Zoning Board of Appeal

The City of Boston Zoning Board of Appeal hearing for December 16, 2025, was called to order. The hearing was conducted virtually via Zoom webinar, in accordance with the Open Meeting Law, allowing virtual hearings through June 2027. Public access was provided via telephone and video conferencing, with attendees muted unless unmuted administratively. Board members, applicants, and representatives participated as panelists. Public comments were structured to prioritize elected officials, their representatives, and then members of the public, with a preference for those most impacted by a project. Public testimony was limited to 90 seconds per speaker.

• Governing Body: City of Boston Zoning Board of Appeal
• Meeting Date: December 16, 2025
• Attendees:
  • Chair
  • Mr. Stembridge (Secretary)
  • Mr. Valencia
  • Ms. Turner
  • Mr. Langham
  • Mr. Collins
  • Ms. Pinado

The Board considered the approval of hearing minutes from the meetings of December 6th and December 9th.

• Motion: To approve the minutes.
• Second: Yes.
• Vote:
  • Mr. Stembridge: Yes
  • Mr. Valencia: Yes
  • Ms. Turner: Yes
  • Mr. Langham: Yes
  • Mr. Collins: Yes
  • Ms. Pinado: Yes
  • Chair: Yes
• Outcome: The motion carried unanimously.

Mr. Stembridge read a list of extension requests, noting they all appeared reasonable.

• Cases for Extension:

  • Case BOA-134-4283, 1 Rowling Road
  • Case BOA 1263429, 329 Galvin Boulevard
  • Case BOA 1137716, 1750 to 1758 Dorchester Avenue
  • Case BOA 836-636, 603 Dorchester Avenue
  • Case BOA 1335853, 46 Parsons Street

• Motion: To grant the extensions as requested.

• Second: Yes.

• Vote:

  • Mr. Stembridge: Yes
  • Mr. Valencia: Yes
  • Ms. Turner: Yes
  • Mr. Langham: Yes
  • Mr. Collins: Yes
  • Ms. Pinado: Yes
  • Chair: Yes

• Outcome: The motion carried unanimously.

The Board considered a request for an extension of time to file a decision for a specific case.

• Case: BOA 1733319, 22 Pratt Street
• Motion: To approve the extension.
• Second: Yes.
• Vote:
  • Mr. Stembridge: Yes
  • Mr. Valencia: Yes
  • Ms. Turner: Yes
  • Mr. Langham: Yes
  • Mr. Collins: Yes
  • Ms. Pinado: Yes
  • Chair: Yes
• Outcome: The motion carried unanimously.

Case BOA 1267349: 288 Ridgman Road

• Applicant: Felix Sanchez
• Proposal: Seeking zoning relief for front motor alignment and rear setbacks for a proposed project.
• Discussion: The applicant stated that new, modified plans were submitted yesterday but had not yet been uploaded or reviewed by the plans examiner. The plans examiner's review could take up to two weeks, causing a delay. The applicant expressed concern about a construction loan maturing in March.
• Decision: Deferred to February 24th.
• Motion: To defer until February 24th.
• Second: Yes.
• Vote:
  • Mr. Stembridge: Yes
  • Mr. Valencia: Yes
  • Ms. Turner: Yes
  • Mr. Langham: Yes
  • Mr. Collins: Yes
  • Ms. Pinado: Yes
  • Chair: Yes
• Outcome: The motion carried unanimously.

Case BOA 1261313: 154 Terrace Street

• Applicant: Joe Federico (owner and developer)
• Proposal: Requesting a deferral.
• Discussion: The applicant was contacted by the Boston Planning Department and asked to defer the case until a filed Notice of Project Change has been voted on.
• Decision: Deferred to February 24th.
• Motion: To defer until February 24th.
• Second: Yes.
• Vote:
  • Mr. Valencia: Yes
  • Mr. Stembridge: Yes
  • Ms. Turner: Yes
  • Mr. Langham: Yes
  • Mr. Collins: Yes
  • Ms. Pinado: Yes
  • Chair: Yes
• Outcome: The motion carried unanimously.

Case BOA 175-8750: 20 Milford Street

• Applicant: Nick (Holland Companies, representing Joseph Holland)
• Proposal: To comply with Groundwater Conservation Overlay District (GCOD) plans for a groundwater conservation system.
• Discussion: The applicant stated their intent to fully comply with the GCOD plans, which are BWSC approved. Christian Simonelli from the Boston Groundwater Trust confirmed that both G-card letters from the applicant had been received.
• Motion: To approve.
• Second: Yes.
• Vote:
  • Mr. Stembridge: Yes
  • Mr. Valencia: Yes
  • Ms. Turner: Yes
  • Mr. Langham: Yes
  • Mr. Collins: Yes
  • Ms. Pinado: Yes
  • Chair: Yes
• Outcome: The motion carried unanimously.

Case BOA-170-3964: 33 Princeton Street

• Applicant: Joseph Luna (project architect for Richard Veraci)
• Proposal: Requesting a deferral.
• Discussion: The applicant requested a deferral due to an unexpected legal matter requiring his attendance in court at 11:00 AM. The earliest possible hearing date was January 13th, 2026.
• Decision: Deferred to January 13th, 2026.
• Motion: To defer to January 13th.
• Second: Yes.
• Vote:
  • Mr. Stembridge: Yes
  • Mr. Valencia: Yes
  • Ms. Turner: Yes
  • Mr. Langham: Yes
  • Mr. Collins: Yes
  • Ms. Pinado: Yes
  • Chair: Yes
• Outcome: The motion carried unanimously.

• Applicant: Alex Preziosi-Mishner (resident) and architect Dan
• Proposal: Full gut renovation of an 1896 single-family home, including minor rear extensions and third-floor dormers, to accommodate the applicant's family.
• Public Testimony:
  • Jeremy Bembry (Jamaica Plain Community Engagement Specialist, Office of Neighborhood Services): Stated that the applicant completed the community process, including an abutters meeting on September 24th, which garnered overwhelming support and praise for the design. The Jamaica Plain Neighborhood Council approved the proposal on November 5th. The Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services deferred to the Board's judgment.
  • Gary (41 Oakview Terrace, abutter): Spoke in favor, noting the house had been an eyesore and the applicant's family is a critical part of the neighborhood.
• Motion: To approve.
• Second: Yes.
• Vote:
  • Mr. Stembridge: Yes
  • Mr. Valencia: Yes
  • Ms. Turner: Yes
  • Mr. Langham: Yes
  • Mr. Collins: Yes
  • Ms. Pinado: Yes
  • Chair: Yes
• Outcome: The motion carried unanimously.

