Zoning Board of Appeal

Good morning. Boston Zoning Board of Appeal hearing for June 2nd, 2026 is now in session. This hearing is being... in accordance with the open meeting law, including the updated provisions enacted by the legislature this year. The new law allows the board to continue its practice of holding virtual hearings through June, 2027. is here at the board is being remotely via the Zoom right now platform and it's also being live streamed. Now I'm sure this hearing of the board is open to the public. Members of the public may access this hearing through . We're connecting to this hearing on today's hearing agenda, which is posted on the publicist's page of the city's website, boston.gov.

members of the public will enter the virtual hearing attendees which you will not see yourself on the screen and you'll be muted throughout unless eminently unmuted when asked to comment board members applicants and their attorney representatives will participate in the hearing as panelists they will appear alongside the presentation materials when speaking. Panelists are strongly encouraged to keep video on while presenting to the board. As with our in-person meetings, comments and support will be followed by comments. The order of comments is as follows. Elected officials, representatives of electors and members of public. may limit the number of people called upon to offer comment and the time for commenting as time conspire. For that reason, the board prefers to hear from the public who are most impacted by a project, that is those individuals who live closest to the objective.

If you wish to comment on an appeal, please click the raise hand button along on the bottom screen in the Zoom webinar platform. Click it again and your hands will 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 nine and lower your hand. You must press star six to unmute yourself after you receive the request from your host. You ask 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 go, please raise and as soon as you're at Stembridge is the address into the record. Do not raise your hand before the address is called or the meeting host will not go to call on you at the appropriate time. We ask that you keep your comments brief and all public testimony will be limited to 90 seconds. Okay, Mr. Stembridge.

Good morning Madam Chair, President. Good morning. Mr. Concia. Good morning, Madam Chair. Present. Good morning.

Mr. O'Connor. Good morning, Madam Chair. Present.

Good morning. Mr. Burnell. Good morning, Madam Chair. Present. Good morning. So we are a five member board. With that, I will turn it over to Mr. Stembridge. What happened now?

Thank you, Madam Chair. We'll begin today's hearings with the approval of hearing minutes scheduled for 9 30 a.m. These minutes are from May 14th

and May 19th of this year.

I'll make a motion to approve.

May I have a second? Second.

You broke up there, Madam Chair. Oh, sorry, Mr. Stembridge? Yes.

Mr. La...

Yes.

Mr. Langham? Yes. Mr. Bernal. Yes. The motion carries.

Next, we have the extension scheduled for 9 30 AM. I'll read all the extensions in one after the other. If we have any questions after that, you can direct those to Madam Chair and then we'll go from there. We begin with case BOA 1567009 with the address of 13 Alexander Street. Next we have case BOA 1436577 with the address of 110 to 118 Terra Street. Next we have case BOA 1435582 with the address of 110 to 118 Terra Street. Next we have case BOA 157

7058 with the address of 2 to 10 Hitchborn Street. And finally, for the extension, we have case BOA 12991.

09 with the address of 252 to 252A, Chamin Avenue.

And those are the extensions for us today.

Thank you. Any questions from the board? I have a motion to grant the extensions of.

I have a motion to grant the extensions of. Second. Second.

Mr. Stembridge.

Yeah.

Mr. Valencia.

Yes.

Mr. Langham.

Yes.

Mr. Bernal. Yes. Chair votes yes, the motion carried.

Next we'll move on to the hearing scheduled for 9 30 a.m. At this time we'll ask if there are any requests for withdrawals or deferrals.

Yes, Mr. Stembridge. Yes, Attorney. Yes, the address is 841-847 Morton Street.

Okay, so that would be, so this request goes for case BOA 1839863 with the address of 841 to 847 Morton Street. Would you go ahead and explain this very small?

Sure, so good morning Madam Chair, members of the board, attorney Derek Small. I have a business address at 51 Dobson Road. We're today seeking a deferral of the case for 841-847 Morton Street. The advertisements and the notices went out incorrectly, so it does have to be re-advertised, as well as a NPC notice of project change has to be filed with the planning department.

Okay, Caroline, can we have dates? So for this one, if the board could just move to defer it, and then we'll schedule a date at a later time, please. Okay. May I have a motion to defer?

Motion to defer to a later date.

May I have a second?

Second. Second.

Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Mr. Langham.

Yes.

Mr. Bernal. Yes. Chair votes yes, the motion carries.

Thank you very much, have a good day.

Next request for deferral, Mr. Alderman's deferral. Mr. Stembridge, three more street, please. But I have my hand up before Mr. Spitz.

Stay with me for a minute. So this is for case BOA-183-7592 with the address of 3 Moore Street.

Would you go ahead and explain to everyone? Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. Richard Lins, business address at 245 Sumner Street, East Boston, on behalf of the petitioner. Requesting a deferral, I believe you have a five-member board today. We would like a full board for that hearing.

Okay. Do we have dates, Caroline, or do you want to wait? We could do July 14, July 28, or August 11.

Why don't we do July 28?

Okay, with that, may I have a motion?

Motion to grant a deferral to July 28.

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

Yes.

Mr. Valencia.

Yes.

Mr. Langham.

Yes.

Mr. Bernal.

Yes.

Chair votes yes, the motion carries.

Thank you. And which case do you have your hand up for, Attorney Spitz? 163 Hillside Drive, please, Mr. Stembridge. So this request is for case BOA 18146. 1-8 with the address of 163-165 Hillside Street. Go ahead, attorneys present.

Great. Thank you, Mr. Stembridge, Madam Chair, members of the board, Attorney Ryan Spitz, Adam Smerancy, business address of 168 8th Street, 1st floor, South Boston. We are looking just for a short deferral to allow the plans examiner a little bit more time to review the revised items that were sent out.

For this one, we can do June 16th.

That's perfect. Great. Thank you.

Okay, can I have a motion? Motion to defer until June 16.

Can I have a second?

Second.

Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Mr. Langham? Mr. Langham, are you with us? I think we've lost Mr. Langham. Are you there, Mr. Langham? I see him, but... He disappeared. Hey, I don't know if Caroline or somebody can also ping him. I'm sure he's trying to jump back on. Bear with us. We are a five member board, so we need him. We need him.

Yes.

Okay, thank you, Mr. Bernal.

My pod was shut down.

Let's hope that was truly temporary. Okay, Mr. Rennell?

Yes.

Okay, the chair votes yes. The motion carries. We'll see you then.

Thank you. Any further requests? I do have a note on something, Madam Chair, but I'll ask if there are any further requests for withdrawals and referrals? Do you have a note for another one? Should we just continue and then do that and get to it?

You tell me, Caroline, what should we do?

We can just do it now, at the top of it.

Then this would be for, this request would be for case VOA 183. 3514 with the address of 176 L Street. And the note that I see here, Madam Chair, is that it will be deferred to June 16th at 1130 a.m.

Okay, with that, may I have a motion to defer?

Motion to defer this case until June 16th. May I have a second? Second.

Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Mr. Langham?

Yes.

Mr. Bernal? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

So with that, turn to the cases scheduled for the hearing scheduled for 9 30 a.m. We'll begin with case VOA 182 4653 with the address of 1 Westminster Terrace. If the applicant and or their representative are present, will they please explain the case to the board?

Hello, good morning. My name is Rachel Fabish. I live at 1 Westminster Terrace. We are trying to, hoping to finish our basement. The basement was existing and built at the time that the house was built. We are not looking to expand the footprint, raise the ceiling. It's just to turn an unfinished empty space into something livable for our family. We hope to include a playroom, a guest room for our family when they come from out of town to visit, a bathroom and a hobby shop, like a hobby space for our family. And that is what we are seeking to do.

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

Good morning Madam Chair and members. Siggy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This applicant completed the community process. Our office oversaw distribution of an informational flyer to all occupied parcels in a 300-foot radius. which solicited one letter of support to our office. The Brighton Alston Improvement Association is supporting this application. With that background, ONS defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have Ben.

Hi, good morning. I am the Fabish's next-door neighbor. I'm so close that we share a party wall. I am wholeheartedly in support of this. I think that Finishing Attics and Basements should be by right without having to bother the ZBA. Thank you.

Thanks. Next we have Anabella Gomez.

Madam Chair, members of the board, Annabella Gomes from the Brighton Olsen Approving Association. The Brighton Olsen Association voted to support this. We are very happy supporting families staying in the neighborhood. Thank you.

Madam Chair, there are no additional comments. You are muted, Madam Chair.

Sorry, I didn't want you to hear me coughing. With that, may I have a motion?

Motion to approve.

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

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Mr. Langham?

Yes.

Mr. Bernal? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck. Thank you very much.

