Zoning Board of Appeal

Recording in progress.

The City of Boston Zoning Board of Appeal hearing for December 16, 2025 is now in session. This hearing is being conducted in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Open Meeting Law. including the updated provisions enacted by the legislator this year. The new law allows the board to continue its practice holding virtual hearings through June 2027. This hearing of the board is being held remotely via the Zoom webinar event platform and is also being recorded. In order to ensure this hearing of the board is open to the public, Members of the public may access this hearing through telephone and video conferencing. The information connecting to this hearing is listed on today's agenda, which is posted on the public notices page of the city's website, boston.gov.

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

If you wish to comment on an appeal, please click the raise hand button along the bottom of your screen in the Zoom webinar platform. Click it again and your hand should go down. When the host sees your hand, you will receive a request to unmute yourself. Select yes and you should be able to talk. If you are connected to the hearing by telephone, please press star nine to raise and lower your hand. You must press star six to unmute yourself after you receive the request from the host. Those called upon to comment will be asked to state their name and address first, and then they can provide their comment. In the interest of time, and to ensure that you have enough time to do so, please raise your hand as soon as Mr. Stembridge reads the address into the record. Do not raise your hand before the relevant address is called or the meeting host will not know to call on you at the appropriate time. We ask that you keep your comments brief and all public testimony will be limited to 90 seconds per speaker.

Thank you. Mr. Stembridge.

Good morning, Madam Chair, President.

Good morning, Mr. Valencia.

Good morning, Madam Chair, President.

Good morning, Miss Turner. Good morning, Madam Chair President. Good morning, Mr. Langham. Good morning, Madam Chair President. Good morning, Mr. Collins. Good morning, Madam Chair President. Good morning, Ms. Pinado. Good morning Madam Chair, I'm present. Good morning, the floor is yours Mr. Stembridge.

Thank you Madam Chair. We'll begin with the approval of hearing minutes scheduled for 9 30 a.m.

These minutes are from the meetings of December 6th and December 9th.

I'll make a motion that I'll approve.

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

Yes.

Mr. Collins?

Yes.

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

Next we'll move on to the extensions scheduled for 9 30 a.m.

I will read through all of the

All of the extension requests, they all appear to be reasonable.

After I finish reading, we'll turn it over to Madam Chair in case there are any questions on anything.

We'll begin with case BOA-134-4283 with the address of 1 Rowling Road. Next we have case BOA 1263429 with the address of 329 Galvin Boulevard. Next we have case BOA 1137716 with the address of 1750 to 1758 Dorchester Avenue. Next we have case BOA 1137716 with the address of 1750 to 1758 Dorchester Avenue. Next we have case BOA 1137716 with the address of 1750 to 1758 Dorchester Avenue. Next we have case BOA 1137716 with the address of 1750 to 1758 Dorchester Avenue. Next we have case BOA 1137716 with the address of 1750 to 1758 Dorchester Avenue. Next we have case BOA 1137716 with the address of 1750 to 1758 Dorchester Avenue. Next we have case BOA 1137716 with the address of 1750 to 1758 Dorchester Avenue. Next we have case BOA 1137716 with the address of 1750 to 1758 Dorchester Avenue. Next we have case BOA 1137716 with the address of 1750 to 1758 Dorchester Avenue. Next we have case BOA 1137716 with the address of 1750 to

836-636 with the address of 603 Dorchester Avenue.

And the last request for extension is KBOA 1335853 with the address of 46 Parsons Street.

And those are the extensions requested for today.

Thank you. Any questions from the board? May I have a motion to grant the extensions as requested? Motion to grant the extensions as requested. Second. Thank you. Mr. Stembridge. Young. Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Mr. Langham?

Yes.

Mr. Collins? Yes. Ms. Pinado? Yes. Chair votes yes, the motion carries.

Next, we have a request for extension of time to file a decision scheduled for 9.30 a.m.

This is case BOA 1733319 with the address of 22 Pratt Street.

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

Or if the board would just like to vote on it, we can move ahead in that direction also.

Any questions or concerns from the board? Hearing none, is there a motion?

Motion to approve.

Second. Thank you. Mr. Stembridge? Yeah. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Mr. Langham. Yes. Mr. Collins. Yes. Ms. Pinado. Yes. Chair votes yes, the motion carries.

Next, we have two board final operative cases scheduled for 9.30 a.m. First is case BOA 1267.

3, 4 through 9 with the address of 288 Ridgman Road.

If the applicant and or their representative present, will they please explain to the board? Good morning. This is Felix Sanchez, the applicant. We're here in front of the board today because we'd like to request a to zoning for release for a relief of a front motor alignment motor parking alignment and the rear setbacks of these Proposed project that we're working on. Those are not the actual plans that we will be talking about. It has been modified. We sent them in yesterday. and it looks like they have not been uploaded yet.

Does the team have access to that?

I can email them to you guys.

I don't know if you feel you can speak to it with what's here or if the phone is able to access what he sent.

Yesterday, I sent it to Stephanie.

I'm sorry. I apologize. Felix, sorry. It's Caroline. Did you upload new plans?

Yes, we sent in the actual plans for the front alignment, model alignment.

The plans examiner is going to have to review the updated plans. So we'll have to defer this to another date.

Okay. All right, Bob.

Carolyn, I believe this is Regis. I'm also with 28A Redlawn Road. And I believe... Mark, Joseph, Cheryl, the planning examiner already reviewed it. I'm just not sure why they're not updated. But if Madam Chair would like us to speak on this one. On what we have available right now, we could certainly speak on this one, so we could just keep the process moving forward.

Yeah, I mean, I would like to not delay you if we don't have to. So if you feel you can speak based on what's in front of you and just explain what you changed or whatever, that would be great.

You want to pick up on that, Regis? All right, so basically what we performed is a front model alignment. The front model alignment, we determined that The properties directly across from us and also the one next to us, which is 26 Relon Road and 25 Relon Road. They only have a... We were able to shrink our front yard setback. due to them only be having 10 feet and only having 11 feet on the other side. So that way we're able to increase our, we're able to shift the house back. So as you see the property, I don't know if you can see my pointer. We're able to shift the house back towards the rear in order to have front parking, front horizontal parking in the front of this house, you know, by adding the 20 feet, which is what we need for the parking spot.

Are there questions from the board? Hearing none, is there a motion?

And Madam Chair, I just want to clarify the board's voting on these plans. If there are new plans since this was submitted, it will need to be reviewed by the plans examiner again.

So what does that mean that they'll still have to come? These are the only plans that I've seen so far as well.

Sorry, Dean, what'd you say?

So these are the only plans that I've seen so far. I don't, that's Fitzgerald.

So the plans that we committed yesterday have not been uploaded to your portal?

No, because the sales examiner still needs to review them, and that could take up to two weeks. So it sounds like we do need to defer.

Yes. Do you have a date for them, Caroline?

We could do February 24th.

That's way too far. We have an issue here. The owner has a... A loan that is going to mature in March. So if we move this, it's going to take him way too long for him to get an extension on this construction loan. So, I mean we submitted the plans yesterday morning and then we sent the ones revised because Mark Mark Joseph picked up something on the plans and we revised it, stamped them, and re-sent them back to the...

So unfortunately... So it does sound like it needs to be deferred and hopefully, you know, maybe something else frees up before that, Caroline can reach out to you if that is the case, but I think the date she said is the earliest that they have at this moment. So with that, may I have a motion?

Motion to defer till February the 24th.

Second. Second.

Mr. Stembridge? Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Mr. Langham?

Yes.

Mr. Collins? Yes. Ms. Pinado? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. We'll see you then.

Next, we have another board final opportunity case, which is case BOA 1261313 with the address of 154 Terrace Street. If the applicant and or their representative are present, will they please explain?

Mr. Luna, is this your case? Your hand has been up. No, my case is 1-7-0-3-9-6-4. Can you put your hand down then?

Is the applicant present for 154 Terra Street?

Do you see anyone that you see? Joe Federico, I'm gonna send to you the request to be promoted to the panelist section. If this is your case, please. This is the opportunity to speak. If not, Madam Chair, can you hear me?

We can hear you now, sir. I've got my camera on. I'm not sure why it's not showing up there. I'm Madam Chair. I'm Joe Federico. I'm the owner and developer for the 154 Terra Street project. Unfortunately, I am going to have to seek a deferral until February. I was contacted by the Boston Planning Department yesterday and they asked that I defer this until the notice of project change that I filed has been voted on. So if we could get scheduled for late February, that would be great.

Thank you, Caroline. Is that February 24th still available? Yes. Okay. May I have a motion?

Motion to defer until February 24th.

Second. Second. Mr. Valencia.

Yes.

Mr. Stembridge. You're on mute, Mr. Stembridge.

Yes, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Ms. Turner. Yes. Mr. Langham.

Yes.

Mr. Collins? Yes. Ms. Pinado? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. We'll see you then.

Great. Thank you very much. Next, we have a groundwater conservation overlay district case scheduled for 9 30 a.m. This is case BOA 175-8750.

with the address of 20 Milford Street.

If the applicants and or their representative present, would they please explain?

Hi. My name is Nick. I'm with the Holland Companies. I'm representing Joseph Holland. This is pretty standard. We intend to fully comply with the GCOD plans. These are stamp BWSC approved plans for our groundwater conservation system in the back.

Hey, is Mr. Simonelli on to confirm that?

Yes, I am, Madam Chair. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board, Christian Simonelli, Boston Groundwater Trust. We have both G-card letters from the applicant. Thank you. Any questions from the board?

May I have a motion?

Take a motion to approve.

Second. Second. Mr. Stembridge. Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Mr. Langham? Yes. Mr. Collins? Yes. Ms. Pinado? Yes. Chair, yes, the motion carries.

Thanks, appreciate your time. We'll go through the hearing schedule for 9 30 a.m. Before we do that we'll ask if there are any more Request for withdrawals or deferrals from the 9.30 a.m. time frame.

Mr. Luna, are you seeking a deferral?

Yes, I am, Madam Chair. Okay, can you please state the address? Yes, first of all, it's BOA number one.

Mr. Stembridge will go through that. What is the address?

33 Princeton Street, applicant is Richard Veraci. Okay, last case of the... Last case of the 930.

This is for case BOA-170-3964.

with the address of 33 Princeton Street.

Would you go ahead, please, and explain? Yes, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Joseph Luna. I am the project architect for this project representing Richard Veraci. Unfortunately, I have an unexpected legal matter I have to attend at 11 o'clock in court in Gloucester. And since we are the last in the 9.30 time slot, I fear that I will not be able to make the hearing that I need to go to so for that reason I am requesting the earliest Possible hearing date for an extension as my client is also currently tied up in a housing court dispute about this with the City of Boston. I apologize for the short notice, but I have to be someplace else at 11 o'clock.

Understood. Thank you. Caroline?

And Madam Chair, we did know about this ahead of time and there was a January 13th, 2026 availability for that one. I understand.

So with that, may I have a motion? Motion to defer to January 13th. May I have a second? Again. Mr. Stembridge?

Yeah.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Mr. Langham? Yes. Mr. Collins? Yes. Ms. Pinado? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. See you then. Good luck. Thank you very much. Thank you for your help.

If there are no other requests for withdrawals or deferrals from the 930 hearings, we'll move ahead to the first case, which is case BOA 178.

6776 with the address of 49 Oakview Terrace.

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

Hello, my name is Alex Preziosi-Mishner. I am a current resident of Oakview Terrace. I live at 37 and we were able to purchase 49 Oakview Terrace. which is a single family home that we are planning to renovate and move our family into. We're doing a full gut renovation with some minor extensions. In the back and on the third floor through dormers and I will have our architect, Dan, walk you through it. I'm here. Okay.

Yeah, Madam Chair and members of the board, thank you for taking the time to review this project. As Alex said, we're renovating to restore an 1896 home, which includes the rear extension. Some extensions of the dormer and to make the front of the home up to today's standards and more aesthetically pleasing for the street and for the family to use. We can go through, so this site survey kind of shows the The update to the existing front porch. The existing front deck expands the full front of the home. We're reducing that to be about 50% of the home. And then on the rear side of the home where We're kind of squaring off the back of the house to make it all feel more cohesive and expand the usable living space within the home.

These are the existing floor plans where... Can you go back up to the... Sorry. Go back to the existing plans here. Yeah, these are the demo and existing plans. Just to show the footprint of the existing home off the back, how it's kind of squaring off on level one, level two, and level three. So if we scroll down to the overall plans. Keep going. So this is the basement, this is the ground floor. So you can see off the rear on the bottom left corner, we've squared that off with the back right side of the house to be able to expand their living area and have a more usable Kitchen and Dining space.

The front of the house is remaining as is other than the reduction of the front porch and the existing stairwell will remain. Next slide. As well as on this floor, we're expanding on that bottom left of the house to accommodate another bathroom for their children. Next slide. And then on the third floor, That same extension off the back allows for the addition of their primary bedroom with an office on the street side and there's existing dormers. on the top of the house on the page on the top and bottom where the existing dormers where the staircase currently is we're extending it down towards the rear of the house to accommodate a primary bathroom and then on the Bottom of the page, we are extending that dormer to accommodate a larger walk-in closet for the family.

We can scroll to the elevations. Keep going. Yeah, so this is the front of the house on the right. You can see the reduction of the front porch, and that allows a couple of things. It makes the front a little nicer and then also it allows for some more daylight to come into their front living space with where we have that bay window. We can go to the next elevation. and then this is the rear of the home where you can see the profile on the back on the left side south elevation. We've squared that off so it's similar to the front elevation. inform and accommodate a larger rear deck for them to have family meals and outdoor space.

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

Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Bembry. I am the Jamaica Plain Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process which consisted of an voters meeting facilitated on September 24th where the proposal gained overwhelming support and praise for the design of the proposal as well as Residents expressed how well it fits the character of the neighborhood and supports the family coming and remaining in the neighborhood. Next, the proposal was presented to Jamaica Plain Neighborhood Council on November 5th, where they voted to approve the proposal. Thank you for your time, and the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services would like to defer to the board for their judgment. Thank you.

Anything at their expense? Yes, there is one person. Gary, I'm not sure if you are looking to speak for this project. If not, there is no additional.

Can you hear me? Yes. Okay, great. So I am a long-term resident of Oakley Terrace. I live at 41. and have known Alex and her husband and four kids for some time and just want to speak in favor of this proposal. The house that they've bought and now are moving to has been Thank you. Thank you. and other very critical partners in the neighborhood which has probably 20 kids all around that circle at the top of Oak View Terrace. I encourage the board to approve their application.

Thank you so much. With that, may I have a motion? Motion. Motion to make a motion for approval.

May I have a second?

Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Mr. Langham?

Yes.

Mr. Collins?

Yes.

Ms. Pinado? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck, ma'am.

Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have case BOA 17909. 98 with the address of 106 Selden Street.

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

Good morning. My name is Matt Lawler. I am the attorney for the applicant with the law firm Robinson & Cole, business address at 53 State Street. In Boston, thank you to the members of the board for the opportunity to be here this morning. I'm joined this morning by Marie Oresette from Mass Five, who is representing the developer. As described in the appeal filings and as shown on the plans, the appeal relates to the parcel now owned by Mass Vibe, previously owned by the City of Boston, located at 106 Selden Street, Dorchester. The proposal for this property is the construction of one three-story multifamily residential structure containing six units and six parking spaces. Four of the units would be affordable to households making up to 80% of AMI, and two of the units would be affordable up to households making 100% of AMI. All the units are home ownership.