• Applicant: Matt Lawler (attorney for Mass Five) and Marie Oresette (Mass Five)
• Proposal: Construction of one three-story, six-unit multifamily residential structure with six parking spaces. Four units would be affordable to households making up to 80% AMI, and two units would be affordable up to 100% AMI, all for homeownership. The project seeks a use variance under Article 65, Section 65-8, as regulations do not allow more than three dwelling units in a three-family 6,000-sub-district. This plan was previously approved for dimensional zoning relief in February but requires a use variance.
• Public Testimony:
  • Jeremy Bembry (Mattapan Community Engagement Specialist, Office of Neighborhood Services): Reported that the applicant completed the community process, with subcommittee notification to all abutters and no community feedback, indicating the proposal is non-controversial. The Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services deferred to the Board's judgment.
• Motion: To approve with a proviso that the plans are submitted to the planning department for design review.
• Second: Yes.
• Vote:
  • Mr. Stembridge: Yes
  • Mr. Valencia: Yes
  • Ms. Turner: Yes
  • Mr. Langham: Yes
  • Mr. Collins: Yes
  • Ms. Bernardo: Yes
  • Chair: Yes
• Outcome: The motion carried unanimously.

• Applicant: Carlos Mariano
• Proposal: Requesting to change the name of the business.
• Public Testimony:
  • Jeremy Bembry (Dorchester Community Engagement Specialist, Office of Neighborhood Services): Stated that the applicant completed the community process, with subcommittee notification to all abutters and no community feedback, indicating the proposal is non-controversial. The Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services deferred to the Board's judgment.
• Motion: To approve.
• Second: Yes.
• Vote:
  • Mr. Stembridge: Yes
  • Mr. Valencia: Yes
  • Ms. Turner: Yes
  • Mr. Langham: Yes
  • Mr. Collins: Yes
  • Ms. Pinado: Yes
  • Chair: Yes
• Outcome: The motion carried unanimously.

• Applicant: Bonnie Tian (JCBT Architect)
• Proposal: To establish a 2,900 square feet new dine-in Jamaican restaurant with a liquor bar at the ground level of a mixed-use building at the Four Corner Plaza. The restaurant will have approximately 77 seats. Relief is requested for change of use and off-street parking and loading.
• Public Testimony:
  • Jeremy Bembry (Dorchester Community Engagement Specialist, Office of Neighborhood Services): Reported that the applicant completed the community process, including an abutters meeting on October 22nd, which received overwhelming support from attendees, civic members, and City Councilor Worrell's office. The United Neighborhood Association also approved the proposal. The Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services deferred to the Board's judgment.
  • Timothy Guimon (City Councilor Brian Worrell's office): Reiterated support, stating it would be a great addition to the Four Corners area.
• Motion: To approve.
• Second: Yes.
• Vote:
  • Mr. Stembridge: Yes
  • Mr. Valencia: Yes
  • Ms. Turner: Yes
  • Mr. Langham: Yes
  • Mr. Collins: Yes
  • Ms. Pinado: Yes
  • Chair: Yes
• Outcome: The motion carried unanimously.

Case BOA 17894434: 29-29F Romsey Street

Case BOA 1789440: 33 Romsey Street

• Applicant: Attorney John Pulgini (on behalf of 2933 Romsey Street, LLC) and William Christopher (project architect)
• Proposal: Demolition of two existing buildings (a dilapidated three-family and a commercial building) and construction of two new residential buildings on four lots totaling 25,271 square feet. The zoning is two-family, 4,000.
  • 29 Romsey Street: Seven three-bedroom market-rate homeownership townhouse units, each with a dedicated single-car garage parking space. Units will be over 2,000 square feet with 2.5 baths.
  • 33 Romsey Street: 22 residential units (21 two-bedroom, 1 studio) with 11 garage parking spaces.
  • Overall: The proposal includes 12 income-restricted units, providing over 40% affordability (a blend for 80% Area Median Income). The project preserves nearly half the site as open space and includes public realm improvements like wider sidewalks and landscaping.
• Public Testimony:
  • Eva Jones (Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services): Reported that the BPDA community process began on July 25, 2025. Significant opposition was received from the community regarding the scale, impact on sunlight, parking stress, and unsuitability for a small residential one-way street. The Columbia Seven Hills Civic Association voted to oppose the proposal on July 17, 2025. The Mayor's Office deferred to the Board's judgment.
  • Liam Remus (Councilor Fitzgerald's Office): Stated support for the proposal.
  • Jessica Hayes (23 Romsey Street, abutter): Strongly opposed, citing the project's excessive size for the street, loss of privacy and trees, and the fourth floor looking directly into her bathroom. She compared it to a larger project on Dorchester Avenue, arguing this project is bigger on a smaller side street.
  • Jamal Briscoe-Maxwell (40 Romsey Street, abutter): Strongly opposed, stating the project would change the neighborhood for the worse and that 22 units are too many, suggesting 6-9 units would be more appropriate.
  • Anthony Gilardi (Councilor Erin Murphy's office): Stated support for the application.
  • Steven Harvey (BPDA): Explained that the project was filed on September 20, 2024, and approved on July 17, 2025. It was revised from an original proposal of one 35-unit building to two smaller buildings (rental and homeownership) based on community feedback to preserve Romsey Place and add homeownership.
  • Cindy Rosner (Sagamore Street, direct abutter): Supported the proposal, praising the transparent process, responsiveness to changes, and the improvement over the current 'eyesore' condition of the site.
  • Christine Hogue (Planning Chair, Columbia Savin Hill Civic Association): Opposed the project, believing it is too large for the street and should be smaller or relocated to a busier street, despite supporting housing and affordability in general.
  • Matt Rubina (37 Belford Street, abutter): Strongly supported the proposal, believing it offers the right density for the large, deep lot and that the townhouse concept is successful.
  • Jeannie Gould (36-38 Romsey Street, direct abutter): Vehemently opposed the project, citing its excessive size, insufficient parking, and the inability of the street's infrastructure to handle it. She also questioned the true affordability of the units.
  • Attorney Pulgini (Applicant's Representative): Rebutted opposition comments, emphasizing that the proposal underwent significant design changes based on community feedback, reducing it from a 35-unit building to two smaller buildings. He argued the development is transit-oriented, preserves open space, offers homeownership, and provides deeply affordable housing without displacement.
• Motion: To approve with Planning Department review, noting that 40% of affordable units will be provided.
• Second: Yes.
• Vote:
  • Mr. Stembridge: Yes
  • Mr. Valencia: Yes
  • Ms. Turner: Yes
  • Mr. Langham: No
  • Mr. Collins: Yes
  • Ms. Pinado: Yes
  • Chair: Yes
• Outcome: The motion carried (6-1).

