Zoning Board of Appeal

Good morning, everyone, and Happy New Year.

The City of Boston Zoning Board of Appeal hearing for January 13, 2026 is now in session. This hearing is being conducted in accordance with the applicable provisions of the open meeting law, including the updated provisions enacted by the legislature this year. The new law allows the board to continue its practice of holding virtual hearings through June 2027. This hearing of the board is being held remotely via the Zoom webinar event platform and is also being live streamed. In order to ensure this hearing of the board is open to the public, members of the public may access this hearing through telephone and video conferencing. The information for connecting to this hearing is listed on today's hearing agenda, which is posted on the public notices page of the City's website, Austin.gov. Members of the public will enter the virtual hearing as attendees, which means you will not see yourself on the screen and you will be muted throughout unless administratively unmuted when asked to comment.

Board members, applicants, and their attorneys or representatives will participate in the hearing as panelists and they will appear alongside the presentation materials when speaking. Panelists are strongly encouraged to keep video on while presenting to the board. As with our in-person meetings, comments and support will be followed by comments 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 9 to raise and lower your hand. You must press star six to unmute yourself after you receive the request from the host. Those called upon to comment will be asked to state their name and address first and then 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. Mr. Stembridge.

Good morning, Madam Chair, President.

and Happy New Year, Mr. Valencian.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Happy New Year. Present.

Thank you. Good morning.

Ms. Turner. Good morning, Madam Chair. Happy New Year. Present. Happy New Year, Ms. Turner. Mr. Langham.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Happy New Year.

Happy New Year, sir. Ms. Better Barraza.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Happy New Year to everyone.

Thank you, Ms. Wuwell.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Another happy new year for everyone.

I know. Let's start it off right. Thank you. The floor is yours, Mr. Stembridge.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We will begin today's hearings with the approval of hearing minutes scheduled for 9 30 a.m.

These hearing minutes are from December 16th

Hearings?

I'll make a motion of acceptance. Is there a second?

Second.

Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

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

Next we'll move on to the extensions scheduled for 9 30 a.m. uh as they all appear reasonable I will read them in one after the other and then we will ask for a motion on them after that.

We'll begin with case BOA 1065886 with the address of 57 Webster Street.

Next we have case BOA 1545096 with the address of 80 Shawsheen Road.

Next we have case BOA

154-5111 with the address of 82 Shawsheen Road.

Next, we have case BOA 1530340.

with the address of 58 Woodworth Street.

Next, we have case BOA 1144072 with the address of 273 Maverick Street.

Next we have case BOA-114- Columbia Road. Next we have case VOA-121-1702 with the address of 95 to 97 Broadwick.

Next we have case

BOA 1258631 with the address of 1027 to 1029 Drumont Street. Next we have case BOA 152.

2969 with the address of 45 Milton Avenue.

And finally, we have case BOA 1050294.

with the address of 382 Sumner Street.

Madam Chair, those are all the extensions scheduled for today.

Thank you. Are there any questions from the board? Hearing none, may I have a motion to grant the extensions as requested?

I make a motion to grant the extensions as read.

Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Mr. Langham? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza? Yes. Ms. Wewell? Yes. Chair votes yes, the motion carries.

Next, we have board final operative case, Skipper to 930. This is... This is case BOA 1677952 with the address of 95 Business Street. Is the applicant and or their representative present? Would they please explain to the board?

Good morning Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Matt Mueller of Hue Architecture representing the applicant. We had originally submitted this and gone through the zoning process as an ALT permit. intending to alter their single family into a two family. We received approval and after approval, we walked through the building with the engineer and he recommended we replace the foundation, the existing rubble foundation. Excuse me. So that in turn required us to switch from an ALT to an ERT, which triggered a front yard setback. A new front yard setback violation. You can see from my documents here, the previously approved setback for the front porch was 2.7 feet. and we submitted upon the request of ISC we submitted a modal setback alignment study which allowed us to set the porch at three feet so we adjusted the design so the porch is set at three feet back

Everything else with the approved design would remain the same, including the footprint, the height, all the setbacks. So because of that, I think we meet all the required setbacks. And I think that's it. Thank you. Are there any questions from the board?

Hearing none, is there a motion? Madam Chair, given that there's no new zoning violations, I want to put forward a motion of approval. Is there a second?

Second.

Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Mr. Langham?

Yes.

Ms. Better Barraza? Yes. Ms. Whewell? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck.

Thank you very much.

Next, we'll move on to the hearing scheduled for 9.30 a.m. Before we begin, we'll ask if there are any requests for withdrawals or deferrals on the hearing scheduled for 9.30. Hearing none, we'll move on to the first two companion cases, which are case BOA 1785030. with the address of 170 West Canton Street. Along with that, we have case BOA 1782427 with the address, also with the address of 170 West Canton Street.

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

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. Mark LaCasse, LaCasse Law, 75 Arlington Street in Boston. I represent Cargo and Rachel Cargo, who are the homeowners for the single-family property in the South End. We are here today for two very routine and straightforward requests for zoning relief, both in the form of conditional use permits. No variances are requested. The first is the familiar Article 32 Groundwater Recharge System as this involves a substantial rehabilitation of an existing structure. and we have received approval from Boston Water and Sewer Commission, submitted our No Harm Letter and the BWSC Article 32 Compliance Letter which are all part of the record.

The second conditional use permit is pursuant to Article 64, Section 9 of the South End Zoning Code, which requires a conditional use permit for extensions into the rear yard. Thank you for your attention. Bumpout, Extension, if you will, into the rear yard at the garden level and two floors above that. So three floors of 3 foot bump up by 18 foot in width or 55 square feet per floor for a total of 155 square feet being added to an existing family residence. which represents an addition of three percent of the gross floor area of this property. Significantly This lot size is over 3,100 square feet, which is about 50% larger than all of the adjoining lot sizes.

Here's a slide that represents what's going on in the backyard here. So the smaller portion that is hatched is the rear bump out. And then showing on the third floor is a rear deck, six foot. Rear Deck supported by cantilever brackets, which of course is consistent with the design standards of the planning department. and the Southern Landmarks Commission. And you can see there's a huge rear yard. Not only do we satisfy all the dimensional requirements, but the rear yard setback here is 20 and we have about 38 feet even with the bump out. The two parking spaces along the side of the rear yard are part of the lot and are existing and that will provide parking so we don't need to use any portion of the rear yard for parking. There's no side setback requirement in the south end. Nevertheless, we have pulled the sides of the rear extension away from the lot lines on both sides.

And we satisfy all of the dimensional requirements. and the initial proposal for this rear extension was the full five stories at the back of the building, but in response to community concerns during the process, We reduced it in scale by 40%, removing two floors of the upper levels of the rear extension. Important to note that we've already been to the Southland Landmarks Commission for all of the other work that's being done to this property on the exterior facade. and the South Bend Landmarks Commission has approved the proposal. Also, there is a planning department memorandum on the record in this case that recommends approval. and notes that the requests are consistent with the context of the neighborhood. In terms of working with our direct abutters,

The direct and immediate abutter at 168 West Canton Street, basically is the only abutter that is attached to this building, supports this proposal. And on the opposite side is the, there's an alleyway where the parking is located so there's only one direct and immediate abutter that is physically attached to this building and that abutter is in support. There is also, and if we could stop at this slide, I'm going to have the architect address the design on this slide and the next slide. But I will turn to the building code appeal, which is the companion case before you. There is a roof deck proposed for this property which has been approved by the Landmarks Commission and is not the subject of zoning relief but is the subject of the building code appeal and that is the familiar Inconsistency between the zoning code, Article 64, Section 34, which requires that access to a roof deck be by hatch

and the conflict with the building code which requires a head house. So we are seeking relief from the building code requirement of a head house so that we may install a hatch, for access to the roof deck consistent with Article 64 and consistent with the requirements of the Southland Landmarks Commission. So that is the building code issue. I covered the Article 32 issue, the Article 64 Conditional Use Permit, and will reserve the balance of... My comments for after public comment. But at this point, I'd just like to turn it over to Zach Millay, our architect, to talk about the design of the rear extension. As you can see there, it's very minimal and de minimis in scale. The rear deck supported by cantilever and Zach can just explain.

The architectural philosophy behind this, which is familiar and again consistent with literally hundreds of similar such rear extensions and decks in the south end that have previously been approved. So Zach Millay, please.

Mark, thank you. Good morning, Chair. Good morning, rest of the board members. On this page, as Mark alluded to earlier, You'll see in the red cloud here that the original proposal was to bring the addition all the way up. But after a substantial amount of time with neighbors and the community, we've decided to Reduce that substantially by 40%, bringing it down to just the bottom three floors of the residence, which are the most used part of this house. So as Mark said, there is no different language that we're proposing here. It is a three-foot addition off the rear. And we are going to be cladding that all in a black paneled siding material and then again we do have the six foot balcony again that is very typical with

and consistent with all the context both on this alley as well as the rest of the context within the south end. If you go to page 18, the next slide, and if we stop here, this shows on the left side here, this is the existing building, and on the right is what we are proposing as that addition. Again, the architectural language here is no different than what we see with the rest of the alleyway of this particular block in the south end. So we are proposing historically accurate Divided Light Windows. Up at the top, we have a series of double long windows. There is a small balcony on top of the new addition.

But again, you can see that this addition in relation to the whole building and if you walk up and down this particular alley is very much within context. It is very minimal. with zero impact to the abutting neighbors. During the neighborhood process we did provide a series of Sun Shadow diagrams to prove that this is so insignificant and there is no effect to the abutting neighbors of the neighborhood in the alley here.

Madam Chair that concludes our presentation of the issues.

Thank you and so just to confirm the bump out is three feet and then the deck which I see seems to only be on that Third level is another six feet, three feet?

Correct. The deck is at the third level here, projecting six feet. And then this balcony that you see at the top, That is on top of the new addition, so that's not going any further than that. The only protrusion outside the three feet is the typical six-foot balcony that we see.

On the third floor, okay. I know the architect and perhaps Attorney LaCasse, you mentioned there are others in that alleyway that have a similar condition. Is that, can you kind of go into a little more detail on that? Obviously you're aware we've received a lot of letters in support and in opposition, and opposition talks about this being not consistent, and you've said it's consistent, so I just want to understand a little bit more.

Yes, so if you go scroll down to the rest of the presentation in the appendix, we did provide, again, these are some of the shadow studies, but if you go down to the last Three or so pages. We documented all of the rear buildings that abut this alley. So you can see on the first slide image here on the left, that is our building. That's on the right side of that first image. And really, as you just march along the alley here, we can see here at 164, 166 West Canton, there's a garage that's extended More than what we are proposing. And then keep scrolling down. There's an addition here between 162 and 160. They have the same balcony. And even more so, as we go through 146 and 144 West Canton, right here, you see both.

There is a rear garage addition at the lower level. And then at 144, we have a very similar condition where there's an extension coming off This building is going from property line to property line. We're not doing that. We're actually bringing it in about a foot and a half on either side. But you can see they do have a rear balcony on top of their addition. In addition to that they then have another six foot balcony up at the top. We're just proposing the three foot with the six foot. As you go down the rest of the images, you can see that there are a series of rear extensions that have been added. Again, here we have something at 153. that right on the bottom left here that's been added. And again, as we march along 161,

163 West Brookline, and then directly behind us, the last set of images here on the last page, You can see that at 183, 185, right directly behind us, there is an addition that's also happened with Rear Balcony attached to that.

So it's... Madam Chair, that's just this alley if we conducted the same study. throughout the South End, which is all governed by Article 64, Section 9, the very same conditions. We could literally come up with 100 such images to show you all so significantly The addition of three feet extension plus the six foot deck does not change anything. It's still a conditional use permit because we otherwise satisfy all of the dimensional requirements. We have plenty of rear yard setback, almost twice as much as that is required. We're adding side yard setbacks where none are required, so we comply with all the dimensional requirements. You know, as much as there may be noise in the background about three plus six somehow converts it into something else, it does not. The zoning code refusal does not so indicate Nor does the Planning Department raise any concerns whatsoever and in fact recommends approval, citing the consistency with the neighborhood. And we think that on the zoning and on the facts and on the law,

that this is entirely consistent with cases that have appeared before you countless hundreds of times.

Thank you. Questions from the board?

I'm sorry, I just want to make sure that the Landmark Commission actually has reviewed the rear because I know that it's been involved with I just want to make sure that for the record, the South Landmark Commission has reviewed the extensions.

Well, they saw it, but South Landmark doesn't have any jurisdiction over the rear facade except above the cornice line visible from a public way. So routinely the Southern Landmarks Commission does not review these, but what typically happens in these cases is that this board, when granting conditioning use permits, recommends planning department design review and that is where the whole design standards for rear facades has emerged is at the planning department rather than the Landmarks Commission because they don't have jurisdiction over rear facades.

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

Hello, Madam Chair, members of the board. Excuse me, I'm still recovering from the flu, everybody. And happy New Year's to all. My name is Eva Jones, representing the Mayor's Office and Neighborhood Services. Regarding 170 West Canton Street, our office would like to express opposition to this proposal. A community process was conducted including an abutters meeting held on Monday, October 27th, which was very well attended by the South End community with upwards of 50 neighbors present. The majority of attendees expressed opposition to the proposal, particularly the direct abutters in the area who cited concerns about the proposed extension of the fence to the property line and the resulting impacts on the shared use of the alleyway. These concerns included access for residents as well for snow plows, trash collection vehicles, and emergency vehicles. Many residents also raised concerns shared by others regarding the encroachment of rear additions on neighbors' privacy and the precedent that a proposal of this nature would sit in a historic neighborhood.

