really well with the context with the bull front. And I'm just wondering if there's a way of developing that facade along Lexington Street to cut down that width of the building so it doesn't look so massive and out of context. But that's just kind of some feedback. I don't have any, yes.

I'm no architect, but I did have a chance to talk with James about this, and one of the things that we were kicking around was an idea that almost made it look like two buildings, because this could be basically two structures that are done by right. He would just have a gap between the Marion Street side and the proposed standalone on Lexington. So again, I don't know. I don't know all the details of this, but I'm assuming through some extensive design review, there could be some suggestions or recommendations to break out that facade along Lexington and almost give- Yeah, it can still be one building.

It's just the way that you make it maybe appear too massing or you bring in some of the elements of the both fronts along Lexington Street that might be able to break up that.

I would agree completely I think we can we can absolutely work with the BPD on that even just a shadow line would make Duke go a long way to break up that that long sheer wall yeah great thank you no further questions any other questions from the board

Mayor, public testimony.

Hello, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Eva Jones, representing the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services. Regarding 81 Lexington Street, our office will defer to the board's judgment on this matter. A community process was conducted, including in a letters meeting on 3-16-24, which, due to staffing changes, we cannot confirm the amount of constituents in attendance. Although my office did receive two letters in opposition to this proposal expressing concerns of insufficient parking during a critical parking shortage, increased traffic and nonconformity with the neighborhood. Additionally, the proposal was reviewed with the Eagle Hill Civic Association, which convened on 3-27-24. and the Association has voted on the proposal 0 in support and 12 opposed. At this time, the Mayor's Office and Neighborhood Services differ in support and judgment on this matter. Thank you everyone for your time and consideration.

Thank you. Next, we have a student. Hi, my name is Stefan from Councilor Coletta Zapata's office, and we want to go on record opposing this project. Thank you so much.

Right. Yeah, briefly.

Mr. Hampton, can you weigh in? If you're on.

Yep. My apologies, Madam Chair. Good afternoon, everyone. Jeff Hampton, City of Boston Planning Department. We made a recommendation of denial without prejudice. We made note that They are tearing down a residential building to put up seven units. In our recommendation, we recommended that it not exceed six. and we're not really opposed to more residential units on this site but piggybacking on what Ms. Barraza said that is that that context on On that street on Lexington, that facade is just way too massive for our liking. So we're on record in opposition to Not Without Prejudice. We'd like to have no more than six units. and that facade to be broken up. Thank you.

Madam Chair, just briefly if I may, I just want to clarify for the record that the vote of the Gullah Civic Association was from 24 I believe, although I was not involved at that time, I believe that was the prior iteration of this project with a full four-story and large number of units. It has been since reduced and it has gone back out to the community for further presentation. So I just want to make sure that's clear for the record that that was not.

Sorry, Mr. Lins, are you saying it did go back out or did not?

I believe that Eagle Hill saw this iteration, Madam Chair.

So they have no position or do they have any position?

They usually don't vote the second time, but they've been informed.

Okay, thank you. Any other questions from the board?

Hearing none, we have a motion. Madam Chair, just listening to Jeff Hampton with kind of his remarks, I would like to put forward an agreement to deny the project without prejudice so the applicant can come back To us, reduce count of units, preferably six, and to really work on that Lexington Street frontage to make it work more along the way that the architect was doing Marion Street facade so as to break down that length of that facade along Langston Street. Thank you. Is there a second?

Second.

Mr. Stembridge?

No.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

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

Yeah.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Thank you.

Have a good day. Next, we have two, sorry, actually, the next two companions and the following case have been deferred. That takes us to case VOA 1723832 with the address of 1260 Boylston Street. If the applicant and or their representative are present, would they please explain to the board?

Thank you Madam Chair, Board Members. My name is Daniel Brennan, permanent licensed consultant for Wonder. Here today to seek relief from Article 66, Section 14 for a large takeout use. The threshold for large takeout is 2,500 square feet. We're just over that by 519 square feet. I have Jason Botcher here to walk us through from Wonder on the presentation, give you a little Context on the concept and how we're going to mitigate pickup and traffic concerns. I'm sorry, may I ask you a quick question?

I believe if my memory is correct. We were deferred the last time to speak with BTD. Do we know if that occurred?

We shared some email concepts and we met again with Fenway Civic Association. but there wasn't a direct meeting between transportation and our team.

Okay, I mean, well, thank you.

Sure. Is Jason Botcher then updated to the panelists?