• Applicant: Attorney Joseph Feaster (Dane Torpy), Nashira Burrell (Director, Neighborhood Birth Center), David Saladek (architect, Mass. Design Group)
• Proposal: Construction of a two-story, 6,800 square feet birthing center. This proposal is a significantly reduced version of previous designs (20,000 sq ft in 2023, 11,000 sq ft in Feb 2025). The current plan focuses solely on the birth center, excluding other partners, office space, or gathering areas. Parking has been increased from 11 to 14 spaces. The parcel at 23 Kearsar Jav has been excluded and will remain residential. The birthing center will feature four birth suites and four exam rooms, designed to be residential and home-like, staffed by midwives, and offering physiologic childbirth and GYN care. It will accept commercial insurance and over 60% Mass Health, aiming to improve birth outcomes, particularly for minority women.
• Public Testimony:
  • Jeremy Bembry (Roxbury Community Engagement Specialist, Office of Neighborhood Services): Reported that an abutters meeting on October 15th showed split support and opposition. Supporters praised the reduced size and focus on healthcare for minority women. Opponents cited concerns about changing residential zoning to commercial use. Roxbury Path Forward opposed the proposal on November 18th, arguing it doesn't address housing needs and damages the residential character. The office received 93 letters of opposition (citing forbidden commercial use, physical constraints, and safety risks on a one-way street) and 215 individual letters of support, a 218-signature online petition, and 23 letters from organizations and officials, including Representative Ayanna Pressley, State Senator Liz Miranda, State Representative Christopher Worrell, City Councilor-at-Large Julia Mejia, and Councilor Pepén. The Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services supported the proposal.
  • Jesse Purvis (Director of Policy for Council President Louijeune): Stated support for the proposal.
  • Lorraine Payne (Roxbury Path Forward Neighborhood Association, Moreland Street): Opposed, arguing the project does not meet Article 7 variance conditions and interferes with the neighborhood's quiet enjoyment, as it is a national historic district primarily made up of housing.
  • Timothy Guimon (City Councilor Brian Worrell's office): Stated support for the project.
  • Maxine (Montrose Street): Opposed, emphasizing the need to maintain residential zoning for affordable homeownership.
  • Rochelle Centello (State Senator Liz Miranda's office): Strongly supported, highlighting the significant changes made to the project, its alignment with maternal health legislation, and its role in improving outcomes for Black birthing people.
  • Cheryl Spence (33 Montbrook Street): Opposed, stating it is still a commercial space in a residential area and that the presentation should focus on zoning, not the birthing center's mission. She also questioned the representation of certain elected officials.
  • Sophia Abdi (Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley's office): Supported, emphasizing the project's role in providing safe, culturally responsive, and community-centered maternity care, and advancing racial equity.
  • Anthony Girardi (City Councilor Erin Murphy's office): Stated opposition to the project.
  • Denise Malas (16 Moreland Street, abutter): Opposed, calling it a "David and Goliath situation" and expressing concern about the commercialization of residential land. She also criticized the applicant's lawyer's conduct in prior meetings.
  • Connie Ford (Roxbury Neighborhood Council): Expressed concern about the specific location's safety for laboring mothers and emergency response, citing Winthrop Street's one-way, single-lane nature and its outlet onto a highly trafficked Warren Street.
  • Carl Tedisco (60 Winthrop Street, long-time resident): Opposed, fearing the project would set a precedent for changing residential zoning to commercial in the neighborhood.
  • Representative Chyna Tyler: Stated that more work needs to be done, expressing concerns about housing and suggesting more innovative ideas are needed.
  • Marie Lintong (Montrose Street, Historic Moreland Street Neighborhood Association): Supported, emphasizing the critical need for a birth center in Roxbury due to high maternal mortality rates for Black women and the project's design and support from elected officials.
  • Glenn Lloyd (15 Montrose Street, homeowner): Supported, citing personal experience with birth centers, the applicant's responsiveness to feedback, and the project's potential to maintain cultural diversity.
  • Dania Pah (31 1 3rd Street, direct abutter): Strongly supported, highlighting Roxbury's high poor birth rate and the center's mission.
  • Sofia Perez (15 Meathrop Street, direct abutter): Opposed, citing concerns about zoning and the risk of commercial encroachment leading to gentrification. She also echoed concerns about the treatment of opposition.
  • Attorney Feaster (Applicant's Representative): Rebutted opposition, stating that the applicant addressed many community concerns by reducing the project size, increasing open space, and maintaining a residential building. He argued the project is not commercial but provides a wholesome environment for women.
  • Board Question: Ms. Pinado asked if a proviso could limit commercial occupancy to the current petitioner only. Caroline confirmed this was possible.
• Motion: To approve with a proviso that the commercial occupancy is only for this applicant.
• Second: Yes.
• Vote:
  • Mr. Stembridge: Yes
  • Mr. Valencia: Yes
  • Ms. Turner: Yes
  • Mr. Langham: Yes
  • Mr. Collins: Yes
  • Ms. Pinado: Yes
  • Chair: Yes
• Outcome: The motion carried unanimously.