There was some support expressed in the meeting with a few residents stating that they felt the project was reasonable and wishing the applicant well in the process. In addition, our office received 38 letters in opposition, approximately 30 of which were from direct abutters, echoing many of the same concerns related to zoning precedent and the historic character of the neighborhood. I've also received a letter in opposition from Representative Moran's office for reflecting the community's concerns and expressing his own regarding zoning precedent and the impact on this type of proposal on a neighborhood as dense as the South End. Office has also received 24 letters in support. The proposal was reviewed by the Pilot Block Neighborhood Association, which voted to oppose it. The association submitted a formal letter to the board stating that PB&A opposes the proposal because it far exceeds the ZBA's long-standing six-foot rear yard extension.

Standard by introducing a 9-foot multi-level addition significantly impacts the water's light, privacy, and alley conditions by increasing building mass and human presence. and sets a dangerous precedent that undermines consistently enforced south end zoning standards and invites similar development along the alleyway. At this time, the Mayor's Office and Neighborhood Services would like to formally express opposition to this proposal. Thank you, everyone, for your time and consideration.

Thank you. Thank you. Next, Madam Chair, we have Connor Finn. Remember, please, that you have 90 seconds per person.

Please, thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the board. Thank you for taking the time to hear me today. Make my remarks very brief. My name is Connor Finn. I am here on behalf of State Representative John Moran, who represents the 9th Suffolk District, and is a longtime resident of the South End. Representative Moran respectfully urges the board to deny this proposal due to its significant departures from long-standing zoning standards. In an already densely developed area, he believes a more balanced and appropriate design is achievable, one that meets the applicant's goals while preserving the character and livability of the South End. Thank you so much for your time and thoughtful consideration on this matter. Thank you.

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

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you so much.

Next, we have Let me see one second, please. People who are participating already. We have named in blade. Please, if you can unmute yourself, you have 90 seconds.

Hi, thank you very much. My name is Noel Blair. I work with the Pilot Block Neighbors Association in development issues. Also, I'm in a butter. I'm 100 feet away. I can see it from my back window. So hopefully you'll give me a little bit more time than 90 seconds since I've got two functions. Here, here. I think Ava did a great job. You've all heard the opposition clearly to this proposal. Extremely challenging proposal for the neighborhood. Nearly unanimous objection to the proposal. I would put that asterisk on the presentation is that Nearly everybody that I've spoken to throughout this whole process has been opposed to this and the reasons you've heard already. At the most basic level, the deck extensions above the first floor are limited to six feet to limit their impact on neighbors. This extends nine feet from the line of houses.

also decks above the first floor require cantilevered support with see-through railings to minimize the impact minimize the presence this one comes with a three-story 20-foot wide building extension so it's excessive Much larger than the 50 square feet that would be as of right. Not appropriate. We identified all the nuisances to privacy, light and air, building density. Privacy is particularly important. We can see our neighbors' decks outside of our windows here, so I think that's incredibly important to note. The precedents that are being offered to the chairs No others in this alley are in similar condition that didn't pre-exist these zoning rules. These zoning rules were put in place to prevent the impacts that these types of extensions have on abutter's privacy, light and air, all of these things. And the importance of keeping this precedent clearly on view given you have a full

If this project is granted approval for a three-foot extension What would stop the next door neighbor who at 168 West Kent has already got an application in front of ISD from doing the same thing? What if they wanted a deck that extended nine feet so that they didn't It wasn't less large than the one next door to them. You can see how the precedent is very important in establishing standards here. The neighborhood does not want to get bogged down in these issues. I'm sure the board doesn't either. So it's very important certainly that we protect these standards so we don't have to go through this every few months. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Next, Madam Chair. We have Kasparian, please. You have 90 seconds.

Good morning, everybody. My name is David Kasparian, and I am the direct abutter at 168 West Canton, the only direct abutter for Michael and Rachel Cargo, and I fully support their efforts to renovate their house. They've been great in terms of their communication to me and others and very forthcoming about their intent in the process. It is my understanding that they have made several changes that were highlighted earlier. and the presentation based on feedback from the neighborhood. From my perspective, this will only enhance the aesthetics of the neighborhood. I think it's very tastefully done and in line with other buildings. I don't think that the renovation has any adverse impact to me or the surrounding area. and I feel like they should be allowed to proceed with what they are proposing by right.

Thank you. Okay. Next, we have somebody from the Attending Section. Steve Thame, please, if you can unmute yourself. Steve Thame. Yes, Steve Thame. Can you hear us?

Yes, sir.

Hi, this is Irina Thame. We live at 191 West Brookline Street. 170 West Canton is the view outside of all of our rear view windows. We're back immediately onto it. It's kind of interesting that the previous speaker talked about communication being great because Despite being immediately opposite, we knew nothing about this plan until after many letters of support from elsewhere in the neighborhood had already been submitted. So there were no efforts to share anything with us. The first we heard was at the neighborhood meeting. I also want to correct some Factors and things that Michael Cass said when he was talking. Again, I think Noel touched on this. Hundreds of similar things have been approved in the neighborhood. That is not true. Many of those were before the current planning regulations and Those that have been done since have mostly been considerably less than three feet. Secondly, no matter which way you slice it, six foot plus three foot equals nine foot. It is not a small addition.

It is three feet beyond what the planning has suggested. traditionally approved and you know dressing it up as three plus six doesn't change the fact it's a nine foot extension off the back of the building also it is not historically accurate the whole wall of windows is not The way the back alleyway looks and has looked since the 1860s. Every house has two or three small windows on the back, so I just also want to echo straight on that. and that's pretty much it. I just want to say as immediate abutters with a full-on view of this, every time we look out of our window, we're opposed to it because, you know, Noel stated very eloquently, I'm not going to repeat all that, but it does change the character of the neighborhood and it will set a precedent. Thank you.

Thank you. And next we have Annie Weiss.

Hi everyone, thank you so much for having me. I live at, my name's Annie Weiss, I live at 166 West Canton, so I'm two doors down. from 170. I'm staying my opposition to the proposal as well. Again, I don't want to reiterate everything that Mo already said, but I really worry about the precedent that this is going to set I worry about the light. I worry about particularly the privacy. And I just want to note that It is the case that their direct abutter is in support of this, but he's really the only one. If you look at the attendees, there's so many people from West Canton, from the from the alley. And there's just been enormous opposition. He also has submitted the same proposal. And so if this goes through and his goes through,

He will have direct access to see right inside of my home. I worry about that happening and then if the person on the other side of me does the same thing, I'll be tunneled in on both sides. So it'll really impact How it feels to live inside of my house. So, thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

And Madam Chair, we have one more person from the attendance section. Rebecca?

Hey everyone, can you hear me? Yes, ma'am. Super. So my name is Rebecca Hornbuckle. I live at 154 West Canton, just down from Annie who just spoke, and really just want to second everything that those in opposition also stated. I would take issue with the idea that there is context for this. I'm looking across the alley out my kitchen window right now at a series of flat fronts. We recently underwent a renovation and preserved the flat back of our own home, sharing a front and a back alley with the proposal at 170 and now the proposal at 168. I would argue sets a dangerous precedent for all the reasons that folks have mentioned. Would hate to be tunneled in here, lose the privacy and just the beauty of Hang out with our neighbors and seeing the light and getting the ventilation. So thank you for listening to my protest. Thank you.

Madam Chair, there are two more people who raised their hand.

Okay, so let's take these two more and then we can proceed.

Okay, we have Ingrid. Ingrid, please, if you can unmute yourself. Ingrid Schroer? If not, we can go with John Edmund, please, if you can.

I believe I want Edmund.

Okay, Ingrid. Yeah, we can hear you.

My name is Ingrid Schrag. I live at 182 West Canton. I wanted to voice my opposition to this Thank you. Thank you. and hear these people talk about what they think is best for the neighborhood that I've lived in my whole life when they still do not live here and are not living in these homes. And so to talk about the impact this will have on the neighborhood, specifically hearing Annie talking about the impact this will have on her kids playing in her backyard when they do not even live on our street and live in our neighborhood is hard to hear. Thank you.

Thank you. And the last person is John Erkman.

Yes, good morning. John Erdman. I live at 163 West Brookline, so I'm on the alley. I have a view of this house. I lived in this house for 35 years, and I am opposed to this extension. I can see down the alley and I appreciate the charm and the design of these 200-year-old buildings with their rhythm of bay windows and flat fronts. and I think this this will harm that charm this will reduce the attractiveness and the desirability of all the houses on the alley and mine included And again, as Noel said, this is a nine-foot extension. Yes, there's precedent for six-foot decks, but there's no precedent for nine-foot extensions three stories high. And the architect showed these projections of light, but he failed to mention any of the light coming from the north. He just projected from the south.

and so this extension will shadow light from both directions and again as Noel and Annie mentioned it puts a tunnel effect into the alley. So we have a 200-year-old historic neighborhood here. Once we lose this, it's gone forever. So I urge the council to now approve this and let's preserve this neighborhood for future generations. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, Mr. Ocas.

Yes, briefly address some of these points. I mean, in our case, we made our points, but with respect to the comment by Eva Jones of ONS regarding the fence in the backyard shown on the site plan, Fence, number one, is not a zoning issue. Number two, during the community process, including the abutter meeting that she hosted, my clients made concessions about the fence, rounding it, because they recognize the access point there and that is something they're very much willing to continue to do and will do to ensure that No access is impeded, nor would BTD or anyone else who reviews these plans permit a fence that would block access. We're actually agreeing to improve the condition of the existing fence. Number One.

With respect to the butter number 166, Weskyn, she has the garage that projects out in the rear yard, including a large deck over the garage, which actually is the one thing that is inconsistent with the rest of the block when you talk about precedent and harming the neighborhood. The comments about children in the neighborhood. My clients are homeowners in the South End, have lived in the South End for over a decade, have three small children. and are intending to make this their forever home which is why they're undertaking these renovations and expansions to house comfortably house their family of Five, including three children, so they are very much South End residents with children as well who very much wish to make this their forever home and have carefully undertaken that. All the chatter about precedent. Of course, this board understands that precedent is not recognized in deciding any case because every case is different.

And what makes this case different is the lot size. This lot size is 3,100 square feet, which is at least 50% larger than all the other lots on this block, which are all about 2,000 square feet. and the extra breathing room back there, if you will, makes a difference. And alongside is, on one side is an alley, and on the other side is an abutter who supports us. There were 24 letters in support. That does not constitute unanimous opposition, as has been said. There are people that do support this and don't think that this is any different than The many many many many many many similar projects like this which I think is testament to the planning department issuing a simple one-page memo Thank you.

Other questions from the board? Yeah, I just want kind of clarification from BPD. Mr. Lacasse mentioned that Boston Landmark Commission approval is not needed, but On Zoning Viewer, I see that it does fall under Historic District, Southland Landmark District. And so the BPD also mentioned in their notes that the project is subject to that review by the Boston Landmark Commission. So it seems like those that have spoken in front of us have concerns regarding the overall characteristics of the rear and I believe that that this can be kind of reviewed with the applicant under the Boston Landmark Commission, you know, following this process.

And so I would like just to hear from BPD on their feedback because we could add a proviso to ensure that that review does occur, but at least it would clarify The comment that was made by Mr. Lacasse does not fall under BLC review. Mr. Hampton, are you with us?

Yes, thank you Madam Chair, members of the board, Jeff Hampton, City of Boston Planning Department. It is true that the rear decks in the South End are not subject to BLC review. We typically and historically, when decks have been added to the row houses in the South End, have made the recommendation that we review them and that the decks are no deeper than six feet in our bracket supported. That's always been our The decks themselves are not going to be

But what about the extension?

Well, the extension, they would have to go to BLC for a determination. Whether BLC wants to review that is completely up to them.

Can I speak to that a little bit? May I on the legal issue, Hansi? The Southern Landmark Commission guidelines and standards are very clear on what they do cover and what they don't. And I've had this issue countless dozens of times. With respect to rear facades, the only thing that is within their purview and jurisdiction is above the cornice line, i.e. roof decks. Anything below the cornice line in the rear which is not facing a public way is never subject to Southland Landmarks Review. And whether it's just an extension or just a rear deck or some combination thereof, As Jeff Hampton said, those determinations are always covered by a proviso of this board for BPDA design review. That's typically where that process occurs, not at Landmarks because they don't have jurisdiction over it.

Okay, thank you.

Other questions from the board?

Hearing none, may I have a motion? Madam Chair, I would like to put forward a motion of approval, but with BPD design review, so they can also take into account some of the concerns that were brought up in front of us. Is there a second?

Second.

Mr. Stembridge?

Yeah.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? No. Mr. Langham? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza?

Yes.

Ms. Whewell?

Yes.

The Chair votes no, but the motion carries.

Next, we have case DOA 177-3991 with the address of 269 Commonwealth Avenue. Is the applicant and or the representative present? Would they please explain to the point?

Hello? Yeah, I'm representing the applicant for 269 Commonwealth Avenue.

