Zoning Board of Appeal

Recording in progress.

Good morning. The City of Boston Zoning Board of Appeal hearing for October 28th, 2025 is now in session. This hearing is being conducted in accordance with the applicable provisions of the open meeting law, including the updated provisions enacted by the legislature this year. The new law allows the board to continue its practice of holding virtual hearings through June 2025. This hearing of the board is being held remotely via the Zoom webinar event platform and is also being live streamed. In order to ensure this hearing of the board is open to the public, members of the public may access this hearing through telephone and video conferencing. The information for connecting to this hearing is listed on today's hearing agenda, which is posted on the public notices page of the city's website, boston.gov. Members of the public will enter the virtual hearing as attendees, which means you will not see yourself on the screen and you will be muted throughout unless administratively unmuted when asked to comment. Board members, applicants, and their attorneys or representatives will participate in the hearing as panelists and they will appear alongside the presentation materials when speaking. Panelists are strongly encouraged to keep video on while presenting to the board. In order to ensure this hearing of the board is open to the public, members of the public may access this hearing through telephone and video conferencing. Information for connecting to this hearing is listed on today's hearing agenda, which is posted on the public notices page of the city's website, boston.gov. Members of the public will enter the virtual hearing as attendees, which means you will not see yourself on screen. and you will be muted throughout unless administratively unmuted when asked to comment. Board members, applicants and their attorneys or representatives will participate in the hearing as panelists and they will appear alongside the presentation materials when speaking. Panelists are strongly encouraged to keep video on while presenting to the board. If you wish to comment on APO, 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 6 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. Mr. Stembridge. You're on mute, Mr. Stembridge.

Good morning, Madam Chair, President.

Good morning. Mr. Valencia.

Good morning, Madam Chair present.

Good morning, Ms. Turner. Good morning, Madam Chair present. Good morning, Ms. Whewell. Good morning, Madam Chair present. Good morning, Mr. Collins.

Good morning, Madam Chair, President.

Good morning, Ms. Pinado. Good morning, Madam Chair, President. And when you were reading your introduction, I think in the air you said that we could hold virtual meetings through June 2025, but it's June 2027. My bad.

Thanks for catching that. I'm glad someone's paying attention. With that I'll turn it over to Mr. Stembridge.

Thank you Madam Chair. Good morning folks. I begin with the approval of hearing minutes scheduled for 9 30 a.m. These minutes are from October 7th of this year. I'll make a motion to accept the minutes.

Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Wewell? Yes. Mr. Collins?

Yes.

Ms. Pinado. Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Next, we have the extension scheduled for 9.30 a.m. There are eight of them, eight extension requests this morning. I'll read through all of them. If there are any questions you can ask Madam Chair and then we'll take a vote. First, we have case BOA. 1261925 with the address of 150 Neyland Street. Next we have case BOA 1345655. with the address of 11 Spring Garden Street. Next, we have case BOA 1266935, with the address of 144 to 162 Charles Street. Next we have case VOA 1298301. with the address of 17 Warren Place. Next we have case BOA 1477573 with the address of 28A Reedlawn. Next we have Case BOA-134-9982 with the address of 1318 River Street. Next we have Case BOA-148 4717 with the address of 229 to 233 Bowdoin Street. And the last extension requested for case BOA 153 8261 with the address of 215 to 217 Brighton Avenue. And those are the extensions requested for today.

Thank you. Any questions from the board? If not, may I have a motion to grant the extensions as requested? Motion to grant the extensions as requested. Is there a second?

Second.

Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Whewell? Yes. Mr. Collins?

Yes.

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

Next, we have board final arbitration cases scheduled for 9.30 a.m. There are four cases, which we'll go through individually. First, we have case BOA. 1298430 with the address of 717

Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Hello and good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Mike Ross. I'm an attorney with the law firm of Prince Lobel at One International Place in Boston. This is a matter to remove a proviso from a 2022 decision that states relief granted to this by this decision is for this applicant only. You've seen these on several of the cannabis establishment cases that have come before you. The applicant in this case is Sia Samura, and he has been an apprentice within this existing cannabis establishment since it opened. and he's been handling the product manufacturing within the facility. This applicant will now be starting his own company, a product manufacturing company. and now he'll begin leasing a portion of this establishment in order to do so and so from a on the ground perspective this is there's no changes to the facility but since Mr. Samora is technically a new applicant. We need to remove this proviso from the decision in order to be compliant. I'm happy to answer any questions.