Yes, thank you, Dan. I appreciate the board's time again being in front of you for a second time now. If the board would allow, I'd like to walk through the deck that I was unable to walk through the last hearing. That said, I will keep it quick. I know it's been a long morning and afternoon for you guys. So I just want to reintroduce you to the concept. Wonder is a new A quick-serve restaurant that is expanding into the Boston area and we're looking to occupy 1260 Boylston here with our first location in Boston proper. That said, Boston is a new concept and a new take on quick serve. and we differentiate ourselves in several ways, one of which is the way we partner with chefs and restaurants across the country to bring these restaurants and these chefs to neighborhoods like Fenway. So that said, we are really focused on providing accessibility. A lot of these restaurants and a lot of these partners, they wouldn't be able to support a standalone location. In any one given neighborhood but our means and our strategy allows us to expand these brands into neighborhoods and provide a wide variety of different cuisines in each of, out of each of our retail locations. So that said, I think everybody's quite aware of how the landscape has changed post COVID. and we are very conscientious of that and our model is predicated on it. So not only are we focused on providing a very warm and welcoming environment, front of house wise, seat for Dyname customers or customers that are passing through, But also providing all of the necessary amenities that our customers not only expect but demand. And that's for both pickup and delivery. I think I spoke in some detail and at some length at the last hearing on how we are able to mitigate and manage some of the concerns that the FCA had raised regarding delivery operations. Obviously, Boylston and Fenway. It's a very busy neighborhood. The FCA was kind enough to invite us up to be heard a second time and to meet with the group in person after our first hearing, and we really appreciate that. And we had taken the time to walk through the neighborhood and it happened to be an event night. I saw exactly what their concerns are and we're very appreciative of that, but I do feel the need to reiterate that I think the worst case scenario that's been envisioned here isn't necessarily reflective of what we're bringing to the neighborhood. I know there have been some users that have gone through the board or that operate either in Fenway or in Back Bay that have extremely high order volumes. These are problems that I wish we had at Wonder. But some of these users, they're dealing with much lower average order Average Order Values. Our average order value is about $35 per order or per transaction. And we're not doing nearly as much revenue as some of these other users that have raised a lot of the red flags We're still uniquely poised to manage that courier process. in comparison to any of our competition and that's through our purchase of Grubhub earlier this year and the way we approach courier management to begin with. So, you know, we make it a point to operate each of these locations so that we are not disruptive to the neighbors. We have a lot of locations in New York City, for example, and in urban environments where our ability to cohabitate with residential is extremely important. And with that, we're bringing those same mitigation strategies and those same management strategies up into Boston. So I could go into more details in terms of delivery volumes, but I can say, without diving into too much detail, but that during our peak hours, You know we're probably looking at at max either 40 to 50 orders per hour and that that's inclusive of delivery with that we're batching 15 to 20 percent of our orders which reduces the amount of couriers that have to come on site for a location such as this. So again, when you think about it, the larger picture and the concerns that have been raised by the FCA, During event nights, and the FCA had requested that we explore whether or not we would consider closing our doors during event nights. From a business perspective, that would be incredibly irresponsible. When you're talking about A location like Fenway where you do have thousands upon thousands of people coming into that neighborhood for event nights or for ball games. The number of couriers and the traffic that we're going to drive is negligible. It's inconsequential. In the grand scheme here. And so with that, I think a lot of the benefits here, this is a neighborhood that's growing, that's evolving. It's a perfect demographic for us. You have a really young demographic that's incredibly savvy, and more importantly, very conscientious of their time. And I think the convenience that we bring and the variety of foods that we bring are exactly what the neighborhood would be looking for and what the residents would be looking for. So with that said, there were a number of points that were raised by both the board and the FCA that I want to touch on real quick. So operationally, we were asked to explore whether or not we could manage our couriers through the rear. For a variety of reasons, we can't do that. One of those being the size of the space. This space is pretty tight for us in our operation as is. And so with that, our ability to design in a rear courier pickup It just simply doesn't work from a design standpoint. Furthermore, the walking distance from that rear entry into the bond to our space is about 125 feet. With that, we try to have our couriers, our target is to have couriers on and off of our properties within 90 seconds. Adding that added distance, increases that time they are on site. Furthermore, you also have, I believe they're co-ops or condos right behind us. and some of the issues that were raised, I believe by the board as well, was that we did not want Courier's Court congregating at the rear. and disrupting the residential of both above and now also behind. So for operational purposes, we couldn't do that. Food safety as well. We can't have couriers coming into our back of house That poses a food safety and an FSQA concern. There is a shared hallway, but with that, we would have to have constant eyes on a pickup shelf, for example, to ensure, again, food safety, which is incredibly important. One of the other points that had been raised, again, was the restricting business hours or opening hours. And I think I explained why we can't really accommodate that. Just to reiterate that point, our model, and when you order, it illustrates what the expected or projected delivery time is. During event days, that's going to take into account The fact that there's traffic and delivery times are going to be elongated, let's call it. Average consumer, I don't know about you, if I call a pizzeria and they say it's going to be 45 minutes, I'm probably shifting where I'm ordering from. We expect consumer behavior to be no different with us, so I would expect that. Our delivery volumes would drop during effect days, but we would see an increase in pass-through traffic, so it still makes the site viable from a business perspective. With the amount of feet that are on the ground in Fenway during event days. The last point that was raised was curbside management. And this was the point that the chair brought up right at the beginning of the hearing. We've conceded and we are more than willing to essentially, let's call it lease for lack of a better term, the two parking stalls that are directly in front of our tenant space, and this would be for short-term parking. This would be 10 to 15 minute short-term parking, really intended to accommodate delivery drivers. I mentioned during the last hearing, we would ballpark anywhere about a 50 to 60 percent of our deliveries would be through bicycle couriers or two-wheeled couriers. The balance being in vehicles and we wanted to accommodate vehicle couriers a bit better. So what we have not established is what the mechanism for Dedicating those two stalls would be, but we are more than open to having that in place, working with the city to have that in place at the market rate. I believe it's $2.50 an hour. in the Fenway neighborhood, $2.50 an hour for those two spots from the hours of 3 to 8. I believe metered parking ends at 8 p.m. in the neighborhood and does not apply on Sundays. and so you know with that I think I needed to take an opportunity to not only better explain the The concept here and what we're bringing to the neighborhood but more importantly to kind of ease the concerns and the nightmare scenario that I think some people had envisioned here. Yes, we are Ultimately a takeout restaurant, but the volumes that we're going to be bringing here I don't feel in any way would be disruptive to the neighborhood. Given the context and the rapid growth that you guys are seeing here. So with that, I'm more than happy to answer any questions or take any comments that the board might have.