• Applicant: Tomas Santamaria
• Proposal: To change the occupancy of the building from a bar/tavern and two residential units to two residential units and a boxing gym. The building was previously rented to Boston's Boxer Club and had a temporary Certificate of Occupancy as a bar/tavern and two residential units. The commercial space was delivered as a blank box, with no significant work done by the applicant.
• Public Testimony:
  • Jeremy Bembry (Jamaica Plain Community Engagement Specialist, Office of Neighborhood Services): Reported that an abutters meeting on September 11th was lightly attended, with two abutters having no concerns, one voicing support, and one raising concerns about poison ivy and exterior aesthetics. The Jamaica Plain Neighborhood Council approved the proposal. The Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services deferred to the Board's judgment.
• Motion: To approve.
• Second: Yes.
• Vote:
  • Mr. Stembridge: Yes
  • Mr. Valencia: Yes
  • Ms. Turner: Yes
  • Mr. Langham: Yes
  • Mr. Collins: Yes
  • Ms. Pinado: Yes
  • Chair: Yes
• Outcome: The motion carried unanimously.

• Applicant: Alexander G. Michel (A&G Liquor Store)
• Proposal: To open A&G Liquor Store. The applicant believes their recent denial for a change of occupancy was an error, as the location is in an active commercial plaza, despite being zoned residential. They are seeking to correct this misunderstanding.
• Board Discussion:
  • Question: Are there other liquor stores nearby? The applicant stated Happy Market (500 yards, a grocery store that sells liquor) and Forest Hills Liquors (0.8 miles) are the closest.
  • Jeff Hampton (City of Boston Planning Department): Confirmed that the area of South Street is zoned residential, despite the presence of commercial parkings. He stated the citation is correct but supported the use.
• Public Testimony:
  • Jeremy Bembry (Jamaica Plain Community Engagement Specialist, Office of Neighborhood Services): Reported that an abutters meeting on October 27th included one guest surprised by the proposal's return after a previously missed variance. The proposal was previously approved by the civic association. The Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services deferred to the Board's judgment.
• Motion: To approve.
• Second: Yes.
• Vote:
  • Mr. Stembridge: Yes
  • Mr. Valencia: Yes
  • Ms. Turner: Yes
  • Mr. Langham: Yes
  • Mr. Collins: Yes
  • Ms. Pinado: Yes
  • Chair: Yes
• Outcome: The motion carried unanimously.

• Applicant: (Representative present, name not explicitly stated)
• Proposal: To change the occupancy from a hair salon to a personal training studio. No exterior or interior changes are proposed.
• Public Testimony:
  • Eva Jones (Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services): Reported that a subcommittee flyer distributed on October 14, 2025, generated no community feedback. The Hurley Block Neighborhood Association expressed support at their meeting on September 10, 2025. The Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services deferred to the Board's judgment.
• Motion: To approve.
• Second: Yes.
• Vote:
  • Mr. Stembridge: Yes
  • Mr. Valencia: Yes
  • Ms. Turner: Yes
  • Mr. Langham: Yes
  • Mr. Collins: Yes
  • Ms. Pinado: Yes
  • Chair: Yes
• Outcome: The motion carried unanimously.

• Applicant: Attorney Nick Sizzula (McDermott, Quilty, Miller, and Hanley), Ari Sugarman (Fenway Forward), Sunith John (Fenway Forward)
• Proposal: To convert and expand approximately 188 square feet of underutilized existing basement courtyard space within a 35,000 square feet mixed-use building. The applicant's offices are in the basement, and residential units are above. The space is only accessible from the applicant's office space, and usable open space is not required for office space.
• Zoning Relief Required:
  • Groundwater Conservation Overlay District (GCOD): Applicant submitted a 'no harm' letter and BWSC compliance letter.
  • Open space reduction: A minor reduction of 188 square feet.
• Public Testimony:
  • Siggy Johnson (Office of Neighborhood Services): Reported that an abutters meeting on October 16th had no concerns raised. The Fenway Civic Association supports the application. The Mayor's Office deferred judgment to the Board.
  • Christian Simonelli (Boston Groundwater Trust): Confirmed that both G-card letters from the applicant had been received.
  • Maena Perez (Carpenters Union): Stated support for the proposal.
  • Holly Margulies (City Councilor Sharon Durkan's office): Stated support, noting the Fenway Civic Association's support.
• Motion: To approve with a proviso that plans be submitted to the Boston Landmarks Commission for design review and to the Department of Parks and Recreation for review.
• Second: Yes.
• Vote:
  • Mr. Stembridge: Yes
  • Mr. Valencia: Yes
  • Ms. Turner: Yes
  • Mr. Langham: Yes
  • Mr. Collins: Yes
  • Ms. Pinado: Yes
  • Chair: Yes
• Outcome: The motion carried unanimously.

• Applicant: Christopher Barry (architect for Campbell Edlund)
• Proposal: To expand an existing single-family residence with a single-family residence incorporating an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). The owner, a long-time resident, intends to use the ADU as she ages.
• Zoning Issues:
  • Roof Deck: The proposed roof deck above the garage does not have a five-foot setback from the building line, as required by Article 34, Section 64. The applicant noted similar configurations in adjacent buildings.
  • Setback: As a corner lot, the proposal has a minimal setback of 18 inches at one point and 3.5 feet at another. The applicant referenced the historical context of row houses with zero lot lines and noted compliance with a six-foot setback required by the Parks Department.
  • Article 25A: All new living space is elevated to the second floor, ensuring no living space on the ground level, thus complying with Article 25A.
• Public Testimony:
  • Eva Jones (Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services): Reported that an abutters meeting on October 27th was well-attended, with mostly support for the project and the applicant's need for privacy. Some concerns were raised about shadows on abutting windows and loss of sunlight. Six letters of support were received, and the Bradford Street Neighborhood Association expressed support. The Mayor's Office deferred to the Board's judgment.
  • Ashley (Councilor Flynn's office): Stated support, citing a good community process, windows facing Peters Park, and better-than-required open space allotment.
  • Wendy Chen (23 Bradford Street, abutter): Expressed concerns that granting a variance to Article 64, Section 9 (rear yard insufficient) would negatively affect light, view, and home value, as her unit overlooks Peters Park. She suggested moving the proposed wooden structure forward.
  • Paul M. Groff (spouse of Wendy Chen): Reiterated concerns about the impact and opposed the exemption to rear yard requirements.
  • Chris Leaton (1313 Washington Street, direct abutter): Opposed, arguing the proposal is over-scaled for the sensitive location. Concerns included environmental safety (stormwater displacement, impact on wood pilings) and privacy (canyon effect from the roof structure).
  • Applicant's Rebuttal: Argued that moving the structure forward would reduce light for those across the street. Stated they are not maximizing zoning potential and that Wilkes Passage has a similar deck. Mentioned planting trees for privacy and compliance with GCOD for stormwater. Confirmed two advisory hearings with Boston Landmarks Commission, who are generally in support.
• Motion: To approve with a proviso that plans be submitted to the Boston Landmarks Commission for design review and to the Department of Parks and Recreation for review.
• Second: Yes.
• Vote:
  • Mr. Stembridge: Yes
  • Mr. Valencia: Yes
  • Ms. Turner: Yes
  • Mr. Langham: Yes
  • Mr. Collins: Yes
  • Ms. Pinado: Yes
  • Chair: Yes
• Outcome: The motion carried unanimously.