The Mayor's Office of Housing designated the proponent as the developer for the subject property under the Welcome Home Boston Phase 2 program. Same plans and designs were submitted in connection with this appeal were previously submitted to and approved by the board for dimensional zoning relief in February this year. However, because the regulations do not allow for the construction of more than three dwelling units in a three-family 6,000-sub-district, the applicant subsequently filed an alteration permit to close out the zoning relief and obtained a required use variance under Article 65, Section 65-8. So that's the purpose of being here this morning is to close out the zoning relief for this property. At this point, I will turn it over to Marie to provide more context.

Good morning. Thank you, Matt, for that overview. As Matt mentioned, this plan was previously approved. No additional changes. We're hoping to come back here to secure and get your approval on the additional use variance. We have completed a community process. We've spoken all neighbors. There's an existing six units right next door. Again, plans haven't changed. We're still moving forward with everything and we're ready to deliver these new units to the community. So thank you for your time.

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

Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Benbury. I am the Excuse me, I'm the Mattapan Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process which consisted of a subcommittee notification to all abutters and receiving no community feedback, no further community process was required. and the proposal was allowed to move forward. Our office is confident the proposal is non-controversial. Thank you for your time and the MES office and input services would like to defer to the board for their judgment.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, there are no additional comments.

Okay, with that, may I have a motion?

Motion to approve with proviso that the plans are submitted to the planning department for review, for design review. Is there a second?

Second.

Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Mr. Langham? Yes. Mr. Collins? Yes. Ms. Bernardo. Yes. Chair, yes. Motion carries. Good luck.

Thank you very much. Really appreciate it.

You know, have a good day.

Next, we have case BOA 177. 6123 with the address of 445-451 Columbia Road. If the applicant and or the representative present will they please point the case to the board.

Hi, my name is Carlos Mariano. I'm doing the virtual in order to change the name of the business.

Okay. Questions from the ward? May I have public testimony?

Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Vembery. I am the Dorchester Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process, which consisted of a subcommittee notification to all abutters, and receiving no community feedback, no further community process was required, and the proposal was allowed to move forward. Our office is confident the proposal is not controversial. Thank you for your time, and the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services would like to defer to the Court for the judgment.

Thank you.

Thank you.

May I have a motion?

Motion to approve.

Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge?

Yeah.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Miss Turner? Yes. Mr. Langham? Yes. Mr. Collins? Yes. Miss Pinado? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck.

Next, we have case VOA 178-4372. with the address of 10 to 18 Bowdoin Street. The applicant and or their representative present. Will the police explain?

Good morning Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is Bonnie Tian with JCBT Architect. We're proposing a 2,900 square feet new dine-in restaurant. with a liquor bar at the ground level of a mixed-use building at the Four Corner Plaza on Bolden Street, Dorchester. The proposed Jamaican restaurant will have about 77 seats. Street parking is allowing the area. We are requesting relief for change of use and off-street parking and loading. The Merle Restaurant, Merle Kitchen has been around in this same neighborhood for a while and have receive support from numerous neighbors in the area. This is my presentation. Thank you.

Any questions from the board? Here none may have public testimony.

Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Bembry. I'm the Dorchester Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process, which consisted of an abutters meeting facilitated on October 22nd, where the proposal received overwhelming support from all in attendance including civic members and City Councilor Worrell's office who all supported the much needed style of restaurant entering the underserved community. Next, a proponent presented to United Neighborhood Association, which completed the community process. To date, our office has not received any further community feedback. Thank you for your time, and the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services would like to defer to the board for the judgment.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Chen, next we have Brian.

Hi, good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. Timothy Guimon from City Councilor Brian Worrell's office. We'd just like to reiterate our support. We think this would be a great addition to the Four Corners area, and we would like to see this go through. So thank you very much.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, there are no additional comments.

With that, may I have a motion?

Motion is approved.

Is there a second?

Second.

Mr. Stembridge.

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Mr. Langham?

Yes.

Mr. Collins?

Yes.

Ms. Pinado. Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck. Thank you.

We have two companion Article 80 cases. The first is case BOA 17894434 with the address of 29-29F Romsey Street.

Along with that, we have case BOA 1789440 with the address of 33 Romsey Street.

If the applicants and or their representative are present,

Would there please explain the cases to the board?

Thank you, Mr. Stembridge. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board, Attorney John Pulgini on behalf of 2933 Romsey Street, LLC. With me this morning is William Christopher, the project architect. 29-30 through Romsey Street is both of these projects. The zoning is two family, 4,000. There are four lots. When put together, the square footage is 25,271 square feet. I'm pleased to present this deeply affordable development proposal that underwent an Article 80 process and was approved by the BPD on July 17th board hearing. This location currently has two vacant buildings. One is a dilapidated three-family. and the other is a commercial building that was once home to the Rice and Betz Pope. The proposal before you is to raise these buildings and construct two new residential buildings. One building, which will be the 29 Romsey, will house seven

three bedroom market rate home ownership townhouse units with each unit having a dedicated single car garage parking. The unit program in this building will be seven three beds, two and a half baths, each will be a little over 2,000 feet. The other building at 33 Romsey will contain 22 residential units. With 11 garage parking spaces, the program for this building is 21 two bedrooms and one studio. In total, this proposal will have 12 income restricted units, which provides more than 40% affordability between the two buildings. As I stated, this proposal went through an Article 80 process, and in addition to the vast amount of affordability, the proposal was designed to preserve open space with nearly half the site to remain as open space. Additionally, the proposal includes significant public realm improvements, such as pushing the building back from the sidewalk to provide wider sidewalks in compliance with the Complete Street Guidelines,

as well as new landscaping along Ronzi Street. At this point, I'll turn it over to William Christopher to go through the plans. Thank you.

Good morning Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is William Christopher. I'm the architect for this project. Basically what we have done is analyzed this neighborhood to come up with a concept that allows for the street fabrics to remain the same. Um, Romsey Street Lane, uh, Romsey Street, Romsey Place, um, was an important, uh, article in the community and the owner was very sensitive to that and we, we made sure to define that, to hold that into place. Basically, what we've done is we've taken the buildings and using the rhythm of the current street wall along Rumsey Street, we've developed the project as it is before you today. On the left-hand side will be the rental units. On the right-hand side will be the townhouses. Ramsey Lane will be the primary access for parking to the townhouses and to the apartments. as well as a very usable outdoor play space for the families that we hope will be attending here.

Questions from the board?

I am very glad to see that the project is providing 40% of the units as affordable But I didn't see any information about the area medium income for those affordable units. Do you have any information about what the AMI will be for the affordable units?

Yeah, so it's a blend. That's a great question, Mr. Valencia. It's a blend so that it works out to be 80% affordability.

80%. That is the deck, I realize.

It's a range, yes, so it depends on, it's through Mass Housing Finance, so it's a range of it. Okay, thank you. Percentage. Thank you.

With that, may I have public testimony?

Hello Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Eva Jones, representing the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services. Regarding 29-33 Romsey Street, our office defers to the board's judgment. A community process was conducted by the Boston Planning Department beginning on 7-25-25. The feedback that my colleague, the Dorchester liaison, Madison Foley, has received from the community has been significant opposition regarding this proposal. The community feels that the scale of the proposal is far too large and will impact the neighborhood's quality by removing sunlight from directed butters, Excuse me, a project of this scale will have its stress on a small residential one-way street, including on the parking. The proposal was also reviewed by the Columbia Seven Hills Civic Association at their meeting on 7-17-25. The association voted to oppose the proposal and has expressed that the size, scale, density, and design is not cohesive with the residential one-way street.

and because of that the proposal has also received significant opposition from abutters and will significantly impact their quality of life in terms of sunlight, few corridors, privacy and adverse traffic patterns. At this time, the Mayor's Office and Neighborhood Services defer to the Board's judgment on this matter. Thank you, everyone, for your time and consideration.

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

Okay, next manager we have Jessica. Jessica, you have 90 seconds to provide your public testimony.

Hello, my name is Jessica Hayes. I live at 23 Romsey Street. I would just like to strongly oppose this, and I hope everyone can take it into consideration, the neighborhood, the size of it. We're a small little one-way street, and this project is just way too big for what we think the street needs. I specifically, my backyard, I'll have no more privacy. The townhomes will look directly on my back porch. There'll be no more trees. There's so many trees out there that... that give me so much privacy that I feel will just be gone. And then talking about the scale of the project, Nothing on the street is taller than three stories beside the little facade that's on the front of the triple-deckers, and so that will look directly into my bathroom. Their fourth floor will look into my bathroom.

I also just think that there's now a new project on dot-af for the Murphy's Funeral Home that's going to be coming up with 22 units, and that also is bigger. This is bigger on a smaller side street than that is. And I think with that open streets, the widening sidewalk, it just, it doesn't fit the size of the street and it'll affect our quality of life.

Okay, and next we have Jamal. You have 90 seconds.

Hello, can I be, hi, how you doing?

My name is Jamal Briscoe-Maxwell. I'm actually, I live at 40 Romsey Street. This new development is going to be built right in front of my home. This project is going to be something that's going to change not just the environment but how we live on the street. My parents bought this property in 1992. The majority of the people who live on the street, it has changed. But the thing about this is it's going to change for the worse. If you see, if what Jessica said prior to me coming on, there's another building that's going to be built around the corner. So between these two projects, it's going to change things drastically. This is not what we're looking for in terms of a community. We're looking for something a little bit more Community Oriented. I'm not opposed to them having a building, but 22 units, no. Maybe six to nine units.

There's other developments that has happened around the street and they're I think the highest is maybe 12 units and those haven't they've impacted the street but not to the extent where these will. Again, I strongly oppose this. I don't want this to come and be built like how they're going to be building it because, again, that will change everything for my neighborhood. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have the person with the iPhone. And the bridge is fired. You have 90 seconds.

Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. Anthony Gilardi from City Council, Herb Murphy's office. The council would like to go on record in support of the application. Thank you.

Okay, next we have Steven Harvey. You have 96 seconds.

Mr. Harvey, I'm guessing you're the one who project managed this? Yes, ma'am. Could you please talk? about the community process because, you know, there are clearly direct abutters and organizations here not in support. So I'd like to understand that process on that one.

Yes, ma'am. No, the project was filed on September 20, 2024, and we had two public meetings, and the project was approved on July 17, 2025. The project had originally been proposed as one building, but after the first meeting, the community very much asked for a couple of things. One, to preserve Romsey Street or Romsey Place. and to add home ownership to the proposal. So working with the proponent, We revised the project midway through the article 80 process to meet the request of the community maintaining Ramsey Place and providing both a rental and home ownership structures on the site. Once that process was completed, we brought it to the board and met the standards of the planning department and we feel the project is appropriate for the site.

Thank you. Any other raised hands? Yes, Madam Chair. We have more five people in the attendee section. Okay, let's get through as many as we can. Okay, so next we have Rosner. Cindy, you have 30 seconds.

Yes, good morning. I hope you can hear me properly. I'm a direct voter on Sagamore Street, and I am in favor of this proposal. It will look over my backyard, which is not going to be an issue for me. I think the process has been transparent. The meetings that I attended at the property, Thank you very much. They cooperate with the neighborhood. They've changed when changes have been asked for. What's currently there is just an eyesore. It's trash filled. There's these falling down buildings. Not great for the neighborhood and 22 units, 11 parking spaces, home ownership, affordability, rental units. They've done what we've asked them to take a look at.

So as a direct abutter, I am firmly in favor of this proposal. Thank you for your time. Thank you.

Okay, next we have Christine Ho.

Yes, hi, thank you so much. My name is Christine Hogue. I'm planning chair of Columbia Savin Hill Civic Association. And while both the proponent and the architect are respected members of our community, we did vote to oppose this project. We are in support of housing. We are in support of home ownership. We are especially in support of affordable housing. But this particular project on this particular street we believe is too large and too big an ask for the abutters. It is a narrow Street. And while we do appreciate how well the community and the developers have worked together, we feel very strongly that this project should be smaller in scale.

And perhaps something this size should be relocated to a project somewhere on a busy street which we do support like on Dorchester Avenue, Columbia Road, Morrissey Boulevard, the site of other large projects which we have voted to approve and support. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have the person with iPhone. If you can say your name and address, please. You have 90 seconds.

My name is Nung, and my address at 411 Adams Street, Rochester, Mass, 02122. I need to remove the proposal to... To have the CO for my store.

Okay, we're not on your case, so please wait your turn. Thank you.

Sorry, thank you.

Please continue, Jesus. Okay, the next is Matthew. If you can state your name and address in 80 seconds, please.

Hi, good morning. My name is Matt Rubina. I'm in a butter at 37 Belford Street. My office window is looking directly at the site right now. I strongly support this proposal. I do think that this is the right amount of density for the site. This isn't like any of the other lots on Ramsey Street. It's a super deep lot that covers a lot of areas, over half an acre. I think the fact that the developer's proposing so much off-street parking is really a benefit. Thank you so much for joining us. It works. I think the kind of like this townhouse concept and using the length and the depth of the site is really great. There's been some other really good buildings put up on Pearl Street on Savin Hill Ave that look very similar to this in terms of how it's laid out.

and I think it's going to be really successful if the board is able to approve it and I'm strongly in support of having this right in my backyard.

Thank you. Any other questions from the board? Is there a motion?

I didn't speak yet. Am I not allowed to?

I'm sorry. I did not see your hand raised. Are you speaking on this project?

Yep. I put my hand up and messaged in the group there. If I can go now, if you want me to, it's up to you.

Yes, briefly.

Awesome. Yeah, I'll be super quick. I'm an owner of 332.7 Hill Ave. I echo a lot of what Matthew just said, actually. I'm a big supporter of the lots and eyesore at the moment, and it's a big lot. I like that they've come down. Overall in unit size, I like that it's a mix of rental and first sale units with a lot of affordable units and green space as well. and they've been kind of consistently revising based on the feedback in the community. And then one last thing I will say is this crew actually built directly next to me. at my 332 7 Hill home and redevelop the land there and like we're Awesome about it. I originally lived in South Boston and dealt with a lot of people who are not that way. There was a completely different experience going through the building and development process with this crew that's looking to build this. And yeah, so I'm very much so strongly in support. Thanks for your time.

Thank you. Any other questions from the board? Madam Chair, can I just address some of those comments just quickly? Yes.

Hello? Hello? Oh, I'm sorry. Hello? Can you see me or hear me? Okay, last comment. Please state your name and address for the record and if you're in support or opposition. Iphone. Iphone with a raised hand. Okay, please proceed, Mr. Corgini. Sure.

Can someone hear me? I'm so sorry. This is Jeannie Gould. Can anyone hear me? I'm very sorry. I don't know how you... Okay, last comment. I'm so sorry. I don't know how to do this. Bear with me. So my name is Jeannie Gould. And that was my brother, I think, trying to get on. And so I'll speak on his behalf. We all live or I live at 36-38 Romsey Street directly across from the Rice Post and we vehemently oppose the size of this project. We're not opposed to working with the developers and I'm kind of upset with Steve and Harvey because we all went, every abutter went to all those meetings and the direct abutters, not anyone who was You know, inadvertently affected, but Director Butters all said the same thing. It is way too big, there's not enough parking, and the infrastructure on our street will be It's a residential side street. It's primarily owner occupied. Our family has owned that home for 62 years. My dad is 96. He looks out that window at the Rice Post every day.

We love our neighborhood and we would love to see things there. People say it's an eyesore. Number one, that rice post, I could show you a picture. It looks exactly the same as it did when I was a little girl. If there's any eyesore there from trash or things, you should take that up with the current owners. They could be cleaning that up while they own it. That has nothing to do with what that looks like. That's on the current owners. and even the two family, my brother lived at 29 Ramsey Street for 20 something years and he was displaced because he couldn't afford to buy that. You talk about affordability, that is not affordable. James explained or someone there said a one bedroom affordability is $2,300. My children, my nieces, they all work. They're school teachers. They work, have great jobs. None of them can afford an apartment across the street. We joke and say you had to move to Hyde Park, you had to move here. We strongly oppose this. We would still work with the developers. We just want the size.