Next, we have case BOA. 182-5552 with the address of 5-7 Aldi Street if the applicant and or their representative are present. Would they please explain the case to the board?

Hi, I'm Robert Fusunian, and you could see we wanted to convert a two-family to a three-family house, and also we want to to request of additional parking space in the property. This does not expand the footprint. We just wanted to separate the property Thank you for joining us. And also, so that's about it though. And it basically involves enlarging the bathroom, you know, from the, on the third floor to measurement of for the roughly 40 square feet. 40 square feet?

Yeah, 40 square feet. Right now it's small if you look at the If you look at the third floor, it's very small, and you can see the one below which is expanded. So basically, Proposal from two to three family and to add additional parking spaces, two parking spaces. Thank you.

Okay. Any questions from the board?

Yeah, I have one small question. What would the parking be exactly located?

It's on the side of the house. You can see from the third page, yeah, that page. You can see the first two and then we want to extend to the next ahead of it.

So basically parking spaces are already there and you're just adding two more. We're just adding two more spaces, yeah. Okay, thank you. Any other questions from the board? May I have public testimony?

Madam Chair and Board Members, Siggy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This applicant completed the community process. Our office hosted an abutters meeting on March 26, where no comments were made. The applicant has met with the Alston Civic Association and they have sent a letter of support to the board. With that background, ONS defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have Anthony Isidoro.

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. Tony D'Isidoro representing the Austin Civic Association. The opponent appeared before us with a very reasonable and appropriate floor. for planning and design in keeping with the surrounding community. We only ask that no building code relief be granted and that hopefully they refrain from renting to undergraduate students, but the ACA is in support of this proposal.

Thank you.

All right. I don't see additional hands raised for comments, Madam Chair.

Okay. With that, may I have a motion?

Motion to approve.

Is there a second?

Second.

Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia? Yes. Mr. Langham?

Yes.

Mr. Bernal? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck.

Thank you.

Next, we have case VOA-183-8237 with the address of 393 Cambridge Street. This is an article 80 case and if the applicant and or the representative would explain to the board please.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Stembridge. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is George Maranci. I'm an attorney with the business address of 350 West Broadway in South Boston. I represent the petitioner. 393 Cambridge Street Nominee Trust whose principals are Fred Starikov, Steve Whalen, and Josh Fetterman. Joining me today is Jacob Simmons representing the owners and developers and Tanya Carrier of Khalsa Design, the project architect, who will walk the board through the plans once I conclude my summary and address the requested zoning relief. This is a proposal to construct a seven-story hotel with 96 guest rooms at 393 Cambridge Street in the Boston Landing section of Alston. The project site is an approximately 8,220 square foot parcel at the corner of Cambridge Street and Wilton Street in Alston. It is currently occupied by a single story

Advanced Auto Parts Store with prominent surface parking, what the BBDA itself describes in its board memorandum as an unattractive commercial site. The project will replace that surface parking lot and low-rise retail structure with a productive transit-oriented hotel that will activate this important segment of Cambridge Street. The site is directly adjacent to two parcels, 8 Wilton Street and 15 Cambridge Street, that together form the approved Alston Square project. which is a seven-story mixed-use development of rental housing and commercial space that was approved in 2021. The scale and massing of this hotel is fully consistent with what the city has already endorsed in the immediate surrounding parcels. What is being proposed at 393 Cambridge Street is a building that fits the trajectory the city itself has set for this corridor.

The site is also within the area of the 2021 Alston Brighton Mobility Plan with Cambridge Street being identified as the future AB Transit Corridor connecting Oak Square, Brighton, and Union Square. The Planning Board's Memorandum notes that this section of Cambridge Street is a key neighborhood connector and active edge and that transit-oriented development to this character is consistent with city planning goals for the district. The site is zoned CC1 Community Commercial and on January 15th of this year, The BBDA board voted to unanimously approve the project. With respect to zoning relief, the hotel use is conditional in the Harvard Avenue CC1 Community Commercial Subdistrict.

and the code itself thus anticipates by not making this a forbidden use but rather a conditional use that hotels can in fact be appropriate in this district under the right circumstances and we certainly believe that to be the case here. This location on Cambridge Street with its transit connections, proximity to Boston Landing, and the evolving Boston Landing development area As well as the dense mixed use character of the surrounding approved projects provides an appropriate setting for a hotel use, which we think is very much needed here. With respect to the dimensional relief being requested, the CC1 zoning subdistrict imposes a maximum and somewhat unreasonable in hindsight, FAR 1.0. and a maximum building height of 35 feet.

Being proposed here is an FAR 5.68 and a height of 93 feet as well as no proposed rear yard setback against a 20 foot minimum required by code. I would note that the BBDA board's planning memorandum, our board memorandum, provides the planning rationale for these variances with the Boston Planning Department staff explicitly acknowledging that the proposed dimensions, while not aligned with existing zoning, are in fact reflective of the evolving context of the neighborhood and the activation of the Cambridge Street section of the CC1 sub-district. Thus, the base dimensional standards of Article 51, I think the conclusion is, are not really calibrated to what this Corridor has become and is becoming since this zoning was originally enacted.

The 35-foot height limit in FAR 1 belonged to, as I say, a prior generation of planning assumptions for Cambridge Street in this location. The adjacent Alston Square project which was approved by the city as I say in 2021 is also seven stories. The Brighton Guest Street area planning study which frames the planning vision for this stretch of Cambridge Street calls for transit-oriented mixed-use development of precisely this character and density. As to the rear yard, obeying a 20-foot rear yard setback here on a total parcel that is approximately 8,220 square feet would be A direct, severe, and site-specific hardship that would effectively preclude any meaningful development of this lot. A rear yard of 20 feet in this parcel size is inconsistent with

Urban Commercial Context in which the site is located and would be inconsistent with the pattern of immediately surrounding parcels and other development in the neighborhood. There's relief required for off-street parking. The code requires 67 off-street parking spaces for a hotel of this size. What is being proposed here is four drop-off spaces. This is not a failure to provide necessary parking. This was a conscious decision. It's a deliberate, planning consistent, and BTD endorsed decision not to construct automobile infrastructure in a transit-served urban location. Cambridge Street will carry the future Alston-Brighton transit corridor. The site is proximate to multiple MBTA bus routes and to Boston Landing Commuter Rail Station.

The BBVA Planning Department's review endorsed this approach and BTED has been engaged throughout the design process. The project will provide bicycle storage for 18 bikes for employees and guests at five exterior public bicycle parking spaces consistent with the 2021 bike parking guidelines. Hotel guests arriving in this location it's predicted would be overwhelmingly arriving by transit, ride hailing apps, ride share, taxis, etc. Not in privately owned motor vehicles requiring long-term storage. So constructing a 67-car garage on the site wouldn't be feasible and would be fundamentally contrary to the The transit-oriented nature of this project, which will be primarily serving people, or almost exclusively serving people from outside of Boston. There are numerous community benefits associated with the project.

If a board member requests me to recite them, I will, but I don't want to prolong my testimony before turning it over to Tanya Carrier to walk the board briefly through the plans. So at that time, unless there's any question immediately on something I just said, I propose to turn the presentation over to Tanya who will, as I say, take the board briefly through the plan set.

Thank you. Yes, briefly please.

Great, thank you. Tanya Carrier from CULSA Design. The project aims to significantly improve the streetscape along both Cambridge Street and Welton Street. Currently there is over 100 feet of curbside.

So can you move us through slides so that we can see detail that you're talking about?

I don't have access to that, but whoever's controlling the slides.

Well, you need to tell them where to go.

Oh, okay, sure. Next slide, please. This is our existing condition site plan. As I was mentioning, the project site has currently over 100 feet of curb cut along Cambridge Street with front yard parking and over 30 feet of curb cut on Wilton Street. Our project aims to close that existing curb cut fully on Cambridge Street providing a better pedestrian experience and enclose all but a single 10-foot driveway on Wilton Street, providing access to our valet drop-off parking area. Our proposed site plan, our front setback, we've aligned with the adjacent proposed development. and working closely with the BPDA on developing that. Next slide. Our landscape plan, as I mentioned, we proposed to improve the streetscape by adding a pedestrian sidewalk.

We also have four street trees proposed where there are currently none. A frontage area with visitor bike parking, seating, benches, and additional landscaping features. Next.

We don't need you to go through every slide, but can you focus on the slides that would be helpful?

Sure, you can go down to the PowerPoint. Keep going. One more. So here is our proposed work list. We have 96 total rooms proposed, a mix of king suites, double suites, and and Double Full Rooms. The ground floor is all lobby area with our parking in the rear, including some bike parking for employees. And to our exterior slides, about slide 13. Keep going. So for our exterior design, we've worked closely with the BPVA, abutters, and other neighborhood groups to develop something that fits in with the proposed and existing developments.