• Applicant: Tim Sheehan (architect for Elena and James Melconian)
• Proposal: To change the use of a very small, two-story building (9 feet wide, 46 feet long, on a 408 square feet lot) from ground-floor retail and an upstairs apartment to two apartments (a studio apartment on the ground floor and the existing apartment upstairs). The exterior of the building will not change, only interior modifications.
• Zoning Violations:
  • Open space: No open space is provided, as the house occupies the entire lot.
  • Residential use in NS neighborhood shopping sub-district: This is a conditional use requiring ZBA approval.
• Coastal Flood Resilience Overlay District (CFROD) Discussion:
  • The applicant initially stated they were not in the CFROD.
  • Jeff Hampton (City of Boston Planning Department): Confirmed the property is within the CFROD. He recommended denial due to the loss of commercial space, aligning with the Plan Charlestown recommendations from 2023, which aimed to preserve commercial areas on main thoroughfares.
  • Applicant's Response: Argued that no business has been successful in the space for 30 years and that a residential use would be more appropriate, addressing a need for affordable small residential units in Charlestown.
• Public Testimony:
  • Siggy Johnson (Office of Neighborhood Services): Reported that a neighborhood meeting on October 3rd was lightly attended, with no concerns raised. The Mayor's Office deferred judgment to the Board.
• Motion: To approve with planning department review.
• Second: Yes.
• Vote:
  • Mr. Stembridge: Yes
  • Mr. Valencia: Yes
  • Ms. Turner: Yes
  • Mr. Langham: Yes
  • Mr. Collins: Yes
  • Ms. Pinado: Yes
  • Chair: Yes
• Outcome: The motion carried unanimously.

• Applicant: Attorney Derek Small (representing Jan Skechter)
• Proposal: To change the legal occupancy of the building from a lodging house for 15 lodgers and a beauty salon to a lodging house for 20 lodgers. This involves converting the commercial space on the first floor into an additional room for the lodging house.
• Zoning: The property is in a multi-family residential zoning sub-district. All cited violations are for pre-existing non-conforming conditions, with the basement unit being considered forbidden.
• Public Testimony:
  • Siggy Johnson (Office of Neighborhood Services): Reported that an abutters meeting on September 22nd raised concerns about trash storage and the property being used for short-term rentals. The Audubon Circle Neighborhood Association supported the application but requested a proviso limiting short-term rentals to 28 days. The Mayor's Office deferred judgment to the Board.
  • Holly Margulies (City Councilor Sharon Durkan's office): Supported the project with the proviso that short-term rental stays be limited to 28 days.
  • Applicant's Response: Stated that the proviso regarding short-term rentals was not acceptable. While committed to not seeking short-term stays and generally leasing to visiting professionals for longer terms, the applicant wished to retain flexibility for financial reasons.
• Motion: To approve.
• Second: Yes.
• Vote:
  • Mr. Stembridge: Yes
  • Mr. Valencia: Yes
  • Ms. Turner: Yes
  • Mr. Langham: Yes
  • Mr. Collins: Yes
  • Ms. Pinado: Yes
  • Chair: Yes
• Outcome: The motion carried unanimously.

• Applicant: Carla Chaffee (Nixon Peabody), Deborah Morris (Kipu Senior Life), PCA architects
• Proposal: A 100% affordable senior housing development in Roslindale, comprising 16 units for those making up to 30% Area Median Income (AMI) and 62 units at or below 50% AMI. This project received Article 80 BPDA Board approval in September. The applicant is requesting dimensional relief for floor area, building height, and setbacks, as well as a conditional use permit for multifamily housing in the IS district (elderly housing is permitted by right, but ISD noted the need for a conditional use permit for multifamily).
• Hardship: The odd and tiered shape of the lot, combined with outdated setback standards (100 feet for front/sides, 50 feet for rear), makes the project infeasible without relief.
• Improvements: The project includes streetscape improvements, a signalized crosswalk to the Arnold Arboretum, and increased visibility and sidewalk improvements at the intersection of Center and Walter Streets.
• Public Testimony:
  • Jeremy Bembry (Roslindale Community Engagement Specialist, Office of Neighborhood Services): Reported that the BPDA-led community process included a virtual public meeting on July 23, 2025. The Longfellow Area and Neighborhood Association expressed non-opposition. Councilor Pepén's office submitted a letter of strong support for affordable senior housing. The Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services deferred to the Board's judgment.
  • Nora Lutz (Mayor's Office of Housing): Stated support for the project, noting that Hebrew Senior Life (HSL) refined their project based on community feedback.
• Motion: To approve.
• Second: Yes.
• Vote:
  • Mr. Stembridge: Yes
  • Mr. Valencia: Yes
  • Ms. Turner: Yes
  • Mr. Langham: Yes
  • Mr. Collins: Yes
  • Ms. Pinado: Yes
  • Chair: Yes
• Outcome: The motion carried unanimously.