Thank you. Are there questions from the board?

Yeah, Madam Chair, I think at the last hearing I asked that they consider adding more seating. Was that taken into account? I did not see any change in the plans in that regard.

Yes, apologies for not mentioning that. We did expand that counter seating that is along the front. So we have expanded that front of house to 14 total seats for dine-in customers.

So there are now 14 versus how many last time?

I believe, Dan, do you recall off the top of your head? I believe we were at 10. Six. Okay, six. So six to 14.

So, Katie, I'm glad you brought that up because that was something that I was really looking closely in regards to the renderings and the plan. And I must say I'm a little disappointed at... The way in which the interior has been kind of rendered because I think, you know, kind of reminding myself what Katie was kind of pointing to at the last hearing was That, you know, it felt like it was a commercial kitchen really closed off. And then the idea that you can maybe allow for folks that are visiting to just rest and have a dining experience. to be able to come at discovery of your brand catering business. and when you look at the interior there is no atmosphere like you literally are a closed commercial kitchen because there's there's You can't really look at the kitchen. You can't really look at anyone. You just have a host and you have a screen and you just have tables. But it's not a restaurant. I think it's a really lost opportunity. You almost want to turn that space into really an exhibit space because it really now does not read as a place where you can eat. So I don't know if that was intentionally to like disguise it just to accommodate Katie's feedback from the last hearing, but I was really disappointed at the lack of kind of public mess That you could have, you know, took on as an opportunity. And I was someone that really supported the project.

Thank you. I believe at the last hearing a suggestion was made to bring the Boston Transportation Department into the conversation. Head of Staff and Staff.

So Boston Transit has, that was in regards to the parking stalls and the curbside management piece. And all we're really waiting on is trying to figure out what the mechanism would be to have those two parking stalls on Boylston dedicated for short-term parking. And it wouldn't be necessarily, I don't think it would be dedicated to us. We would be doing this not only for our benefit but for the benefit of and some of the adjacent restaurants as well.

Sorry, I was just going to ask if Mr. Hoey from Transportation or Mr. Hampton wants to address that point, that would be helpful.

Yeah, hi Sherry, this is Patrick from Streets. And we have been in communication with the proponent. We just recently received a graphic and a description narrative around their most recent plans. And we would like some time to review that and also to give the proponent an opportunity to meet with us on a call. to have a discussion with our engineers and others at the department if we could.

Thank you. Mr. Stembridge, did you have an additional question?

That answers the rest of what I was looking for, Patrick.

Thank you. I mean, does that mean that Patrick is implying a potential deferral or are we still voting on the case today?

I would leave that up to the board, your decision to defer. We really haven't had a chance.

I think we would love to defer at this point. If I may. But we need to take a vote on that, obviously.

If the Board Chair would allow, I could make one suggestion. We would be more than open to having a condition in the event that the Board saw fit to approve that we would work with transportation to have those two stalls addressed in a way that is satisfactory to the board.

Mr. Hampton, can you weigh in given BPD's DROC recommendation?