Can you identify yourself?

My name is Nicholas Highland. I work in construction. Who's going to be the contractor on this project?

OK, please proceed.

So we are only rejected on Article 32 for the groundwater system. We have approved BWSC plans. We have submitted our no harm letter. In our letter from BWSC, we intend to fully comply with the GCOD responsibilities.

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

Good morning Madam Chair and members, Siggy Johnson with the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services. Our office was planning to request a deferral for this application as the community process was not completed and the agenda lists A violation for a restricted roof structure district, but what has just come across the screen was a refusal letter for a GCOT only, which would not require a community process, so... Suppose I'll leave it to the discretion of the board, but if there are in fact zoning issues at play here, ONS would like to request a deferral so the community process could be completed. Thank you.

Thank you. I was going to say, can Mr. Hampton weigh in?

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board, Jeff Hampton, City of Boston Planning Department. Back Bay is not in a restricted roof structure district. So I think that was just an error on the refusal letter. So GCOT is the only reason why they're here.

Okay, thank you. Mr. Simonelli?

Yes, Madam Chair, good morning. Members of the Board, Christian Simonelli, Boston Groundwater Trust, and we have both G-card letters from the applicant.

Thank you. Next, we have Alicia. Alicia Max. Okay, I don't see her hand raised anymore. So Joseph Finder from the attendee section.

Yes. Can you all hear me? Yes, sir. All right. Good morning. Yes, I am direct abutter to 269, living at 273 Con Ave. Three things. There has been zero communication about this addition. It just suddenly went up. It obstructs the view from our roof deck. Secondly, and third, it sets a dangerous precedent in which anyone can add a level. There's no reason why we wouldn't be able to build a penthouse at 273 Con Ave. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Chair, there is one more person. I think Batu, the person with the name Batu, why?

Yep.

Yes, sir.

Hi. I'm at 13 Gloucester, right behind 269 Com. Just joining in to the gentleman who spoke before me. It will be... obstructing my view of the mall and Back Bay. Just wanted to speak my word and put that in there as well. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Chair, there is one more person.

Yes, go ahead.

Benjamin? Benjamin iPhone? You can speak now.

Can you hear me?

We can now, yes sir. Hello? We can hear you.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can hear you.

Hello? Yes, we can hear you, Benjamin. Can you hear me? Yes.

Good morning. We can hear you, but it sounds like you can't hear us. Oh, okay, no, I can hear you now, thank you. Okay, I used to live at 273 Commonwealth Avenue. I currently live at 250 Commonwealth Avenue, but I do a lot of maintenance work. at 273 Commonwealth Avenue, which directly abuts. I'm on the roof a lot, as are other people, to enjoy the sun. And we went up there one day and noticed there was an extension of about 10 foot going up The Wall Obstructing the View. No one was ever given any information about this project. you know extension going up that high I also noticed in some of the material they're talking about building decks out which will obscure the view from the ground level The big issue, don't understand why there was no community outreach.

Also, I've dealt with the construction firm when they first started. and in general just spoke with them about what they were doing and any changes and they never mentioned about going up higher for bringing decks out when I specifically spoke to them about a shared wall that actually needed maintenance and what they were going to be doing in the back. Thank you. Thank you.

All right, we have three more people.

Okay, well, let's leave it at that because this is just for GCOD. So if folks are not speaking to GCOD, you may want to put your hand down.

Chair, Samantha? Chair, this is, sorry, I was muted. This is Samantha with Councilor Sharon Durkan's office. I just wanted to briefly wanted to give support from the Councilor. We've been in contact with NAB, the local community association who is a non-opposition. City Councilors in support at this time. Thanks so much.

Thank you. Okay, any other questions from the board? May I have a motion?

I'm in a butter. May I speak?

I don't see a raised hand. I'm in a butter. Jesus, do you see the person who wants to speak?

Last speaker. I don't see the person. Is Michelle? Yes, that's me.

Yes, I'm at 273 Commonwealth Avenue, and I agree with the other abutters. Really take issue with this whole thing. Something that bothers me incredibly is that this edifice was being put up Before any of us had any information about it. I mean, the infrastructure is there already. It's mind-boggling how they would have the audacity to do that. This is back bay. You don't just slap on another... slap on another...

Thank you. All right, thank you.

Madam Chair, I would like to just ask Jeff Hampton just for clarity again because it seems like there's two issues here. One is residents are complaining about in addition, and then what's in front of the board, we are going to rule really on GCOD applicability in regards to a recharge system. You know, is this just because everyone that has showed up has talked about the addition and not the recharge system Can you just provide clarity or context or feedback to the residents in front of there that have spoken in front of us about this case? So they feel that we have heard them, but we're ruling on a different on a different option.

Sure, thank you, Ms. Better Barraza. Yeah, when you look at the code, it's not mapped as a restricted roof structure district. It just isn't. There's a 65 foot height limit. So you can go up to 65 feet and from, you know, What else? You know, this is here for GCOT. It's not here for a restricted roof structure because...

Right, so basically their addition is by right, and I think it's important for them to hear that.

Yeah, I mean, the only reason why we're here is GCOT, yes.

Yes, okay, great, thank you. Thank you for having me. Yep, so with that, Chair, Don, I'll give it to you.

Okay, so if there are no other questions from the board, is there a motion?

Based on what we're here for, I make a motion to approve.

Okay, is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Mr. Langham?

Yes.

Ms. Better Barraza? Yes. Ms. Wuwell? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Thank you, everybody.

Next, we have case BOA 1774492 with the address of 298 to 290 Beacon Street.

If the applicant and or the representative are present,

Would that please explain the case to the board?

Yes, good morning. My name is Timothy Burke. I'm the architect for the project. I have a business address of 142 Berkeley Street in Boston. I am also joined with the owner of the property, Mrs. Demeter. And she raised her family in this unit. She's been living in it for over 40 years. and now the kids are gone and so what we're looking to do is separate a portion on the ground level that could easily be a separate apartment as a two bedroom one bath apartment and this will allow her to make better use of her space on the other levels and it provides an additional dwelling unit with a minimal amount of work. We are seeking relief for the fact that we are adding a unit to this building and thereby are required to have one off-street parking space, but we don't have the ability to provide that on the property.

But we feel the project's still a very good one for the city and the neighborhood by creating an additional dwelling unit with, as I mentioned, very minimal amount of work. With that, I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.

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

Madam Chairwoman and members, Siggy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This applicant has completed the community process. Our office hosted an abutters meeting on October 21st at which no concerns were raised. The Neighborhood Association of the Back Bay is in non-opposition to this application. That background, our office defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have Sam Courage.

Madam Chair, members of the board, Sam Courage with Councilor Sharon Durkan's office. As Siggy explained, we've been in contact with Butters, as well as the local association, which was NAB, who is in non-opposition, and with that, the councillors in support. Thank you.

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

Okay, with that, may I have a motion?

Is there a second?

Second. Mr. Stembridge?

Yeah.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

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

Thank you very much.

Next, we have case BOA-179-1354 with the address of 227 Newberry Street.

If the applicant and or the resident and or the representatives are present, would they please point to the board?

Yes, hello, my name is David Silverman. I'm an architect at STA Design at 308 Congress Street in Boston, and we're representing the Copley Group, the owner of the building, and we are seeking approval for a change of occupancy at 227 Newbury Street. The prior use of this space was a dry cleaner. However, the space has been vacant for quite some time. The proposed new use is a French bakery cafe. The operator has two other locations, one in Belmont and one is Cambridge. We have met with the Neighborhood Association of Back Bay twice. The first time to discuss the awning at the exterior of the building and we also have two exterior tables and four chairs at the garden level entrance. Our second meeting with FNAB was to discuss with Praline Bakery the operations of the facility

And after that meeting, NAB had reported back to us that they would not close the project. There are 12 seats inside of the cafe. And that's really why we're here. So thank you for your consideration.

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

Yes, Siggy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This applicant has completed the community process. Her office oversaw distribution of an informational flyer to all occupied structures in a 300-foot radius, which is solicited no comments to our office. The Neighborhood Association of the Back Bay is in non-opposition to this application. That background, our office defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thanks. Next, we have Sam Courage, please.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. Same courage from Councilor Sharon Durkan's office. Similar to Siggy's comments, we've been in contact with the betters as well as the local association, which is NAB. NAB is in non-opposition. We're excited for this use. and the councillors in support of the proposal. Thank you.

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

Okay, with that, may I have a motion?

Motion to approve.

Barraza, second. Mr. Stembridge? Mr. Stembridge?

You're on mute. Sorry, Madam Chair. Yeah.

Thank you. Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

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

Next we have, excuse me.

Next we have case BOA 1766854 with the address of 1071 Massachusetts Avenue.

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

Hello, my name is Justin Parker. I work for Classic Signs. We are representing Metro Credit Union at 1071 Massachusetts Ave. Our proposal is to replace the electronic message center at this sign. This sign was approved and built originally around 2011 around here and When I went to apply for a permit to replace the signs, I believe the Parks Commission came back and said that we are in violation within setback distances of the park. I'm asking the board to please appeal this decision so that we can update this EMC. It's going from, instead of this old style dot matrix, it's going to a More modern RGB style so we have a lot more freedom to

and many more. and I have the specs available for that EMC if anyone wants to ask any questions about it.

Thank you. Are there questions from the board?

Can I hear from Mr. Hampton on this?

Yeah, thank you Madam Chair, members of the board, Jeff Hampton, City of Boston Planning Department. In keeping with the City's policy on these types of appeals on electronic signage, we recommend denial of this proposal. We acknowledge that the sign is already existing and I think it did receive design review from the BRA back in 2011. However, we just don't think that a full conversion to an electronic sign is appropriate in this area, especially with its location to the park. and being consistent with our policy, we're on the record as going in denial of this proposal. Thank you. Thank you.

May I have public testimony?

Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Benbury. I am 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 23rd with new abutters. or guests in attendance. Next, the proposal met with new market business improvement and with no opposition, the community process was completed. 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.

Next Madam Chair, we have Ben Murphy.

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Ben Murphy and I'm with the Newmarket Business Department District. As was just mentioned, Metro Credit Union came to us to discuss the update to their sign back in 2011 when the original sign went up. Our executive director, Sue Sullivan, was in communication with them about the design of that sign. There was no opposition from the neighborhood then or now. As the sign is already pre-existing and we think this is a reasonable update to what is already there, we are in support of this project. Thank you.

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

So can I just confirm the sign you have now versus what you are proposing? So what you're proposing is converting it to 100% digital. Right now it's like a stagnant Metro Credit Union, and then you have the dot, dot, dot letter part.

Yeah, so the Metro Credit Union part is going to stay just like a regular sign cabinet with like a Lexan face on it. And then we're only replacing what is the EMC. And there's no changes to the side. I think the new EMC is actually a little bit smaller. It's just updating the screen itself, pretty much.

Okay, so the sign itself stays sort of similar or same size?

Yeah.

Thank you. Any other questions from the board?

Yes, is there an expiration date for the signed or is this signed or anyone going to be there in perpetuity?

We usually don't... Deal and expiration dates and that sort of thing. It's usually whenever there's some sort of problem like we're replacing the faces because they were cracked and they figured it would be time. I'm not sure if that's a question more for the planning department or me. Yeah, maybe Mr. Capitan is here.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Valencia. This is an issue where if you look at the zoning code in section 11-7 where it deals with conditional uses, the sign is in an area that doesn't allow a conditional use, it's actually a forbidden use. which would require a variance rather than a conditional use permit and only those areas where it has a conditional use permit is there a time limit on How long a sign is allowed to stay. It's eight years. However, again, I think they're looking for a variance in this case rather than a conditional use permit.

No, they're asking for conditional use.

I understand that. That's what's cited. But when you read the code, that's not what is actually true because there are only three areas where electronic signs are allowed as a conditional use, and this isn't one of them. That's right. So I think it's just the technicality. So because they're asking for a variance rather, well, I take that back. Under 11-7, one of the conditions for a conditional use permit is that it is limited to an eight-year time period. So I think that's where Mr. Valencia is coming in with a time frame. because it does state that in section 117. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions from the board?

Yeah. Go ahead, Ms. Turner. I guess first I want clarification that regardless of whether we say yes or no, the sign will stay up, right? Either it's this sign or the sign that's being voted on. And the applicant confirm that?

Yes, the existing sign, if the denial to change the EMC, if this gets denied, we're just going to keep the existing EMC.

Okay, and then I have a second question. Do you, have you done a study to compare the brightness level between the existing sign and the sign that you're proposing?

We haven't done a study, but I do have these specs for the new cabinet that we're going to put in, and it is dimmable. The specs will say the max brightness, but we can control that to pretty much whatever we like.

Okay, including it being the same level of brightness that the existing sign is? Yep. Okay, thank you.

Thank you. Ms. Barraza, did you have another question?

No, I think Ms. Turner's feedback was very good, so just no questions.

Thank you.

With that, may I have a motion? Madam Chair, I really just see it as an upgrade. It's already existing. is probably more energy efficient as well. I'm gonna move forward with, A motion of approval with a proviso that the project illumination stays similar to the existing sign.

Is there a second? Back in. Mr. Stembridge.

Yeah.

Mr. Valencia.

No, I'm not going to vote no. I don't think the billboards are good for the city and a bigger and bigger billboard or a more bright billboard have the chance to stay there for longer. So my vote is no.