• Applicant: Derek Rubinoff (architect for Demetrios Gerasimides and Bobby Jeremy Gerasimides)
• Proposal: To renovate the interior of an existing three-story building (11,282 sq ft total, 7,500 sq ft residential) to reconfigure four large residential units (two three-bedroom, two four-bedroom) into eight two-bedroom units. This would result in an increase of approximately two bedrooms overall. The project also includes facade improvements.
• Zoning Relief Required:
  • Insufficient Parking: No on-site parking is provided, but the property is within half a mile of two T stations (Ashmont and Shawmut).
  • Insufficient Open Space: The building occupies almost the entire site.
  • Insufficient Lot Area per Dwelling Unit.
• Community Concerns: Concerns were raised about trash accumulation. The applicant addressed this by designating space on the first floor and in the basement, accessible from Lonsdale Street, a side street.
• Public Testimony:
  • Emma Jones (Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services): Reported that an abutters meeting on September 24th raised concerns about the affordability of the proposed apartments, increased parking strain, and trash accumulation. The St. Mark's Area Civic Association supported the proposal on October 29th, noting the applicant's productive work on trash disposal and exterior improvements. The Mayor's Office deferred to the Board's judgment.
  • Liam Remus (Councilor Fitzgerald's office): Stated support for the proposal.
• Motion: To approve.
• Second: Yes.
• Vote:
  • Mr. Stembridge: Yes
  • Mr. Valencia: Yes
  • Ms. Turner: Yes
  • Mr. Langham: Yes
  • Mr. Collins: Yes
  • Ms. Pinado: Yes
  • Chair: Yes
• Outcome: The motion carried unanimously.

• Applicant: Ngoc
• Proposal: To remove a proviso to obtain a permanent Certificate of Occupancy for a takeout restaurant.
• Public Testimony:
  • The Mayor's Office stated that a community process is not required for provisos.
• Motion: To approve.
• Second: Yes.
• Vote:
  • Mr. Stembridge: Yes
  • Mr. Valencia: Yes
  • Ms. Turner: Yes
  • Mr. Langham: Yes
  • Mr. Collins: Yes
  • Ms. Pinado: Yes
  • Chair: Yes
• Outcome: The motion carried unanimously.

• Applicant: Vernon Woodworth (urban design principal)
• Proposal: To change the use of an existing two-family building to legalize an existing third unit in the attic. The first-floor dwelling unit has also been extended into the basement, creating a family room with a bathroom and closet.
• Zoning Violations:
  • Use Variance: Required for a third unit in a 1F5000 zone.
  • Floor Area Ratio (FAR): The proposed FAR is 0.55, exceeding the maximum allowed of 0.5.
  • Off-Street Parking: Currently, two legal units have off-street parking, with the possibility of creating a third space.
  • Rear Yard Setback: The applicant argued that the proposed building's closest point to the rear property line is 31 feet, which is compliant with the 20-foot code requirement, and therefore not an insufficient setback violation.
• Public Testimony:
  • Eva Jones (Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services): Reported that an abutters meeting on August 18th was lightly attended, with no major concerns expressed. The Pokes Hill Civic Association expressed non-opposition. The Mayor's Office deferred to the Board's judgment.
  • Liam Remus (Councilor Fitzgerald's office): Stated support for the proposal.
• Motion: To approve with no building code relief.
• Second: Yes.
• Vote:
  • Mr. Stembridge: Yes
  • Mr. Valencia: Yes
  • Ms. Turner: No
  • Mr. Langham: Yes
  • Mr. Collins: Yes
  • Ms. Pinado: Yes
  • Chair: Yes
• Outcome: The motion carried (6-1).

• Applicant: Colin (Executive Director, Laurel Ridge Rehab) and Kevin Kozak (architect, Timberline Construction)
• Proposal: To expand the ground footprint of Laurel Ridge Rehab, a nonprofit nursing home (120 beds, four-story building), to modernize the facility. This includes creating new rehab space, activities, and family space for residents. The project involves infilling an existing Port Cochere without extending the building beyond its current footprint. The plan also relocates the existing physical therapy space, adds private dining/amenity space, moves the main entrance, and includes minor parking renovations to add visitor spaces, increase green space, and decrease impervious area.
• Zoning: The existing use is not allowed, and the project seeks modification.
• Public Testimony:
  • Jeremy Bembry (Jamaica Plain Community Engagement Specialist, Office of Neighborhood Services): Reported that an abutters meeting on October 21st was lightly attended, with no inquiries or concerns raised. The Jamaica Plain Neighborhood Council approved the proposal on November 5th. The Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services deferred to the Board's judgment.
  • Mayna Perez (Carpenters Union): Stated support for the project but reminded the owner of the importance of using subcontractors that do not commit tax fraud and play by the rules.
• Motion: To approve.
• Second: Yes.
• Vote:
  • Mr. Stembridge: Yes
  • Mr. Valencia: Yes
  • Ms. Turner: Yes
  • Mr. Langham: Yes
  • Mr. Collins: Yes
  • Ms. Pinado: Yes
  • Chair: Yes
• Outcome: The motion carried unanimously.

• Applicant: Mike Ross (Prince Lavelle) and George Mendez (chef/owner)
• Proposal: A conditional use application for a ground-floor restaurant with takeout, converting a space that was previously a dry cleaner. The restaurant will feature a chef's counter with 12 seats, a dining area with 20 seats, a bar with 7 seats, a lounge area with 10 seats, and standing room for 6, totaling a capacity of 55 people. An attached bakery cafe will offer 28 seats and standing room for 5. The combined capacity for the entire floor plan will be 88 people, plus 8 employees, for a total of 96. The restaurant plans to operate from 12 PM to 12 AM, and the bakery from 7 AM to 9 PM.
• Zoning: The property is located in the South End neighborhood zoning district, within the Neighborhood Development Area sub-district along the commercial and residential corridor of Washington Street.
• Public Testimony:
  • Eva Jones (Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services): Reported that an abutters meeting on September 4th was well-attended and generated significant support and excitement for the proposal. The Blackstone Franklin Square Neighborhood Association submitted a letter of support. The Mayor's Office deferred to the Board's judgment.
• Motion: To approve.
• Second: Yes.
• Vote:
  • Mr. Stembridge: Yes
  • Mr. Valencia: Yes
  • Ms. Turner: Yes
  • Mr. Langham: Yes
  • Mr. Collins: Yes
  • Ms. Pinado: Yes
  • Chair: Yes
• Outcome: The motion carried unanimously.