Okay, Mr. Pergini. Sorry. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to say this proposal went through significant design changes based upon the feedback from the community. Originally, as Stephen said, it was a single building that created a street wall of 35 units. That didn't fit the context, so it was revised to two smaller buildings, which as you will see in the BPD recommendation fits the neighborhood context. This development checks all the boxes for sensible development. It's a transit-oriented development, only a half a mile from both the Staten Hill and JFK train stations. Nearly half the site remains open space, home ownership opportunity, which is a dire need in this area, and most importantly, deeply affordable housing with absolutely no displacement. Thank you. We appreciate the opportunity. Thank you. Are there any other questions from the board?

May I have a motion?

Madam Chair, I would like to make a motion of approval with Planning Department review. 40% of affordable units will be provided at this site.

Thank you. Absurd. Absurd. Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes.

Thank you for listening to us.

Ms. Turner. Yes. The fix is in. Is this in the kindly mute folks who are not presenting orders?

Yes.

No, I won't.

Mr. Langham. No. Mr. Collins. Yes. Ms. Pinado. Yes. The Chair votes yes, the motion carries.

Thank you everybody. Enjoy your holidays.

Next we have case BOA 1787087.

at the address of 14 Wentham Street.

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

Yes, good morning, Mr. Secretary. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board, Joseph Feaster, from the law firm of Dane Torpy, 75 Federal Street in Boston. Knowing that you want to move this along, I wanted to first begin by wishing all on this call, and primarily the board members for sure, Happy Holidays, whatever holiday one celebrates, Christmas, Hanukkah, Puanza. I do represent the developer in this case and I want to thank the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services for providing the opportunity for us to meet with the community very significantly. Just to speak briefly about the project and Madam Chair, there will only be two other individuals who will speak. One will be Nasera Burrell, and the other will be Dave Saladick who is from the Mass. Design Group who will explain the project in great detail.

But I wanted to give a sense of this meeting. There was an extensive community process that has going on over a long period of time and I'll have This is going to be a two-story building for a birthing center. It will have its building that will have 6,800 square feet. It will have off-street parking and it will have All of this will be going in. You don't need to move the plans. I'm not going to do the plans. I'm going to leave that for the architect to do that. There has been extensive support for this project and certainly you will hear some opposition members of the board, but we have submitted extensive

Letters of support from abutters, from neighborhood, from community with regards to this project. So with that as a backdrop, I'd like Ms. Burrill, Ms. Shira Burrill to tell you about what the birthing center will be and then Dave Saladick to take you through the plans.

I appreciate it and and I know you're going to do this anyway but you know we do have you know some board members heard you the prior time some were not sitting and so you could just make sure you're explaining Changes from your last presentation. That would just be great. Like, you know, things that have gone down in size, et cetera. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is David Saladek, and I'm going to go into some of that right now. I'm an architect with Mass. We're leading the redesign of 14 Winthrop Street. So I'm going to start by recapping where we've been. We've shared a slide deck. Would it be possible to share that on the screen rather than the plans?

Does the ambassador have... the other slide that they're referring to. Is that what you're looking for?

Yes, thanks so much. Yeah, that'll help illustrate the changes that we've made. If we could go to slide two, please. Some of you may remember in 2023, initial designs for a larger 20,000 square foot project were shared in a neighborhood meeting, community feedback. was that that project was too large. We agreed and as a result, one of the core project partners relocated, reducing the scale of the project to around 11,000 square feet. This proposal was the one that we brought before the ZBA back in February of this year. Today we return to you with an even smaller building, approximately 6,800 square feet. and containing only the birth center. There are no additional partners in the project, no office space, no gathering spaces and community shared space has been removed.

We've also increased the parking count from 11 to 14 spaces per community feedback, which adequately accounts for staff and patients of a birthing center of this size. Lastly, just as a reminder to the board, the existing Red House at 14 Winthrop Street where we are proposing our development has had a notice to demolish since 2019. If you could stay on that slide, please, the slide above. So just to compare the If you could go to the previous slide, please, just to compare the 2024 design with where we are today. Our design is on the right. And again, we've reduced the total number of lots in the project from four to three. The proposal now includes only the three parcels at 10, 14, and 18 Winthrop Street. We have excluded the parcel in-house at 23 Kearsar Jav.

which is visible in the background of this image here and that will remain as a residential property as previously requested by the community. We've reduced the total built area of the project from 10,500 square feet to 6,800 square feet as we said, while maintaining two stories in height. We've increased the percentage of non-built area on the property and again increased the number of parking stalls from 11 to 14. So all these changes have happened over the last few months. They've resulted in a smaller building, More open space and also less foot and car traffic than the previous design. Next slide, please. If we look at the interior layout of the birth center, we've remained consistent with the previous version. So we still have a total of four birth suites. and four exam rooms. The only difference here is that previously these were all on the ground floor. That's shown on the left and the current design on the right has these spaces split across two floors.

Next slide, please. Through it all, I think we've remained committed to designing a birth center that in its essence is residential in nature and fits the scale and character of the neighborhood. Next slide. Zooming into the ground floor plan, the main parking and building entrances will be located on Winthrop Street. As you enter through a small lobby, you come into a family room with a kitchen and a solarium. Toward the back of the site there are four private birth suites that connect directly to the labor garden located in the upper left corner of the property. People will labor, birth, and recover postpartum in those birth suites. and along the south boundary of the property as shown in this plan the parking lot will align with the building's south facade we're maintaining an eight foot four inch step back that's consistent with the existing context and street wall of adjacent properties

and the parking of course will be screened with a fence and vegetation to reduce visual impact to the street. Upstairs on the upper floor, the second floor, is an extension of the birth center functions. We have reception space and several exam rooms located at the front of the building as well as staff space for birth center staff at the back. Next slide. This is a rendering that shows how it feels to approach the building coming from Winthrop Street. Birth centers are really home-like facilities, so this two-story building has been intentionally designed to maintain a residential character rather than an institutional look. And our goal has always been to design something that really feels like home. Next slide.

At the back of the property, those birth suites that I mentioned open up onto a private labor garden that brings light and nature into the rooms and that gives people a quiet private space to connect with the outdoors during labor. and during the immediate postpartum period. Next slide. This will be my last slide, I believe. So this last image conveys the home-like environment that's proposed for the interiors. This rendering in particular corresponds to the family room at the ground floor where loved ones will gather when relatives are admitted in labor. Your families will be able to sit and relax in this lounge area, get sun in the solarium, which you can see through the windows, or heat up meals in the kitchen to the left, all in a place that feels more like a living room than a hospital waiting room. And with that, I will pass it to Nashira Burrill.

Apologies, I'll pass it to Attorney Feaster.

Thank you very much David for that presentation. The Chair would have talked about what the Birthing Center is, but I think Madam Chair that the Board has sufficient information with regards to what will be provided at the Birthing Center. You can see that My client has had extensive conversation and took into account much of what the community has raised. and tried to address that and has reduced the project in size, created additional open space, has maintained a building that can be used for residential use, has increased the off-street parking, so I think they have been receptive. So with that, I turn it to you, Madam Chair, in order for you to deal with the Q&A. Thank you.

Actually, sorry, Attorney Feather. Dave and I just flipped orders, so I do have a few things I'd like to share about the birth center before we turn it back to the board, if that's okay. Sorry about that, Madam Chair. Very briefly, the share of please. Very briefly. Can I have the slides back? That would be great. I'll be very brief. Thank you. We'll go right to after where Dave was. There's a community context slide on number 12. Thank you. Yes, so as Attorney Feaster said, my name is Nashira Burrell. I'm the director of the Neighborhood Birth Center. And for those members of the board who did not meet us in February, I want to briefly just talk about why having a birth center is important to Boston, but also why this site is in particular key to our success. We first began with negotiating an emergency transfer agreement with Boston Medical Center and then we looked for property. It was really important to find property that was just a few minutes transfer to BMC as well as Longwood and that allowed us to create a neighborhood-based sanctuary for low-risk birth and care.

This is really a third option between hospital and home birth. and the keyword being sanctuary. So we purposefully chose residential property, confident that we could amass the overwhelming support that we have. Next slide. I'll skip the next one. We've talked a little bit about our process and you can skip that one as well. One more. I'm just catching up, making up time here. This one's great. What are birth centers? So a birth center is a home-like facility. It's staffed by midwives. Oh, one above that. They provide physiologic or natural childbirth and GYN care. They offer longer, more personalized visits. Birth centers have relationships with hospitals for seamless access to physician or hospital care when needed. This will not be a cash pay facility as some birth centers are. We will accept commercial insurance and have planned for more than 60% mass health in our business plan.

Birth centers are associated with better experiences and better outcomes, including lower preterm births, lower cesarean rates, and lower rates of low birth weight. And there's data on that slide above if the board has the slides after. And this is just the context of the nation. There are a number of birth centers popping up across the country, more than 300 now. Next slide. There's only one in Massachusetts. It's out in Florence in the Northampton area, which really underscores the local need. The other birth centers in the Boston area have closed in the last five years. Next slide. Next slide. We can even go one more. This just shows you the closures and those that are in development. And I'll end on this one more. My most important slide is just above this. Thank you.

Last time around, it was suggested to a commercial property, you know, somewhere down on Washington Street or Melanie at Cass. If I can leave you with one thing today as you head into your decision, I hope that it's this, that across the country, midwives catch babies in houses and birth centers just like this. What we're talking about is a four bedroom home that looks like a home and feels like a home and has a luxury green space. It's staffed by midwives where people can come for affirming and life-saving care. It is not a hospital, it is not a community health center, but it does need clinical use. From Tallahassee to Western Mass, birth centers operate in homes that have been renovated or in new builds designed to replicate a two-story home like the one we're proposing here.

Thank you. Are there questions from the board? Okay, hearing none, may I have public testimony? And just a reminder, we are limiting public testimony to 90 seconds.

Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Bembry. I'm the Roxbury Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process, which consisted of an abutters meeting facilitated on October 15th. That was very well attended. The meeting was split between those who opposed and those who supported. Supporters were delighted to see the developers respond to the prior community feedback and significantly reduce the size of the proposal to benefit within the character of the neighborhood. Supporters thought the birthing center would be a place for women of all ages to come and work together while adjusting the need for better health care for minority women and infants during pregnancy. The opposed, many from Winthrop Street, cited the current zoning of the residential parcel, voicing their opposition to providing a variance for the forbidden use of a clinic in a residential neighborhood. An abutter was adamant the neighborhood is not opposed to a birthing center, but rather opposed to changing the zoning and building a commercial development in their neighborhood they feel should remain solely for their residential use.

Next, the proponent presented to Roxbury Path Forward on November 18th with a civic remainder opposed to the proposal as it does not address Roxbury's urgent need for housing. The proposal surrounded by residences would damage the residential character of the neighborhood and narrow street and therefore the civic urges the board to deny the variance for use. To date, for opposition, our office has received 93 letters of opposition, including one from Roxbury Path Forward, maintaining the, of course, of Forbidden Commercial Use and Residential Zone, and from Roxbury Neighborhood Council pointing out the physical constraints of the proposed location and how they pose significant risk for laboring patients, emergency responders, and the broader community within the birthing center being located on Winthrop Street, a one-way single-lane residential street that outlets directly onto Warren Street. A highly trafficked arterial corridor and urges the city to prioritize maternal and neonatal safety, emergency responsiveness, and neighborhood impact in its review of the proposal.

To date, for support, our office has received 215 individual letters of support, a 218 signature online petition of support, and 23 letters of support from organizations and government officials. I will read a few into record as they have been sent to the board for their review. Supporting officials include United States Representative Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts State Senator Liz Miranda, Massachusetts State Representative Christopher Worrell, City Councilor-at-Large Julia Mejia, Councilor Pepén, Dr. Elaine Fitzgerald Lewis, Director of the Borough of Family Health and Nutrition of the Massachusetts Department of Public Health and the State Maternal and Child Health Director, Child Services of Roxbury, and Embrace Boston. At this time the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services would like to go on record in support of this proposal. Thank you for your time.

Mr. Benbery, can I ask you a quick question? Yes. The letters of opposition, were they based on the original project or what we see in front of us? Or do you not know?

Yes, ma'am, I did read through them. We have 62 letters that were physical letters, and the other were sent in via email. I can read over the...

Yeah, my question was just whether they're based on the revisions that were presented today or were they from the previous...

There are new opposition letters regarding the location and the building of commercial property, the variance for the usage.

Thank you.

Yes, ma'am.

Jesus. Okay, next we have a Cheese Purvis. You have 90 seconds. Yeah, my name is Jesse Purvis. I'm the Director of Policy for Council President Louijeune, and we'd like to go on record in support of the proposal. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next, we have Loreen. Lorraine Payne,

Good morning. I am on the call today representing Roxbury Path Forward Neighborhood Association. My address is on Moreland Street, the next street over from Winthrop Street. And in referring to the letters, they are by and large from people who live on Winthrop Street. And I live in this neighborhood because I bought my house from my family members. And again, many of the houses that are across from the birthing center are people who could be the third generation in their home going back to when this neighborhood was segregated. And what I want to emphasize for you is that this project does not meet The conditions in Article 7 that are required for a variance, there are no special circumstances applying to this land.

This is just something that they want and because Winthrop Street, including Warren Street. The laundromat next door, which has been referred to, has been sold for Housing. This is a national historic district that primarily is made up of housing. And if you approve this, even though it's a forbidden use, It will be housing surrounding this commercial use. And it interferes with the neighborhood's quiet enjoyment of the property. Please wrap up, ma'am. Please wrap up. Thank you. Yes, ma'am.

Thank you. Okay, next we have Brian.

Good morning Madam Chair, members of the board, Timothy Guimon from City Councilor Brian Worrell's office. We would just like to go on record in support of this project. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next we have Maxine.

Good morning, thank you. I just want to actually release some of my time to Lorraine so she can finish, if that's okay. But I live on Montrose Street, not too far from there, and I oppose the project. for the same reasons that zoning needs to maintain residential so that we can have more affordable homeownership for the community as this is a forbidden use and I vehemently oppose it.

Thank you. Next we have Rochelle. Rochelle.

Good morning Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is Rochelle Centello and I am here on behalf of State Senator Liz Miranda who represents the Second Suffolk District. and strongly supports the Neighborhood Bread Center proposed at 14 Winthrop Street. We recognize the land use decision can raise real and heartfelt concerns and we want to acknowledge the community members that have shown up today. What is important for the board to know is that this proposal has been meaningfully changed since it last came before you, specifically in response to those concerns. The current plan represents a significantly staled down project. The building footprint has been reduced nearly three times the size that it initially was proposed. The project is now only a birth center. There are no additional nonprofit offices or gathering spaces, which means less foot traffic and fewer daily trips. Senator Miranda's support for this project is grounded in both local need and state policy. Last year, she helped pass a comprehensive maternal health omnibus bill aimed at improving birth outcomes across Massachusetts. particularly for communities that experience the highest rate of maternal morbidity and mortality.

This legislation recognizes what the data makes clear. We must expand access to safe, culturally responsive, and community-based birthing options alongside hospital care. The Neighborhood Bread Center directly advances the goals of that legislation. Bread centers are proven to improve outcomes, reduce unnecessary interventions, and provide family-centered care, especially for Black birthing people who continue to face unacceptable disparities in maternal health. The request for clinical use variance does not threaten the neighborhood with commercial rezoning. It's a small home-like facility. thoughtfully redesigned to fit its surrounding while meeting the public need. Senator Miranda urgently urges the board to review this application through both the Zona and the public health lens. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have Ishari.