Thank you. Ms. Turner? Yes. Mr. Langham? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza?

Yes.

Ms. Wewell?

Yes, I'm voting yes because I think this is in a pretty heavy commercial area. I think the park is the most sensitive use, but it seems like the The kind of edge of the sign is more facing the park, so for those reasons, I'm voting yes.

Thank you. Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Thank you. Next, we have case BOA 1776619 with the address of 5557 Central Street.

With the applicants and with their representative present, would they please explain the case to the court? Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Michael Chavez. I'm the architect with the Natchez 26 on Hill Park in Dorchester. And I'm representing Mr. Michael Winston, the owner and developer of the project. This is a two-unit new construction building. It's an infill lot. Thank you for joining us. The assigned zone is a three-family, but we're only putting two units in. It's just a tight lot, and we wanted them to be comfortable size modern units. Because it's a site lot, there's a number of, basically all the zoning variances are being triggered here. Setbacks, you know, FAR,

Frontage, pretty much everything here. However, we have designed it to essentially be in line with the adjacent buildings. It has some modern touches to it, but all the windows are aligned. The window bays, doors, the mansard roof, etc. are all kind of following in line with that. We've had a number of voters meetings, neighborhood association meetings, we did a preliminary review with the The historic district. So we've talked to those folks as well about what we're proposing here. We've had unanimous support of the project. People are wanting to get the lot infilled and The historic board has also talked about their approval of our kind of More slightly more historic facade on the front street. And then as you wrap around the site, it gets a little bit more modern. They like the fact that it's not actually trying to replicate exactly what was there in the past.

It's contextual, but not replicating. And so the only changes that we made during the process, during the community process, was that they wanted to reduce the number of bathrooms in the upper unit from 6.5 to 5.5. The community just wants to make sure that this doesn't become student housing and they wanted to kind of, you know, lower the number of on-suite bathrooms for the bedrooms. So we did that and made some adjustments in that way. So that letter on the on the cover can just list some of the things we did. We also added some bike parking and moving the master bedroom on the upper unit from the fourth floor down to the third floor. But otherwise, yeah, that's important. We still need to go through some additional review from an exterior design perspective with the historic commission in the neighborhood. I'll pause there and answer any questions we have. Michael Winston's also on the call if we have any questions for the owner.

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

Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Bembry. I'm the Roxbury Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process, which consisted of an abutters meeting facilitated on October 14th. that was very well received by the community and direct abutters alike. Receiving overwhelming support during the abutters meeting and the abutters very excited to see the change and commended the design. Next, the proposal was presented to Hyde Park Neighborhood Association on November 11th, where they voted in support of the proposal. To date, our office has received two letters of support, one being from Hyde Park Neighborhood Association. 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. 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. Ms. Better Barraza?

Yes.

as we will. Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good-bye.

Thank you all very much. Have a good day.

Norm, you're on. Mr. Stembridge, on mute.

Sorry about that, Madam Chair. Next we have case VOA 17231, 9-7 with the address of 10-12 East Coat Street. If the applicants include their representative of the president, would they please explain the case to the board?

Hi, my name is Deanna Santonello and I'm the homeowner at 10 Heathcote Street. We are looking to renovate our basement to make a playroom for my two children, age two and four. There will be no bathroom in the basement. It will not change the footprint of our existing home. The only thing that will be changed to the structure of the home is an addition of a window to comply with Boston codes. Does there spend no opposition by the neighborhood? Are direct at butter? It's a front to back condo. They have voiced support of the project.

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 Roslindale Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process, which consists of an abutters meeting, facilitated on November 5th, with two direct abutters in attendance. Next, the proposal presented to West Village and Neighborhood Association, which completed the community process. Thank you for your time, and the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services would like to defer to the board for their judgment.

Thank you. Thank you. Madam Chair, I think there was one person, David. I'm not sure if you were looking to speak for this case.

Hello. I am just a contractor and I'm here to support the homeowner.

Okay, thank you. Madam Chair, there are no additional comments.

With that, may I have a motion?

Motion to approve.

May I have a second?

Second.

Mr. Stembridge?

Yeah.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

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

Yes.

Ms. Whewell?

Yes.

Chair votes yes, the motion carries.

Next, we have case BOA 1776266 with the address of 24 Newberg Street.

If the applicant, handler, or their representative are present,

Will they please come?

Hello? My name is Rose and I live at 24 Newburgh Street. That's the house I grew up in and I have lived and I'm living there. The house needs some work for safety issues such as redoing the porch and repairing the panels on the side of the house. I'm getting married in August and I would love to continue staying at my home and the goal is to have the repairs completed by then as this will be the place We will be living and I am the co-owner of the house with my dad who is also a contractor.

Thank you. Are there questions from the board? Hearing none, Madam, public testimony.

Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Venberry. I'm the Roslindale Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process, which consisted of an abutters meeting, facilitated on November 5th. With no abutters in attendance, no concerns were raised. Following the abutters meeting, no further process was required, which completed the community process. Thank you for your time, and the Mayor's Office's Nameless Services would like to defer to the Board for the judgment.

Thank you. Thank you. Madam Chair, any additional comments?

With that, may I have a motion? I put forward a motion to approve. Is there a second?

Second. Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes. Ms. Turner?

Yes. Mr. Langham? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza? Yes. Say thank you. Ms. Whewell? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck. Thank you. Thank you.

Next, we have case BOA. 1743924 with the address of 24-26 LaRose Place. If the applicant and or their representative are present, would they please explain the case to the board?

Good morning. Good. Happy New Year, everyone. My name is Silvio Ribeiro. I'm representing and I am the builder for Mrs. Antonelli's. uh she's their family owned the house and she's the only survivor and she owns the house now for a long time and she would like to extend the second floor making the attic space and some bedrooms or family members. The niece lives on the second floor. She lives on the first floor. Denise is a nurse and takes care of her. Denise's mother lives in the Cape and they would like to have places to stay when they come over so they don't have to drive back and forward to the Cape two hours a day whenever they come over.

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

Madam Chairman and Board Members, Siggy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This applicant has completed the community process. Our office hosted an abutters meeting on November 3rd, at which no concerns were raised. The Brighton-Alston Improvement Association shows to take no position on this application. With that background, our office defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Thank you. We have Joseph Feinder. Joseph, if you can unmute yourself, if you'll provide public testimony for this case.

All right. Okay. May I have a motion? Motion is approved. There are seconds? Second. Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

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

Yes.

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

Thank you, everyone. Happy New Year to everyone.

Next, we have case BOA 1781833 with the address of 36

Chimney Street.

If the applicant and or their representative are present, would they please respond to the voicemail? Hello, can you hear me? Yes, sir. Yes, good morning, Chairman and members of the board. My name is Jin Zhang. I'm the general contractor for this project. So 36 Champion Street is a large single family, mostly used as a rental. and since it has six plus bedrooms, so the owner said it's really hard to find a single family who need that many bedrooms. So it ended up like they rented, actually illegally rented out the actual rooms to other unknown individuals. So making the traffic and the safety patterns for the neighborhood is really hard. and it's also hard to manage the property.

So we are proposing a 205 square feet rail addition directly above the first floor kitchen to make the kitchen for the second unit and also trying to make a dormer in the attic. So we respectfully seek the approval of the building up here.

So right now you have six bedrooms for one family. What will the makeup be for the two units? It's the same. So three and three?

Yeah.

Okay. Questions from the board?

Hearing none, may I have 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 October 21st. at which a concern was raised about rodents, the Brighton-Alston Improvement Association is in support of this application. That background, ONS defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

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

Thank you. With that, may I have a motion? Motion for approval. May I have a second? Second. Second. Mr. Stembridge?

Yeah.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Mr. Langham?

Yes.

Better Barraza? Yes. Ms. Whewell?

Yes.

Hearing votes yes, the motion carries. Good luck.

Thank you so much.

Okay, so with that it looks like we'll take a five-minute break and come back at 11.

Recording in progress.

Is Mr. Stembridge back with us? All right, I'll keep going through roll call and she'll go back. Mr. Valencia. Ms. Turner. Present. Mr. Langham. Present. Ms. Better Barraza? Present. Ms. Wewell?

Present.

Mr. Stembridge? Present, Madam Chair. Mr. Valencia? You're on mute if you're here, Mr. Valencia. All right, well, I'm going to get started with six and... Okay, there you go. Okay, thank you. The floor is yours, Mr. Stembridge.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for your patience.

Next, we'll go to the hearing schedule for 11-8.

11 a.m. We'll begin by asking if there are any requests for withdrawals or deferrals from the 11 o'clock hearing. Hearing none. Bless you.

Thank you.

Hearing none. We begin with two companion cases. The first is case BOA 178. 5822 with the address of 146 to 146A Bunker Hill Street. Along with that we have... Casey BOA 178-6353 with the address of 148 Bunky Hill Street.

Excuse me, is there any way I can register? I'm trying to raise my hand. Raise your hand in regards to one, sir. This is the project at 102 Warren Street. We'd like to withdraw the project from today's hearing.

Okay, well, let's do that first, maybe, Mr. Stembridge?

Sounds good, Madam Chair. And that would be for case BOA 178-6443.

with the address of 100 to 102 Warren Street.

Would you go ahead and explain, sir? Okay, thank you. And I'm sorry for the technology flaw here. I'm David Lee. I'm the architect for the National Council for the and formerly incarcerated women whose headquarters are at that location. They would like to withdraw the proposal today because of funding issues. They need to Revise the scope and return with a modified program in the future. But in today's funding climate, they need to scale back on some of their aspirations.

Thank you. Okay. May I have a motion?

I make a motion to withdraw.

I have a second.

Second.

Mr. Stembridge.

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Mr. Lang? Yes. Better Barraza? Yes. Ms. Whewell? Yes. Air votes yes, the motion carries. Good luck.

Thank you very much. I appreciate you doing this and I hope to come back to you with a revised scheme that everybody will be happy with. Thank you.

You're welcome. So with that, if there are no other requests for withdrawals or deferrals, once again, I'll return to companion cases, case BOA. 1785822 with the address of 146th to 146th Lane, Bunker Hill Street. Along with that, we have a case of VOA. 1786353 with the address of 1448 Pompadour Street. If the applicant and their representative are present, will they please explain to the board

Yes, thank you, Mr. Stembridge. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is George Maranci. I'm an attorney with a business address of 350 West Fargo in South Austin. Madam Chair, strictly speaking, these are not companion cases, but they are abutting or actually connected properties, and I am the attorney of record for both. The owner of one is my client, but they are in separate ownership. The owner of the other property is someone else, but my client is purchasing the property. So I will continue But I will present each case separately. I hope the board understands. Yes, that makes sense. Okay, and I'm sorry, we're on 148 and 146 first. Okay, I'm going to start with 146-146A. My client here is Bahim Nikkor. We're seeking variances for

Zoning Relief, Floor Area Ratio, Building Height, Usable Open Space, Inner Yard Setbacks, as well as a Conditional Use Permit for Restricted Roof Structure District. who allow construction of a third-story addition with a roof deck on this existing two-family home. This is located in an MS neighborhood shopping sub-district. To begin, I'd like to highlight that the planning department has recommended approval of this project. Subject to design review, this location is within a neighborhood design overlay district. First, regarding the context here for this proposed third story addition, again, the property sits in an interstitial shopping sub-district, but this is a predominantly residential stretch.

of Bunker Hill Street, characterized by two- and three-family dwellings and multi-families featuring the same elements that are being proposed here, roof decks, bay windows, and side The Planning Department recommendation explicitly notes that these are common neighborhood architectural elements. With respect to the height, we're requesting Zona Relief to reach a height of 36 feet, which is only one foot over the 35 foot limit. As the recommendation notes, the resulting three-story pipe year is more consistent with the surrounding multifamily residential buildings on Bunker Hill Street than the current low-scale two-story structure. At 22 feet 4 inches, what is there now is significantly shorter than the as-built environmental typical residential buildings in this district. So by Adding this third story, we're actually improving contextual compatibility.

With respect to FAR, while the building is going from 1.52 to 3.45, exceeding the maximum 2.0, Again, as the planning recommendation notes, the surrounding residential properties in the sub-district frequently exhibit FARs of 3.0 or greater, making the proposed massing contextual with established neighborhood patterns. This proposed FAR would not be an outlier, therefore, rather it's approximately matching what is already there. With respect to open space, it is acknowledged that at-grade open space is being reduced here to approximately 55%. Square Feet. However, again, the Planning Department finds that this condition is mitigated through the addition of the substantial roof deck and third floor deck. Again features that are common throughout this neighborhood. It's also noted that the property is in proximity to significant public open spaces including

Bunker Hill Monument and the surrounding green space, open space in the Naval Shipyard Park and Charlestown Athletic Fields. The rear yard nonconformity is existing. The original structure already extends to the property line, so we're not worsening this condition in maintaining the existing footprint. Finally, regarding the conditional use permit for the roof deck, while the deck does result in that 36-foot height, that additional Fort is only to the DEC platform. The DEC is, as the Planning Department recommendation notes, appropriately set back To minimize visibility from the public way and is consistent with the scale and character of other three-story residential buildings and group decks. in the neighborhood. The property sits directly across from the Boston Housing Authority's Bunker Hill development, which is adding Mixed income housing and public spaces to the neighborhood.