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board, Jeff Hanton, City of Boston Planning Department. Our recommendation hasn't changed from the original denial without prejudice. We still believe it's a ghost kitchen. The appellant has stated that The number of seeds has increased to 14 from six. We don't have those plants. We still have the original plants that show six. So we don't know if those plans have been submitted to ISD either. But in any event, whether or not the board elects to defer this BTD review. We're still going to be on the record as the out without prejudice.

Thank you. Okay, well, let's take public testimony.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. Siggy Johnson with the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services. Our office would like to go on record in opposition of this conditional use permit A business with a floor plan indicating function more similar to a production facility rather than a restaurant use does not contribute to the urban streetscape in this area. Our office hosted an abutters meeting on May 29th. The applicant also met with the Fenway Civic Association which is opposed to this application due to the ghost kitchen-like operation with limited focus on dine-in eating as evidenced by the very small amount of square footage. Devoted to in-store dining despite its high foot traffic location. The location is in a part of Boylston Street that experiences a high level of traffic gridlock due to direct proximity to Fenway Park and a concept that is based primarily on utilizing delivery couriers would exacerbate the issue. A proposal to have couriers use the rear of the building was determined not to be feasible. With that background, ONS urges the Board to deny this conditional use permit. Thank you.

Thank you. We have Sam Courage.

Good afternoon, Chair, members of the board. This is Samantha Courage with Councilor Durkan's office. The Councilor would like to defer on the board for this proposal. It's our office's understanding that BTV, the plans from the component were submitted to BTV yesterday early evening. We would like more time to review those. Also, we've been in contact with the community who is opposed with this. So, the Councilor would like to be on record as referring to the Board. Thanks so much.

Madame Chair, there are no additional comments.

Okay, any other final comments from the applicant?

Madam Chair, I would like to make one additional comment, if you don't mind. So the Ghost Kitchen comment had been brought up several times. I do want to point out that the Halal Guys, which is in the same building adjacent to us, They don't have any indoor seating. They have a counter, I believe, with three bar height seats. It had been indicated that they have a significant more seating than we do, but that is not in fact the case whatsoever.

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

Madam Chair, I'd like to put forward a motion of denial without prejudice. I think we just keep wanting to see this used as something that It's not, I don't think it's an appropriate location. The takeout business sort of relies on motor vehicles and I think the concerns are valid from Transportation and Planning. And I think this is an area with many entertainment and sports venues, so I think A business that functions more as a third space where people can come and sit and linger and gather is way more appropriate here. So for those reasons, motion to deny without prejudice. Is there a second?

Second. Mr. Stembridge.

While I agree the delay is necessary, I would hope that we could vote for a delay with a reasonable amount of time. If not, then now without prejudice would be the case. Any chance we could make it a delay or deferral?

Is there something different from the deferral that would change your outcome? Katie just put a motion forward. I know, that's why I'm... Yeah, we should carry Katie's motion forward. So, Mrs. Stembridge, maybe you can support or not the motion.

I'll support them.

Okay. Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Whewell?

Yes.

Mr. Langham? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza.

I was a real supporter of the project, but I have to agree with Katie. I do think that it could be both and meaning you can have a commercial kitchen and also offer something very generous to the public, which is a great dining experience, even if it's six or eight people. So with that, I'm going to say yes. Ms. Turner? Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Thank you.

Next, we have case BOA 17302693 with the address of 372 K Street. If the applicants endure their representative present, would they please explain to the board?