Hi, Cheryl Spence. I live at 33 Montbrook Street, unit number three. I'm opposed to the birthing center. I would just like to say that as in the contrary to what Joe Feaster says, We didn't ask for more parking, we didn't ask for outdoor space, and we didn't ask for a smaller footprint. It's still a commercial space in a residential area. There's no reason that It should be approved. It was denied the last time. Also, I feel that the presentations shouldn't be about a birthing center. It should be about zoning. And I have not heard anyone from the proponent speak about zoning. Thank you. Also, I would like to say that Representative Worrell and Miranda do not represent that neighborhood. So what they want should go into their neighborhood. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. Next we have Sophia Abdi.

Thank you. Good morning members of the Zoning Board of Appeals. My name is Sophia Abdi. I serve as the Senior Community Engagement Manager for Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley. I am here on behalf of Congresswoman Persley in support of the Neighborhood Birth Centers proposed project. Boston families deserve access to safe, culturally responsive, and community-centered maternity care. This project advances that critical goal. For far too long, Black and Brown birthing people have faced disparities in access Outcomes and Experiences within our healthcare system. Community-based midwife-led care offers an affirming alternative that centers dignity, choice, and trust. Approving this project will help ensure more families can give birth in an environment that supports their health, autonomy, and well-being while also ensuring strengthening public health and advancing racial equity

With that, Congresswoman Pressley respectfully urged the board to approve this project. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you.

Thank you. I'm sorry, I think the person for iPhone 8.

Yes, thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board, Anthony Girardi from City Council, Aaron Murphy's office. The council would like to go on record as being opposed to this project. Thank you.

and we're going to try to get through as many as possible so folks can just briefly state their support or opposition that would help us get through everyone.

All right, so we are going to the attendee section. We're gonna start with Denise Mallis. You have nine seconds. Name us, please.

My name is Denise Malas. Thank you for letting me speak. I live at 16 Moreland Street and am considered an abutter. I oppose this. Stand with the neighborhood in opposing this. This is a David and Goliath situation. We do not have the voice and the political reach that The Birthing Center has, and so it diminishes our vote. I am opposed to this because this is still three parcels of residential land, not just one, but three. Okay, there's going to be a housing on Corsage, but that is just to allow this to seem different. I would like to say that Roxbury Neighborhood Council doesn't support it and I would also like to say in meetings the lawyer that represents the birthing center

could not tolerate any negative feedback, continuously cut us off and belittled our opinions. That meeting had only opposition. Nobody spoke that was for it. So I hope that you can hear our voice and consider that we are against the zoning and not the commercialization. of this neighborhood. It's commercial free. Thank you.

I'm going to ask folks to speak quicker if we want to hear everyone because we do have 20 cases after this. Thank you.

Okay, next we have Garrison Trotter.

Oh, sorry, Connie Ford representing Roxbury Neighborhood Council. the neighborhood council we support expanded community-based maternity care and respect the role of pre-sending birth centers play for low-risk pregnancies however our concern is not the model of care but whether this specific location can safely support laboring mothers in emergency response within minutes when it really matters. Winthrop Street is a one-way single lane residential street is ending up on Warren Street, which has a traffic light very shortly away from where the mouth of the street is. And then if you're trying to go to Boston Medical Center and you're going to the next light, which is off of, at that point, Studley Street, It's dangerous. If you have an emergency, either coming to the birthing center or leaving from the birthing center, that does not accommodate the need for a safe

Yes, birth center saves lives, but when I'm talking about the birthing center specifically, we're talking about the lives of people who would need to access that space in this location is not a safe and the emergency vehicles that have access it. The street already has reported that cars reverse drive the wrong way on the street and that has not been addressed and we need to have the health and welfare of our Parents, the mother and the child is a priority and not the political appropriateness of a neighborhood birthing center that needs to be removed. It's a safety matter. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, next we have a Cartodisco.

So in the interest of time, I think we can take about five more people. So I would encourage folks to also put their feedback in the chat.

Good morning, this is Carl Tedisco speaking. I live at 60 Winthrop Street. I've been a long-time resident. I am opposed to the project. It's because it is changing zoning from residential to commercial and I'm very afraid that if this Board looks at it and lets it change. That's going to set a precedent in our neighborhood that housing is needed. and we don't need commercial in the neighborhood when all the major boulevards have commercial that are surrounding us and we're not against the birthing center, we're against it being in the wrong place. That's all.

Thank you. Okay, next we have, I think, somebody from the Electoral Official Rep. Chyna Tyler.

Hi, yes, Rep. Chyna Tyler, I'm here. Can you hear me? Yes, ma'am. Hi, yes, good morning, everyone. Thank you so much for taking me out of turn. I'll keep my remarks short. I really appreciate being on and I just think that at this time, based off of my research and just hearing it and doing my best to reach out to both the neighborhood of Butters as well as the entity looking to be able to bring forth this birthing center in Roxbury that a ton of more work needs to be done in making this possible. I was able to speak to the Birthing Center leadership team and was able to present some other ideas. And I just, again, think that there are other ideas and other things that we can bring about to be able to have the best partnership with the Birthing Center Coalition. You guys are aware that the Boston Foundation just came out with a recent report on housing 2025.

here for the City of Boston and it really speaks a lot towards a lot needs to be done as it relates to housing and so I hear a lot of constituents being concerned about you know what could potentially be done with housing in this area and why they're pushing back on making this a commercial space rather than it being a housing zone for housing which it is now and again I just think that a lot of work just needs to be done around this conversation and more innovative ideas need to be So thank you so much for having me. And I look forward to continuing this conversation. We'll be happy to come back if they're offered another opportunity to work with neighbors to make it work for everyone. But I just think more work needs to be done here. Thank you.

So thank you for having me. And next, one second, my computer is frozen. OK. Marylene. Marielle, I think it's Marielle, I'm sorry. It's Marie Lintong.

Marie Lintong?

Yes.

Can you unmute yourself? Okay. We have a few more hands and we have your feedback in the chat.

I understand that, but you've let everybody else talk. I'm testifying on behalf of the neighborhood birth center proposed location on Winthrop Street. I've lived on Montrose Street for the past 51 years and I'm a member of the Historic Moreland Street Neighborhood Association, another community organization which includes Winthrop, Moreland, Fairland, Copeland, Dunreath, and Whiting Streets. I have consistently supported and been attending the birth center groups meeting at community locations for the past four years. The need for a birth center in Roxbury is self-evident. The maternal mortality rate for black women in the US is 3.5 times higher than those of white women. The birthing center offers midwives and doulas who will provide quality prenatal and postpartum depression care in a personalized and supportive environment.

The proposed birth center has a welcoming design and is within the 10 mile radius of BMC should emergency care be needed. Our community has evidenced the support for this project by attending meetings and providing written documentation. It's also the worthwhile effort which is also supported by elected officials, as you've heard, including the governor who supported a million dollar grant in October 24 for the development of three birthing centers in Worcester, Northampton, and Boston. This project should not be abandoned because of misguided fears over possible commercialization

all right um we have eight like nine more people uh um

Well, we can do as many as we can. I don't think we can do all of them. So Nadine, I think, had her hand up as an abutter. I would like to hear from abutters. If you're not a direct abutter, can you lower your hand?

OK.

Okay, I have Glenn Lloyd. Great, thank you. So I'm a resident at homeowner 15 Montrose Street and I'm in support of this project. I'll start with three quick points. I have a personal experience, my oldest daughter, I drove my wife to the Cambridge Birth Center, took her 30 minutes, and it resulted in a beautiful water birth, which was magical. So I know the power of the birth centers personally. I have witnessed the team here at the neighborhood birth center over the last few years be thoughtful and have listened and most importantly have adjusted, one being the size of the space and now preserving the home at 23 Kersarge, providing a residential scale, looks like and feels like a home, which is what we're talking about in this community, like how do we get more of a residential feel. And for someone who lives right here, I've seen the proliferation of high-cost condos and luxury apartments changing the fabric of our community. This is a chance for a local black-led nonprofit doing amazing work to set roots, an important legacy for the neighborhood.

helping maintaining cultural diversity, which we treasure here. I'll hand my time back over.

Thank you.

We have a I think there are about others. I'm sorry. I'm trying to catch up with the people who are raising their hand. Pitches, number two.

Yes.

You have 90 seconds, please.

Can you state your name and address for the record and whether you're in support or opposition?

Yes, good morning. My name is Dania Pah. I live on 31 1 3rd Street. I'm a direct abutter. I strongly wholeheartedly support the Neighborhood Breakfast Center. I feel that Roxbury, being that Roxbury has the highest poor breath-in rate, I feel that the neighborhood breath-in center has a strong mission, a unique mission to support women delivering healthy babies and I humbly ask the board to support the neighborhood birthday center on Winthrop Street. Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm going to encourage folks to put your feedback in the chat. We do have to wrap up. We'll take one more. Jesus, can you pick Nadine Riggs? I guess her hand has been up a while.

All right, I'm sorry, but the next person that I see is Sofia Perez.

Good morning. Thank you Madam Chair, members of the board. I'm a direct abutter at 15 Meathrop Street and I go on the record opposing this project due to the concerns about zoning. If you look at the plot and this neighborhood, you'll see that it's not a cozy, homey neighborhood as shown. in the slides but it's already an area at risk of commercial encroachment and I want to be clear that commercial encroachment is gentrification which is not culturally responsive or safe for our neighborhood. I'll add more in the chat. I also want to second what Denise said about the treatment of the opposition. We have been undermined and treated as ignorant or misguided and I really want to be clear that we deserve Respect and a safe place to live and not as misguided or misunderstanding or people who don't care about Black and Brown birthing people's safety or rights. We do, but this is not the appropriate location for it for many of the reasons listed. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, Madam Chair, there is one person on the panelist section, Naomi. I'm not sure if you're a panel body or for an electoral official office.

I'm not a director, but I'm a Roxbury resident, but I would just want to record and state my support for this project.

Thank you. So for the remaining hands, can I ask you, if we go through all of you, can you just state whether you're in support or opposition? We've heard many reasons, so I think we can, you know... We can gather insight into that. So just if you're in support or opposition, Jesus.

All right, okay. So next in the order, we have Greg Jane, Jenny. Keep going. Okay, if not, we have... Oh, I'm here, okay.

I mean, I'm sorry, I didn't unmute it. That's Greg Janey, neighbor. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. I'm in full support of this project. I'm sitting here with, in a butter, Charles Justice, who lives on Winthrop Street, that would also like to provide testimony.

Yes, Charles Justice. Good morning, everyone. I'm in full support of this project. I'd like to add that there has been a clinic on that street before. and for everyone who's been there for a while should know of this. I think it helps the community and I'm in full support. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, next we have Aldo Sol.

Hi, my name is Aldo. I live on 15 Winthrop Street and I strongly oppose this project.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we have the phone number with 719316.

Keep going.

We need to wrap this up.

Hi, good morning. I am in a butter at 22 Wentworth Street, and I strongly support this project.

Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have Marit Besale.

Yes, hi. I live at 43 Winthrop Street, and I strongly oppose this project. I think that it is a red herring, which

Please keep going, just your name and address and support or opposition, that's it.

Next we have Nadine Riggs.

Hello, this is Nadine Riggs at 43 Winthrop Street. I have Mary Jane, who is a Director of Butter, and another Butter here to speak. I am opposed to this project and it comes down to this is not This is a zoning issue. It is not a health care debate. We have a right to keep our area as residential. and then my biggest concern here is if this project is not if this it's not about if and when this project leaves that space it's about what happens if they're allowed to go here because if they're if they're allowed to to have this project. It opens the door for anyone else who can come in, buy a building, tear it down, and put in commercial space. It's not fair. Thank you.

I don't know if the applicant wishes to briefly address these abutter concerns. There are two people I hope you... I have asked as many people as I could so I'm going to turn it back to the abutters and to the board members.

Attorney Feaster, I'll just...

I was going to ask a safety question. Yes. I would like for you, Ms. Scherer, but very, very briefly, I think you have stated the case. I think, Madam Chair, that the architect has done the design. I recognize the opposition. I'm not going to address the comments with regards to how I may have approached folks at that particular meeting. Obviously, I disagree with the interpretation, but that's okay. That's not what the issue is before the board. The zoning here, the zoning that we have, as well as, wasn't I, we had off-street parking, the use regulations, and dimensional regulations. The applicant has sought to address the Wall Street parking issue by increasing the number The parking spaces. The use, we understand that.

This discussion, as you know, Madam Chair, I represent a lot of clients throughout the entire city of Boston, and these are the types of conversations that do come up. But I know through the wisdom of the board, you look at these things from the standpoint of weighing all of the issues as it relates to whether variances would be granted and in this particular case I will argue that my client has addressed many of the committee's concerns in this discussion about this is a zoning issue and this is a commercial issue My client's not proposing a commercial project. My client is presenting a wholesome environment for women in a safe place to be able to deliver their children. And the issues about the access, I will last say, I'm familiar with Winter Street. My wife grew up on Winter Street, so I am familiar with this. So I think that we've addressed it, and I'm not sure that we need to add more to that.

I leave it to the wisdom of the board. Are there other questions from the board?

I do have a question. Yes, please go ahead. Is there a way, if and when we vote on this, is there a way to do a provision so that if ownership changes they would have to come back that it can revert back to a residential and that whoever wants to build on this would have to come back. Excellent question. Caroline?

You could do a proviso that it limits to this petitioner only. Okay, thank you. Excellent question.

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

Yes, I'd like to put forward a motion of approval with proviso that this commercial occupancy is only for this applicant and I'd also like to state first of all thank you for the revisions that you made I understand that you've I also really appreciate you explaining that a residential setting is necessary to the mission of this project. And so with that, I put forward a motion of approval. With the proviso to this applicant only, correct?

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

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Mr. Langham? Mr. Langham? Yes. Mr. Collins. You're on mute, Mr. Collins.

Sorry, yes.

Ms. Pinado. Yes. Chair votes yes, the motion carries. Thank you.

Thank you very much, members of the board. Thank you.

Next case.

Yes, since we've passed the 11 o'clock hour, Madam Chair, we'll ask if there are any requests for withdrawals or deferrals from the 11 o'clock hearing. If not, then we will return to the 930 hearing and we will go to case DOA 176-0009.

with the address of 2A Rossmoor Road.

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

Tomas, Santana, I think, Santamaria, I'm sorry, I'm not sure if you're speaking.

Yeah, can you have me here? Yes. All right, great. And I think Colleen is also present. Basically, I bought this building last December. and at the time it was rented to Boston's Boxer Club which is the commercial space on the first floor. The prior owner when they bought the building and did their renovation project were hoping to maintain the building as a Restaurant. So they had a temporary certificate of occupancy as a bar, tavern, and two residential units. We are filing for an appeal to change that to two residential units and a boxing gym or a gym. We've been through the community processes. I'm pleased to report that they went well.

And I think that's really all I have to say. Oh, and the point is that no work was really done The building was delivered to me or that first commercial, it was delivered to the tenant at the gym as a blank box and they did some paint, put their equipment in, and got the road on the show. So that's I think really all I have to say here.

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

Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Bembry. I'm the Jamaica Plain Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process, which consisted of a lightly attended abutters meeting facilitated on September 11th. Of the four brothers, two had no concerns, one voiced support and the last voiced a few concerns regarding poison ivy encasing a tree and the aesthetics of the exterior building. Putting out the building often gets tagged with graffiti. Next, we're going to present to Jim McAplain, Neighborhood Council, where they've gained a vote of approval. Thank you for your time, and the MESA Office of Neighborhood Services would like to defer to the Board for their judgment.

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

That may I have a motion?

Motion to approve.

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

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Mr. Langham? Yes. Mr. Collins? Yes. Ms. Pinado? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck. Thank you all very much.