Seven stories tall, 93 feet, we've stepped back to the top floor and provided a generous storefront area at the ground floor for an interactive experience. And I'll leave it at that.

Okay, questions from the board? Hearing none, may I have a public testimony?

Yes, actually, Madam Chair, I have a question for Attorney Moranzi. And I'm looking around the block, and there are two other projects that you mentioned that were approved before, like 2021. Is your team or the development team also engaged in those projects or are those two different developers?

It is still the current team for that. They are still working on financing like many projects in the city. It's an approved project that my clients are trying to get underway and they've been They're in pre-construction planning right now, but it is the same development team and they do intend to complete those approved projects. Thank you.

So they were approved in 2021, right? That is correct. So if approved, this hotel, what will be the timeline for developing, for actually building this building since the other project has been waiting for many years?

It's an excellent question which obviously I don't have the answer to. I mean, for a project like this, just to get to building Permit issuance after a ZBA hearing is typically a minimum of 12 months, and then it would be a matter of getting construction financing in line. and I think everybody is hoping that certainly within the next year or after the next year that conditions will be improving both in terms of Finance, Market, and Construction Material Pricing. So hopefully it's something that could commence sometime in 2027.

Thank you, Attorney Morenzi. I was just thinking about that since the development team is the same if they are going to prioritize the other project in terms of Getting the finance in place or if they are going to try to do both at the same time. Another question is, do you have to provide linkage fund, linkage contributions?

No, there's no linkage, Mr. Valencia. This is an Article 80 small project, but there are a lot of major streetscape improvements to Cambridge Street and Wilton Street that are being required, including sidewalk widening, new street trees, planting beds. New street lighting, public seating. There's going to be a $30,000 contribution to the city's fund for parks. There's going to be a new... raised high visibility ladder crosswalk at the Wilton Street-Cambridge Street intersection. Closing of the curb cuts that are currently fronting on Cambridge Street, which will improve pedestrian continuity. So there are a number of benefits that are being provided, but not formally under what is known as linkage under Article 80. All right. Thank you, Dr. DeMoransi. 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 has deferred to the judgment of this board. Some background information on this community process. This was overseen by Boston Planning, which I'm sure they'll be able to elaborate further on. There were concerns which were also echoed by the Austin Civic Association about the lack of Parking being provided. Concerns contributed to congestion for this particular node of the corridor that connects Alston, all the way over to Oak Square in Brighton with a number of projects coming online in the Boston Landing area as well as the Great Scott Project. They were worried that there was not adequate off-street parking, which would lead to just a buildup of people doing pick-up and drop-off and double parking on Cambridge Street. I believe you should have a letter from the All-Pacific Association expressing those concerns but deferring to the board ultimately.

With that information, we'll defer to this board. Thank you. Thank you.

Next, we have Anthony DeCittoro.

Yes, good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. Tony D'Isidoro representing the Alston Civic Association. As ONS has just expressed, the Alston Civic Association will defer judgment to the board on this project. There is still a lot of concern and confusion regarding the direction the city is taking in projects like this in the community of Alston. As you know, the Boston Landing Hotel project is currently under construction. and they will be providing up to 45 parking spaces and 3,000 square feet of loading space. It's a project directly adjacent to the Boston Landing commuter rail station. and MBTA bus routes. So that's a little confusing. And like I said, there are still well-founded concerns regarding circulation in the area.

the impact on available on-street parking for residents and small business, adjoining projects with little or no parking, traffic and congestion, accessing the Massachusetts Turnpike and a lack of specificity of mitigation of are they going to provide off-campus parking? So we're going to defer judgment to the board. And I also want to express the The board brought up the Austin Square project. That's another project that has been granted numerous concessions in order to get the shovels into the ground including reducing parking significantly and eliminating condominiums The city has been very generous in granting those concessions. I have to be honest with you. The response from attorney Maranci was a bit disappointing.

This community has been waiting a long, long time. for the development of Austin Square, which is all graffiti and really a negative impact on our community. So it's unfortunate what that project has been going through as well. But again, the community sees a lot of inconsistency Allowing Boston Landing 34 parking spaces right next to the commuter rail station and yet this one here is in a transit-oriented corridor for some reason that qualifies for no parking. We have a number of projects around there in the pipeline with either no parking or very little parking. So we are going to defer judgment to the board.

Thank you. Next, we have Zoe Duvall.

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Zoe Duvall. I'm a project manager in the Denali-Vampire View Division Planning Department here at Express Planning Department supporting the project. filling in to the previous project manager on this project. This project filed their small project review application with us as an Article 80 small project on August 11, 2025. The Planning Department hosted a virtual public meeting on September 30, 2025, and then the project was approved by the BPDA Board on January 15, 2026. We're happy to see the project move forward and progress to the design review phase of article 80 for continued evaluation and we defer to this board for further action.

Mr. Block, can you speak a little bit more to the parking issue that was raised and just how you came to your decisions?

Unfortunately, Madam Chair, I was not the project manager on this project. I'm filling in for the previous project manager, but I'm happy to take it back to the team and try to get some more information on this. I was just not part of the review process, so I unfortunately could not speak to that.

Thank you.

Next, we have Magna Perez.

Thank you, Jesus. Madam Chair, members of the board, this is Magna Perez representing the Carpenters Union. We'd like to go on record and strong support of the project.

Madam Chair, there are no additional comments.

Thank you. Any other questions from the board? Any additional response from the applicant?

Yes, Madam Chair. Just on the issue of the parking, again, being a hotel project, it is not projected that this is going to be a use that is going to generate a lot of Thank you. Thank you. By ride-hailing services to the hotel with very little need for on-site parking. Anecdotally, I think most people who come to Boston don't believe that it's a good idea to rent the motor vehicle while they're here. or drive here from another state anticipating that there's going to be parking. In fact, with the hotel, it is not providing on-site parking that would disincentivize anybody bringing a motor vehicle here.

So with the four essential valet drop-off spaces that the hotel would be providing, we're confident that the use wouldn't contribute to exacerbating any on-street parking conditions.

Thank you. Chair, I have a follow-up question for Attorney Moransi. Okay. Attorney Moransi, do you have, or your team, I'm not sure if you have a sense of what would be the cost for every parking space that you are providing for the Loading parking spaces that are underground, if I understand, what is the average cost for every parking space for this project, if you have that number handy? You mean to create a garage? To create every parking space, what would be the cost?

I'm going to ask Jacob Simmons, who is here, but in terms of what the cost per space would be for excavation. There would need to be a ramp down. The site is just over 8,000 square feet, so it would be very little parking that I think would be able to be provided on site. The cost would probably be It would be very harmful, I think, to the development costs of the project. I don't know what a parking space is costing these days in terms of an underground garage. Jacob, do you have any information you can share on that? Hi, good morning.

Jacob Simmons, City Realty Group. In this particular project, it's harder to quantify because it's such a small maneuvering area. So it would be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars per space.

Thank you. I was thinking about you trying to figure out the financing for both projects and how much money you will have to add to the project, to the financing, if you want to create additional parking. Thank you. That was just for my own information.

Okay, with that, may I have a motion?

Madam Chair, I think this project is going to create Several hundreds of jobs for Boston residents, and I really hope that in combination with this project that they have next door, they can build as soon as possible and create jobs and housing. So with that, I make a motion of approval.

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

Yes.

Mr. Langham?

Yes.

Mr. Morneau? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Thank you.

Next, we have case BOA. 1760086 with the address of 57 to 59 Riverdale Street. If the applicants and or their representative are present, will they please explain to the board?

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Timothy Burke. I'm the architect for the project. I have a business address of 142 Berkeley Street in Boston. and I'm representing the owner John Bannon who was also on the call. John has owned this property for several years. He takes care of his properties very well. and rents them only to graduates or young professionals and is very aware of being a good neighbor. The existing building has three units and the proposal Since the site is almost twice the size of the minimum for this neighborhood, the proposal is to add three two-bedroom, one-bath units on the rear of the existing building and as part of that we're taking advantage of creating a new stair to make the egress better for the original kind of back stair that's there now.

and also we would be adding a sprinkler system for the entire building to improve safety. We did, during the community process, There were two neighbors on Raymond Street. If we could back up one slide, please, to the site plan. Raymond Street is at the bottom of that sheet. Actually, back to the illustrative one. Thank you. We agreed to add some fencing and landscaping along the space between the properties and also to do the driveway in a permeable paver So it will be more like a patio kind of look. There are six parking spots in this area. And also the The addition is to the north of the neighbors, so we will not be casting any shadows or blocking their light in any way. So we feel that the

The additional units are much needed in the neighborhood and a great use of the property and I think this is a great project for the neighborhood and I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Can you talk about the green space that will be eliminated to expand?