Yes, thank you, Mr. Stembridge, Madam Chair, members of the board, Attorney Ryan Spitz with Adams & Maranci, business address of 168 8th Street, 1st Floor, South Boston. Joining me today is the owner, Tom Sullivan, as well as the project architect, Nick Landry. This is a proposal to change the occupancy of a one-family dwelling to a five-unit residential building by way of dormers to an existing structure, a rare addition, and an interior renovation with garage parking for four spaces in the rear. All of the residential units will be home ownership. This proposal is located within an MFR subdistrict. Although the proposed use is allowed, the lot size is 4,292 square feet, which creates the need for additional lot size. However, this type of proposal is similar in size and scale to many surrounding multifamily properties in South Boston. Due to the alteration of the roofline and extension into the rear yard of over a thousand square feet, will require two conditional use permits for a roof structure restriction violation. There was also a third conditional use permit cited for another roof structure restriction based on max allowed height in the sub-district. The proposed height is 35 feet 6 inches, which is below the 40 foot requirement under Article 68. We believe the Plans Examiner cited this in error due to the raising of an existing garage in the rear, but the demolishing of an accessory used building does not trigger relief for a conditionally used permit under Article 68. Unit 1. will be a, if Mr. Ambassador, if you could just scroll, that would be great. Unit one will be a duplex unit located on the ground floor and basement with an estimated square footage. of 1,839 square feet. Unit 2 will also be a duplex unit located on the second floor and third floor with an estimated square footage of 1,444 square feet. Unit 3 will also be a duplex unit located on the ground floor and basement with an estimated square footage of 917 square feet. Unit 5 will be on the third floor of the addition with an estimated square footage of 1,351 square feet and solo unit 4 will be located on the second floor of the addition with an estimated square footage of 1,269 square feet. There are a total of two one beds, two two beds, and one three bed. Parking will be located on the ground floor in the rear of the property. We have additional violations for open space. We're required to provide 200 square feet per unit. and the proposal calls for 100 square feet per unit. Contextually, many lots on the block provide less than 100 square feet per unit. Insufficient rear yard, 20 foot rear yard setback is required and this proposal calls for a 10 foot rear yard setback. However, currently present on the site which abuts the property, so this proposal we believe would be an improvement on the existing condition. and two more violations related to parking. Insufficient parking, 1.5 parking spaces required for new units of housing. Therefore, the parking requirement is six parking spaces and the proposal provides for four which is aligned with the Transportation Department's policy of reducing dependency on private vehicles. Further, there is the last violation regarding parking for design. of the parking as the dimensions proposed are 9 by 18 feet. I do have project architect Nick Landry if there's any specific drawings that you need him to discuss, but at this point I'm going to turn it over to you, Madam Chair, for any questions or comments.

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

Good afternoon Madam Chair and Board Members. Siggy Johnson with the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services. This applicant completed the ONS community process. Our office hosted an abutters meeting on July 9th at which no concerns were raised. Multiple abutters were supportive of the proposal. They spoke in the character of the petitioners. The Gate of Heaven Neighborhood Association is in support of this application. Without background, our office defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Hi Madam Chair, members of the board, this is Sydney Scanlon from Councilor Flynn's office. Councilor Flynn would like to go on record in support based on a good community process and support from neighbors and abutters. He respectfully requests that the proponent continue to work closely with the community on any neighborhood and quality of life issues that may arise during the construction phase and thereafter. Thank you. Thank you.

Madam Chair, we don't have additional hands raised at the moment.

Okay, with that, may I have a motion? Motion for approval with a proviso that plans are submitted to the Planning Department for a design review with attention to preserving significant architectural details from the existing structures Coppola and front facade.

Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Whewell?

Yes.

Mr. Langham? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Chair votes yes, the motion carries.

Thank you.

Next, we have two companion cases. We have three companion cases. And these are Article 8, under Article 8. First, we have case BOA 174. 5070 with the address of 200 Hillside Street. Along with that, we have Case 308, 175-8534 with the address of 44 Pocket Hill Avenue. And along with those two, we have case B, BOA 174-8534. 8208 with the address of 40 Parkville Avenue. If the applicants and or the representative present, will they please explain to the board.

Thank you Mr. Stembridge. Good afternoon Madam Chair, members of the board, attorney John Pulgini here on behalf of Savage Properties LLC for the proposal at 200 Hillside Street. With me this morning is Alex June from Monty French Design Studio, the project architect. So 200 Hillside Street, also known as 36 Pocket Hill Street. The lot size is 25,411 square feet. Zoning is 3F2000. This lot is located at the corner of Hillside and Parker Hill Street and Mission Hill. 200 Hillside is an Article 80 small project approved by the BPDA in April of this year. The proposal before you is to combine the existing vacant 200 Hillside 200 hillsides underutilized parking lot with the abutting 40-44 parking lab lots. which hold two multifamily residential buildings and construct a five-story, 38-unit residential rental building. The two buildings at 40-44 Apaca Hill will remain in their current condition, each having 16 residential units. The combining of 40-44 Apaca Hill and the 200 hillside lot will be accomplished through the two ALTs which Mr. Stembridge just referenced. The new building will have a mix of 22 studios and 16 two beds. Six of these will be offered as IDP units. There'll be 38 residential bike parking spaces internal to the building, and then also eight guest parking spaces on the outside of the building. Additionally, the existing parking lot will be redeveloped to include eight parking spaces All amenities to this new building are intended to be shared among the residents of the two other, the three other buildings, or two other buildings, three altogether. As I stated, this was an Article 80 proposal that went through a full community and administrative process. Through that process, the address was changed to Hillside as a community level residential entrance on Hillside rather than Parker Hill. Additionally, we're undertaking significant public realm improvements to the area, including new street trees, a pedestrian easement, on our property to allow widening of sidewalks to comply with the Complete Streets Policy and a high visibility crosswalk to improve pedestrian safety. This location is certainly a TOD development with the Green Line approximately two minutes away. And finally, we have provided the board with approximately 60 letters of support. You're essentially providing 38 units of additional housing, including six affordable units with absolutely no displacement. I will now pass it off to Alex to go through the plans in more detail and we'll be happy to answer any questions that you have. Thanks for the opportunity to present. Alex.