Next, we have case BOA 178. 4709 with the address of 162 to 172 South Street. If the applicant and or their representative present would they please explain the case to the board.

Hi, everyone. Can you hear me?

Yes, sir.

Hi, everyone. My name is Alexander G. Michel, and together with my brother, Barraza St. Julian, we're in the process of opening A&G Liquor Store on 170 South Street in Jamaica Plain. We respectfully believe that our recent denial and our change of occupancy requests may have been made in error, as our location is a part of an active commercial plaza with multiple established business operating directly besides us on either side, several of whom who have shared that they have previously encountered similar misunderstandings regarding zoning. Our space itself was previously a hair salon. We have been diligently persevering throughout challenges, throughout this process, but the delay in approval has significantly hindered us in our ability to begin operations and move forward respectfully. Sorry. We truly appreciate the time and consideration, and we hope our request encourages a closer look so that we can begin contributing to this longstanding business community.

And if you could go onto the third slide for me, please. You'll see the storefront and the fact that it's a plaza and already in a commercial zone.

Is the ambassador able to forward the slides as requested?

Yes. Down one more, please. And now down to the last one, if you could, please. and that is all.

Thank you. Are there questions from the board? Yes, I do have a question. Are there other liquor stores nearby? Like where's the closest, the next closest one?

So there is one about 500 yards away. It's Happy Market, but they aren't a dedicated liquor store. They do sell liquor, but there are... Technically a grocery store. They don't advertise liquor outside. They don't deliver liquor or offer any memberships.

Thank you. Are there others in the area besides Happy Market?

Maybe about a mile out or maybe 0.8 miles. There's Forest Hills Liquors on the opposite side of us. And that's about it.

Thank you. Thank you. Other questions from the board? Does Mr. Hampton wish to comment on the use issue?

Thank you Madam Chair, Members of the Board, Jeff Hampton, City of Boston Planning Department. We're in support of this use, but just for the record, that area of South Street is all zoned residential. There are commercial Parkins, especially in that section, and then I think one block up to the north, but it is residential, so unfortunately for this applicant, the citation is correct. Thank you.

With that, let's 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 Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process, which consisted of an abuttors meeting, that was held on October 27th with one guest standing there was surprised to see the proposal back after six months because of a variance that was missed previously on the application by both departments. The proposal was previously approved by the civic and are required to represent Thank you for your time and the MS Office of Neighborhood Services would like to defer to the Board for their judgment.

Thank you.

You're welcome. Madam Chief, there are no additional comments.

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

Yeah.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Mr. Langham? Yes. Mr. Collins? Yes. Ms. Pinado? Yes. Chair votes yes, the motion carries. Good luck.

Thank you, Board. Next, we have case BOA 1765807 with the address of 764-764A, Tremont Street. It's the applicants and or their representative present. Will they please explain to the board?

Call the court right away. Yeah. Can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Okay, we're just basically trying to change the occupancy from I believe it was zoned for a hair salon to a personal training studio. That is it.

Are there any Exterior changes, just interior?

Just no interior changes at all. Like everything is already, there's nothing that needs to be done. Literally just change of occupancy.

Questions from the board? Mayor of Public Testimony.

Hello Madam Chair, Members of the Board. My name is Eva Jones representing the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services. Regarding 764 to 764A Tremont Street, our office defers to the Board's judgment. A community process was conducted, including a distribution of a subcommittee flyer on 10-14-25 that did not generate any community feedback. And the proposal was also reviewed by the Hurley Block Neighborhood Association at their meeting on 9-10-25. The Association expressed support about the proposal and at this time the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services defers to the Board's judgment on this matter. Thank you everyone for your time and consideration.

Thank you Madam Chair. There are no additional comments.

With that, may I have a motion?

Motion to approve.

Is there a second? Yeah. Mr. Stembridge? Yeah. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Mr. Langham. Yes. Mr. Collins. Yes. Ms. Pinado. Yes. Chair votes yes. Motion carries.

Next, we have case BOA 1776813 with the address of 70 Burbank Street. If the applicant and or the representative are present, would they please explain the case to the board?

Yes, good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board, Attorney Nick Sizzula, McDermott, Quilty, Miller, and Hanley, 28 State Street in Boston. If Mr. Ambassador or Madam Ambassador could pull up, we did have a brief presentation on this. You can go to the second slide, please, when you get there. With me today from Fenway Community Development Corporation, now DBA Fenway Forward, is Ari Sugarman, who's the real estate project manager for Fenway Forward, and Sunith John, who's the deputy director and head of real estate. Next slide please. So the project is located at 64-70 Burbank Street. This is an existing 35,000 square foot mixed use building in the Fenway.

The appellant actually owns the building, has its offices in the basement lower level, and there are many residential units above. And what's being proposed is to convert or expand approximately 188 square feet of underutilized existing basement courtyard space. Thank you. Thank you. The zoning relief that's required for this is two things, two items. First is the GCOT is applicable. We did submit the appropriate no harm letter. and the BWSC compliance letter to the board and to Mr. Simonelli at BGWT. as well as a open space reduction. And that's again a minor reduction of about 188 square feet.

And I'll note that there are existing residential uses in the building, as I mentioned, but none of them actually have access to this interior courtyard space. This space that is being kind of recaptured here is actually only accessible from the appellant's office space, and usable open space is actually not required for office space, so it's pretty de minimis under the zoning code. And I'll note also that about 13 years ago, this building went through a similar GCOD and open space process when it underwent renovation and was approved at that time as well. Next slide, please. Just a plan you can see here, the site plan you can see in the hatched area, the proposed infill expansion of the interior courtyard. Next slide, please. Next slide, please. Yep, thank you.

This is a little bit more detail. Again, you can see the yellow area is what is being kind of recaptured and bumped out for office space. and you can see that the only windows that actually open into this area on the ground floor are either from the office space to be expanded or common area hallways so none of the units actually have any and many, many windows that are going to be affected by this change. Very briefly, just to show you the existing conditions that we're talking about, completely paved over area, not really utilized or utilizable exterior space. and it will just this is the area that will be expanded for that 188 square feet. Next slide I believe is the last one. Just the Fenway Civic support letter, we did provide this to the board, Madam Chair. We met with them in November. They did provide the letter of support.

We did hold an abutter meeting on October 16th. There were no attendees. and I'll just finally note that we did receive a planning recommendation of approval for the project. Next slide, Mr. Mavis, I believe is just a final slide. I'll end there. Madam Chair, I know it's been a long morning. Happy to answer any questions that you might have. Thank you. Thank you.

Are there questions from the board?

Hearing none, may I have public testimony? Madam Chair and Board Members, Siggy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This applicant has completed a community process. Our office hosted an emergency meeting on October 16th at which no concerns were raised. The Fenway Civic Association is in support of this application. Without background, our office defers judgment to the board. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have Christian Simonoli, please, to have the next seconds.

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

Thank you. Thank you. And next we have Marinor Perez.

Thank you, Mr. Ambassador. Madam Chair, members of the board, this is Maena Perez representing the Carpenters Union. On behalf of hundreds of our union residents, I'd like to go on record in support of this proposal. Thank you.

Next, we have Holly Margulies.

Hi, good morning, Madam Chair and members of the board. I am, my name's Holly, I'm here on behalf of Boston City Councilor Sharon Durkan for District 8. We know this project is not in our district, but since District 7 does not have a councilor and the Fenway Civic Association is in support of this project and in our district, we would like to give our support as well.

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

With that, may I have a motion? I'll make a motion of approval with the proviso that plans be submitted to the planning department for design review to ensure that adequate light is maintained for the ground floor units that are not part of the proposed expansion. Do we have a second? Second. Second. Mr. Stembridge? Yeah. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Mr. Langham?

Yes.

Mr. Collins? Yes. Ms. Pinado? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck.

Thank you very much. Happy holidays. Thank you, everybody.

Next, we have case DOA. 1760363 with the address of 35 to 37 Bradford Street. The applicant and or the representative are present. Would they please explain?

Good morning. My name's Christopher Barry. I'm the architect for the project and representing the owner, Campbell Edlund, who was not able to join us at this time. We have three issues on the Zoning Board of Appeals. But first of all, I'd like to just say that the owner of this property has owned and lived here for 20 to 30 years. She's very active in the community and she very much appreciates living in this neighborhood and her goal is to expand her existing single-family residence with a single family residence, incorporating an ADU. And as she ages, she may move to the first floor as part of the ADU process. We have, as I said, three issues. One of these is the roof deck, and the roof deck is above the garage as pictured in this rendering here.

The one issue that we do not comply with Article 34, Section 64, is that the roof deck does not have a five-foot setback off the building line. Our adjacent buildings to us, both Wilkes Passage and Chalmers Street have roof decks of similar nature where they have no setback from the property line. So we think this is not really a particular issue. Our other zoning request is for a setback. And this being a corner lot, if you'd like to advance to page, I think it's page seven of the PDF. Excuse me, it's page 15 of the PDF. You'll see the historical context. This is one of the Bromley Atlas maps of what used to exist in this neighborhood.

There was a great fire which destroyed many of the buildings in the neighborhood and the one building left on this lot is 35 Bradford Street. Previously, this area was occupied by row houses with zero lot lines and party walls. So in terms of the zoning, we don't believe we have a rear yard. We have what would be considered zero lot line or party walls. But in that context, we have provided a setback. It's minimal at 18 inches at one point and three and a half feet at another point. So we do have a setback incorporated into the project. Also, With the Parks Department, there is a required or a six-foot setback as part of their procedures, and this adds to what would be considered a setback

of approximately 10 feet in some cases. And the third item on our list is, I don't know, tell me what the third item is. Oh, Article 25A. And we have elevated all the new living space to the second floor, so thus we have no living space on the ground level and otherwise are in compliance with 25A.

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

Hello Madam Chair, Members of the Board, my name is Eva Jones representing the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services. Regarding 35-37 Bradford Street, our office defers to the Board's judgment on this matter. A community process was conducted, including an abundance meeting held on 10-27-25 that was well attended by Southend community members. The feedback from this meeting was mostly support of the project and the applicants' need to create privacy on their property, although there were some concerns about shadows on abutting windows and the loss of sunlight from those abutters. Additionally, we did receive six letters expressing support for the proposal. The proposal was also reviewed by the Bradford Street Neighborhood Association and expressed support. Aswell. At this time, the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services defers to the Board's judgment on this matter. Thank you everyone for your time and consideration.

Thank you. Thank you. Next we have Ashley from Councilor Flynn.

Thank you. Council firm would like to go on record and support based on a good community process with neighbors and friends of Peters Park and the Bradford Street organization, as well as the addition of windows facing Peters Park and better than required open space allotment. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we have the person WHKC. You have 90 seconds.

Thank you Madam President and members of the board. My name is Wendy Chen. My husband Paul Moorcroft and I have lived in 23 Bradford Street, apartment 21. Since 2008, we live next to 35 Bradford Street, and a walkway currently separates our homes. We sympathize with the owner's desire to expand and appreciate the owner's civic engagement. And as we state in our letter, it's therefore with great reluctance that we state our concerns As the photos we submitted document, our unit currently overlooks Peters Park. These northeast windows are an important source of light. for our two floors of our unit, especially our second floor, which is open plan and contains our kitchen, our living room, and our dining room. This view is key to our quality of life and also the value of our home. Granting a variance to Article 64, Section 9, which is

We're yard insufficient will negatively affect the light in our apartment, our view, and the value of the home. All real estate advertisements state what's attractive about our unit is the fact it overlooks Peter Park. Moving the proposed wooden structure forward would greatly alleviate our concerns. Thank you so much. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, next we have Paul, Paul M. Yeah, my name is Paul M. Groff. I'm the spouse of Wendy Chung, and I would just reiterate Things that she stated there about the impact of this property. We do have a short presentation that illustrates that if I'm allowed to share my screen.

You just need to state your support or opposition briefly and why we don't.

Our opposition to this project as it's currently proposed is based on the fact that they're asking for the exemption to the rear yard requirements for the setback. Thank you.

and we have someone else from the attendance section, Chris Leaton, if you can unmute yourself.

All right, thank you. Can you hear me? Yes. Hi. Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the board. Thank you for the time. My name is Chris. I reside at 1313 Washington Street, and I am speaking as a direct abutter and as designated representative for for other direct abutters as well in the building. And first, I just want to emphasize that we're not in opposition in any way to the applicant renovating their home. We love this neighborhood and we really welcome the investment. However, we are a bit concerned that the current proposal is materially over-scaled for this sensitive location. Bradford Street is a very small one-way street sitting adjacent to Peters Park, which is a beloved neighborhood park. and the rear yard relief request would impact the open character of the block and the feel of that public space. And we also believe that the pictures provided in the PDF don't appropriately capture the scale of the addition that's being proposed. So specifically, we have two concerns. One is environmental safety.

So by maximizing the footprint here in violation of Article 64, that we are insufficient. and also article 25 the flood hazard we're a bit worried about the displacement of storm water removing the permeable rear yard risks directing runoff to nearby properties and compromising wood pilings that support nearby structures and also portions of Wilkes Passage itself and the number two is just the privacy in the context the relief for article 65 which is the restricted roof structure removes a bit of the buffer zone around the area and extending the massing as far can Create a bit of a canyon effect that feels inappropriate. So, we respectfully ask the board to vote.

Thank you. Any other raised hands? No manager, there are no additional comments. May we address some of the concerns?

Yeah, I'd like to understand the feedback on moving the wooden structure, et cetera, and obviously the 1313 Washington concerns.

Well, in terms of moving the structure forward, I believe the opposition comes from people who are directly across the street and moving this property or the wooden structure forward would actually reduce the amount of light they're going to receive. By keeping it in the background, it actually increases their access to light. So I think it would be negative to move this project forward towards Bradford Street. It's intentionally to allow more light to reach that The zoning allows for a 70 foot addition to go on this site and we're about 20 feet so if we were to maximize our zoning potential on this site it would completely block anything up in terms of light or view to the park and we're not in any way maximizing the site we're actually proposing quite a minimal addition to the site in accordance with what's allowed.

In terms of the deck issue, Wilkes Passage Thank you for joining us. Constructed which also has a deck in the same configuration that we're proposing. We don't believe that this restricts anybody's access to privacy. In fact, we're planning to plant trees which will Add to the privacy of anybody in the adjacent neighborhood. And in terms of stormwater or things of that nature, we have complied with the GCOD We have stormwater runoff on our site. This is Pazza Park, which obviously is an enormous area that consumes water when something of that nature happens.

and Wilkes Passage is built on concrete piles that they certainly have nothing to worry about in terms of groundwater problems or rotting piles. There's just not a claim there. Is there anything else you'd like me to address?

Thank you. Are there other questions from the board? Has it been reviewed by Boston Landmarks Commission?

We have had advisory, we've had two advisory hearings with them, and they are in support of the project, although they cannot say that at this time. They are generally in support of, and we will be going to them after this meeting.

Thank you. Okay, with that, may I have a motion? I'll make a motion of approval with the proviso that the plans be submitted to the Boston Landmarks Commission for design review and submitted to the Department of Parks and Recreation for review. Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Mr. Langham? Yes. Mr. Collins? Yes. Ms. Pinado? Yes. Chair votes yes to motion carried.

At this time Madam Chair will ask if there are any requests forward. Having passed the 1130 hour, we'll ask if there's any more requests for withdrawals or referrals from the 1130 hour. Hearing none, we'll continue. with the 930 KM cases, which takes us to case BOA 1786996 with the address of 233 Main Street.

It's the applicants and their representative present.

Could you explain to the board?