• Applicant: Attorney Matt Echol (Fletcher Tilton) and Henry Chelle (CBT)
• Proposal: Conversion of an existing office building at 95 Berkeley Street into a mixed-use building as part of the city's office-to-residential conversion program. The project aims to create much-needed residential housing units while reusing the existing structure.
• Program: The proposal includes maintaining the existing first-floor office space (currently occupied by Mass.), creating new ground-level retail space, and developing 92 residential units (41 studios, 42 one-bedroom, 9 two-bedroom) on floors two through six. Of these, 18 units will be affordable. The project also includes existing parking at the lower level and approximately 45 new bike parking spaces.
• Site: The 22,665 square feet site is located at the corner of Berkeley Street and Chandler Street, in the South End's Community Commercial Subdistrict. It is walkable and transit-connected.
• Zoning: The project seeks one variance for usable open space per dwelling unit. The exterior of the building will remain unchanged, with all work done on the interior.
• Mitigation: The project includes improvements to accessibility along Chandler Street, reconstructing the driveway entrance to be a smaller pedestrian path and making it accessible to the Ellis Memorial Children's Park.
• Public Testimony:
  • Eva Jones (Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services): Reported that the BPDA community process began on November 13, 2025, and received significant support for adding housing. Some opposition was noted regarding increased cars and traffic. The Ellis South End Neighborhood Association supported the proposal, as did Representative Aaron Michalowicz. The Mayor's Office deferred to the Board's judgment.
  • Christian Simonelli (Boston Groundwater Trust): Confirmed that G-card letters from the applicant had been received.
  • Dylan Norris (Planning Department): Provided an overview of the Article 80 process, confirming BPDA Board approval on November 13, 2025.
  • Mayna Perez (Carpenters Union): Supported the project and urged the developer to hire subcontractors that meet community standards and provide opportunities for Boston residents.
  • Ashley (City Councilor Flynn's office): Opposed the project, emphasizing the need for community standards for women and people of color in the construction industry and expressing concerns about sidewalk accessibility on Chandler Street.
  • Applicant's Rebuttal: Stated commitment to hiring a diverse and local workforce and confirmed that the project includes improvements to accessibility along Chandler Street, not diminishing it.
• Motion: To approve.
• Second: Yes.
• Vote:
  • Mr. Stembridge: Yes
  • Mr. Valencia: Yes
  • Ms. Turner: Yes
  • Mr. Langham: Yes
  • Mr. Collins: Yes
  • Ms. Pinado: Yes
  • Chair: Yes
• Outcome: The motion carried unanimously.

Case BOA 1741777: 183 St. Patel Street

• Applicant: (Representative present, name not explicitly stated)
• Proposal: Requesting a deferral to schedule an advisory hearing with the Boston Landmarks Commission to gain insights on the project.
• Decision: Deferred to February 24th.
• Motion: To defer to February 24th.
• Second: Yes.
• Vote:
  • Mr. Stembridge: Yes
  • Mr. Valencia: Yes
  • Ms. Turner: Yes
  • Mr. Langham: Yes
  • Mr. Collins: Yes
  • Ms. Pinado: Yes
  • Chair: Yes
• Outcome: The motion carried unanimously.

• Applicant: Attorney William Furullo (on behalf of the For a Cano family)
• Proposal: A conditional use application for outdoor dining with 38 seasonal seats on private property. The outdoor dining has successfully existed at the location for three years and is now a part of the city's outdoor dining program. The request is for approval as an expansion of premises.
• Public Testimony:
  • Eva Jones (Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services): Stated that the Mayor's Office does not run a community process for outdoor dining proposals and deferred to the Board's judgment.
  • Gabriela Ramirez (City Councilor Gabriela Coletta Zapata's office): Stated support for the proposal.
• Motion: To approve.
• Second: Yes.
• Vote:
  • Mr. Stembridge: Yes
  • Mr. Valencia: Yes
  • Ms. Turner: Yes
  • Mr. Langham: Yes
  • Mr. Collins: Yes
  • Ms. Pinado: Yes
  • Chair: Yes
• Outcome: The motion carried unanimously.

• Applicant: Jeff Sargis (architect)
• Proposal: To convert a first-floor existing ice cream shop, which has been long closed, into a residential unit. The existing two-bedroom, two-bathroom units on the floors above will also be renovated. The applicant is not increasing square footage or finishing the basement.
• Zoning Violations:
  • Floor Area Ratio (FAR): The project has an existing nonconformity in FAR.
  • Usable Open Space: The property is a North End zero lot line, with no usable open space.
  • Coastal Flood Resilience Overlay District (CFROD): The property is located within the CFROD.
• Discussion:
  • The applicant stated they were not flagged as being within a flood risk district.
  • Jeff Hampton (City of Boston Planning Department): Confirmed the property is in the CFROD and is significantly below the established design flood elevation. He recommended denial, citing consistency in opposing new residential spaces below the design flood elevation, even if no basement living space is proposed.
  • Applicant's Response: Stated uncertainty about alternative uses, as commercial is prohibited in this zone.
• Public Testimony:
  • Emma Jones (Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services): Reported that an abutters meeting on September 16th was not attended by any community members. Both the North End and New Newnick civic associations reviewed and expressed support for the proposal. The Mayor's Office deferred to the Board's judgment.
  • Gabriela Ramirez (City Councilor Gabriela Coletta Zapata's office): Stated support for the proposal.
• Motion: To approve.
• Second: Yes.
• Vote:
  • Mr. Stembridge: Yes
  • Mr. Valencia: Yes
  • Ms. Turner: Yes
  • Mr. Langham: Yes
  • Mr. Collins: Yes
  • Ms. Pinado: No
  • Chair: Yes
• Outcome: The motion carried (6-1).