Yes, we are short on open space but there will still be a decent sized rear yard and the multi-equivalent of what's existing for the main house on the side yard. So there are some decent amount of green space there. We also feel with the permeable pavers, you know, that that area could be used for recreation by the residents as a It'll look a lot nicer than being a black top.

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

Madam Chair and members of the board, Siggy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This applicant underwent the community process Our office hosted an abutters meeting on September 29, 2025, where two direct abutters were opposed to the proposal, citing loss of open space, the proximity of the rear parking area to the lot line, and recent ongoing construction, excessive construction in the area. Our office received two letters of opposition that were forwarded to the board. The applicant met with the Alston Civic Association where there were similar concerns raised, but the applicant worked with that group to make some revisions to their plans, including to the setbacks, and the president will also testify in more detail as to their position. With that background, ONS defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Next we have Anthony Disitoru. Good morning Madam Chair, members of the board, turning to the door representing the Alston Civic Association. The Alston Civic Association would like to go on record in support The proponents appeared before us on three separate occasions. The last one being the owner of the property. And John did a great job of addressing all the key concerns that direct Butters I had and was very interested in making whatever changes that were required in order to achieve that. Again, we're asking that no building code relief be granted. If a sprinkler system is required, we would obviously be supportive of that. And again, we hope that as was expressed that he will not run down to undergraduate

Students, so we want to go on record in support. Thank you. Chair, any additional comments?

I have one more question for the architect. So the units in the back, how do you access those units if I'm a pedestrian walking and trying to access those units?

The stair tower that is on the side of the house, it sort of breaks up the massing so it doesn't seem like one long run. So the back units would be a single exit via the sprinkler system.

So I'm walking through this, so I'm looking at the site plan and what it seems is that Residents in the back would actually be walking through this driveway, essentially. So the driveway is serving two purposes, is that correct?

That is correct, yes. Another reason to use the permeable pavers there.

Okay.

Any other questions? Okay, we have a motion.

I'd like to make a motion to approve with a proviso to have design review by the planning department. to review the site design. Yeah, the site design.

Is there a second?

Second.

Mr. Stembridge.

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Mr. Langham?

Yes.

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

Thank you very much. Next, we have case BOA 1839746 with the address of 18 Garden Street. This is an Article 80 case, and if the applicant and or their representative would please explain to the board.

Thank you, Mr. Stembridge, and good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Johanna Schneider with the law firm of Hemingway and Barnes, business address 75 State Street. I'm here on behalf of the applicant. With me are Dennis Greenwood from Sousa Design, the project Architect, and Robert Allen, the owner's representative. We are here today to seek approval of an infill residential project at Edie Gardner Street in Alston. The site, which is approximately 25,500 square feet, is currently developed with an existing 28 unit residential apartment building. The new building, which is six stories of approximately 39,642 square feet, will be constructed on what is currently an asphalt parking lot and will replace an accessory garage structure. The new building will have 36 units with the following unit mix. One studio unit, three one-bedroom units, 16 two-bedroom units, and 16 three-bedroom units.

Six of the units will be income restricted in accordance with Article 79 of the Code, and that will include three-bedroom units. The existing site has eight vehicular parking spaces which will remain and an additional 18 new parking spaces are proposed. Combining the existing and new development, there will be a total of 64 residential rental units and 26 parking spaces at the site. We will be providing 38 long-term bicycle parking spaces in an interior bike room on the ground level with direct access to the exterior and eight short-term bike spaces. In support of the city's green building and carbon neutral walls, the building will be all electric. I think one of the things that our team is most proud of with this project are the significant upgrades to the site. Under existing conditions, there's only around 2500 square feet of open space on the site.

The project will provide approximately 3,100 square feet of new residential amenity open space and approximately 1,500 square feet of private patio open space for 14 of the units. The project will also provide significant landscape and vegetation including several new trees, permeable pavers, along with a courtyard between the existing and new building, and a small entry plaza and seating for residents. The project will also provide significant public realm improvements including closing an existing curb pack in front of the project site, granting the pedestrian easement to the city for a portion of the parcel that currently serves as a public sidewalk along Gardiner Street already, installing one new street tree on Gardiner Street and we will be making a financial contribution to the city's fund for parks intended to support Ringer Park. The BPDA board unanimously approved the project under small project review in October of 2025.

In their approval memo, the BPDA Board noted in particular that the project site is located within easy walking distance to nearby public transit and retail, It is less than half a mile from numerous bus lines and the MBTA Green Line and the MBTA commuter rail is just over a mile from the site. The BPA board also found that the project aligns well with the area's existing use mix. As I hope you can tell from the presentation slides before you, our team has really taken care to design a building that is consistent with its surroundings, both in terms of scale and character. And we think it's a really unique project in that it manages to add much needed housing without displacement of existing residential tenants or businesses. With that, I am happy to turn this over to Dennis Greenwood, our project architect, to walk through the plans, or we are on hand to respond to any questions that the board may have.

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

Yes, Madam Chair, members of the board, Conor Newman with the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services. This time the Mayor's Office have to defer to the judgment of this board. Some background information on the community process. This went through a Boston planning-led community process involving public meetings as well as engagement with the civic associations in this area. The public meeting was had in July of 2025. I know residents were pleased that there would be no displacements of current tenants. They went on to meet with the Alston Civic Association as well as the Brighton-Alston Improvement Association who were supportive of this proposal. With that, I'll defer to the board. Thank you.

Next, we have Anthony Disidoro. Yes, good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board, turning to the door representing the Austin Civic Association. We'd like to go and work it in support. As standard, we would appreciate that there's no building code relief granted. and given the challenges of the Gardner, Ashford, Pratt Street area with the high concentration of students and the challenges especially to law enforcement We ask very strongly in this case that the proponent refrain from renting to undergraduate students, but we do support the project.

Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have Zoe Duvall.

Yes, good morning, Madam Chair and members of the Board. Zoe Duvall again with the Planning Department here. The Express Planning Department supported this project as well. The project filed their small project review application with us as an Article 80E small project on June 27, 2025. The Planning Department hosted a virtual public meeting on July 23, 2025, and the proponent also conducted an and independent community outreach as well as Mr. Newman noted. The project was approved by the BPA board on October 16th, 2025. We're happy to see this project move forward and progress to the design review phase of Article 80 and we defer to this board for further action. Thank you.

Next, we have Maynard Perez.

Thank you, Jesus. Madam Chair, members of the board of Maynard Perez with Arkham Tristanian, we'd like to call on record and support.

Thank you. There are no additional comments.

Okay, any questions from the board? Any additional comments from the applicant? May I have a motion?

Is there a second? Second.

Mr. Stembridge? Yeah. Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Mr. Langham?

Yes.

Mr. Brunel? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck. Thank you very much.

Next, we have two Article 80 cases.

One was Father Mayor's Office Housing.

These are companion cases and the first one is case BOA-1826929 with the address of 11 Beaufort Rd. Along with that, we have case BOA 1826939 with the address of 434 Jamaica Way. The applicants, again, are they represented or present? Would they please bring these cases to the board?

Madam Chair, members of the board, my name is Jeremy Vieira, Director of Real Estate Development for Rogerson Communities. We are a nonprofit focused on senior housing with a 160-year history in the Boston area. I want to introduce my legal counsel, Joe Lieberman. Lieber, sorry. He is, and Dot Joyce, from Dot Joyce Communications, along with our architect, Davila Schaefer, and representing them is Philippe Saat. With that, I'll hand it over to Joe. Joe?

Madam Chair, members of the board, Joseph Lieber from Klein Hornig LLP with the business address of 101 Arch Street in Boston. Would you please turn to the page called Existing Conditions Plan? Should be the next page. Yeah, so this is the Rogerson House, which many of you may know on the Jamaica Way with the big setback with that big front lawn of the Jamaica Way. It is a building with 66 beds of memory care and a social day program. The proposal is to create a new building behind the existing building. and eventually to undertake a phase two on the site of the existing building, but that's not before the board now. That's still in the planning stages.

This particular project will involve the subdivision and consolidation of the parcel to create two legal parcels. If you go to the next page, We could show that. Next page, please. Yeah. Okay. Lot 1 in the rear will be the site of the new project, which we're calling, for these purposes, Rogerson Beaufort. Lot 2 in the front will be the existing Rogerson House. The site is 139,500 or so square feet. The new lot in the rear will be 47,000 and change and the existing lot will become 92,000 and change.