Good afternoon. My name is Tim Sheehan. I am the architect for the project. I'm representing the Property Owners Elena and James Melconian. What this is, is this is a very small building, nine feet, you know, the whole lot is only 408 square feet. It's nine feet wide, 46 foot long. and what we're trying to do now it's a two-story structure and we're trying upstairs is an apartment on the ground floor it's it's retail it's been a clothing store it's been In my lifetime, it's been all sorts of different things. It was an apartment a long time ago. What we'd like to do is change it back to an apartment. We have two zoning violations. One is open space. There is no open space. The house is the lot. and the other one is a residential use in the NS neighborhood shopping sub-district is a conditional use we need ZBA approval for. The exterior of the building will not change.

We're making some interior changes on the ground floor just It's going to be a studio apartment. It'll be a studio apartment. It'll be 313 square feet. The existing apartment upstairs is 308 square feet. and just some small changes is that there's a half bath now, we'll add a shower, small kitchen and it'll be living space. And that is the project we had a lightly intended neighborhood meeting and with that I will hand it back to the board for questions.

Can you speak to the CFOD issue? I'm sorry? Seaford, Coastal Flood Resilience Overlay District.

We're not in that. That's further up Main Street. That's not where we are.

Okay. Other questions from the board?

Yes, it seems that the building next door and also the building across the street also have residential units on the first floor. Is that correct? That is correct, yes. Because on Main Street, most of the The spaces on the first floor are for little space.

Well, directly across the street, that's Mishawam. That's all ground floor walk-in. And immediately to the left of us, on both sides across the block, and immediately to the left it's residential. Diagonally across the block is the Bunker Hill shopping mall and then what we call the shopping area where Whole Foods is and all that but there is some retail on the next block down there's a coffee shop, A couple of things. But right where this is, on the other side of us, two blocks, probably two buildings away, there's a cleaner. But there is retail in this area. There is commercial. I mean, sorry, there is residential in this area. Okay, thank you.

Yep. Thank you. Any other questions from the board? Can Mr. Hampton speak to the sea fraud issue because that the recommendation is stating it's clearly in that area.

Yeah, thank you, Ms. Pinado. Morning, everybody. Jeff Hampton, City of Boston Planning Department. It actually is in the CFRA. It's more on the Mishawam side. Yeah. Catches. The property. It's not entirely in it. That's why it is referenced there. Okay. It's, and I understand Mr. Sheehan, like, I understand exactly where you're coming from. It's one of those things kind of like a G pod where it catches the properties of the entire properties in it, right? So I understand where you're coming from. It is in there. So I just wanted to set the record straight on that one. We recommended denial, as you can see, because not only for the sea fraud, but When we did the plan Charlestown back in 2023, one of our concerns was the loss of commercial space in the commercial areas, especially the main thoroughfare through Charlestown.

We understand the size of the unit and what it's going to be. Mr. Sheehan can speak more to that neighborhood than I can, but our recommendation is based on Very strongly on the planned Charlestown recommendations that came out a couple of years ago.

Okay. All I'd say is in the last 30 years, there hasn't been a successful business in there. It's eight and a half feet wide, you know, which I think is more appropriate and work better residentially. But my whole life, there hasn't been a successful business in there. I've been here 55 years. Upstairs is small as well, but that's worked perfectly as an apartment, and I think there's a need for it. There aren't many small residential units in Charleston that are affordable. You know, and this would be one of them. I think it works better as a residence. I know it does.

Okay, with that, let's take public testimony.

Madam Chair and Board Members, C. Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This applicant completed the community process and this meeting was held on the 3rd at which no concerns were raised. That background, our office defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Madam Chair, there are no additional comments.

Okay, for that, may I have a motion?

Yes, Madam Chair, I think the conditions of this property are existing. The building will not undergo any exterior changes. and there is a super president of residential uses on the first floor on the left and in the right side of the building. So with that, I make a motion of approval with planning department review. Second? Second.

Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Mr. Langham? Yes. Mr. Collins? Yes. Ms. Pinado? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck. Thank you, everybody.

The next case has been deferred, so that takes us to the hearing schedule for 11 a.m. We'll ask again if there are any requests for withdrawals or deferrals from the 11 a.m. hearing. Hearing none, we'll move along to case BOA 1761297 with the address of 851 Beacon Street.

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

Yes, Mr. Stembridge. Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board, Attorney Derek Small of a business address of 51 Dobson Road. I'm representing the owner of the property, Mr. Jan Skechter. And today we're here seeking relief 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. So basically what we're seeking to do is convert the commercial space on the first floor of the property into an additional room for the already existing lodging house. This is a multi-family residential zoning sub-district. All of the violations that we are cited for are All pre-existing non-conforming except with the basement unit being forbidden. Again, that's on the first level, but they're considering in the basement and we're just removing

The commercial space of the beauty salon and creating another room for the lodging house. The property is managed by GPM Properties and Sean McCartney and we have a very good working relationship with the Audubon Circle Neighborhood Association. I'm sure they're on and you may have received their letter and their support in this. and our relationship with them will continue. I can stop there and ask any questions that the board may have. Thank you. Are there questions from the board?

Hearing none, is there public testimony?

Yes, Siggy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This applicant has completed the community process. Our office hosted an abutters meeting on September 22nd at which abutters raised concerns about trash storage on the lot with a low amount of open space as well as the property being used for short-term rentals. Abutters spoke highly of the renovation that's been ongoing at the property and its aesthetics. The Audubon Circle Neighborhood Association is in support of this application and requested a proviso which is detailed in their letter that back on our office defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We have one person holding. I'm not sure if you're speaking for the speaker.

Hi, good morning Madam Chair and members of the board. I am here representing Boston City Councilor Sharon Durkan for District 8. We have spoken with the Audubon Circle Neighborhood Association and would like to go on the record in support of this project. at this time given the proviso that short-term rental stays be limited to 28 days at this property. Thank you.

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

Okay. Are you, Mr. Small, the proviso? Is that acceptable to you?

The proviso, Madam Chair, is not acceptable at this time, as we have been working with Audubon. Circle. We have committed to not seeking short-term stays. We generally lease our property to Visiting nurses, visiting professionals, professors at Boston University, and most of them are longer term. However, I don't think that if... If a short-term rental comes up and we have to take it due to financial reasons, I think we want to be able to do that. So we're not amenable with that, but we will continue to work to establish midterm and long-term leases for the property. And we will continue to work with Audubon Circle on that.

Questions from the board? Is there a motion?

Is there a motion? I put forward a motion of approval.

Seconders? Thank you. Mr. Stembridge? Yeah. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Mr. Langham? Yes. Mr. Collins. Yes. Ms. Pinado. Yes. Chair votes yes.

The motion carries. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. Happy holidays to everyone. Thank you.

Next, we have case BOA 1796378 with the address of 1198 Center Street. This is also an Article 80 case from the Mayor's Office of Housing. If the applicant and or the representative are present, will they please explain the case to the board?

Thank you. Good morning. Almost afternoon. My name is Carla Chaffee at Nixon Peabody with an address of 53 State Street in Boston. I'm joined today with Deborah Morris, who's the VP of Real Estate at Kipu Senior Life, the appellant in this matter, as well as PCA architects who are here for any questions the board may have. We can move to the next slide, please. This is a 100% affordable senior housing development in the Roslindale neighborhood. 16 units will be limited to those making up to 30% area median income and 64 sorry 62 units will be at or below 50% of AMI. As noted, this project received Article 80 of the EPA Board approval in September. We can move to the next slide and discuss these milestones.

and we're coming before you today because we are requesting relief both dimensionally and a conditional use permit. We can go to the next slide please. and actually the one after that as well. Keep going. We are also requesting a conditional use permit for multifamily housing in the IS district of the Roslindale neighborhood. I would note however that elderly housing is a use that is permitted by right per the code. That was initially what our application was made under but since our refusal A letter from ISD noted the need for a conditional use permit for multifamily, and we believe we meet all the standards in the code. We're coming before you today with a conditional use permit request as well.

We are requesting relief for floor area, as well as building height and setbacks. Next slide, please. I'd also like to refer you to a supplemental memorandum that was provided in support of meeting the legal standards in the code. For the benefit of time today, I would ask you to rely on that submission as we may not hit on every point in our presentation. We can continue to the next slide. This is an aerial view, so you get a really good look at the Arnold Arboretum as well as the proximity to JP and West Roxbury. We can continue to the next slide, please.

Here's a more close up aerial that really demonstrates the odd shape of the lot and the tier shape of the lot, which has provided some challenges in our request to redevelop here. We can go to the next slide, please. And then the next three slides, which we can just kind of slowly scroll through as I speak, that would be great, are views from Center Street and Walter Street. which shows that there's a significant grade change up to what is now used as a parking lot associated with the Hebrew Senior Rehabilitation Center campus. That parking lot is extremely underutilized and not necessary for operations. And that's why there is a proposal here

to develop senior housing which will operate independently from the campus and is not part of the campus but provides an essential service to low-income seniors. We can go to the next slide, please. This is just an aerial view with the site plan overlaid on existing conditions. Given the slopes on the property, we're proposing to have half of the first floor providing really underground parking for 17 spaces and the rest of the first floor will be amenity space for the occupants including a bike room and community room. We can go to the next slide, please. I think this site plan is a very important illustration of the hardship that would be imposed

If the codes 100 foot or 50 foot setbacks were applied, it's 100 feet for the front, 100 for sides, and 50 for the rear. Given this is a corner lot however the side yard setbacks may not apply. It would be infeasible to continue and complete this project if these outdated standards of the code were applied to this project. I've included this slide, slide 12. It's an illustration of the landscaping and hardscaping that we will be doing around the proposed building. We see this as an extreme improvement over the existing and very dull looking parking lot. And here is an elevation of our building.

that shows the height. We've prepared studies for the planning board regarding how the height fits into the existing buildings and the corridor along Center Street. So there's no detriment to the community with that aspect of the development. You can go to the next slide. And we have also completed a study through our architect PCA on how the setbacks that we're proposing are also in harmony with Some of the residential uses further down Walter Street as well as the larger mixed uses along Center Street. So this is a view if you're looking down Center Street I believe heading north. You can go to the next slide, please. This shows the intended users of this building. Again, this is an age restricted and income restricted building.

Providing a great benefit to the community, not just for the use, but as well as beautifying what's now a very underutilized and unattractive parking area. Without the relief requested, this land would be unused and have no value. I'll wrap up with my comments and saying that we respectfully request the grant of the dimensional relief requested as well as the conditional use permit for multifamily housing. Thank you. We're here for questions. Thank you. Are there questions from the board?

Yes, Madam Chair. I know the location very well. I think this is a great site for double housing. Now, my question is about traffic. That intersection on Center and Walter Street is a very dangerous intersection. during the especially during the peak hour just cars struggle to cross the street on center. So do you have any plan for your residents So they are safe when they cross the street both on Center and Water Street and also if the city has a proposal I know they are doing some construction at the moment but I don't have any clarity of the plan and how The street improvements are going to benefit future residents in your building.

Yes, thank you for that question. You're correct, the DCR has proposed and it's really a wonderful coincidence for putting this project forward that they're investing so much at the intersection there of Center and Walter Streets. If you could, and if you like, you could slide back up to the landscaping plan that's provided. You can see the streetscape improvements. will include a signalized crosswalk over to the Arboretum. and we're also increasing the visibility crosswalk sidewalk improvements so that if there were visitors to the residential building from the rehabilitation center campus that would be a safe and very clearly marked path. So we're working together with BOR and

Our project is integrated well into those safety improvements that they are proposing as well.

Thank you. With that, may I have public testimony?

Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Membry. I'm the Roslindale Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the BPDA-led community process. The BPDA held a virtual public meeting on July 23, 2025. The public meeting was advertised in local newspapers on the BPDA website and distributed to the BPDA's Roslindale email list. The proponent did present their proposal to Longfellow Area and Neighborhood Association who took a vote of non-opposition. To date, our office has received one letter of support from City Councilor Pepen's office and strong support of affordable housing for seniors. Thank you for your time. And the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services would like to defer to the board for their judgment.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Next we have Nora Lutz. You have a nice sticker.

Thank you. Good morning, everyone. I'm Nora Lutz. I'm a Development Officer with the Mayor's Office of Housing. Hebrew Senior Life has applied to MLH for funding related to the proposal before you today. HSL has refined their project based on feedback received through numerous community and abutter meetings. The Mayor's Office of Housing is in support of this project. Thank you.

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

With that, may I have a motion?

Madam Chair, I would like to put forward... Go ahead.

No, you go ahead.

Thank you. I would like to put forward a motion of approval. This is a very good and interesting project. I applaud the creation of affordable housing at this site. And I would like to ask the proponent to continue working with the city to ensure that the intersection is going to be safe for all pedestrians, Thank you.

Is there a second? Thank you. Mr. Stembridge. Yeah. Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Mr. Langham?

Yes.

Mr. Collins?

Yes.

Ms. Pinado? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck. So let's take a 15-minute break. Thank you, everyone.

Recording stopped.

Mr. Stembridge? Present, Madam Chair. Thank you. Mr. Valencia? Present, Madam Chair. Thank you. Ms. Turner? Present, Madam Chair. Thank you. Mr. Langham? President, Madam Chair. Mr. Collins. President, Madam Chair. Ms. Pinado. President, Madam Chair. Thank you. The floor is yours, Mr. Stembridge.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Going back to the hearing scheduled for 11 a.m., we will go to case BOA 1766144 with the address of 1750-1758. and Dorchester Avenue. If the applicants and or their representatives are present, would they please explain to the board?

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Board. It's Derek Rubinoff from Derek Rubinoff Architect, 8284 Spring Street, West Roxbury. I'm representing the applicant Demetrios Gerasimides, and Bobby Jeremy Gerasimides. With the architecture project, the project is pretty simple. It's an existing three-storey The total building square foot is about... 11,282. And that includes 7,500 square feet of residential combined on the two floors above. And so the project, again, is pretty simple.

What we would like to do is take the four residential units total that are there right now, which are quite large. There's two three bedrooms and two four bedrooms that are not very good layouts. And there's some redundant stairways in there. And what we'd like to do is renovate the interior of the building. and reconfigure it so that it becomes eight two-bedroom units. So the actual number of bedrooms will only increase by about two or so from what's there right now. Along the way, what we'd like to do is make some facade improvements on the outside of something that the St. Mark's Area Civic Association I want to make sure that we articulate it so we're happy to do that. The zoning relief that is required for the project includes

will close. Insufficient Parking, Article 6541, off-street parking. The building sits entirely on the lot, pretty much. There's nowhere to put parking. and we are within half a mile of two T stations, Ashmont and Shalman, half a mile walk. We have insufficient open space for dwelling units. Again, there's nothing we can do about that. The building sits directly on pretty much the entire site. and lastly we have insufficient lot area per the newly proposed dwelling units. Some of the comments that came up in the in the Butters meeting and then also in the The meeting with the community group. We're making sure that we are going to deal with trash.

So we are going to keep the existing side door off Lonsdale Street, which is a corner walk. and inside that door we will have room for the apartment trash as well as space in the basement. and we will be removing some redundant stairs as I mentioned before we're going to be sprinkling with the NFPA 13 commercial sprinkler system, so proving the safety for the building with that sprinkler system. There's no expansion of the envelope.

Okay, are there questions from the board? Can we just mention the plans quickly? Like what's happening to the exterior?

Yeah, sure. On the exterior, so the outside right now is pretty tired. It's got final siding. What we're going to do is replace the existing windows.

Can you direct the ambassador what slide to go on so we can look at it?

Yeah, sure. Try, I think, 11, page 11. We're going to go down a few more here. These are the plans. There we go. So the top two rows are the demo elevations and the bottom two rows are the proposed. And so the proposed exterior modifications will include Replacing the existing vinyl siding with a better quality siding, most likely Hardy. And replacing the existing windows. with better, more energy-efficient windows, and replacing the shingles on the mat with high-quality architectural shingles.