Case BOA 1776730: 706 Metropolitan Avenue

Case BOA 1720983: 704 Metropolitan Avenue

• Applicant: Attorney Ryan Spitz (Addison Moranty), Andrew Shetner, Eric Zaperson (architect)
• Proposal: To erect a new three-story, six-unit residential building with parking on a vacant lot of approximately 6,600 square feet. The proposal includes six two-bedroom units (approximately 1,040-1,050 sq ft each), with units 3-6 featuring a rear balcony and a front deck. The project is considered contextually appropriate for the area, which includes properties ranging from single-family to six-unit structures of two to three stories.
• Zoning Violations:
  • Use: Six units in a 2F sub-district.
  • Insufficient Lot Size: 6,600 sq ft vs. 8,000 sq ft required.
  • Floor Area Ratio (FAR): 1.11 vs. 0.5 compliant.
  • Height: Three stories vs. 2.5 stories compliant.
  • Open Space: 164 sq ft per dwelling vs. 1,750 sq ft per unit required.
  • Front Yard: 13 ft 2 in vs. 20 ft required.
  • Side Yard: 6 ft vs. 10 ft required (matches neighboring properties).
  • Rear Yard: 39 ft 2 in vs. 40 ft required.
  • Parking: Six spaces provided vs. 2.0 spaces per dwelling required (applicant notes alignment with Mayor's initiative to reduce private vehicle dependency).
  • Easement: The design uses land from 706 Metropolitan Avenue for parking access, requiring a conditional use permit for 706 Metropolitan Avenue.
• Public Testimony:
  • Jeremy Bembry (Hyde Park Community Engagement Specialist, Office of Neighborhood Services): Reported that an abutters meeting on July 16th raised concerns about the change from four stories/eight units, side yard setback, excessive variances, open space, affordability, and tree removal. The Hyde Park Neighborhood Association opposed the proposal, citing too many units for the lot, insufficient parking, and too many violations. Two letters of support were received. The Mayor's Office deferred to the Board's judgment.
  • Charlie McDonald (693 Metropolitan Ave, owner): Supported the project, believing it would add tremendous value to the neighborhood.
  • Craig Martin (Hyde Park Neighborhood Association): Opposed the density, stating the lot is too small for even a two-family home. He requested a proviso to save the only mature tree on the parcel, which provides canopy to adjoining properties, arguing it could be saved by maneuvering a parking space.
  • Chante Turner (706 Metropolitan Ave): Supported the project.
  • Alexandra Ventura (107 Arlington Street, neighbor): Supported the project, believing it would be a positive addition to the neighborhood.
  • Applicant's Rebuttal: Stated willingness to preserve the existing tree. Noted that Mr. Martin is not an abutter and emphasized that the proposal aligns with the planning department's recommendation and is consistent with the neighborhood context.
• Motion: To approve.
• Second: Yes.
• Vote:
  • Mr. Stembridge: Yes
  • Mr. Valencia: Yes
  • Ms. Turner: Yes
  • Mr. Langham: Yes
  • Mr. Collins: Yes
  • Ms. Pinado: Yes
  • Chair: Yes
• Outcome: The motion carried unanimously.

Case BOA 1690861: 122 Wood Avenue

Case BOA 1690859: 120 Wood Avenue

• Applicant: Eileen Rosa (residential designer for the Torres family)
• Proposal: A lot subdivision for 122 Wood Avenue, a corner lot measuring 7,133 square feet with an existing two-family dwelling. The intent is to create a new lot of approximately 3,181 square feet at 120 Wood Avenue and construct a new two-family residential building. The proposed building will consist of two dwelling units: Unit 1 (first floor and basement, ~1,200 sq ft, 2 bed/2 bath) and Unit 2 (second floor and attic, ~1,329 sq ft, 2 bed/2 bath). The exterior will feature fiber cement siding. Parking includes one space per unit for both buildings, accessed via an easement on Roskindale Road.
• Zoning: The applicant clarified that the proposed building's closest point to the rear property line is approximately 31 feet, which is compliant with the minimum required setback of 20 feet, thus arguing against an 'insufficient rear setback' violation.
• Public Testimony:
  • Jeremy Bembry (Hyde Park Community Engagement Specialist, Office of Neighborhood Services): Reported that an abutters meeting on April 14th was lightly attended, with concerns raised about the parcel size for two structures, parking, sanitation, and rodent control. Concerns were also noted regarding the current occupancy of 122 Wood Avenue (three unrelated people with separate rooms and internet in the basement). Two letters of opposition were received. The Mayor's Office deferred to the Board's judgment.
• Motion: To approve.
• Second: Yes.
• Vote:
  • Mr. Stembridge: Yes
  • Mr. Valencia: Yes
  • Ms. Turner: No
  • Mr. Langham: Yes
  • Mr. Collins: Yes
  • Ms. Pinado: Yes
  • Chair: Yes
• Outcome: The motion carried (5-1).

• Applicant: Mike Ross (Prince Lovell) and Francis Hoang (owner)
• Proposal: To add a two-story Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) addition to an existing one-family home. The addition is designed to be consistent with other additions in the neighborhood and to make better utilization of the lot and open space. The rear yard setback has been increased to five feet, which is slightly greater than the existing shed's location. The project reorganizes the rear yard to increase green space from 495 to 520 square feet.
• Zoning: The use category of an ADU in a bump-out condition was clarified as a use issue. The BPDA letter noted that the scale and form of additions are consistent with neighborhood patterns.
• Public Testimony:
  • Siggy Johnson (Office of Neighborhood Services): Reported that an abutters meeting on August 19th had direct abutters opposed due to the proposed setback (30 feet required). The Allston Civic Association opposed the project, and a direct abutter submitted a letter of opposition. The Mayor's Office deferred judgment to the Board.
  • Anthony Dicidolo (Allston Civic Association): Opposed, criticizing the community process for not adequately informing the association or abutters of changes. He stated they were seeing the revised plans for the first time and that the rear setback remains a significant issue.
  • Ikoto Mori (24 Windham Street, direct abutter): Opposed, expressing surprise at the changes and concern about green space, stormwater, and fire safety (citing fire department concerns about controlling fires with the proposed addition). He also questioned the lack of information from the proponent.
  • Applicant's Rebuttal (Attorney Ross): Argued that the community process worked as intended, with changes made based on feedback (e.g., increasing the rear setback). He stated that green space was increased, not decreased, and that the addition is consistent with other buildings in the neighborhood, as noted by the BPDA.
  • Owner's Statement (Francis Hoang): Stated that communication efforts went beyond ACA requirements, including direct outreach to residents. He claimed to have reached out to Tony (ACA) on December 4, 2025, but did not receive a response until December 15, suggesting miscommunication was not on their end.
• Motion: To approve.
• Second: Yes.
• Vote:
  • Mr. Stembridge: Yes
  • Mr. Valencia: Yes
  • Ms. Turner: Yes
  • Mr. Langham: Yes
  • Mr. Collins: Yes
  • Ms. Bernardo: Yes
  • Chair: Yes
• Outcome: The motion carried unanimously.