Because of the subdivision, there will be some relief needed for the existing project as well, which will be on a smaller and reconfigured parcel. I should say the project we've done to Article 80 approval. I meant to say that at the outset. Parking and loading was determined through the article 80 process. There will be a 35 space garage under the new proposed building. The relief we need for the new building are additional lot area, insufficient, floor area ratio excessive, building height excessive. In addition to use elements, congregate living facility is conditional and daycare center for elderly is forbidden.

The new project will consist of 41 affordable units, 100% affordable units, which don't exist at the site now, separate apartments, a memory care facility, and a social day program. Yeah, I think that about sums it up. If there are any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Otherwise, I would turn it over to Doc Joyce to speak next.

Can you talk about how loading and unloading is happening now, both of like supplies, but also people, vans, whatever you're using and how that would change With this addition?

Yeah, definitely. I think that Philippe Saad, the architect who's going to speak after Joyce, would be better positioned to address that than I would. I'm sure he has a lot to say about it.

Yeah.

Quickly, we just wanted to let you know that we went through the significant community process starting in 2024. Rogerson has been a member of this community for decades and wanted to go out early. We did a lot of informal meetings, filed our Article 80, then engaged in the formal process, received 150 pieces of feedback. over the course of the year incorporated that feedback through meetings with our elected officials and representatives of the planning department and came back with a significantly changed project that has been approved by the BPDA board, and we have received some letters of non-opposition from our community, the Jamaica Pond Association, Association, and the Jamaica Plain Neighborhood Council Zoning Committee, as well as our elected officials. With that, I'll turn it over to Philippe so you guys can see how this comes to life, but it has been significantly changed to fit more of the fabric of the community.

Density, Height, Parking, Deliveries all of the things that you can expect to bring more beauty to the space. Philippe?

Yes, thank you. Good morning, everyone. If we can go to slide number four or five. I don't see the thing on the left-hand side. Please. My name is Philip Saad. I'm the architect for Rogerson House. I'm a principal at DeMond Schaefer and my office is at 24 Farnsworth in the C-14 Boston.

And someone opened back up the file. I don't know if that's Jesus or someone else. Can you open it back?

Thank you. So if we can jump to slide number six. Thank you, I appreciate that. So this is the current condition. The existing memory care is what Joe has mentioned is aged and is very hard to renovate and hence the need to build a new replacement building and then add 41 units of assisted living on top of it. And if we go to slide number seven. You'll get a sense of the context itself, the building or the site is bordered by the forest building, a seven-story building. There's the Beaufort Road condominium to the south, three-story buildings, and then single and two-family homes around the Lockstead Avenue and Jamaica Court. Could we go to slide number eight? Thank you. So the overall plan will materialize in this way.

The red house on the left-hand side is the Rogerson house itself that will be maintained and renovated. However, Madam Chair, what's in front of us today is the six-story building on the right-hand side. The shorter building attached to the Rogerson House is what will become phase two later on, and it's still in the very, very early stages of planning. So the new building on the right-hand side of the site is in two tiers. There's a four-story portion that borders and there's a six-story portion that recedes behind the lower portion of the building to accommodate the additional 41 units of affordable housing. We go next. because this is a, slide number nine, because this is a replacement project, so we have to build first, phase one, to move the memory care residents from the existing memory care into the new builds.

and then continue later on with the completion of the site as phase two. We can go to next. Is the landscape plan showing how the whole site will be There is a street front along Wolford Road. There will be a pedestrian entrance along this road right there at the center of the building. However, to answer your question, Madam Chair, The drop-off and the pick-up will happen just like it is right now, off Beaufort Road and along that circle where it says permeable pavers. This will be re-engineered and repaved to really accommodate the new design of the site. The access to the parking, which is below the building labeled Phase 1, will be on the right hand side of the building right next to the setbacks between our buildings and the forms. There will be a ramp that takes you

The sidewalk would be landscaped, has been reviewed by the Boston BCDC's. Trees and permeable pavement again and bicycle racks for building residents. There's also an internal bike storage inside the building for the building residents and the staff. If we can go to the next slide. We've worked very much with the neighborhood and the BPDA and the BCDC to really create an exterior appearance of the building that really sits well in the masonry fabric of Jamaica Plain, echoes the building across the street from it, and really creates that low-height density streetscape along Bulford Road. And then set back behind the masonry building is the additional two stories where the affordable housing unit will happen. If we go to the next slide.

This is a section through the site again to explain how the building that is labeled a six-story will not appear as a six-story from Beaufort Road and will be receiving towards the four-story masonry volume. Next. Some angles because this is a memory care facility. Daylight and outdoor access is crucially important. So this building has many outdoor courtyards. that are secure for the residents so they can be outside unattended as needed for their dignity and freedom as well as their safety. Next. These are renderings from Beaufort Road and looking back at the building, you can see the four-story buildings appear along Beaufort Road. It has this scalloped facade that echoes the building across from it.

and an archway at the first floor that also signifies the archways that are across the street from it, what some of us call the stoops of the Boston historic architecture. Next. That's another view from the other angle. The Forbes building is right at the edge of the image on the right-hand side, and the Beaufort Road condominiums are the one on the left-hand side. And our building is right in the center. If we go to the next, it's a close-up view of the building entrance, the landscaped front of the building, and the three-line streetscape that will be planted to continue the tree line from the Forbes building all the way up to the Jamaica Way. And the last image is a view back from the Jamaica Way. If we go to the next slide.

Thank you. This is the Rogerson House on the left-hand side, built in 1957, that will be maintained and renovated. And then phase two, which sits quietly behind it, and what's in front of you today is phase one, towards the rear. This magnolia tree is currently existing and will be the center of that surface parking lot for visitors. And with this, I conclude my presentation. Thank you.

Thank you. So just a question. So currently, all vehicular access is from Beaufort. There's none from the Jamaica Way?

No, there's none.

And none contemplated?

No.

Other questions from the board?

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, I appreciate the creation of affordable housing in the area. I like the design of the building as well, and the materials that are related to the buildings in the area. Now the question is about parking. I want to piggyback on a comment or a question I made for a project earlier today. This is affordable housing and I'm really interested in getting information from your team about parking You have underground or below-podium parking spaces and also you have surface parking spaces. So do you have a sense of how much Money will the project have to spend to build that parking, the underground, and the surface? You also have a sense of per unit, per space, in terms of how that affect the creation for the whole house in here?

So I can take that. The parking spaces that are below grade will be for staff only. It was several million dollars. I can get an exact We have a number for you. I'd be happy to provide that information. It is significant, but we do require it for our staff parking. For the 41 units of affordable housing we are not providing Parking specific for those 41 units. So those units will be coming in. They will not have available parking. We focus on senior housing. So our folks tend to be on the older side of residence. They tend not to have vehicles, especially when coming over to a location like this with great transit and in a very walkable neighborhood. Those parking spaces will have the visitor parking that will be the surface lot and then the below grade parking will be for staff only and it is

I would say about 350,000 per unit of parking to build the low-grid.

350,000 per unit. Okay, thank you. We received some comments from others who are concerned about traffic. So since parking will be mostly for staff, what will be the peak hours for the traffic movement for this building?

So our peak for the additional 41 units of parking, it is approximately five. There are five trips per peak hour in the evening and I believe it's four during the day. So because there's only 41 units of additional parking, the delta in Additional trips per day is fairly limited.

So do you believe that that will not create a huge impact on the app orders? Correct.

We've worked really closely with BPDA, We will continue to work closely with the traffic, the BTD, the Boston Transportation Department to implement parking zones along Beaufort Street. We've been working on this road to make sure that all drop-offs and pickups are happening in that visitor parking area, that surface lot where all our deliveries will be occurring as well. So we're working very, very hard to make sure both operationally and with signage that all drop-offs and pickups are occurring in that current surface lot.

Okay, thank you, Mr. Vieira. Madam Chair, no more questions.

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

Yes, Madam Chair, members of the board, Conard Newman with the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services. At this time, the Mayor's Office... and this board to back information in the community process. This went through a lengthy Boston planning-led process over a year involving a handful of community meetings. As you heard, originally it was proposed with 71 units of income restricted affordable housing units for seniors. This was dramatically scaled back to 41 after feedback from neighbors related to concerns about Heights, as well as the proposed density. The applicant worked very closely with these neighbors over the course of this lengthy process, ultimately securing non-opposition from the Jamaica Pond Association and support from the Jamaica Plain Neighborhood Council. With that, I defer to the board. I will say that many recognize in the community this is a vital project for providing affordable housing for seniors so that they can stay in the neighborhood, stay in the city. Thank you.

Next we have Zoe Duvall.