So I think our modest addition of approximately 2,000 square feet here helps to preserve and enhance housing opportunities in a highly walkable transit environment. With that, I will pause and I'd be happy to answer any questions from members.

Thank you. Are there questions from the board?

Hearing none, may I have public testimony?

Madam Chair and members, Siggy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. Our office hosted an abutters meeting on November 13th. A concern was raised by an abutter about drainage impacts of this proposal on Boswell Lane. additional concern was raised about part of this structure's deck having been built across the lot line and complications that would pose with construction that background our office defers judgment to the board thank you thank you

Madam Chair, next we have Steve Marine from Councilor Coletta.

Hi, I'm Stefan from Councilor Coletta Zapata's office. At this time, the office would like to go in support of the project.

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

Mr. Morrissey, do you want to address any of the feedback from ONS?

With respect to water runoff, obviously no water is going to allow for ISD and Boston Water and Soil Regulations to escape the site. By the time of permit issuance, if that issue exists or certainly exists as a concern, but that will be addressed and proper site mitigations will have to be in fact so that there's no runoff before ISD will issue the permit. With respect to the deck, once again, I'm not aware of that, but ISD will obviously not issue a building permit for a deck that is crossing the boundaries of the property line absent and Eastland, which apparently is not in place. So again, whatever is issued by ISD would only allow for a lawful construction within the lot lines.

Thank you. Any other questions from the board? Hearing none, we have a motion on 146 to 146A, Bunker Hill Street.

I put forward a motion of approval with a proviso that is submitted to the planning department for design review. Second? Second, okay. Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

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

Yes.

Ms. Whewell?

Yes.

Chair votes yes, the motion carries.

Thank you. I assume that since Mr. Stembridge already called 148, I'll just proceed without recalling?

Yeah, please.

Thank you. Again, for the record, Madam Chair, my name is George Maranci, I'm an attorney with the business address 350 West Barlow in South Boston. Again, representing the heat NICPOR in this matter. Seeking variances for excessive floor area ratio in sufficient areas set back to allow construction of a third floor addition with the rear deck along with expansion of the livable area of the building and basement. through excavation and installation of code-compliant egress windows in NS neighborhood shopping sub-district. I again wish to begin by noting the planning department's recommendation of approval subject to design review. I also wish to clarify an important point which is also noted in the planning recommendation that while we refuse to write our Sites relief needed for the site's location within a restricted roof structure district. The project doesn't propose construction of a roof deck or even rooftop utilities.

The area labeled roof deck on the plans is actually a rear deck aligned with the third story addition, not a rooftop structure. Regarding the FAR violation, what's being proposed is an increase from approximately 1.45 to approximately 2.40. Again, the maximum F.A.R. here is two. This additional F.A.R. will be achieved through expansion of the basement and the addition of the third story. As the planning recommendation notes, residential properties in the immediate area are commonly a full-story taller than this building. which is more aligned with the massing for commercial properties in this district. Again, it's an NS district, but this is an area where it is predominantly residential. The proposed height would also, and as the Board knows from the immediately preceded hearing, complement the proposed height of the abutting and connected structure at 146.

Bunker, Hill Street. As the planning recommendation additional notes, it is exceptionally common for residential properties in this area, especially when supporting multiple dwelling units to have FARs. ranging from 2.0 to 3.0, exceeding the maximum. Even though this is a newly created dimensional violation, the FAR appeared with a result that's still highly contextual with existing residential properties. So in other words the proposed FAR actually brings this into alignment with the established residential pattern of the block As to the rear setback violation, that's an existing nonconformity. The original structure already extends beyond the rear setback line. As the planning analysis instructs a conforming rear yard setback year would require fully 40% of the total parcel dedicated to a rear yard for compliance.

which would constitute a hardship for the successful residential expansion of the building. So that's the very definition of a dimensional hardship. A lot's configuration makes strict compliance essentially impossible. for Expanded Living Space here. This proposal incorporates part of the original structure that exceeds the rear setback line, doesn't create a new one, so it's maintaining that zero foot setback condition but not worsening it. Finally, regarding context, like the preceding property at 146 Ponca Hill Street, this site is an NSF district predominantly residential. The Planning Department again notes that homes here commonly feature roof decks, bay windows, rear side decks, precisely the elements that are being proposed under this application. And again, as with the other property, it sits directly across from the Bunker Hill development.

There's a lot going on in this area in terms of adding We are actively adding new mixed-use housing to the neighborhood. It is well-suited, well-sighted with respect to being in a highly walkable area, transit-oriented, and again, the proposal respects the existing residential fabric in this neighborhood. With that, I'll pause and take any questions the members may have.

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

Madam Chair and Board Members, C. Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This application was presented at an abutters meeting jointly with 146, so I will restate the testimony. A concern was raised by an abutter about drainage impacts on Boswell Lane. An additional concern was raised about part of the structure's deck having been built across the lot line onto a neighboring property and complications that would pose with construction. That background, our office defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

and Madam Chair George Marancy. With respect to those comments, since they are the same, my response would be the same as with respect to 146.

Okay, thank you. Questions from the board?

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

Is that a date?

Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

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

Yes.

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

Thank you.

The next two cases We have our companion cases. The first is case BOA 1799398 with the address of 34 Meade Street.

Along with that, we have case BOA 1799401 with the address of 34R Meade Street.

and I believe these cases are for attorney Maranci.

Thank you, Mr. Stembridge, Madam Chair, members of the board. Good morning. My name is George Maranci. I'm an attorney with the business address of 350 West Broadway in South Boston. In these cases are most definitely companion cases. I represent the owners of property, John Campbell and his mother, Claire Smith. Madam Chair, what is happening here is The movement of an invisible site boundary line. This site is currently occupied by a three-family dwelling. There are two units in the front, as can be seen here on the site plan. Two units in the front portion of this building, which is attached by a firewall to the rear and every portion of the building, which is essentially a stand-alone single family. It has its own separate entrance and egress. It's where John and Claire live.

What is being sought here is to subdivide the property to create a two-family dwelling in front number 34 Meade Street. and a single family in the rear, stand-alone single family number 34R Meade Street. No changes at all are being proposed to the building. It is simply a subdivision of the lot where the existing structure sits to allow for independent ownership in the future of The two-family and the one-family as separate dwelling buildings.

Questions from the board? Hearing none, may I pull the testimony?

Yes, Siggy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This applicant has completed the community process. Our office hosted an abutters meeting on November 12th, 2025, at which no concerns were raised. That background ONS defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, Madam Chair, next we have Arlindo. You can unmute yourself. The person Arlindo in the attendee section, you can unmute yourself if you're speaking on behalf of, for this case.

I'm sorry, I am waiting on another case.

Okay, thank you.

I'm sorry, I didn't see the number of the case pulled up. I'm Gary, is this 688 Columbia Road?

We are on 34 Meade Street. Are you here to make a comment?

I'm Gary Mendoza, the project architect operating out of Dorchester.

Are you here for 34 Meade Street?

No.

No. No, okay, thank you. So with that, may I have a motion?

Second.

Thank you. Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

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

Yes.

Ms. Whewell. Yes. Chair votes yes, the motion carries.

Thank you Madam Chair and members.

Thank you. Next we have case BOA. 1770713 with the address of 921R to 923R East 4th Street if the applicants and or their representative are present. Would they please explain to the Court?

Good morning Madam Chair, members of the board. Nick Landry from DRT. We're the project architects. I believe that the owners are on the call, but I'm going to run through the plans here. So we're at 923R East 4th Street. You can see there on the left-hand side of the page, I've got that aerial view. The street on the right hand side is Ferry at Castle Island. It's kind of down to the right. East 4th is along the top. This is a carriage house at the rear of the property that was converted into Two units, so the front building that you can see there is a two-family, and then at the rear there's two units side by side. Go to the next sheet, please. So we were cited for two violations on the left-hand side there of the page. A rooftop structure violation, we're gonna be enclosing that existing roof deck to create some more living space. and the usable open space violation because we're removing the roof deck space.

What it is, we have a townhouse here. If we flip to the next page, you can see As I mentioned, they're kind of divided right down the middle. It's toward the bottom of the page there. There's a single family house at the front, East 4th Street's at the top of the page. There's parking in between that structure and that carriage house in the rear that was converted to two units. Go to the next page, please. So the purpose of this is to convert an existing head house and a roof deck into a primary suite for the owners. They have a growing family, and they're looking to stay in place. The front building on the property and the neighboring townhouse that we share a party wall with at the Carriage House are all family members. So in order for them to stay here, they're just looking to increase the usable square footage by enclosing that roof deck. We flip to the next page.

You can see on the left-hand side, that shows you that carriage house with those two separate entries, two separate units in the back. And we're going to be enclosing that roof deck on the left-hand side. The unit on the right-hand side stays the same, no change to the roof deck. Go to the next page, please. Here you can see that existing elevation on the left-hand side where there's a head house. We're gonna be pushing that left-hand wall out a little bit and then extending what was the head house all the way to the front of the roof deck to enclose all that space. To create more room for a mouse binary speed. Go to the next page please. Again, you can see on the left-hand side, that's the existing head house with the roof deck to the right. We're just going to be enclosing that roof deck, pushing that wall all the way to the front of the Mansart. No change in height. We're just adding about 330 square feet with this renovation. Go to the next page, please. And from the back side, see that head house there on the left-hand side, there's some existing mechanical units. Those are those boxes on the top.

Those will stay, nothing changes. We're just going to be providing roof access for them for maintenance. That's what that little hatch is there. We'll be pushing out that wall and adding some more windows, bring some light in on the top floor. The next page, please. And this is kind of just a view. You can see the enclosed roof deck that's now part of that unit. And then the open area roof deck, that's part of the other unit. We're not touching that unit. That's not part of the project at all. That's the end of the presentation. If there's any questions, I'm happy to circle back.

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

Yes, Siggy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This applicant has completed the community process. Their office hosted an abutters meeting on October 20th at which no concerns were raised. City Point Neighborhood Association chose to take no position on this application. That background ONS defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Okay, Madame Chair, next we have Ashley.

Hi, my name is Ashley from Councilor Flynn's office. Councilor Flynn would like to go on record and support based on a good community process and work with neighbors and abutters. You respectfully request that the proponent and team to continue to work closely with the community on any quality of life issues during the construction phase. Thank you.

Madam Chair, there are no additional comments.

With that, may I have a motion? Madam Chair, I would like to put forward a motion of approval with a proviso that the project undergoes BPD design review. Paying a special attention to the addition massing and to work with The Man's Hair Roof and The Top Story, which is in conflict with one another in regards to complementing the character of the neighborhood. Thank you. Is there a second?

Second.

Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Mr. Langham?

Yes.

Ms. Better Barraza? Yes. Ms. Rewell. Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Thank you very much.

Next, we have case BOA 178. 6734 with the address of 6 Brookside Avenue. If the applicants and their representatives present, would they please explain to the board

Yes, thank you, Mr. Stembridge. Madam Chair, members of the board, Attorney Ryan Spitz with Adams & Maranci, business address of 168 8th Street, 1st Floor, South Boston. I'm here on behalf of my client Storm Riders, LLC. Also joining me today is the project architect, Eric Zapperson. This proposal seeks to erect a new single family with parking on a vacant lot consistent of approximately 1,984 square feet. which creates the need for relief as of insufficient lot area. Code requires 4,000 square feet within this 3F4,000 sub-district. Further, the pre-existing conditions of the lot also create the need for relief as to lot width and frontage. This three-story structure will consist of first floor, living room, kitchen, and bathroom. Second floor will consist of two bedrooms and two bathrooms. Third floor will consist of two bedrooms, one bath, an office space, and an additional family room.

Also, the roof plan will contain approximately a 250 square foot roof deck accessed by a hatch. We have violations for FAR violation as the proposal calls for a 1.28 as compared to a compliant .7, which is actually lower than most of the properties FAR in this neighborhood. Side yard proposal calls for three feet on the left side of the property and code requires send feet with a cumulative side yard 17 feet. and the proposal has approximately 11.75 feet but does maintain adequate light and air between the neighboring properties. Rare yards shall allot exception applies here, which lowers the setback to 15 feet, and the proposal calls for 10 feet to the structure, but again, consistent with other rare yards in this neighborhood. We have open space violation as we are required to provide 800 square feet in total and the proposal calls for approximately 365 square feet. Lastly, we were cited for conformity of the existing building alignment.

We believe we were cited in error as the proposed structure lines up with the existing building alignment on this block with the proposed setback of seven feet. So at this point in time, Madam Chair, I'm going to turn it over to you for any questions or comments from the board.

Thank you. Any questions from the board? I do have a question. One of the letters submitted requested that you install a sprinkler system. Will that be happening?

Yes, it's not required. We did consider many accommodations going through the community process, which resulted in a lot of changes to the actual plans that you presented here, but that was not one thing that the owners were willing to accommodate.

Okay, thank you. Thank you. Question.

Yes. This property is located about two blocks from the Orange Line. Do you think the proponent will consider reducing the parking space from 2 to 1 to increase open space?

So we did that already. So in the original proposal, Mr. Valencia, it was side-by-side parking, and there was an indent of the building itself to accommodate maneuverability. What we did is we changed the parking scheme to be tandem spaces and we filled in to provide more living space and as well as more outdoor space for the proposal. Okay, thank you.