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

Motion is approved.

Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

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

Thank you. Next, we have Case BOA-911-768 with the address of 1524 VFW Parkway. Atreyuos.

Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Good morning. This is Attorney Ross from the law firm of Prince Louisville International Place. This is also a matter to remove a proviso from a 2022 decision that states relief granted by this decision is for this petitioner only. The petitioner in this case is doing business as Duchess Cannabis and is purchasing the cannabis establishment from the current owner of this facility, Beacon Compassion Inc., which is currently operating and opened today because the petitioner is purchasing the assets rather than the company. It is treated as a new application by the Boston Cannabis Board. which approved this application on September 24th of this year. So other than the signage, there will be no physical changes made to this facility, but since Duchess is a new petitioner, We must remove the proviso in order to comply with the 2022 decision. Happy to answer any questions.

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

Make a motion to approve.

Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Whewell? Yes. Mr. Collins?

Yes.

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

Thank you. Next, we have case BOA-144-3137 with the address of 43-45 Stamford Street. Attorney Ross.

Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Good morning again. My name is Mike Ross with the law firm of Prince Elba, One International Place, for the petitioner. This is a 14-unit, 16-parking space project that was approved by the board on June 28th of 2024. We are seeking a minor modification to the plans in order to reduce the number of parking spaces from 16 to 15 as a result of design review process by Boston Planning. specifically the handicap parking space was relocated out of an open space area to allow for a little bit more open space and to placed under the building and then we reduced the parking So, very minor change, but because that parking space was reduced Even though we received relief for parking a year ago, we still had to come back for the minor modification through this board of final arbiter mechanism. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Any questions from the board?

Just to make sure I understood, you are preserving the handicap space, right?

Correct, correct. If you go to the site plan, the architect site plan, I think upper, you'll see it just sits under the building near the rear. If you keep going up, I think, keep going up, yeah, let's see.

Sorry, I'm going to zoom in here. Okay.

Yeah, there you go. Thank you. Right there, kind of in the middle to the left there. That's now the new location of the handicap space, or the accessibility space, rather. You can see on the left, below the stairwell there.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Ross.

Yeah, thank you very much.

Is it moving to a more advantageous location for accessibility?

Yes, it's right next to the core of the building. I believe it was off... You know, I didn't handle the round one for this, but I believe it was off where the open space is.

Okay. This is Eric Jackson, architect for the project. Ms. Pinado, We relocated the handicap ramp and handicap access as part of this whole thing to make sure that there's direct access from the handicap space to the lobby.

Okay, thank you.

Thanks, Eric.

All right. Any other questions from the board? Hearing none, is there a motion?

Make a motion to approve.

Is there a second? Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Whewell? Yes. Mr. Collins?

Yes.

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

Thank you very much.

And next we have case BOA 1476876 with the address of 246 Hog Street. If the applicant and or their representative are present, Will they please explain to the book?

Yes, Mr. Stembridge, thank you. Good morning. Madam Chair, members of the board, for the record, Richard Lins with the business address of 245 Sumner Street, East Boston. On behalf of the petitioner, with me is Eric Zacherson from Context, who is the project architect. Madam Chair, the Board may recall this project was approved by the Board back in, I believe, 2024 for a nine-unit multifamily residential building, new construction. which would occupy a 5,000 square foot vacant site. The relief that was granted included relief for the height of the building, as well as the backyard setback. We have appeared before this board previously on a board final arbiter to make some design changes relative to the second means of egress and stairwell. This project is already under construction. A permit was issued and there are some slight modifications that were brought up during the final design. which included an additional second means of egress for the proposed roof deck that is above the fourth level. We do have the roof deck identified as an exclusive roof deck for Unit 8, which is accessed via Ahead of House. However, in reviewing that, ISD had also cited a necessity or requirement to have a second means of egress for that. While we don't necessarily agree with that interpretation, we do believe that the quickest way to address this is to incorporate that second means of egress. And I can have Eric talk a little bit more further if there's any specific questions on that. I will point out that although we are requesting the change by Board Final Arbiter, we do not change anything with respect to the footprint or The overall zoning height of the building, all of this is done within the approved envelope. But because it is a design change, ISD has requested that we request final arbiter for this change. So I will pause there. And if there's any specific questions, we can have Eric or myself address those. Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

Is there a second?