Good morning again Madam Chair and members of the board. Zoe Duvall here standing in for my colleague Camille Platt-Decosta of the Planning Department this morning. This project submitted their PNF on December 20th, 2024. They held two Article 80 public meetings, the first on February 6, 2025, followed by a subsequent meeting on November 12, 2025. Both meetings were extremely well attended and in the interim the project was greatly shaped and improved based on community feedback that included comments regarding massing height and design and the circulation of the site as mentioned. In parallel with the community process, the project went in front of BCDC for review and received a vote of approval on November 18, 2025. The project received approvals from the BPDA Board on January 15, 2025. The Boston Planning Department wants to voice their support for the project presented to you today as it reflects both city and community feedback that was discussed throughout the articulating process. Thank you.

Next we have Nora Lutz. Nora, we cannot hear you.

We can't hear you.

Can you hear me now? There it is. Yes. Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is Nora Lutz, and I'm the development officer of the Neighborhood Housing Division for the Mayor's Office of Housing. The Rogerson-Bogert Project represents a strategy to invest in affordable housing for older adults in the City of Boston. This project has been modified significantly from community members and local organizations. The Ryerson team has applied to MOH's annual funding lab during the 2020 life cycle and MOH supports this project. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay, next we have Sally Zimmerman.

Yes, thank you. I'm Sally Zimmerman, 6 Beaufort Road. I'm appearing on behalf of my neighbors at 6 Beaufort Road and in recognition of a letter We submitted opposing dimensional variations, particularly height and parking for the Rogerson projects at 11-31 Beaufort and 434 Jamaica Way. We respectfully request the ZBA's consideration of their authority under the conditional use provisions of the code and noting that the conditional use has been in place since the 1950s and the forbidden use of adult daycare since the 1990s. We support both uses but note the Board's capacity to attach conditions and safeguards necessary to assure harmony with the Code. We further note that this project is phase one of a two-phase project that will substantially expand the existing character and extent of Rogerson's operations and structures.

A modest, modest further reduction in height and an increase in parking will greatly enhance the harmony of this valuable project with the character of our low-rise neighborhood. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we have... Oh, I'm not sure if Alfredo Abrason was going to comment about this. If not... Yes, Alfredo, you can unmute yourself now. Alfredo, if you can unmute yourself, if not... Okay. I don't think that he's gonna comment on this, Madam Chair. Okay.

Does the applicant want to respond to any of the concerns, the height and the parking?

Yeah, so we have, as mentioned by a few folks on this call, we have worked significantly to significantly reduce the height from seven and significantly reduce the unit count as well from 71. We have worked very hard to address as many of the concerns as we possibly can from the neighborhood and we feel that the project is currently designed takes a balance between size and delivering affordable units into the city and also taking in those concerns.

Okay, any additional comments from the board?

Yes, just to confirm, Mr. Vieira, you mentioned that the project initially had 71 units and then was reduced to 41? Correct. It was based on community process or financing? Community process. Thank you.

Okay, so that may have a motion.

Madam Chair, I would like to make a motion of approval. I think this project already went through a very robust community process, reducing the unit count, will provide less affordable units for seniors, but still some units that could be used by the people that we really try to support the most in our town, in our city. So with that, I make a motion of approval.

Is there a second?

Second.

Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Mr. Langham?

Yes.

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

Thank you. Thank you.

Next, we have case VOA-181-0476. with the address of 69 Brent Street. If the applicant and or their representative present would they please explain to the board.

Hi, my name is Mauricio Bayensi. I'm a project manager for Wolf Carpenters. We represent 69 Brent Street of Credo. It's a Dorchester project. Good morning, ma'am. Good morning chair members. The project is improving existing unfinished basement to a livable space. We're going to create an area for a family room, watching TV, relaxing, a bathroom, and one small closet. We're not adding anything on the footprint of the existing house. It's just improving what already is there. And that's basically the project.

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

Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Embury.

I service the Dorchester Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Immigrant Services.

The applicant has completed the community process, which consists of a notice meeting facilitated on March 10th,

With two guests present, the proponent presented the details of the project and responded to questions from attendees and one of them voiced support for the proposal.

Following their voters' meeting, the forum was connected to create a conference for a neighborhood council where they voted in support of the proposal, which completed the community process. Thank you for your time, and the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services would like to defer to the Board of Directors.

Next, we have Liam Remus.

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

Thank you.

Madam Chair, any additional comments?

Does that man have a motion?

Motion to approve.

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

Yes.

Mr. Langham?

Yes.

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

Good luck. Thank you very much, ma'am. You guys have a nice day.

Thank you, you too.

Madam Chair, the next case has been deferred, so that will take us to case BOA-182-2982 with the address of 102 Nightingale Street. Is the applicant and or 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 H Street, 1st floor, South Boston. Joining me today is the owner Augustine Kim and the project architect Tim Johnson. The application in front of you today is to erect a new three-story, three-family residential building on a vacant lot. This type of use is allowed in this sub-district of a 3F5000. and is entirely consistent with the surrounding neighborhood fabric. The parcel is approximately 3,230 square feet, measuring approximately 34 feet wide and 95 feet deep, a typical lock configuration for this block. The lot is presently vacant and the proposed development would bring three new housing units to an underutilized parcel in a residential neighborhood. The proposed building is three stories and a three family, the predominant building type within this immediate neighborhood. The immediate adjacent lot is the same dimensions as this subject parcel and already contains

A building of similar mass and in use. This project simply fills the gap. One unit will also be offered as affordable through the Mayor's Office of Housing. We have violations for lot area, lot width, frontage, and additional lot area. Again, the lot is 3,230 square feet, where 7,500 square feet is required for a three-family, 5,000 for the first two units, plus 2,500 square feet per additional unit. The lot width is 34 feet where 35 feet is required. These are pre-existing conditions that are common violations in the surrounding context. We have a floor area ratio violation. The proposed FAR is a 1.5 against the maximum of a 0.8. But again, it's a common violation in the surrounding context due to the sizes and the massings of the buildings already built in this neighborhood. Side yard violation. Proposed side yard is 4 feet, where 10 feet is required and is a common violation of the surrounding context arising from the narrow width of the lot.

Front yard depth is in line with the neighboring homes as a moral setback, noting that we shouldn't have been cited for zoning relief. Regardless, any front yard variation is consistent with the established building line of the street. Parking, we have two off-street parking spaces are required. None are being provided here. However, it is aligned with the mayor's initiative reducing dependency on private vehicles. And the last violation we have is for screening and buffering due to the mechanical quarrel. Planning Department's recommendation is approval with the single provisal that the plans be submitted for design review to minimize the visibility of the rooftop mechanical coral. The rooftop plan already incorporates a 30-inch parapet cornice and the mechanical choral is set back from the street facing the parapet. The team here is prepared, if approved, to address any sort of screening to the department's satisfaction. At this point, Madam Chair, I'm going to turn it back over to you and the board for any questions or comments.

Thank you. Are there any questions from the board? May I have public testimony?

Madam Chair and members of the Board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Bembry. I am the New York Chester Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Liquid Services. The applicant has completed the community process, which consists of an abutters meeting facilitated on March and with no other voters present and no additional community process required, the proposal is approved and moved forward. The proponent has advised our office, as you have heard, that one of the three units will be offered as affordable through the Mayor's Office of Housing. Thank you for your time. The Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services would like to defer to the Board of Directors.

Thank you. Next, Eustacia from Consular Warrows Office.

Hi, yes, thank you Madam Chair, members of the board. Anastasia from Councilor Walla's office of District 4. Councilor Walla would like to defer to the board but express his concern about the project not offering any home ownership units, despite that being a long ask from the community. So we'd like to defer to the board. Thank you.

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

Madam Chair, if I could just rebut, these are home ownership units too. Great, thank you.

With that, may I have a motion? May I have a motion?

I'm glad to hear a motion of approval.

Is there a second?

Second.

Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Mr. Langham.

Yes. Yes.

Mr. Bernal. Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carried. This is below.

Great. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.

And Chair, the next case has also been deferred. So that will take us to case BOA-181-1910 with the address of 24 Nealian Crescent. If the applicant and or their representative present, will they please explain the case to the board?

Yeah, this is Jean Jo. We are living in 24 Neyland Crescent. Sorry, I'm the homeowner of this house. We are requesting approval of a second floor and rear addition to our existing single family house. Our family has lived in this house And with our two growing children, so we are seeking for additional living space, a second full bathroom to better meet our family needs. So this is our floor plan and if you can see this plan that to mitigate some privacy concerns so we don't have the

in the addition on our back side. We don't have the window on our right side. And that will be a closet. And on the left side, We are seeking for a minor relief of the side yard. The current house is already 6.8 feet to our side back. And by removing the stairs, we actually extend that to about 10 feet. So, yeah, this is all. Any questions?