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

Hello Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Emma Jones, representing the Mayor's Office and Neighborhood Services. Regarding 1750-1758 Dorchester Avenue, our office defers to the board's judgment. A community process was conducted including an abuttors meeting held on night 2425 that was intended by about six Dorchester community members. The feedback from this meeting was some concerns about the price of the proposed apartments being actually affordable for the neighborhood aside from the required affordable unit. Concerns about the increased strain of parking on the community and significant concerns about the increased accumulation of trash on the property, citing no good plan on the part of the applicant with insufficient plans for trash disposal displaying the plans. The proposal was also reviewed by the St. Mark's Area Civic Association at their meeting on 10-29-25. The association expressed support and has also expressed that the applicant worked productively with the community and the neighborhood association to create a plan for trash disposal

that everyone was happy with and that the community agreed would reduce eroding concerns in the community as well as some exterior improvements agreed by the applicant. At this time, the Mayor's Office and Neighborhood Services defer to the Board's judgment on this matter. Thank you everyone for your time and consideration.

Thank you.

Sorry. Hello, Madam Chair, members of the board, Liam Remus from Councilor Fitzgerald's office. Our office would like to record this proposal. Thank you.

Thank you. There is one person who have a couple questions. I'm not sure if Cedric wants to speak or they want to read the questions in the chat. Cedric Adams. Why don't you just read them? Okay. The question is where will the tenants part and the next question is Can a provision be included that trash be keeping dolls?

That's for the applicant.

Yeah, so again, we're within half a mile of two T stations. There's nowhere to park on the property. We're only increasing the number of bedrooms by two. Even though we're increasing the number of units, these are smaller units that are more efficient layouts. So we don't anticipate the significant Increase in load and parking. And secondly, the trash will be kept inside. We have space designated on the first floor and in the basement. That is accessible from the existing door on the side street, Blonsdale Street. That was a condition that we deal with that in order to get the neighborhood group approval. So we worked that out. Thank you.

Other questions from the board? Hearing none, may I have a motion? Motion is approved. Is there a second? Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Mr. Langham? Yes. Mr. Collins? Yes. Ms. Pinado. Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Thank you. Happy holidays.

Appreciate it. Next, we have case BOA 17622. 2-6 at the address of 411 Adams Street. The applicants can go directly to the president. All right.

Jesus, do you see the applicant for this? 411 Adams Street, if you're on, can you please raise your hand?

Okay, I see one person. Yes?

Hi. Hi, how are you? Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Ngoc, and I am at 411 Adams Street, Dorchester, Mass, 02122. I opened a takeout restaurant Only. And I need to remove the proposal to have the permanent CO. It's been pending for a while, but then I don't know what to do. Please, can you help me go through this? Thank you so much.

Thank you. So you just need the proviso removed, it looks like.

Yes.

Okay, any questions from the board? May I have public testimony? No, Jesus, is there, are there any raised hands for public testimony?

Madam Chair, members of the board, the mayor's office does not require community process on provisos.

Okay. May I have a motion? Okay, may I have a motion? Make a motion to approve. Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge? Yeah. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Mr. Langham? Yes. Mr. Collins?

Yes.

Ms. Pinado? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck, ma'am.

So am I safe?

With us, you are. Yes, ma'am. Good luck. Thank you.

So thank you so much. Thank you.

Next, we have case BOA 1740969. at the address of 3 Rosella Street. If the applicant and or their representative present, would they please respond to the board?

Thank you. Yes. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Vernon Woodworth at 9 Elizabeth Street. I'm the principal of urban design and the representative for the owners. This is a proposal to change the use of this existing two-family building To legalize an existing third unit, which exists on the attic floor, it is in a 1F5000 zone, so a use variance is required. and also cited this floor area ratio. In addition to the additional living area in the attic, there has been over the years an extension of the first floor dwelling unit into the basement. This is partially habitable and the first floor is existing, but there is a connecting staircase directly to that new habitable area in the basement.

And so the FAR is the maximum in this zone is 0.5, but with these additions, it'll be 0.55. A slight increase over the maximum allowed FAR. And the final citation is for off-street parking. Currently, the two legal units are provided with off-street parking. And I'm told that on-street parking is readily available, but there's also the possibility that a third parking space could be created on the site. So this is the first floor. Perhaps we should go up to, and the second floor is also an existing dwelling unit. The third floor shows us the proposed dwelling unit. Second means, well, let's go back to the third floor plan just for a minute. Thank you. And you can see that on both the second and third, the second means of egress is via an existing fire escape.

The only construction proposed is to enlarge a window to a door accessing that fire escape from the new third floor dwelling in it. So we do have a rear elevation showing that existing fire escape and that would be the next slide, I believe. We just scroll down to that. Thank you. Right there. Yeah. Perfect. And so. Essentially everything you're seeing in terms of the fire escape and the windows are existing. The only modification would be the enlargement of that one window on the third floor. to create a door to facilitate access to the second means of egress. So you can see the lot plan here.

This abuts a playground, so we have submitted to Parks and Recreation for their review. And I think probably somebody from Mayor's office can describe our community process.

Thank you. Are there questions from the board?

Madam Chair, yes. What are you planning to do exactly with the basement?

Yes, there is an existing extension of the first floor dwelling unit into the basement. It's basically a family room with a bathroom and a closet. which I suppose could double as a bedroom. This is connected internally by a stair to the first floor unit. And I think that's, All there is to it, really. There's a possibility that we may need to upgrade the fire resistance rating between that Extended Living Space and the adjacent mechanical areas. We'll be going through that with the building department should we secure our variances. What's the floor ceiling height in the basement? It's currently between 7 and 7-6. Okay. Thank you.

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

Hello Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Eva Jones representing the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services. Regarding 3 Rosella Street, our office differs because the board's in Edgewood. A community process was conducted including an abutted meeting held on 8-18-25 that was attended by about four community members where no major concerns were expressed. The proposal was also reviewed by the Pokes Hill Civic Association, and they have expressed non-opposition regarding the proposal. At this time, the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services defers to the Board's judgment on this matter. Thank you, everyone, for your time and consideration.

Although Madam Chair, members of the board, Liam Remus from Councilor Fitzgerald's office are also on record in support of the proposal. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Chair, there are no additional comments. With that, may I have a motion?

I'll call for a motion of approval with no building code relief.

Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Turner? No. Yes. Mr. Langham? Yes. Mr. Collins? Yes. Ms. Pinado? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Thank you very much.

Next, we have case BOA 1775818. The address is 174 Forest Hills Road.

If the applicant and or their representative present, would they please explain to the board? Yes, good afternoon, everyone. My name is Connolly. I'm the executive director. at Laurel Ridge Rehab, and we are the petitioner in this case. We are a nonprofit nursing home in Jamaica Plain, and we're looking to expand Our ground footprint to modernize the facility a little bit, create a new rehab space for our residents and in the process also provide some more activities and family space for the residents as well. At this point, I'll turn it over to Kevin Kozak, who is our architect on the project and can explain exactly what this project looks like.

Great, thanks, Colin. Hopefully everybody can see the presentation. That's our team. Colin, as he mentioned, is the... As a representative for Laurel Ridge, I represent, I'm the Vice President of Design for Timberline Construction. We are a design build firm located in Canton, Massachusetts. and then April Kelly who may or may not be on this meeting also representing Accenture who's the parent company for the project. So next slide please. And the ambassador moved the slide. Thank you. So this is just an existing site plan. We've, or an aerial view we've taken from Google Earth. You can see the area that we've highlighted that's a little bit brighter is the site itself. That's Forest Hills Street.

that it fronts Franklin Park Zoo is sort of to the back and the side and then there's a church adjacent to it across the street is primarily a residential zone As Colin pointed out, this is an existing skilled nursing facility. It's 120 beds. It's a four-story building. and and but the the site the in my understanding is the use itself is not allowed so we're asking because we are modifying the The project and the building were here before the board because they're not existing use. Next slide, please. Thank you. So these are just a couple of views of what it looks like today. As I mentioned, there's a four-story building. Part of the building has a port co-share. That Polanco share originally was designed to allow vehicles to get underneath it, and that's where the current entrance is.

The slide on the left-hand side is looking back towards Forest Hill Street, so the building's on the left-hand side. and then the building that's on the right, you can see that Polanco share. That basically is what we are proposing to infill. Polanco share is not high enough to allow taller vehicles or ambulances So it doesn't really serve its purposes at this point. And as we'll get to, we are looking to fill it in for a couple of reasons that I will get into. So next slide, please. So this is the existing site plan. Again, Forest Hill Street would be to the bottom of the page as you're looking at it. The right-hand side, this is the ground floor level. The ground floor primarily is the office and common space

So there's existing common space, there's an existing physical therapy and rehab space, the kitchen, all of the residential uses are the skilled nursing facilities. neighborhoods are all on the upper three floors. Each one has 40 beds. Again, there's 120 beds. And the Port Cochere is that area that's dotted. Between the building and that green space, there's a little bit of parking adjacent. The majority of the parking is actually up at the top of the hill. You keep driving and it's up, which is off the page. So next slide, please. So this is the proposed plan. Again, in filling the Port Cochere, we are not extending the building beyond the existing footprint. Again, we're basically filling in right underneath the Port Cochere, so it's an expansion of the space. We are within all the setbacks currently and we will remain in the setbacks.

This renovation is resident focused. We are relocating the existing physical therapy space closer to the main entrance. We are also adding a little bit of private dining space or adding an amenity space for the residents. Again, it's very resident-focused. We are also, as part of this, we do need to move the entrance because obviously the entrance is in the Port Cochere, so we'll be moving that. There are some small... Renovations to the parking area which basically is just as we've made some changes obviously we're not going to drive underneath anymore so we've removed that section of the pavement Added a couple of parking spaces for visitors so that way we have a little bit more visitor space. We've also added some green space. What was parking, we're going to actually increase the amount of green space. and decreased the amount of impervious area.

And then obviously we're modifying the walkways to make sure that you can still access the building at the new main entrance. and then the next last slide. So this is just sort of the existing perspective, what's there today. and then what you'll see. So again, this is sort of taken as if you were just getting onto the site from Forest Hill Street. So you look diagonally. Again, you see underneath there's that existing Polanco share that you drive underneath the right-hand side. Shows how we're basically adding some green space in front of that and expanding the green space and then we're infilling the and so on. Thank you.

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

Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Bembry. I'm the Jamaica Plain Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the committee process which consists of a voters meeting facilitated on October 21st that was very lightly attended with no inquiries or concerns raised. Next, the proponent presented to Jamaica Plain Neighborhood Council on November 5th where they received a vote of approval. Thank you for your time and the best office of neighborhood services would like to defer to the board for their judgment. Thank you. Thank you.

Next we have Maynard Perez.

Thank you, Mr. Ambassador. Madam Chair, members of the board, this is Mayna Perez. The Carpenters Union is in support of the project. However, we want to remind The owner of the importance of using subcontractors that don't commit tax fraud and play by the rules. Thank you.

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

With that, may I have a motion?

Motion to approve.

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

Yes.

Ms. Turner?

Yes.

Mr. Langham. Yes. Mr. Collins. Yes. Ms. Pinado. Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck. Thank you.

Next, we have case BOA 179-5520 with the address of 1673 to 1679 Washington Street. The applicants and or their representative present. Please explain to the board.

Hi, Mr. Secretary. Hello, Madam Chair, members of the board. This is Mike Ross, a law firm at Prince Lavelle, one international place in Boston. I'm here with chef, owner, and Boston resident George Mendez. This is a conditional use application for ground floor restaurant with takeout for a tenant build out that was previously a dry cleaners in the south end neighborhood zoning district. within the neighborhood development area sub-district along the commercial and residential corridor of Washington Street. As you can see from this floor plan here, the restaurant will feature a chef's counter with 12 seats, a dining area with 20 seats, a bar with seven seats. A lounge area with 10 seats, standing for six, resulting in a total of 55 people.

If you look at that floor plan, Washington Street runs along the right-hand side of the building. And kind of that upper portion will also be an attached bakery cafe that's connected to the restaurant itself. and the Bakery Cafe will allow for 28 seats, standing for five and collectively the entire floor plan will allow for 88 people. plus eight employees total of 96 for capacity. The current plan is for the restaurant to be open from 12 p.m. to 12 a.m. and the bakery would be open from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. The Blackstone Franklin Square Neighborhood Association submitted a letter of support to the board and I'll pause there if there are any questions.

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

Hello Madam Chair, Members of the Board. My name is Eva Jones, representing the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services. Regarding 1673 to 1679 Washington Street, our office defers to the Board's judgment. A community process was conducted including an O'Butters meeting held on 9-4-25 that was well attended by South Bend community members. The feedback from this meeting was significant support and excitement Thank you everyone for your time and consideration.

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

Okay, with that, may I have a motion? Motion to approve. May I have a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Mr. Langham? Yes. Mr. Collins? Yes. Ms. Pinado? Yes. Chair votes yes, the motion carries. Good luck.

Thank you very much. Next we have case BOA 179-4750. at the address of 85 to 99 Berkley Street. This is also an Article 80 case. If the applicant stands with their representative, will you explain the case to the board, please?

Yes, thank you, Mr. Secretary, and good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the board. For the record, Attorney Matt Echol with Fletcher Tilton on behalf of the applicant. Also joining me today is Henry Chelle from CBT, the project architect. As general background, this proposal includes the conversion of an existing office building located at 95 Berkeley Street, which you can see there on your screen, into a mixed use building as part of the city's office to residential conversion program. This presents a unique opportunity to adapt this structure into some much needed residential housing units. The project site itself is located at the corner of Berkeley Street, which you can see to the right side of your screen there, and Chandler Street, which is the left at the intersection moving away from the screen from right to left. The lot itself contains 22,665 square feet and is located in the South Ends Community Commercial Subdistrict.

Overall, the proposed project program will include maintaining the existing first floor office space, which is currently occupied by Mass. and we'll create a new ground level retail space which you can kind of see the entrance to there in the front lower portion of the screen. Additionally, there will be 92 residential units created above on floors two through six. The property itself is located at the edge of South End overlooking the Mass Pike and represents a sustainable and appropriate approach to urban redevelopment. We're reusing the existing structure and responding to the growing demand for additional housing within the city and the state as a whole. The site is very walkable. It is a transit-connected area. It has close proximity not only to the Mass Pike, but also the MBTA orange and green lines as well as several bus routes, one of which is located with a bus stop right outside the front door.

We believe that the preservation of the office space as well as the new retail and interactive lobby amenity space for the residential will really activate The streetscape and be pedestrian friendly in character. We also are proposing existing parking to remain at the lower level as well as Approximately 45 new bike parking spaces in that below grade level to promote multiple modes of transportation to and from the site. As a whole, as mentioned, we're proposing 92 residential units, 41 of which will be studios, 42 will be one bedroom units, and nine will be two bedroom units. There'll be a total of 18 affordable units out of those 92 proposed. Just to walk through the floor plans briefly, the lower level and we can progress through the presentation please. The lower level will contain parking as well as several bike storage rooms as mentioned.