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

Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Benberry. 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 abutters meeting facilitated on November 3rd with no abutters in attendance. Next, the proponent presented to Jamaica Plain Neighborhood Council, the Zoning Committee, and the Eggleston Square Neighborhood Association who voted to support this project. and as does the neighborhood excuse me the Jamaica Plain neighborhood council zoning committee with their request of proviso that the side by side parking get changed to tandem parking to allow for more green space. To date our office has received one letter of opposition with concerns for increased emissions Parking, and the height of the building as well as one support letter from Eggleston Square Neighborhood Association who supports the proposal including their requested changes. The support letter was sent to the board for review but I will read the changes into record. The changes included enlarge the first floor in order to provide an adequate family dining area on the first floor which adjusts the driveway to allow for tandem parking to provide space for two cars.

Second, to extend the backyard space with the width of the lot by shortening the driveway to provide a more usable backyard for residents. Again, the letter was sent to the board with the rest of the request. 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.

Madam Chair, there are no additional comments.

With that, may I have a motion?

Motion to approve the law.

Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge?

Yeah.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Mr. Langham?

Yes.

Ms. Barraza? Yes. Ms. Whewell? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck. Thank you.

The next case has been deferred. So that takes us to case BOA 179, 5532 with the address of 77 Bowdoin Street. 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, our business adjuster of 51 Dobson Road, And joining me today is the architect for the project, Gavin Driscoll, and the owner of the property, Mr. DeWayne Barlow. Madam Chair, we're here today seeking relief to erect a building for four residential units with three parking spaces on a vacant lot at 77 Bowdoin Street, which is at the corner of Bowdoin and Oakley Street. Here, the zoning subdistrict is a 2F5000 and our lot size is approximately 4100 square feet. With regard to the violations, Madam Chair, the FAR, the required FAR in the zoning subdistrict is 0.5 We are proposing 1.5. We will be excited for parking as the required space is one per unit for four parking spaces and we got provided three off-street parking spaces.

The side yard setback requirement is 10. On the shortest side, we are approximately four. And the rear yard violation is 30 feet and we are proposing 20 feet. I'll turn it over to Gavin and he can go through the plans and go through the units and the bedroom count and all of that stuff. Gavin?

Thank you so much. Good afternoon. I'm Gavin Driscoll, Lighthouse Architecture and Design. We're proposing a four-family home on a 4,000 square foot vacant lot. We're proposing three three-bedroom Two bath units with the traditional three-decker look. And then in the basement, we're providing a one-bedroom, one-bath unit. The way that the gray lays out in the site, the basement or garden level apartment is actually a walkout, which you can see on the section on the top left on that page there. Just because of the grade, you can walk out at the basement level. If you can go to the next slide, I can show you the exterior elevations. In the top right, you can see the elevation facing Bowdoin Street with their traditional three-decker look.

and then you can see from the side elevation because of the grade it's actually walk out in the garden level or basement level where the parking will be covered on that backside and I can take any questions if there's any questions.

Yes, Madam Chair, just to add, I know the Planning Department's recommendation was for approval and support, but they did have one comment on it with regard to accessibility and that bottom unit which comes out onto the level at grade is accessible, handicap accessible. So I just wanted to make sure that folks were aware of that as well.

Thank you. Questions from the board? Hearing none, may I have a motion?

Madam Chair and members of the board for the, I'm sorry.

Oh, sorry. Public comment, sorry. Thank you. I jumped ahead.

Madam Chair and members of the board for the record. Yes, ma'am. For the record, my name is Jeremy Bembry. I'm the Doe Justice 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 14th with one abutter in attendance. No concerns were raised. Next, the opponent met with the Greater Bowdoin-Geneva Neighborhood Association, which completed the community process. Thank you for your time, and the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services is elected to present the board with the judgment.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have Brian.

Hi, good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Timothy Guimon. I'm here on behalf of City Councilor Brian Worrell. We would like to go on record in support of this project, which will bring family-style homeownership units into the area. So thank you very much. Thank you.

Madam Chair, there are no additional comments.

Okay, with that, may I have a motion? Motion to approve. Sorry, do you have a question, Ms. Better Barraza?

Madam Chair, I'd like to put forward a motion of approval with a proviso that the project be The project undergoes BPD design review, paying special attention to accessibility on the site plan and in the internal units to accommodate Group 1 units. Is there a second?

Second. Mr. Stembridge? Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Bill Langham?

Yes.

Barza?

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

Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Board, have a good day. Thank you so much.

With the time being what it is, we'll jump ahead to the discussion scheduled for 1130 a.m. and ask if there are any requests for withdrawals or deferrals. Hearing none, then we will return to 11 o'clock. Case VOA, 180. 6139 with the address of 282 to 294 Hyde Park Avenue.

This is an article 80 case and we'll ask if there

If the applicant or the representative or president

Yes, good morning Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Johanna Schneider with the law firm of Hemingway and Barnes at 75 State Street in Boston. I'm here on behalf of ARCS Urban, the developer. With me on the Zoom is Adam Giordano from ARCS and Anna Locke, the project architect from JGE. We're really excited to share with the board a proposal to bring 48 much-needed units of rental housing, a full 90% of which will be affordable, to an underutilized site on Hyde Park Ave in Jamaica Plain. The site is currently occupied by a vacant one-story retail building with surface parking. We are proposing to develop an approximately 49,800 square foot building with a mix of studios, one-, two-, and three-bedroom units. In all, there will be 43 affordable units. 10 of the units will be income restricted at 30% of AMI.

10 of the units will be income restricted at 50% of AMI, 16 of the units will be income restricted at 60% of AMI, and 7 of the units will be income restricted at 80% of AMI. There will also be five units in the development that are market rate units, which is intended to allow for upward mobility without displacement. That is to the extent that tenants in the building find themselves moving out of AMI eligibility. move into the marker rate units rather than be displaced from the building. The site is exceptionally well served by transit and really is a perfect location for residential density of this nature. It's in close proximity to numerous MBTA bus lines and it is a short walk to the Forest Hills Multimodal Transportation Hub as well as numerous open space resources including the Arboretum, the Forest Hills Cemetery and Franklin Park.

The project does leverage this transit-rich environment by taking a progressive approach to parking while encouraging environmentally friendly travel by train, bus, and bicycle. ARCS owns a number of similarly situated projects with comfortable mix of units and affordability and based on its experience operating these other projects We've arrived at a parking ratio of 0.35, which is 17 onsite spaces. I would note, though, that we do not require relief for parking due to changes in the code adopted in 2021. which eliminate minimum parking requirements for projects with more than 60% of affordability. We're also providing secure bicycle parking at a ratio of one space per unit. At its highest point, the building is six stories with that volume stepped back well toward the interior of the site. Preliminary shadow studies indicate that due to the orientation of the building in the sun, there will be minimal shadow impacts on abutting properties.

The project will include an approximately 635 square foot ground floor community room, which will be available to neighbors by reservation at no charge. The project will be all electric and highly sustainable, including design to meet Passive House and LEED certifiable standards. We have had a very high level of community engagement, including personal outreach to direct abutters, to neighborhood meetings and meetings with community groups. The project evolved significantly throughout the community process Leading to a reduction in the originally proposed height, the addition of stepbacks from both the Woodbourne neighbourhood to the rear and Hyde Park Avenue in the front, a shrinking of the footprint, increased stepbacks, and a wider sidewalk. on Hyde Park Avenue. As a result of these changes, there is now a 45-foot buffer between the building and the nearest residential building to the rear.

We also change the building materials and the facade in order to blend in with surrounding foliage to contextualize the building massing and to align the building with the surrounding building rhythm. I also want to note that there will be new fencing installed along the perimeter of the project site to increase privacy for neighbors. And in response to residents' comments regarding potential traffic impacts, notwithstanding the very low number of vehicular parking spaces, during the PIC process, the applicant will work with the city agencies, including BTD, to ensure that there is space available for short-term pickups and drop-offs and deliveries. This project was unanimously approved by the BPDA Board in December. We also have the support of the JPNC Zoning Committee and the Forest Hills Neighborhood Association. We've submitted to the record a letter of support signed by 41 members of the abiding Woodward neighborhood. as well as a letter of support from State Rep. Samantha Montaigneau.

With respect to the relief that we are seeking, the infill nature of the project and the need to meet requirements for state affordable housing subsidies really creates the unique conditions that drive the need for the requested variances. The proposed density of the project reflected in its height, FAR, and setbacks truly is the minimum necessary to make the project financially feasible to secure that state affordable housing funding. and the requested relief for multifamily use is necessary to allow the development of these much needed affordable housing units, which does align with the city's housing goals. The requested relief with respect to loading affords the opportunity to dedicate more space within the project to affordable housing. I'm happy to turn this over to JGE to walk through the plans or to answer any questions that the board may have. Thank you so much for your time this morning. Thank you. Are there questions from the board?

Hearing none, let's take 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. This is an Ottawa 80 project that had a public meeting on October 22nd, 2025 The developer presented to Forest Hills Neighborhood Association on December 2, 2025 and to the Jamaica Plain Neighborhood Council Zoning Committee on January 7, 2026. The Jamaica Plain Neighborhood Council voted in support of the project. The developer has also met, excuse me, hosted a meeting on January 8th, 2026 for our brothers to discuss the project and any concerns with the developer directly. Our office will see the petition with 40 signatures in support of the project. And 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.

Thank you. Thank you. Madam Chair, next we have Jordan from Consular Weavers.

Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. Jordan here from Councilor Weber's office, Director of Policy Communications, District 6. Given the developer's commitment to go beyond the required 20% of affordability, the need for affordable housing in the district and the Jamaica Plain Neighborhood Council support. Councilor Weber would like to go on record in support of granting the variances needed to complete this project in order to bring more affordable units into the neighborhood. Thank you so much for your consideration. Thank you. Thanks. Next we have Nathan.

Hi, my name is Nathan Ekstrom. I attended the December 2nd neighborhood meeting with Adam Giordano. I found ARCS Urban to be extremely responsive to all the neighbors' concerns. I support this project 100%. Right now it's an old auto parts shop and we have the opportunity, I think it said 48 units, majority of those affordable. It's right next to transit. This seems like a project that We have had projects in the neighborhood fail in the past due to funding, and if this works funding-wise, I'm hugely in support of it for our neighborhood. Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, there are no additional comments.

Thank you. Questions from the Board? Hearing none, may I have a motion?

This is a great project and I'm very happy to see the affordability in the design. So I make a motion of approval.

Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge?

Yes. Valencia? Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Mr. Langham?

Yes.

Ms. Barabrasa?

Yes.

Ms. Whewell?

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck.

Thank you. Next, we have case BOA 176. 2591 with the address of 19 to 21 Fresno Street.

If the applicant and or their representative are present, would they please explain case in point? Yes, thank you, Mr. Stembridge. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. Thank you for granting us the time to speak in regard to this project at 19 Fresno Street. My name is Justin Burns. I'm an attorney at Pulgini & Norton, business address 10 Forbes Road, Braintree, Mass. I'm here on behalf of the property owner and proponent for this project, Jacob Lipton. Also with me today is the project architect, Tony Donato. The proposal at hand here today is to demolish an existing single-family dwelling on this lot. The dwelling is in extreme disrepair and the lot has become a bit of an eyesore for the neighborhood. In its place, the plan is to construct a new two-story, two-family duplex dwelling. Each of the units in this new build will have three bedrooms and approximately 1,600 square feet of living space. Each unit will have a dedicated single car garage interior to the building on the ground floor level along with additional area for parking in the driveway.

Each unit will also have a private deck space on the first floor. The proponents use this proposal as a great opportunity to add home ownership opportunities to a lot that can handle two family density While in turn cleaning up an unsightly lot, an action that would be a benefit to the neighborhood as a whole. Regarding our violations, ISD has cited us for insufficient lot area. The required lot space for a two-family in the sub-district is 8,000 square feet. We're just under 7,000. We also have a violation for open space. We were just under the required amount. And lastly, we have violations for rear yard and side yard setbacks. For the side yard setbacks outside of the private deck on the left side of the house, all other area These are over 10 feet from the lot line. And in the rear, we are at 25.5 feet away from the lot line.

With that, I can turn it over to Tony Ditto, who I believe is on, or he may be in the attending section, to go over the plans, and I can answer any questions from the board if they happen.

Yes, hi, I'm Antonino Donato. I'm the architect for the project with AD Architect based out of Canton, Massachusetts. Just a brief description of the building as I'm sure you actually got a pretty good one. It's a two-family duplex style front to back. It's done in a traditional style. With the same size, scale, and setbacks of the adjacent homes, both units actually address the street. They are separated by one car or garages. They are two and a half stories with unfinished basements and walk-up attics. They total 1660 square feet of living space each with three bedrooms, two and a half bathrooms each. Again, it's a one-car garage, but there's also assigned parking spaces on the exterior. and additional parking spaces for guests. There's a generous shared drive that can accommodate these additional guest parking.

There is rear yard privacy, and as you mentioned, the zoning relief that we're seeking here.