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

Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Bembry. I'm the Jamaica Plain Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Playbook Services. The applicant has completed the community process, which consists of the Brothers Meeting facilitated on March 3rd and was attended by two guests. No issues or concerns were raised during the meeting. Next up, we're going to present the the proposal to Jamaica Hills Association on March 11th and Jamaica Plain Neighborhood Council on April 15th where the proposal received approval. Thank you for your time in the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services. We'd like to defer to the board and the judge.

Thank you. Next, we have A.B. Algazi.

Yes, I hope you can hear me. Yes, sir. Yes, I'm a neighbor of an A-Land 24. I have concern about the extension to the south, which is basically a two-story building in front of my one-story bedroom. So that's my concern. Okay, thank you.

Chair, there are no additional comments.

Would the applicant like to briefly address that concern before we move?

Yes, so in overall, as I mentioned previously, we have a closet. at the back back extension so we don't have a window to like our to look to our neighbors um and yeah i think that's My colleague addressed this.

Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions from the board? May I have a motion? Motion to approve. Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge? Yep. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Mr. Langham?

Yes.

Mr. Bernal? Yes. Chair votes yes, the motion carries. Good luck, ma'am. Thank you.

Madam Chair, the next two cases have been deferred. So that takes us to the hearing scheduled for 11 a.m. At this time we'll ask if there are any request for withdrawals or deferrals from the 11 a.m. time period.

and just a reminder, we are a five person, five member board.

And with that, we'll go to case BOA 18427. 48 with the address of 33 Hawthorne Street. If the applicant and or their representative are present, will they please explain the case to the board?

Thank you, Ms. 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. The project in front of you is 33 Hawthorne Street. I don't know if we could pull up the plans. The Ambassador. There we go. Great. Thank you. This is a pretty straightforward proposal. We're looking to change the occupancy. It's an existing two-family dwelling. To a three-family dwelling, and that would be by adding a dwelling unit in the basement that has a ceiling height of seven foot six and two full means of egress.

We're also, there is some attic space that exists now, so we're proposing putting a dormer in the building to add some, to make that space more livable, and it would create some additional bedrooms for the building, but all of the work would be contained within the existing building itself, and that is why BPD recommended an approval as well. If we could go for the next slide, please. This just shows a composition of buildings in the area. You've got a lot of twos, some threes, some larger buildings as you go down the street as well. If you can go to the next slide, please. These are just street views. Next slide. We'll get into the site plant, I believe. And we get into the plans now.

So what the new layout or the basement, which is unit B, would be a 685 square foot unit. First floor, 1136. The basement would have two bedrooms, one bath. Unit 1 would have two bedrooms, two baths at 1,136 square feet, and then Unit 2 would be a four-bedroom, family-size unit, three baths, 1,786 square feet. We also have two tandem spaces now as we worked with community process. We added an additional space, so there will be three parking spaces on the left side where the driveway is existing now. There would also be a separate area in the basement and many more.

Thank you. to the Roslindale Village MBTA and multiple bus routes are great for those folks commuting. The areas that did require or were asking for zoning relief is FAR, and the rest of the building. We would need relief for that, although we do have The three created spaces and it's a great MBTA location for MBTA type use. With that, I can answer any questions that the board may have.

Thank you. Are there questions from the board?

Yes, Madam Chair. Attorney Drago, I think I've heard you say, though, for the basement, it would be 7'6".

Correct.

Yes.

Yes, sir.

Which you mean to be...

As for living space, does that include bedrooms?

Yes, so there would be two bedrooms in the basement itself, in the basement space, and that area is 685 square foot unit. Yep. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions from the board?

I'm just wondering, is this honorary occupied?

It has housed families. There's a long-term tenant that's there that will remain in the building as well. Family has lived in it over the years, yes.

Okay, thank you. May I have public testimony? Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Bembry. I'm the Roslindale Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Midway Services. The applicant has completed the community process, which consisted of an abutters meeting facilitated on March 12th where several attendees raised concerns regarding the proposal. Parking was the most frequently discussed issue with multiple attendees expressing concern that the proposed development would worsen existing parking shortages in the area. Residents noted that parking is already limited due to nearby community usage such as the public school and the lack of direct rapid transit access. The question about the post office parking would be sufficient to accommodate future residents. Attendees also inquired whether the proposed units would be rental apartment condos, condominiums, as well as the availability of affordable housing units at the Several attendees inquired about the impact of the project on the existing long-term tenants. Additional concerns included the overall size and scale of the proposal with some attendees stating that they felt the project was excessive and unparalleled.

with the surrounding neighborhood as well as the potential impact of exterior lighting on their adjacent properties.

One attendee expressed support for the proposal while similarly requesting information regarding, again, the future of the current long-term residence.

As you heard, they will not be remaining on the property.

Next, the proponent presented two questions.

Village, and Neighborhood Association, which completed the community process.

Thank you for your time, and the Mayor's Office and Neighborhood Services would like to defer to the Board for their judgment.

Thank you. Next, we have Bob. Hi, yes, I'm a resident living on Hawthorne Street. I understand that the proposal was to say there's numerous other three families This neighborhood is a single-family, two-family neighborhood. We do have a community center, the old Rosendale High School. We have been inundated with numerous traffic now as stated by Jeremy with the Washington Irving School becoming the Sarah Roberts School which has combined two schools. Parking is tight. We have people who park from the Social Security office around the corner when they make visits there, employees to the library. The street is very dense at this time. Understanding that the space will be rented in the basement.

I don't know, does the basement get single use, or is it something that's supplied to the tenant on the first floor? Also, too, as stated, we've had rentals there before. It seems like we have a rental to Traveling Nurses. So the street does get inundated with numerous cars, people from Maine, New Hampshire, people traveling in, working six months a year, seven months a year, understanding that the city does need More residencies. I don't know if a three-family fits the fabric of this neighborhood. And it is dense at this time already. So that would be my comment to this. Thank you. Madam Chair, we don't have additional comments.

If I may respond, Madam Chair.

Yes.

Just a couple of points. One on the tenant. We actually submitted a letter from the tenant that they will be remaining on the property and they've been very happy at the site. and that's our plan is to keep any tenants that are there in the property or if they so choose another property that the owner does own. Two, we actually created an additional parking spot just to address some of the neighbors concerns about parking as well. Even though this is, as I mentioned, 10 minutes walk to the Roslindale Village Station as well, in the BPD recommendation, it even mentions that eventually it's likely these basement units would be Thank you very much. The attic space is already existing, has living space up there. All we were looking to do was make it more functional.

We do not use that now, but by making the dormer, it actually creates some additional space as well. Everything in the basement would be sprinklered, have full egresses, egress windows, and all of these plans were prepared by David Freed from Chu, and he's also on the call as well. So, thank you.

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

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

Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Mr. Langham? Yes. Mr. Brunel? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next, we have case BOA-181, 3709 with the address of 36 to 44 Broad Street. If the applicant and or their representative present, would they please explain to the board?

Yes, thank you. I've got some, we've got some time. Can we mute whoever's not speaking? Thank you, okay. This is Michael Jamo, representing Verizon Wireless from Law Firm Robinson and Cole, and my colleague Madeline Newman. Selco Partnership, which does business as Verizon Wireless, is seeking relief Under Article 6, to install a rooftop wireless facility. We can go to the next slide. The facility's at 36 to 44 Broad Street, which is the building that occupies The downtown block surrounded by broad central India and Milk Street. The proposed facility consists of, if we could go to slide six at this point, Thank you.

So it consists of three sectors of four antennas each, and if you look at the yellow highlighting there, All the antennas are fully enclosed within canisters that will be painted or wrapped to match the appearance of the building facade so that the antennas themselves are not visible. There's a total of nine canisters, three for each sector. In the right lower quadrant of that plan, you can see two of the sectors. One's facing Milk Street. One's facing Broad Street. In those sectors, the canisters will be mounted to the back of the building parapet on pole mounts. And for these two sectors... Pardon me. For these two sectors, the relief is required from the roof setback, the 10-foot setback from the edge of the roof provision under Article 86.

And these antennas need that relief because they need to be able to see over the edge of the building to operate properly. The third sector consists of three antennas on pole mounts to the existing penthouse on the building roof. Those are the other three yellow highlighted circles in the These require relief from the provision which limits the height above the roof to 20 feet or 20% of building height. The canisters exceed that standard, but they are only eight feet above the level of the existing penthouse roof. The installation will also include battery cabinets and other equipment needed to operate the wireless facility that will be on a platform mounted on the roof and that's the green highlighted area up there. If you turn to slide four please. Verizon Wireless needs this proposed facility in order to maintain high quality wireless service in the downtown area.