The first floor will contain that existing office space and that tenant will remain as well as the retail space I mentioned and the main lobby and amenity space. The second floor will contain 20 units. The third floor will contain 18 units as well as an existing common deck for the residential units to provide open and usable space for those tenants. and then the fourth through sixth floor floor plates are all very similar and will contain approximately 18 units per floor. As we're progressing through the slideshow here, you can just see the location of the parcel and the project site overlooking the pike in there at the top end of the south end district. In terms of zoning, we are seeking one single variance for usable open space per dwelling unit. Obviously, as this is a office to residential conversion program,

there's really no way to create any additional open space however we are maintaining the deck as mentioned which will be common to all residents we also have a and the area adjacent to the Ellis Children's Memorial Park which currently contains some trees and open space which will also be maintained. This is just a context view here looking back from the pike towards the The subject property in the existing building. This is a unique situation where really nothing is being changed to the exterior of the building. All the work is being done on the interior to create the residential units. As Mr. Stembridge mentioned, this is an Article 80 project and went through the Article 80 process receiving approval in November at the Board hearing. As part of the process, we also met with the Ellis South End Neighborhood Association as well as the Bay Village Neighborhood Association. Additionally, we are proposing some mitigation along Chandler Street, currently the driveway access Thank you.

Thank you. To the left of your screen there, we will be reconstructing that driveway entrance, shrinking it so it's a smaller pedestrian path to cross and also making it accessible again to the Ellis Memorial Children's Park. We did submit several letters of support, including one from Rep. Aaron Michalowicz, as well as the Ellis South End Neighborhood Association and several direct debaters. And with that, our team will pause and we'll happily take any questions the board may have.

Thank you. Are there questions from the board? They have public testimony.

Hello Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Eva Jones representing the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services. Regarding 85 and 95, or 99 Berkeley Street, our office defers to the board's judgment A community process was conducted by the Boston Planning Department beginning on 11-13-25, and the feedback that my colleague, the Southend Bay Village Liaison, Sarah Sharp, has received has been significant. Support about the proposal. The community feels that the proposal is beneficial and adds housing to the community. Although there is some opposition, citing apartments will come with the addition of cars and increased traffic and congestion in the neighborhood. The proposal was also reviewed by the Ellis South End Neighborhood Association, and they have supported the proposal. Additionally, we have received aid letters and support regarding the proposal, including from Representative Michael Woods. At this time, the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services refers to the Board's judgment Thank you everyone for your time and consideration.

Thank you.

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

Thank you. Okay, next we have Dylan Norris, please.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Dylan Norris. I'm the project manager with the Development and Review Division of the Planning Department and the project manager for the Article 80B large project before you today. Just to cover the Article 80 process, the development team filed their project note Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Public meetings were posted on the planning department calendar website and advertised through the local newspapers as well as email notifications sent out to all subscribers of the South End neighborhood email update list. Local elected officials and their staff were also notified of the meeting. The comment period for this filing closed on October 29th. The project was then brought before for review and approved at the BPDA Board on November 13th, 2025. I'm happy to answer any questions members of the board may have related to the article 80 review process.

Thank you.

Thank you. Next we have Maynard Perez.

Thank you, Mr. Ambassador. Madam Chair, members of the board, this is Mayna Perez representing hundreds of union carpenters that live and work in the city of Boston. Carpenters, we are in favor of this break and we simply want to remind the developer of the importance of hiring subcontractors that meet community standards and play by the rules and giving the opportunity to our Boston residents to go to work on this project. Thank you.

Thanks. And we have one more person in the attendee section. I think Alicia, I'm not sure if you are...

Opening hour, Ashley?

Ashley, yes. Ashley.

Thank you. Council, if we would like to go on record in opposition. In his opinion, it is critical that community standards be added to in the City of Boston so that women and people of color are provided respect and opportunity in the construction industry. Additionally, residents have expressed concerns about accessibility of the sidewalks on Chandler Street It is critical that the city's sidewalks are accessible for all neighbors, including our seniors, persons with disabilities, and young families with strollers. Thank you. Thank you.

Madam Chair, no additional comments.

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

I do. I would really like to hear the applicant respond to Councilor Flynn's concerns.

Absolutely, Ms. Turner. Yes, we're certainly committed to hiring a diverse and local workforce, and that is in process. We've had several conversations across really all the trades about this and moving forward, working together. Additionally, I did mention in my presentation but again just for the record part of the mitigation of this project is to actually improve the accessibility along Chandler Street. Nothing in this project should diminish any accessible standards or make it harder for people with strollers or wheelchairs. To move around, we're actually improving again down by our entrance to the parking facility, not only the driveway, but also the abutting sidewalk. So it is now not accessible to go down here on the street all the way to the park. and at the completion of this project it will be. So we're in recognition of Councilor Flynn's comments and hopefully are responding to them by actually improving the accessibility and not doing anything to harm it.

Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions from the board? May I have a motion? I'll make a motion of approval. Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge?

Yeah.

Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Mr. Langham? Yes. Mr. Collins? Yes. Ms. Pinado? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Good luck. Thank you very much and happy holidays.

Next, we have case VOA. 174-1777 with the address of 183 St. Patel Street. The applicants and or their representative or question, if they please respond to the board.

Yes, thank you Mr. Stembridge. Good afternoon Madam Chair, members of the board. We're actually going to be seeking a deferral for this project. The proponent is looking to schedule an advisory hearing with Landmarks to get a better idea of how they feel about the project and any insights that they might have. Hey, how's it going?

February 24th?

Yep, that works.

Okay, with that may I have a motion?

Motion to the floor to February 24th. May I have a second?

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

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Mr. Langham?

Yes.

Mr. Collins? Yes. Ms. Pinado? Yes. Chair votes yes. Motion carries. See you then. Thank you very much.

Next, we have case BOA 171-0678. with the address of 391 Hanover Street. If the applicant and or their representative present, they please find some points.

Good afternoon Madam Chairwoman, members of the board, Attorney William Furullo on behalf of the applicant which is the For a Cano family who built out this restaurant in 2020 in a property owned by The wife and just in time after expending a considerable amount of money and time, COVID came along and the restaurant wasn't able to initially open. Since that time, the outdoor dining program has allowed relief for restaurants, first for COVID and now as part of the city fabric of having outdoor dining. Outdoor dining has existed at the location now for three years very successfully. It is on private property that the individuals have been using.

Due to the fact that there's 38 seasonal seats, the outdoor dining program has requested that this appear before. Zoning for the conditional use as an expansion of premises. We submit to you that it's been very successful for the time that has been used, very well received, and no issues with regard to service. Interference with the community. With that, we ask you to approve this application for the conditional use.

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

Hello Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is Eva Jones, representing the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services. Regarding 391 Hanover Street, our office prefers to the board's judgment. Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services does not run a community process for outdoor dining proposals, and this falls within the purview of the Mayor's Office of Small Business and Economic Inclusion Cabinet. We will defer to the Board's judgment. Thank you, everyone, for your time and consideration.

Thank you. Next we have Gabriella Ramirez from Consul Coletta.

Good afternoon Madam Chair and members of the Board. Gabriela Ramirez here on behalf of Boston City Councilor Gabriela Coletta Zapata. At this time the Councilor would like to go on the record in support of this proposal. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you Madam Chair. There are no additional comments.

Okay, with that, may I have a motion? I put forward a motion of approval. Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Mr. Langham? Yes. Mr. Collins? Yes. Ms. Pinado? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck. Thank you very much and happy holidays.

Next, we have case BOA 1770252. The address of 94 is 96 Endicott Street. The applicant and or their representative president. Please explain to the board.

Good afternoon Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is Jeff Sargis, the architect on 9496 Endicott Street. The project proposes converting a first floor existing ice cream shop, which has been long closed, into a residential unit. and the floors above are existing two beds, two baths to be renovated as well. The application is looking for a leave for FAR, which we are over in the existing and for usable open space, which this is a north end zero lot line, so we don't have any usable open space right now. And for the FAR, we just wanted to confirm that we are not increasing the square footage or finishing the basement. This is an existing nonconformity. Thank you. Thank you.

I hear from the board. Hearing none, Mayor, public testimony.

Hello, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Emma Jones, representing the Mayor's Office of New Board Services. Regarding 94-96 Endicott Street, our office defers to the board's judgment A community process was conducted, including an upowners meeting held on 9-16-25. That was not attended by any community members. And both civic associations, New Run and New Newnick have reviewed the proposal and expressed support. At this time, the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services submits to the Board's judgment. Thank you, everyone, for your time and consideration.

Thank you. Next would be Gabriela Ramirez.

Madam Chair, members of the Board, Gabriela Reyes here on behalf of Boston City Councilor Gabriela Coletta Zapata. At this time, the Councilor will not work in support of this proposal. Thank you.

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

With that, may I have a motion? I do actually have a question. It seems like this residence or this space is vulnerable to flooding. Can somebody speak to that? The note says it's located within the Coastal Flood Resilience Overlay District.

We weren't flagged as being within the flood risk district, so we might just be right outside of it. You were not flagged, you said? Not flagged, that's correct.

Okay.

Does Mr. Hairston wish to speak to this?

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board, Jeff Hampton, City of Boston Planning Department. They weren't flagged for it because it's not an Article 80 project. However, the property itself, and we do acknowledge that there is no extension of living space and bedrooms into the basement, but the property itself is far below the design flood elevation that has been established. So that is why we are opposed to it because even though there is no basement living space, property itself is below the flood elevation and that's why we're recommending denial. They weren't cited again because they weren't an Article 80 project.

And Mr. Hampton, not sure you know the answer to this, but it seems like there are already other, you know,

We acknowledge that Endicott has that but this is from when we started doing these recommendations no matter what part of the city it is with the design flood elevations we've been very consistent with opposing new residential spaces below the design flood elevation, including ones around the corner on North Washington Street that have been here this year. Thank you.

Can I ask the applicant what would be the alternative use for the space?

Not sure because commercial is prohibited in this zone. Thank you.

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

I'll make a motion to approve.

Is there a second?

Second.

Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Mr. Langham? Yes. Mr. Collins? Yes. Ms. Pinado? I'm going to vote no for consistency reasons. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck. Thank you.

At this time, we move on to the rediscussion cases scheduled for 11.30 a.m. That will go right to the cases, the first two of which are companion cases, and our case BOA. 177-6730 with the address of 706 Metropolitan Avenue along with that we have case BOA 17209

8-3 with the address of 704 Metropolitan Avenue.

If the applicant and or their representative is present, will they please explain? Yes, thank you, Mr. Stembridge. Madam Chair, members of the board, Attorney Ryan Spitz with Addison Moranty, business address of 168 H Street, 1st Floor, South Boston. Joining me today from the development team is Andrew Shetner. and the project architect, Eric Zaperson. This proposal seeks to erect a new three-story, six-unit residential building with parking on a vacant lot consisting of approximately 6,600 square feet. Within this area of Metropolitan Ave, Other properties range from a single family to six unit structures as well as two to three stories making the proposed use contextually appropriate. First floor will consist of units one and unit two. Both two bedroom units ranging at approximately 1,040 square feet. Mr. Ambassador, if I can just trouble you to continue scrolling through the drawings as I go through our discussion.

Second floor will consist of units 3 and unit 4, both two-bedroom units ranging, again, approximately 1,050 square feet. The third floor will consist of units 5 and unit 6, both two-bedroom units, again, ranging approximately 1,050 square feet. Units 3 through 6 will all have 105 square foot rear balcony and a 59 square foot deck in the front. We have violations for the use as we're proposing six units in the 2F sub-district. which is consistent within this neighborhood as well. We have an insufficient lot size as the site consists of 6,600 square feet as the code requires 8,000 square feet but similar in scale to the surrounding neighborhood. We have a floor area ratio violation as the proposal calls for a 1.11 as compared to a .5 which is compliant. We have a height violation. The proposal calls for three stories. Two and a half stories is compliant within this subject. We are compliant as far as the fee is required.

We have an open space violation where we're required is a very high Within this sub-district, it's 1,750 square feet per unit, and the proposal calls for 164 square feet per dwelling, but again, is very consistent with the open space of some of these other properties in the surrounding context. We have a front yard violation. Code requires 20 feet, and the proposal calls for 13 feet, 2 inches, but again, comparable with other properties on this side of the block. We have a side yard violation. Ten feet is required by code. This proposal has a setback of six feet on the left side. That matches the side yard dimensions on the neighboring properties. The right side of the driveway is non-conforming due to the shared driveway, but if a driveway was entirely on this parcel, then there would be no violation. We have a rare yard insufficiency. 40 feet is required by the code. The proposal calls for 39 feet 2 inches. Parking violation proposal provides six parking spaces and the zoning calls for 2.0 spaces per dwelling.

However, this proposal is aligned with the Mayor's initiative of reducing dependency on private vehicles. Also, we do have a violation for the design as the proposal uses some of the land of the abutting property at 706 Metropolitan. and Eastman has been recorded and is in place prior to this proposal being proposed here today. This has also triggered the need of relief for the sister application of 706 Metropolitan Ave. which requires the release of a conditional use permit for the non-conforming use change and due to the easement of record for the parking access. Even though this project exceeds some of the dimensional regulations for the site, it acts housing units while maintaining the small footprint of the parcel while assisting with the city's planning goal of increasing the housing supply. Further, it is consistent with the Planning Department's recommendation of approval. Madam Chair, prior to sending it back over to you to open it up for any questions or comments from the Board, I'd just like to notate we did have a few neighbors are here that were present, willing to speak in support.

I'm not quite sure how many are here remaining today, considering that we are way behind in schedule. So I just want to make that known. But we did submit a few letters in support. So again, thank you for your time. And I'm going to turn it back over to you, Madam Chair.

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

Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Bembry. I'm the Hyde Park Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process which consisted of an abutters meeting facilitated on July 16th where abutters raised concerns regarding the change from four stories and eight units to three stories and six units referencing the original refusal letter. Other concerns for the side yard setback, excessive or crusted variances, open space, affordability, ownership, and removal of trees on the property. No opposition was voiced during the meeting, but supporters remained concerned that the six units may still be too many. When the opponent moved forward and presented to Hyde Park Neighborhood Association, who voted to oppose the proposal, the association felt there were too many units for their plot of land, not enough parking, and too many violations. To date, our office has received two letters of support for the improvement of the property to a six-unit and with six parking spaces.

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

Next, we have people from the 10th section. Charlie.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is Charlie McDonald. I represent the owners at 693 Metropolitan Ave. We're in full, complete support of this project. We believe that will add tremendous value to the neighborhood. Um, and, uh, you know, that the street, uh, neighborhood does, does need a Facebook and I think that this would, uh, um, you know, bring, you know, some good value to, uh, to that street in the neighborhood. Um, Yeah, just for full support.

Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have the person with the number 617-634-1445.

Good afternoon Madam Chair and members of the board. Craig Martin with the Hyde Park Neighborhood Association. We have had a meeting in our neighborhood association with unanimous opposition to the density of this location. This lot size is too small for a two-family for which it's zoned. We would, even though it would require zoning relief, support a two-family construction to fight the zoning relief. But the six units is too much. The long-time abutters have expressed their concern over and over again with that neighborhood that this is too close. The setbacks are too small and the density too much. Again, this lot size is too small for a two-family. It would require a 20,000 square foot parcel to accommodate the six units.

If the board does indeed choose to support or to approve this, we would ask that a proviso be put in to save the only mature tree on this parcel, which provides the canopy to the adjoining, the two adjoining parcels as well as this tree. There's a one parking space. that they're taking down this tree for. And that one parking space could easily be maneuvered to another location facing this parking lot. Save that tree. We ask that you please put that as a proviso. Thank you. Thank you. If there was room for one other proviso, we would prefer the roof decks not be included in this design. But the most important proviso is the tree seat.

The last person is Chantal Turner.

Hi, good afternoon. My name is Chante Turner. I live at 706 Metropolitan Ave and I am in support of the project.

Thank you. So actually they're, now they're Three more people who raised him.

Okay.

Okay, we have Alexandra Ventura.

Yes, hi, good afternoon. My name is Alexandra Ventura and I am actually a neighbor. I live at 107 Arlington Street and I'm here in support of the project. I do believe that it would be a positive addition to the neighborhood.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.