Please keep it high level, Alex.

Thank you. Yes. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the board. I will keep it brief. We can just briefly go stay on the first Page, I'll just describe, this is the new addition with the two existing brick buildings just peeking beyond behind the new trees that we're proposing. On our property in the background on the right of the image while in the foreground we are proposing three new street trees with a pedestrian easement as John mentioned that will allow for the complete streets compliance. The building is mostly, especially in this corner, masonry with varying degrees of orientation and articulation. The middle panel in the front while the top portion has been made lighter and set back using a larger format panel I'll just briefly go over the site plan to describe some of the improvements that we're making We've worked with the community feedback as well as the Boston planning extensively to look at the streetscape and open space. You can go to further two more down. Yes, this one. The two existing buildings at 40 and 40 Parker Hill will be existing to remain. but we did work with the planning department to work on providing accessibility throughout the site with the existing parking as well as the shared courtyard which is in the top and many more. Thank you very much. Building that will carry residents from both 40 and 40 Parker up to the new rooftop as well as being able to access the The new fitness inside the new building. In addition to the three new street trees in the corner, we are renovating the open space front yards of Ford and Ford of Parker Hill, as you can see, with some landscaping and Thank you. Are there questions from the board?

Hearing none, may I have public testimony?

Yes, Madam Chair, members of the board, Connor Newman with the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services. At this time, the Mayor is offering to defer to the judgment of this board. Some background information on the community process. This went through a BPA-led community process. Starting back November of 2024, before being board approved on April 10, 2025. During that period, there was a public meeting as well as engagement with other stakeholders. Majority of the comments were supportive of the proposal, feeling this was an appropriate use and it was better to have housing here than the current conditions, which was, I believe, more parking geared. There were some concerns expressed about trash, how the trash would be serviced from the building as well as a roof deck, and I think other comments during the Community Process was just a desire to have this not be housing just for college students. With that information, we'll defer. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have Sam Courage.

Good afternoon, Chair, members of the Board. This is Sam Karch from Councilor Durkan's office. The Councilor would like to go on record in support of this proposal. Thanks so much. Thank you.

Thank you. And from the public, we have Elbonita Rosa. I wonder if you can image yourself? I think that's the VP again. Sorry.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Ebony DeRosa and I'm a senior project manager in the development review division of the planning department. The project before you was approved by the BPDA Board on April 10, 2025. The project underwent an appropriate Article 80 review for its size and impact, which included extensive collaboration with the Planning Department, Councilor's Office, and the community. I thank you for your time today.

Thank you.

Thank you. There are no additional comments.

Okay. With that, may I have a motion?

Motion to approve.

Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge? Yeah. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Whewell? Yes. Mr. Langham? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Thank you, everybody. Enjoy the rest of your day. Thank you. Thank you.

Next, we have Case B.O.A. 1465030 with the address of 4 Leroy Street. If the applicant and or their representative are present, will they please explain the case to the board?

Hi, my name is Alice. My husband and I was in a club. I don't know for some reason, we kind of split. I came to work and I don't see him on the line. But again, this is for... A basement construction is going on since 2018. He's trying to get the license to finish the basement. You know, we had to submit for a barrels meeting because the CDO initially wants him to install a kitchen and he does not want to I do a kitchen, so this process has been going for quite a while, and I would just want to come before this board and ask them if we can get the license to finish the basement.

Thank you. So can you just confirm, you're not creating a new unit, this is part of your current living space? Correct. Okay. 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 Dorchester Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process, which consists of an abutters meeting facilitated on June 5th, very lightly attended with no opposition, no concerns raised at the meeting. Following the boarders meeting, no further community process was required and the proposal was approved to go before the zoning board. 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. I do actually have a question. I want to confirm the height of the basement. Go ahead.

Can the applicant respond to that question, the height of the basement? Apparently, I'm not too familiar with this dimension measurement. That's why I was hoping that he stayed on the call, but for some reason, I don't know how he got disconnected. We've been on since 1130. and, I mean, as I mentioned here, I'm not too familiar with the, you know, the graph of the plants kind of thing, but... Is there an elevation view?

Because now we're looking down on it, but is there a way we're looking... up at it.

And Ms. Turner, we could also address that through the recommendation itself. It has it right there.

It has it right there. It says seven foot.

Seven foot three and a half, I think it says. So it's below the building up.

Yes.

Thank you. Okay.

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

I'll make a motion to approve it with a proviso that the basement stands up to the building code, which is 7 foot 6 required.

Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Ms. Wewell? Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Mr. Langham? Yes. Mr. Barraza?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

And next, we have case VOA. 174-8759 with the address of 6 Almont Street. Is the applicant and or their representative present? Would they please explain to the board?

Any raised hand for this, Henry?

Yes, we have there, Robert Lenkes, I seem to be in the invitation.

Hello, hello, hello. I'm so sorry. Mr. Stembridge, I just came running from a meeting. Mike Ross here when you're ready for me.

We're ready.

Okay, Madam Chair, members of the board, this is attorney Mike Ross here with the law firm of Princeville Bell. One International Place. I'm here with the architects for this project, Abelis Manion and Kyle Torno, as well as the local development team. which is comprised of 100% minority developers and local. The proposed project is to build a 13-unit rental building that given the topography of the land and the abiding conditions of the surrounding buildings was designed to fit within the site. Mr. Ambassador, you can probably go to the fourth page.

I'm sorry, I need to recuse myself.

Okay, we are a six-member board.

Okay, we will proceed. Thank you. So this slide here, the project summary slide would be great. 6-8 Allmont Street is within the R1 district, but it sits at the intersection of and is partially surrounded by SO and S2 sub-districts. It abuts a 12 unit property to its left and is across the street from a 24 unit property. The project sits near a prominent intersection with Blue Hill Avenue and is readily visible from that corridor on account of the large outlet and width of the street opening itself. Next slide, please. While the proposed project contains 13 units, from a massing perspective, it will fit comfortably within its surroundings. The height of the proposed project is designed to meet the point The topmost point of the current gabled roof as shown here. The larger aerial photo in the lower left corner Allmont Park Parking Area that you can see in the photo and where residents are able to park overnight. Next slide, please. As this slide shows, the project is located within a transit-rich area with a 10-minute walk to Mattapan Square T Station and a 7-minute walk to the commuter rail station. So as such, the project contains no on-site parking. Next slide, please. We can come back if you'd like, but on that slide, just really quickly, the relief we're seeking, we're only seeking four variances. The bids, lot coverage, height, and parking. Next slide, please. This slide shows how the proposed project on the right actually sits further back from the Where are we? Page 8. Yeah, thanks. Right there. It actually sits further back from the existing current building. The dotted red line there on the right shows where the existing porch sits just ahead of The current proposed project. Next slide, please. Or I'm sorry, Mr. Ambassador, just one, if you could go back up there, right there on the profile picture on the bottom of the slide. It shows that the front portion of the building is consistent with the existing zoning height limit of 35 feet. There is a slight step up of just less than five feet to accommodate the rear units which step back substantially from the sidewalk to reduce any visible Thank you. Thank you. You'll also see here the extreme rise in topography of the hill behind the proposed building, which allows the rear butters to not have their views, their light, their air blocked by What we're proposing here. Next slide, please. These are floors Garden 1, 2, and 3, which provide for one studio, three one bedrooms, seven two bedrooms, and two three bedrooms. The studio is 547 square feet. The one ranges from 569 to 837 square feet. The twos range from 759 to 1543 square feet. and the threes from 1104 to 1406. Next slide. The property sits on a 6,117 square foot lot and exceeds the permeability requirement of 25% with 36.5% permeability. It also proposes solar panels on the roof, various plantings and landscaping along the side of the building, replacing the current driveway and a fully compliant with a I'm sorry, the side landscaping will replace the existing driveway. And there's a fully compliant rear yard setback that now allows for an area to grill and gather. The proposed project will include both indoor and outdoor bicycle parking, each with charging stations for electric bicycles, which are becoming more prevalent. Next slide please. So this shows a three-dimensional drawing from the front of the building and the rear corner of the building. As you can see, almost all the units contain some form of exterior features, such as the Julia balconies and the full decks. of the two three bedroom walk-up units off the rear of the building. Next slide, please. These side elevations show how the topography allows for slightly more height that we're proposing and also shows more exterior decks off the side of the building. Next slide, please. This is the front and rear elevations. This is a sectional again showing topography and how the units line up. This is another sectional. These are two renderings of the building. The second rendering nicely shows how the proposed building is designed to sit not taller than its neighbors on either side. Mr. Ambassador, just go down one more if you could. Just look how this building kind of sits in tucked in between the two neighbors on either side. Like I said earlier, it's designed not to be taller than the topmost cable of the existing building.

Mr. Ross, sorry I'm interrupting, but this rendering is showing that the first floor is almost as high as the cars. Do you think this has the right dimensions?

You know, it's a rendering, so there's going to be a little bit of warbles there, but what you see there is... All these houses are not all these houses, but the older houses that were built on this street, they are built on top of the slope of the land. This house, we go into the land. So we use that where the slope was, we dig that out and we create that as the entrance to the building. And that's why we're kind of able to bring things down. Okay, thank you. Yeah, sure, happy to talk more about it. And actually, we can probably pause there. I wanted to just make sure the board is aware of that. We submitted letters of support from the Colorado Street Neighborhood Association, City Councilor Pena, and then as well as three of the at-large City Councilors. I'll pause there, Madam Chair. Thank you. Thank you.