Okay, 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 Roslindale Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process, which consisted of an abutters meeting facilitated on September 18th that was very lightly attended with three abutters in attendance. One voice support for the proposal, stating anything is better than what is here now, while others voiced concerns for the size of the lot, feeling it is too large, with more concerns for construction debris, road mitigation, The construction timeline, tree removal, and the distance of the deck from the adjacent property inquired whether it could be moved. The proponent presented to West Village Neighborhood Association with no concerns was approved by our office to move forward in the process. To date, our office has received eight letters for support for this proposal sent to the Board for review, expressing that this is a good addition to the neighborhood. Thank you for your time, and the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services would like to defer to the Board for their judgment.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, there are no additional comments.

Okay. Without any other questions from the Board, may I have a motion?

I make a motion of approval.

Barraza second. Thank you.

Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

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

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Moving on to the read discussions scheduled for 1130 a.m. We'll ask again if there are any requests for withdrawals or deferrals.

There are none.

will go to case BOA-170-3964 with the address of 33 Princeton Street if the applicants and or their representative are present. Please explain to the board.

There is one person who was raising the hand and is joining now as a panelist. I'm not sure. Is it the iPod 2?

Yes, good morning.

Dan, please, your name?

Yes, Joseph Luna, principal of Luna Design Group. On behalf of the owner, Richard Verace, we are at 100 Conover Hill Drive, 406 in Danvers, Massachusetts. We are the project architects. I want to thank the board again for the continuance to this hearing because of a personal matter we were originally scheduled for last month. That being said, Bring what's going on on this whole thing. We were engaged to resolve violation notices filed on the property in January 2023 for Boston ISD. Those violations consisted of the use of a basement as a fourth family in what was originally approved in 1987 as a three family. and then the use of a residential unit as a studio apartment over an existing carriage house.

The project now is in housing court and we are working with Kevin O'Connor, from Boston ISD Senior Assistant Corporate Counsel. Because there were two separate violations, originally we had filed two separate permits for rejection, one for the carriage house, With our initial rejection coming in 8-2-2024, and then the other four, the four family, which our rejection came on 3-27-2025. At the request of Kevin, he requested that these be companion cases and presented to the Zoning Board of Appeals. However, when you look at the description of what is on today's discussion, it only relates to The discussion regarding the four families, even though they were supposed to be combined as companion cases.

At the request of the board I'd like to be able to present both and if that is not possible that we would like to at least move to have discussions on the four family and then try to expedite the discussions on the carriage house at another hearing.

Madam Chair, I speak of the position that he can move forward on this case, and then at next month's hearing, he can move forward on the following case.

Okay, so please proceed with this case only.

Okay. Just one little note on that. We have completed the community process and the abutters hearings for both separate cases. So that being said, then we'll just go through zoning board of appeals. So we will discuss now The case before you today, which is the use of the basement unit as the fourth unit of the primary structure. This was originally approved. in June of 1987 by Boston's Zoning Board of Appeals to go from a single family to a three family with the basement unit being part of a duplex of the first floor unit. My client, Mr. Veraci, stated that he later appealed this and was granted approval from a three-family to a four-family in the conversion of the basement unit into a separate unit. ISD has no record of this.

And that is how the violations were filed against him. Mr. Barraza pays taxes as a four unit building on this, has four separate units, has four separate utilities for each one of the units on this. This unit has been occupied in excess of 15 plus years and meets the requirements for environmental in terms of ceiling height and e-grass bedroom Egress and Means of Egress. The building is not sprinklered. There is no physical construction going on in this unit and we are just attempting to get this recognized as a legal unit, as a fourth unit within the structure. I'd be happy to answer any questions the board may have on this.

Thank you. Questions from the board? I have a question. So the applicant is stating that It was previously approved. Do you have any paperwork or any evidence to that?

Yes, we do. I have a copy of the Zoning Board of Appeals position June 1987, although I thought that was filed when we submitted the application. All right. I have no record of any appeal for the decision from a three-family to a four-family. Only original CBA approval back in 1987 from a single to a three.

And you said you submitted that to us?

Yes, it was part of the initial paperwork.

Okay, thank you.

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

Hello Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is Emma Jones representing the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services. Regarding 33 Princeton Street, our office defers to the board's judgment A community process was conducted including two abutters meetings held on 10-23-24 and 6-23-25 that was attended by several East Boston community members. The feedback from this meeting was significant opposition regarding this proposal, especially from one of their direct abutters to the property whose family has been significantly impacted by the ongoing issues of the property including the building of unpermitted apartments and complaints of renters moving in and out as these properties regularly which the abutter and the family members have made several 311 complaints about. There were also three community members in the meeting expressing support for the applicant and his proposal. Additionally, we received one petition in opposition signed by 51 community members expressing opposition to the proposal submitted to the board and the Eagle Hill Civic Association has chosen not to vote or review this proposal.

At this time, the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services refers to the Board's judgment on this matter. Thank you everyone for your time and considerations.

Thank you. Okay, next we have Steve from Consular Colettas.

Hi, this is Stefan from Councilor Coletta Zapata's office. We are of the opinion that this property was developed to its current state without permission from the city. The owners have been asked to produce documents that show approvals for this former single family home to become a three to four family, but that hasn't been produced to the counselor's office. Eagle Hill did not recognize them as having appeared in October and a neighbor at A neighbor, a direct abutter, has a petition with 55 signatures that oppose the So Eagle Hill has asked them to return for a January presentation and a February vote. So at this time, the counselor's office would recommend a deferral until the community process is fully complete.

Thank you. Thank you. We have somebody from the attendance section with a number that ends in 354, if you can unmute yourself. The person with the number 857-719-3354, if you are speaking for this case, turn to provide your testimony.

Is 3354, are you able to unmute yourself? Are you here for 3380 Princeton? Okay.

Are there any other questions from the board? So just for clarification, the proposal that is in front of us is actually for the proposed accessory dwelling unit. Is that correct?

No, that is incorrect.

Is the accessory dwelling unit already built?

What we are here today is... The basement unit that has been occupied, again, in excess of 15 years, or 20 years at this point that was originally in the original approval In 1987, the basement was to be part of the first floor unit. Mr. Barraza appealed that and then converted That basement space into a separate apartment has nothing to do with an accessory dwelling unit. It is just a regular apartment. And again, that has been occupied in excess of 20 plus years. But there is no record of the appeal on this and that brought about the violation notice by the city and the project is in housing court now.

So it's not regarding an ADU, it's regarding just this being used as a fourth unit in the structure.

Right, so my, and maybe my colleagues need to help me. I do see that you're seeking legal use of the property from three to four unit That makes, that's very clear in the drawings that I'm seeing. What's not clear to me is the accessory dwelling unit, the garage conversion to an ADU.

Okay. It is a garage conversion. I have no record of any of this getting involved, and I could not find anything in Boston ISD on this. At some point, The owner built over the existing garage a studio apartment. That studio apartment has been occupied, as I said, over 10 years by a single tenant. That unit has an issue with egress as there's only one stair, which is shown on the proposal for the new unit. That is the project that is not specifically mentioned on our discussion today that I'm assuming

So that's what our attorneys said is separated. So maybe Mr. Hampton needs to weigh in because the recommendation seems to be talking about both.

It's the big ball of strength.

Madam Chair, before we go there, I'm looking at the file dated June 23, 1987.

City of Boston Board of Appeal, which has a proviso.

I won't read it all, but the first proviso says that this was granted for three units only.

No separate basement apartment duplex on the first floor unit only. Submit for Board of Appeal new plan for three units.

Okay.

I believe Mr. Veraci, the building owner, is raising his hand too, if you can fill in more specifics of that.

I think what I just need clarity on is, are we voting for Are we voting for the legality of turning a three unit to a four unit or are we voting for... Or are we also voting for the accessory unit, but this has already been built? So I think I just need some clarity.

We are voting today for the three to the four.

Okay.

Okay. And then there'll be a subsequent hearing to discuss.

Okay, perfect. Thank you.

Okay. Any other questions from the board?

Hello Madam Chair, the Director Butters did raise their hand. They have provided significant impact on this proposal and it would...

Okay, is this the person named Neil that I see? because there's a phone number that still has a hand raised but didn't weigh in.

I believe that that's the applicant. Oh, that's, yeah, I'm also, oh, okay.

Okay, so. I've been raising my hand, too.

Who's speaking right now?

Okay, that's my brother Guy. I'd like to give a quick synopsis. Can you state your name and address for the record? I'm sorry. Shaw, my name is Mr. Lacchiato and we are the direct abutters of 33 Princeton Street and we reside at 31 Princeton Street. This has been the family home for over 78 years. My dad's parents bought the property from a friend after living in 31 Princeton Street House since 1923. Very lucky out of my aunt. lived on second floor for 89 years. Find and close in your file for review as time limitations on this platform. One, probable statement of facts were a drug dated 12-16-2025. Probable Statement of Facts WordDoc Dated 109-2026 Probable Statement of Facts Word Doc dated 1-11-2026 at bottom of page.

Assorted photos showing nuisances affecting our quality of life and the quiet and peaceful enjoyment of our family home. lands for 33 Princeton Street refused to be heard and acknowledged by Eagle Hill Civic Organization when disclosed variance violations. Two illegal units created without permits, bypassing zoning oversight, basement and garage, converted to dwelling without permits. Copy of variance granted to 33 Princess Street basement to be used as part of first floor only, no separate apartment. If violated, it goes back to a one family. Extensive neighborhood opposition letters discussed zone for three family only, four families not allowed in this zone. Variancy is required for parking. Walkway converted to driveway is only six feet, eight inches wide. That leaves only a few inches for vehicles, tires, contacting foundation of our property.

Plans submitted by Mr. Luna to City shows a plot plan on page two from 1984 but has no width included for driveway, far review by city plans examiner. I sent an email off to the plans reviewer for clarification. Actual parking on plans submitted is one space. property in these eight spaces. Zoning code required a driveway 10 feet wide and statewide mandates four feet away from an abutted property. State Certified Structural Engineers report for our properties enclosed with photos of damaged. Photo of car or a family home extensively damaged from a motor vehicle after gate posts were removed so a vehicle could fit. See photo. ZBA bypassed twice for review as advanced as was needed for the two illegal units. See, we're dark.

We're supposed to use new zoning laws as significant use and intensity were created. We have serious concern for our property. Can I ask you to wrap up, sir? Okay. Enclosed are photos of vehicles sideswiping our property going 43 feet downhill, bouncing tires off the side of our home's foundation. Basically sideswept all the way down, causing our house to shake, causing large cracks and lath and plaster walls, along with the brick foundation house wall being pushed in below grade. At this time, Just to wrap it up, as this matter is important to us, we are requesting that the city and ZBA look at all the zoning issues, especially the use of vehicles, trying to fit into a 6.8 inch wide Thank you, board members and chair, for your time in this matter.

Thank you.

Is 3354 also commenting on this case in support or opposition?

Yes. Is that you, sir, Richard? Yes, am I connected? I can't tell. Okay, can you identify yourself, state your name? Yeah, my name is Richard Garaki, 33 Princeton Street, East Boston. Okay, so you're the applicant.

Can you help us clarify any of these issues that have come up? Excuse me? Can you help us clarify any of these concerns that have been raised by your abutter?

I moved into the neighborhood in 1983. and been there since my wife passed away and raised my daughter there. Neil Lacchiato came into the neighborhood in late 90s early 2000 into his aunt's house and 2004 we started having issues with with him neighbors and myself with my driveway something that I've been using since 1985 when the work started in 1987 All the permits were issued for the deck. The four kitchens, four bathrooms, four bathrooms, four boilers, four hot water heaters and everything was inspected.

and tagged and metered. The driveway light that would come on, This was continuously bothering Mr. Lacchiato and I tried to Um, comfort him, uh, to resolute, to try the thing, to try to make the light possible for him, but this aggravated him immensely and, um, I try to We'll have to try to lower it to see what would make him happy, but he was continuously having a problem. He had a problem using this driveway. This actually went to foot.

So let's take a pause. Let's take a pause. Are there questions? For the board, let's approach it that way. Okay, so let's, is there a motion?

Yes. I would like to put forward a motion of Approval to allow the legal use of a three to four family only. Okay, is there a second?

Second. Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? No. Mr. Langham? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza?

Yes.

Ms. Wewell?

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We'll see you next month to discuss the carriage house rule.

And just a reminder, this doesn't grant building code relief. It still has to go through that review.

This just grants zoning relief. Right. We understand. As I stated, we meet the requirements for an existing structure.

And I recommend that you hold some community meetings to discuss the ADU.

Okay, thank you. Next, we have two companion cases. The first is case VOA 1765915 with the address of 3430 to 3436 Washington Street. along with that we have case BOA 1767062 with the address of 3440 to 3446 Washington Street. These are both Article 80 cases. It's the applicant and or their representative are present.

I'm sorry, can I ask a question? Are we supposed to go to the 12 o'clock interpretation?

Yes, apologies.

Let's back up on that. Thank you. Yes, Madam Chair.

We have interpretations.

Case and Rediscussion scheduled for 12 p.m. and that is case BOA 1689794 with the address of 62 to 66 Condor Street. If the applicant is the representative present, would they please explain to the board?

Is the applicant for 66 Condor Street present? Will you please raise your hand if you are?

Madam Chair, I don't see anybody.

Okay, if that's the case, I'm going to have us take a break before we go back to the rest of the cases. For how long? So let's take a 15-minute break. Okay, thank you.

Mr. Stembridge. Present. Mr. Valencia.

Present.