The proposed facility will handle some of the demand on the wireless network in the busy area east of Post Office Square. enhancing the performance of the surrounding Verizon Wireless sites that are operating at or near capacity so the targeted area is the area with the hatching in the picture and as you can see that will offload demand on the surrounding sites in Post Office Square, Government Center, the site called Central Artery and will provide better service. The proposed facility is needed in order to, the proposed relief is needed in order to allow the antennas to function properly. The facility will have minimal impacts it will not have any greater impacts than then a conforming application would be because the antennas will be hidden within the cylindrical enclosures to present a neat appearance. The proposed facility will benefit the neighborhood and the city as a whole.

It will provide improved wireless service for residents and others working and traveling in the downtown area. The application includes a narrative addressing all the standards for relief and we would be happy to answer any questions you might have. I have Keith Valenti who's the R.F. Engineer on this site available by phone.

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

Madam Chair, members of the board, my name is Eva Jones, representing the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services. Regarding 36 to 44 Broad Street, our office differs to the board's judgment. The community process was conducted, including distribution of a subcommittee flyer mailed off on February 25th, 2026. This outreach generated Any responses from community members? Two respondents sought additional information regarding the proposal and after receiving clarification, one indicated that they would voice non-opposition to the project. One letter of opposition was also submitted citing concerns about the visual impact of the proposed antennas atop the building. This letter has also been submitted to the board. The proposal was also reviewed by the Wharf District Neighborhood Association, which voted in support of the project and has also submitted a formal letter to the board. At this time, the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services defers to the board's judgment on this matter. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Chair, we don't have additional comments.

With that, may I have a motion?

Motion to approve.

Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge. Mr. Stembridge?

You're on. Sorry about that, Madam Chair. Yes.

Okay, thank you. Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Mr. Langham? Yes. Mr. Bernal? Yes. Chair votes yes, the motion carries. Good luck. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay, with that, it looks like we have a break until 12 p.m. for the court remand.

I'll see you all then.

Roll call again. Mr. Stembridge. Present, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Mr. Valencia. Present, Madam Chair. Mr. Langham.

Present, Madam Chair.

And Mr. Rennell. Present, Madam Chair. All right. The floor is yours, Mr. Stembridge.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Next, we'll be going to a court remand hearing scheduled for 12 p.m. This is case BOA-1359438 with the address of 22 Hanover Street. Is the applicant and or their representative present? Would they please explain the case to the board?

Yes. May I speak?

Yes, please.

OK. My name is Park McDowell. I'm the architect for this project. I'll advise you when to advance the slides, but if you could start on the first page please, that would be helpful. As it was stated, we are here today for a remand hearing at the direction of the Suffolk Superior Court. And to provide a little background, in 2022, this project was approved by community groups, by the Board of Appeals, by the ISD by PEA. Subsequently, an abutter appealed this board's decision granting zoning relief. And recently, the Suffolk Superior Court denied that plaintiff's request for summary judgment, but it did ask the BOA to review its decision specifically regarding rooftop structures. So on behalf of my client, I respectfully ask this board to affirm their previous decision as our process was appropriate and consistent with all governing regulations. If you go to the second slide, please. Yeah.

The timeline, wonderful. So this project timeline, it validates the BOA's previous approval. May 21, we followed the required process for seeking zoning relief. The mayor's office notified all neighbors about the project. We secured the support of both community advisory groups, that's NEW-RA and NEW-NIC. The BOA then approved our petition for zoning relief with the proviso required in BPDA design review of the rooftop and the head house and screen. and this is important because the court specifically asked the BOA to confirm that these rooftop features have been reviewed thoughtfully. This is why we are here today. And they have been reviewed thoughtfully. After several months of design review, the BPDA asked us to remove a six-foot privacy fence that we had in our original proposal. We did that, and the BPDA approved the design, including all rooftop features. Next slide, please.

The subsequent slide shows the BPDA approved design documents. Note the existing condition of the building shown in the left, which already features a roof deck and head house, the very things that are up for discussion today. I have got other slides that indicate the overall project, but at this time I'm happy to relinquish the floor and answer any questions the board may have. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Are there questions from the board?

What were the, I understand what the judge is asking for, what were the objections that were raised in trying to get us to this point?

The abutter objected to everything about the project, including pre-existing conditions over which we have no control and which aren't under the purview of any of the decision makers here today. So a boilerplate rejection of the project from an abutter who has a track record of filing many lawsuits.

Answer your question, Mrs. Stembridge?

Yes, it did, Madam Chair.

Okay. Are there any other questions from the board?

Yeah, I have one quick question. I'd just like to know why did the abutter object to this project?

It's a little bit difficult for me to speak to that without addressing the character of the abutter. I think the most general way to say it is the abutter owns Deceased. So it's his estate which is carrying on this lawsuit. They own many different properties and file many different lawsuits. We were the recipient of this particular one. Okay. Okay.

All right, any other questions?

Madam Chair, are we just asking questions or making comments as well?

or eventually we're getting to a motion, but you can, yes. Questions and or comments.

Thank you. It's not a question. I'm just, I was looking at the site plan and documents and also the location on Google. I am familiar with the street. I see that there are several similar structures in the area, different rooftop structures. There is not a lot of open space like in the area for families. and I don't see how this change to the property or this addition is going to Risk, Pedestrian Safety or Increase Any Traffic, Mobility or Increase Traffic at All. And I'm just trying to understand what are the motives from

I don't think we're here to question other people's motives, we're just here to focus on what the applicant is requesting.

Okay, thank you Madam Chair.

All right, okay, Caroline, is public testimony required for this? I would take public testimony, yes. Okay, anything else from the applicant before we do so?

No, my statement is complete. Thank you.

Okay. May I have public testimony?

If there is. I'm not sure if there will be, but...

I don't see anyone from ONS, but then we can go with Robert Hopkins.

I'm an attorney who represents the affronter issue.

Okay, briefly, 90 seconds.

Well, of course. So my client owns the property at 374-376 North Street, located directly behind the property that's being permitted. The reason we objected and continue to object is because the project contemplates a two-story addition to a one-story portion of the property, which addition is going to cut off a lot of light and air to our patio, which is located directly behind the project. So we continue to oppose this project as detrimental to my client's property, particularly the decreased privacy, increased shadowing, massing, and scale. We appeal the prior decision to the Superior Court. That is now on appeal to the appeals court. The portion of the variance that the judge, we believe incorrectly, said wasn't needed.

and now we're here on remand for the conditional use permit portion of the project which we ask that the Corps did not. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Any other raise hands?

I'd like to speak to that if I could.

After we go through any other public testimony?

I don't see any other hands raised.

All right, thank you. So please, the applicant.

I just want to clarify that the issue that Robert Hopkins cited is not the issue up for debate today. The judge ruled that that was something that we could do by right, that is the two-story extension. It is not something we have to decide today. You're directed as the Zoning Board of Appeals by the Suffolk Superior Court to consider the rooftop structures.

Thank you. All right. Any other questions on that aspect? from the board. Hearing none, is there a motion?

Madam Chair, also, if the board has any comments as well, this is also the time, or if they have any follow-up questions. Of course.

Well, just to continue my previous comment, I think the structure is appropriate for the area. This is a very dense area that has similar structures. You can see that just on Google Maps. So I think this project is a good fit for the building. I don't see any challenges about this.

And I would like to second Mr. Valencia's comment, you know, look, you know, knowing the area and, you know, just noting that there is You know it's a multi-family dense area of the city. I think this is pretty much in line with what we would want to see.

Okay I'll go back to is there a motion?

I'll make a motion of approval basically to go along with The roof deck is intended for typical residential use in this area. And I don't see why it wouldn't be allowed. So I'll make a motion of approval on that basis.

Okay, is there a second?

Second.

Second. Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Mr. Langham? Did we lose Mr. Langham?

Yes, yes.

Okay, thank you. Mr. Bernal? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck.

Thank you each very much for your time.

Okay, so the last item on the agenda is the adoption of proposed rules and regulations. I'm not sure if Mr. Stembridge is supposed to read that in or.

I'll do that, Madam Chair.

Okay. That was a long, awkward pause, so just checking.

Not a problem. Next on the agenda we have, we'll discuss adoption of proposed rules and regulations. Madam Chair.

Okay, has everyone had an opportunity to review the proposed rules and regulations? Yes. Excellent. Any questions or concerns?

No, no questions, no concerns, just comment that we have to, we should follow and review those regulations and make, in the future, make appointments for positions that are still vacant.

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

Could I have a motion to approve the rules and regulations?

Thank you. May I have a second? Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Mr. Langham?

Yes.

Mr. Bernal? Yes. The chair votes yes, the motion carries. All right. I think that's it. Is that it for today? Are we done? All right.

There's nothing else on the list.

All right. Excellent. Well, thank you very much. Have a great day, everyone.

Have a great day.