Are there questions from the board?

Yes. If approved, are you providing any IDP units? Yes, we are.

We are. And what would the AMI be? Yeah, so we have 13 units. Sorry. So that would be two units we're providing will be affordable. And there will be rentals, so those will have to be consistent with Article 79, average at 60. Amai.

Any other questions from the board? Is Mr. Hampton on to weigh in?

Yes, thank you Madam Chair, members of the board, Jeff Hampton, City of Boston Planning Department. Our recommendation to the board was for denial. The reason being that As you are aware, Mattapan was recently rezoned back in February of last year, and the purpose of this zoning district was to help maintain and preserve Small scale residential characters of the street. Now I know, you know, Mr. Ross has stated that the abutting property of the one across the street are large in number unit structures, but those are fronting on Blue Hill Lab and are in a different zoning district altogether. So we do not support the tearing down of an existing two-family and going up to 13 units, especially with the new zoning that was adopted. back in February of 2024. So the City of Boston Planning Department is on record recommending that not.

Okay. Is there public testimony?

Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Benbury. I'm the Mattapan Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process, which consisted of a lightly attended a barter's meeting facilitated on June 23rd, were abutters voiced opposition and concerns. Abutters voiced opposition to more construction since there was already too much construction on the street as well as in the general area. Abutters were also opposed to the increased density and lack of parking as part of the plan for 13 units Next, the proponent presented the Colorado Street Community Group where they voted in support of the proposal. To date, our office has received one letter of opposition from the Greater Mattapan Neighborhood Council opposed to the exceeding of the net of the zoning code to mention the requirements suggesting a smaller proposal would be more acceptable. Our office has also received a 43 signature petition of support and seven letters of support, six of which are from city officials and organizations, Those are the Matterhunt Community Center, Colorado Street Community Group, and City Officials Henry Santana, Enrique Pepén, Julia Mejia, and Ruth Z. Loujeune. Again, those are the letters of support. 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. Okay, next we have Cindy Yedko.

Hello, it's okay. Hi, as a journey started, my name is Cindy from the council admissions office. We would like to go back up to support. Does this project as we did not receive any constituent complaint about it or request that we don't support it. So we'll go ahead and defer to the board.

Thank you.

Stradam Chair. There are no additional, no, one second, please. Thank you. We have Anthony Gilardi.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the board, Anthony Girardi, Phil City Council, Aaron Murphy's office, the council elected on record in support of the project. Thank you.

Okay, without, there are no additional comments. Hey, give me the phone. Damn it. Are there any questions from the board?

Hearing none, is there a motion?

Martin, Gilbert.

Is there a second?

Can I add a proviso, Madam Chair? Mr. Stembridge, a proviso for the proponent to execute a housing agreement with the Mayor's Office of Housing for two affordable units with an average of 60% AMI.

Mr. Stembridge, are you amenable to that?

Yes, I am.

Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Whewell.

I'm going to vote no. I appreciate the programming and the housing and the affordable units. I just can't get past that the lot coverage is almost double. What is allowed as of right, and I don't think this quite fits on this site.

Mr. Langham.

Yes.

Ms. Better Barraza.

She recused herself. Oh, sorry.

Ms. Turner. Yes. The chair votes aye. No. So the motion does not carry.

Madam Chair, would it help if I did a round of explanations on some of the comments, or would you like me to just stay quiet here?

I will allow it. Briefly.

Thank you. First of all, I do see that there is a nearby residence hand up. The other thing I would just say is that in terms of the comment that Mr. Hampton made, we are We are in an R district as opposed to an S district. I don't think we would be here if we were proposing, we wouldn't be proposing variances to the S. The R only allows for We are in a transition in that we are surrounded by these other sub-districts, so I think there might be reason there to consider that. I mean, I think those were the key points. Oh, yeah, I'm sorry. There was one other. I was trying to, for time. Yes, there's 13 units. But the old, you know, Dorchester housing stock, what you see there with, you know, seven, eight bedrooms, it just doesn't exist anymore. So a triple-decker with seven or eight bedrooms, could literally be a 13-unit building if there are 13 ones. It's just a different type of housing. No one's looking for seven or eight bedrooms. Okay, thank you.

Okay, let's try again. Is there another motion?

Okay, I'm going to make a motion of denial without prejudice, so the proponent has time to reconsider the proposal and the density.

Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Whewell?

Yes.

Mr. Langham? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. The Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, everyone. See you next time. Have a good day.

Thank you.

Bye.