Ms. Turner. Present. Mr. Langham. Present. Ms. Better Barraza.

Present.

Ms. Whewell.

Present.

Thank you. The floor is yours, Mr. Stembridge. I heard our interpretation is here now.

Yes, so I will read it into the record and we will go from there, Madam Chair, for the interpretation and rediscussion scheduled for 12 p.m. This is case BOA 1689794 with the address of 62 to 66 Condor Street.

and I believe Attorney Lins has some information for us.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Stembridge, and I apologize, Madam Chair, Three of the members of the board. The record Richard Lind's business address of 245 Summer Street East Boston. On behalf of the petitioner, there were a number of Thank you, Mr. Chair. In reviewing this further, there was a new violation that was cited and we will be requesting interpretation on that as well. So at this time, I think it's just appropriate to defer this matter while I review the one remaining violation that Hopefully we can get ISD to agree with us on it. If not, I'll resubmit for a different interpretation question. So brief deferral on this if that's possible.

Okay. Caroline? How much time do you need, Richard?

Two weeks. By the next hearing, I should have that wrapped up.

We can do it February 3rd. That works. Okay. With that, may I have a motion?

Motion to defer to the federated third.

I'll have a second.

Second.

Stembridge. Yes.

Valencia.

Yes.

Ms. Turner. Yes. Mr. Langham?

Yes.

Ms. Better Barraza? Yes. Ms. Whewell? Yes. Chair votes yes. Motion carries. See you then. Thank you very much. Appreciate it.

Returning to the cases for the Redescription for 1130, we have case BOA 1765915,

with the address of 3430 to 3436 Washington Street.

Along with that, we have case BOA 1767062.

with the address of 3440 to 3446 Washington Street. These are both Article 80 cases. If the applicant and the representative are present, would they please explain?

Yes, good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the board. Mark Lacasse, Lacasse Law, 75 Arlington Street in Boston, attorney for the project proponent, Boston Real Estate Capital. through its principal, Joe Hassel. Also with us today is the project architect, Mark Sullivan from Chu and Associates. and thank you so much. This is an exciting new project along Washington Street in Jamaica Plain that has been advanced over a two-year process under Article 80 pursuant to Plan J.P. Rocks, which calls for conversion of auto-related industrial uses to multifamily residential housing along the stretch of Washington Street, and as noted in the PPDA memo of approval, There have been many similar projects along Washington Street that have been approved.

Some have been constructed, some are in construction, some are about to be constructed. But this particular site at these two parcels, 3430 and 3440, bisected by Rockvale Circle. You can leave it on that first slide because that's a good image. represents a total of 230 units of new housing along this corridor. The Article 80 process was very engaged with all of the various community groups, of which there were several different ones. and as noted at the BPDA board vote approving this project in July of 2025, All were in agreement, especially the applicant, that the impact advisory group was just a terrific, roll up your sleeves kind of working group.

Thank you for joining us. and I think that was substantial and significant. The BPDA board voted on July of 2025 to approve it under Article 80. And each of the projects at 3430 and 3440 are as follows. At 3440, it's a new six-story building with 130 units. Two ground floor retail spaces totaling 4,450 square feet and garage parking on 3440 Washington Street. It's construction of a new five-story building for 100 units. Two ground floor retail spaces of 6,340 square feet and garage parking.

Although this project was proposed and advanced pursuant to IDP before it became inclusionary zoning under Article 79, the project does meet or to some extent exceed the IDP requirements of Article 79, achieving 20% IDP units, so that's 46% of 230 units are subject to inclusionary zoning and also a different metric measurement. 23% of the gross floor area of the two buildings constitutes the inclusionary development units. So for those of you who are familiar with the stretch of Washington Street, this is the Hadoff's gas station on the project on the right of the image. and an auto body shop on the left hand side of the image. So precisely the types of uses contemplated.

But she planned JP Rocks to be converted from industrial use to residential use. Breakdown of the specifics. The 3430 Washington Street building will contain 130 units and 54 parking spaces. 3440 is 100 units with 42 parking spaces. The specific breakdown is in total there are 70 studio units, 104 one-bedroom units, and 56 two-bedroom units, which represents... Thank you for joining us. We lowered the building there and made those very interesting townhouse style units with sort of street level access. Again, the Article 80 process includes IDP units as follows.

20% in total IDP units, and that is 13% of the total units will be income restricted at up to 70% of AMI. and an additional 7% of the units are to be made available to households with housing vouchers qualifying at or below 110% of AMI. and of the 46 IDP units, five are studios, 18 are two bedrooms, and 23 are one bedrooms. and that aligns with the basic proportion of the market rate units in the two buildings. There was also a community benefits package which is detailed in the board memo that includes contributions to English High School, Franklin Park Coalition, 826 Boston, which is a nonprofit after-school writing and tutoring program, and a grant to Habitat for Humanity.

to contribute to an affordable housing project in the vicinity. The project also meets Article 37 requirements and transportation contributions for the city's bike sharing program, bike storage, and other Transportation Design Contributions. With that, I would like to turn it over to Mark Sullivan from Chewen Associates to talk about Sort of the architectural philosophy behind the buildings, the outdoor spaces, and comment briefly also on the substantial changes that were made throughout the process. which actually ultimately resulted in BCDC approval of the design as part of that process. I'll turn it over to Mark Sullivan.

Thank you, Mark. Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is Mark Sullivan with Chew & Company, architects for the project. The design looks to achieve a smooth transition from the commercial nature of Washington Street to the residential neighborhoods to the south. by creating a strong street wall along that Washington Street corridor and stepping back the massing along the abutting residential typology. Enhancements to the public realm occur on all sides of the development. Public entry plazas along Washington Street help promote pedestrian engagement. While introducing new landscape areas to the urban setting and signifying the building entries, the continuation of widened sidewalks and street tree plantings continue down Rockville Circle and Kent Road, the two smaller residential roads. that help delineate the two sites and they help transition to that residential fabric mentioned at the rear of the sites to the south.

In terms of materiality, the heavy masonry material helps kind of ground the Washington Street facade to its contextual surroundings and emphasize the corners of the massing along Washington Street. A transition to more residential materiality occurs as the massing makes its way to the south towards those residential neighborhoods. This includes horizontal and vertical metal paneling, emulating the kind of more traditional virus meant lap siding found in the residential design. And that concludes our presentation. I'd be happy to answer any questions from the board.

Thank you. Are there any questions from the board?

Yeah, Madam Chair, just I wanted to ask Hector de la Cas about this project was filed in 2024. Fred, correctly. Last year, we had this board review a project to expand the gas station, the head-off gas station. And at the moment, I ask why the proponent was filing two different projects at the same time. So I just wanted to confirm that this is a different project from the one that we saw last year to expand the gas station. And if that is correct, I absolutely believe that housing is better than a gas station, but I wanted to hear from you.

Yes, Mr. Valencia, the proposal to expand the gas station was sort of an interim measure pending this process of approval and design and financing and construction. which already has taken two years and may take a while longer before construction actually occurs. And also this hadn't concluded the review process of approval. So the current owner of the station sought to expand, but that project obviously was denied by the board. and this project is what is going to replace Hadoff's Gas. So housing, not gas station is the proposal. The other one is dead. Okay, thank you.

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

I'm not sure if somebody from ONS is speaking.

I'm sorry, was I muted? Yes, we cannot hear you. Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Benbury. I'm the Jamaica Plain Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. This is an Article 80 project that had public meetings hosted by the Planning Department on October 29th of 2024, May 19th of 2025. In addition to the IAG meetings... We're going to be speaking, honey.

Please proceed, sir.

In addition, To the IAG meetings on October 21st, 2024, March 24th, 2025, and June 23rd of 2025. This was approved by the BPDA Board on July 17th of 2025. This project met with the Director Brothers and the Stony Brook Neighborhood Association more than once, and on October 6, 2025, the Stony Brook Neighborhood Association voted to not oppose the proposal. The J.P. Neighborhood Council voted to approve this project on October 15th. To date, our office has not received any letters of opposition. 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.

Thanks. Next, now we have the person, Kalia, you can now unmute yourself.

Okay, thank you guys. This is Kaliga. This project takes place in my neighborhood. I am on the steering committee of the Stony Brook Neighborhood Association, as well as on the JPNC, the JP Neighborhood Council. I can say that one reason we approved this project was that the developer has been very much responsive to community concerns and input. And that is very refreshing. So we definitely back this project, but I also want to make a comment to the ZBA in general. There is a big concern that people are less and less listening to neighborhood concerns, neighborhood associations and councils,

Even when like 90% of the feedback is against things, it sails through all the alphabet, ZBA, ISD, BPDA. and to have a developer that is responsive is one reason that we approve this. We will work with any developer But our job as councilors and as neighborhood association members is to preserve quality of life to people in the neighborhood. We fight for that and we feel like we're fighting you a lot of the time. I just want you to know that because you need to start listening to the neighborhood and you need to understand that there's a balance with all of this it's not just build build build Okay, thank you very much. Thank you.

Madam Chair, there are no additional comments. Okay, with that, may I have a motion?

Madam Chair, this is a really good project. I appreciate the effort that the developer put to engage the community. And I make a motion of approval.

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

Yes.

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

Yes.

Ms. Wewell?

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Thank you, kindly members of the board.

Good luck.

Next we have, excuse me. Next we have case BOA 1719823 with the address of 32 Gordon Street.

The applicants and board of representatives.

I believe Attorney Maranci is present.

Would they please explain the case to the board?

Yes, thank you, Mr. Stembridge. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is George Maranci. I'm an attorney with the business address of 350 West Broadway in South Boston. I represent City Realty. In this matter, joining me from City Realty is Jacob Simmons. Also here is Eric Zacherson, the project architect. This petition seeks variances for use lot area for dwelling units, floor area ratio using the locum space, SIDEYARD SETBACK AND OFF-STREET PARKING IN ORDER TO COMPLETE THE PROPOSED CONVERSION OF AN EXISTING THREE-UNIT BUILDING INTO A SIX-UNIT Unit Residential Building located at 32 Cordon Street in a 3F4000 zone sub-district. The property is located on a residential side street in Austin between North Beacon and Cambridge Street near Harvard Avenue. It was noted in the planning recommendation

The immediate context here is a compact residential block characterized by triple-deckers and small multi-family buildings. The site lies near the Western Avenue and Harvard Avenue corridors, both identified in the Alston-Brighton Community Plan as transition zones with growing housing demand and incremental density pressures. This is a current three-story, three-family structure, as I say, which is typical of all students of early 20th century residential housing stock. Under the application, we are seeking zoning relief in order to expand the building's residential capacity through an internal reconfiguration of space. and modest exterior alterations consistent with recent small-scale infill patterns observed across similar three family districts in Alston.

where mobility conversions are increasingly occurring as a reinvestment in or adaptation of older housing stock. As to the violations and requested zoning relief, there is a use violation as I noted for the proposed six dwelling units. Where the multi-family use does exceed that maximum three limits under zoning, the proposed use here still remains Residential in character and consistent with surrounding multi-family structures on Gordon Street. The proposed use would not change the character, simply it would be a matter of better utilizing the existing three-story envelope. As for the lot area, in the 3,000 or 4,000, there's essentially 2,000 square foot. Per unit minimum lot size requirement.

Here with six units, we would be at approximately 868 square feet, given that the parcel is approximately 4,344 square feet. But the additional units here would be achieved, as I say, through an interior reconfiguration rather than an expansion of the building. So the project continues to respect the neighborhood scale. As the plan shows, the proposal here is not to build out. Rather, this would be building more efficiently within what is already there. With respect to FAR, the resulting FAR will be approximately 1.09, whereas 0.8 is the maximum. This increase arises not from change in the building's massing. but from extension of living space into the basement and attic which are common conditions in nearby properties. What's being proposed is converting Underutilized basement and attic space, not creating additional building bulk.

With respect to open space, and again I go back to the planning recommendation, which notes that given the small lot pattern and consistent We have conditions in this area that we believe is appropriate since what is being proposed merely reflects the reality of Alston's compact urban fabric where small lots are actually the norm. The side yard setback here of 5 feet 7 inches is an existing nonconformity. 6 feet is required by code. No additional encroachment is proposed. And once again, the envelope of the building is not being extended in any direction. With respect to parking, no off-street parking spaces currently exist and none are proposed. The planning recommendation correctly notes that the property's proximity to MBTA bus routes and the Green Line supports a car-light residential model consistent with city mobility goals.

This location steps from multiple bus routes and the green line is exactly where the city is looking to reduce car dependency and promote transit-oriented development. At this time, manager, I'll turn the presentation over to Eric Zacherson to take the board through the architectural drawings and then we'll pause and take any questions that the board may have. Eric? Thank you, George. Can you hear me?

Yes, sir. Can you scroll to the next page? Basically, the existing plans show one more page to the first sheet of plans. The existing building is a fairly large residential building, so the idea is to build one Um, unit in the basement, which is largely above grade and even walk out at the rear. Um, and then put two units on level two, two units on, uh, level one and one unit on level three. So as one enters the building on the right, you would have a one-bedroom, one-bath unit on the right, a two-bed, one-bath unit on the left, and a stair up to the units above and a stair down to the Two-bed, two-bath unit in the basement. which is the drawing on the left side. You'll note that at the front of the building, the two bedrooms towards the front do have window wells.