Second. Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Whewell? Yes. Mr. Collins?

Yes.

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

Thank you very much. Next we'll move on to the recommendations scheduled for 9 30 a.m. Once again I'll read through all of the recommendations and this about all of them were approved. And if you have any questions, you can pose them to Madam Chair and we'll move on from there. These recommendations come from the subcommittee's meeting on Thursday, October 23rd. And we'll begin with case BOA 1720663 with the address of 14 Monument Court. The case was approved. Next we have Case BOA 1763426 with the address of 200 State Street, which was approved. Next we have Case BOA 1763426 with the address of 200 State Street, which was approved. 2978 with the address of 152 Canal Street. The case was approved to remove the proviso of appearing in front of BPD for screening and offering review with an expiration date of four years. Next, we have case BOA 1773004, with the address of 113 to 129 Seaport Boulevard. That case was withdrawn. Next, we have case BOA-1759625. with the address of 604 East 3rd Street. The case was approved. Next, we have case BOA 1746157. with the address of 70 Charles Street. The case was approved. Next, we have case BOA 1747232 with the address of 10 Marmion Street. Case was approved with planning department design review on the size and dimensions of the drama. Next, you have case VOA-175. 7199 with the address of 8 Sylvester Road. The case was approved. Next, we have case VOA 1756052. with the address of 83 to 85 Cornell Street. The case was approved. And finally, we have case BOA 1769103 with the address of 26 Windham Street. The case was deferred until November 6th at the next subcommittee meeting. And those are the case records. Those are the recommendation cases from the subcommittee, Madam Chair.

Thank you. May I have a motion? Motion to approve. Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Mr. Collins?

Yes.

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

Next, we'll move on to the hearing schedule for 9.30 a.m. At this time, we'll ask if there are any requests for withdrawals or deferrals from the 9.30 a.m. time frame.

Mr. Burns?

Yes, Mr. Stembridge. We'll be looking to defer 38 Fenway.

So that would be for HBOA? 1653647 with the address of 38 Fenway. Would you go ahead and explain, please?

Yes, and good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board, Justin Burns of the Bulgini & Norton, Business Address 10 Forbes Road, Braintree, Massachusetts. We're just looking for a deferral, hopefully in the range of four to six weeks. We're looking to implement some design changes based on Summit Butter feedback we received during the community process, and we just want to make sure that ISD has the opportunity to review before we come before the board again.

Stephanie? December 9th.

Yep, perfect.

May I have a motion?

Motion to defer this case until December 9th.

Second. Thank you. Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Wuwo? Yes. Mr. Collins?

Yes.

Ms. Pinado? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Thank you very much.

Are there any further requests for withdrawals or deferrals from the 9.30 a.m. time frame? Hearing none, then... We'll move on to case BOA 173319 with the address of 22 Pratt Street. This is an Article 80 case, so if the applicant and or their representative would explain to the board.

I thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board, Chris Ranier from Goulston & Stores, One Post Office Square, on behalf of the developer, which is a joint venture between Heinz and Clare Properties. and I have with me today, and they should be elevated as panelists if they haven't been, but Matt McCollum, I'm sorry, Matt McCollum, Senior Director from Heinz, as well as James Gray, a principal at Stantec who will go over some of the design plans. I wanted just to give a brief overview of the project and the project site and then as I said I'll turn it over to James if we can go to next slide please. So the project, by way of overview, this is a multifamily project in the Alston neighborhood of approximately 318 units, including substantial affordability. We're at about 17%. On-site affordable units, that equals 54 onsite affordable units. And during the review process, we deepened the affordability to range from 50% up to 70% AMI. and we also committed to approximately 27% two and three bedroom units, so some larger units on the project. In addition to new jobs and tax revenue, The project's going to include substantial open space. As we went through the review process and engaged the community, they encouraged us to shrink the footprint of the building, go higher, Go taller for the number of units to meet the city's goals for increased housing, but also push the building to the rear of the site and we'll show you in the next slide The railroad tracks to our rear. But that allows us to have some substantial on-site open space that James will go through. That will be publicly accessible, will include a dog park, New Blue Bike Station. So I think a real amenity to the neighborhood. And then also through that process, we added some significant landscaping and The project itself is an all electric mechanical design. and it's designed to target both LEED Gold and Passive House certifications. Next slide, please. So here's our project site. It's outlined in yellow. We're looking back east towards the downtown. You can see one of our largest abutters or frontages is the railroad tracks to our rear. We also have the future Alston Green project to our west along Linden Street and they also wrap around to most of our Pratt Street frontage. We've engaged with them and we'll go into it a little bit more during the design process and we're pleased To have in the board's records a letter of support from LBC, which is the proponent of that Alston Green project, and we've worked well with them. The site itself is irregularly shaped. It's got some narrow frontage out to Pratt Street, which is our access. It also slopes down from Pratt and Linden Street into our site. So these constraints together with some changes that we are encouraged to make during the review process have led to many of the zoning relief requests in front of the board today. We can go to the next slide, please. This shows some existing photos on the site. There are some low-rise industrial buildings, really underutilized. We do have some interim commercial tenants on site, but this really is a site that is calling out for redevelopment and we're excited to advance this project. We have completed large project review. We were approved by the BPA board back in June of 2024. The design that you'll see today was approved by the Boston Civic Design Commission. And the affordable commitment that I overview, the 17% affordability That was reviewed through the Boston Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Assessment Process and was approved by the Boston Interagency Fair Housing Development Committee. As I mentioned, there's a letter of support from the Alston Green developer in your files and there's also a letter of non-opposition in your files from Alston Village Main Streets. The project, as I mentioned, did go through some changes during review. We pulled down the height of the building on the west wing adjacent to the Elliston Green project. We pushed the building to the train tracks in the rear, which I think will provide a nice buffer from the neighborhood and we increased the open space as much as we could while keeping a substantial amount of housing and affordable housing commitments. With that, I will turn it over to James who will go over the project site plan and some of the elevations.

Thank you. So I'll just encourage high level and focus on the relief that you're seeking. We have quite a number of Article 80s and others, so please just be brief. Thank you.

Sure thing. So just I think I can speak a little bit more to the relief we're seeking. We're seeking variances. One is for multifamily use in the neighborhood. The other is for FAR to go above the underlying FAR. As mentioned, the city encouraged us to go to a taller building height, so we're seeking a building height And then because of our regular site and putting some fencing and landscaping of some scale in our front side and rear yard setbacks, we do have variance requests for setbacks, but those are primarily for landscaping and screening. The building itself is also partially in the rear setback, but that rear setback is along the train tracks to our rear. The zoning relief I'll note is consistent with, if not, in some instances, is lower than that granted for the abutting project to our west and southwest, the Alston Green project. With that, James, if you could go over a high-level presentation of the project, that would be great.

Happy to. Madam Chair, members of the board, thank you. My name is James Ray. I'm a Senior Principal at Stantec Architecture. Could you advance the slide, please? My job, of course, is to just show the illustrations of what Chris described. You can see here the building, as Chris mentioned, sits back closer to the railroad tracks. And what that does is affords a great deal of open space in the front. I'll let the little labels speak for themselves, but Terraces and Blue Bike Stations and Drop Off and Parklets are full of good open space and open space that's open to the community. Next slide, please. Just the ground floor plan, as you can see, you know, the business side of the building on the right with the loading and the electrical infrastructure, etc. And then units on the left and then amenities for the community in the middle. Keep going, please. Next slide. Upper level plans, a mix of studios ones and twos and threes. Next slide, please. and then finally the upper level. And as Chris said, we were encouraged to push the height to the middle of the site. And so the white boxes you see to the left or the right are only seven stories high, stepping down toward the neighborhood. Final slide, I think, is our final couple of slides, just some illustrations of what the project will look like when completed. That's Alston Green on the left and then our project straight ahead in the blue bikes, as you can see here. Next slide, please. and then an overview so that you can see how that all plays out in three dimensions. And in keeping with your instructions, that's it.

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

Yes, Madam Chair, members of the board, Connor Newman with the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services. It's time the Mayor's Office to defer to the judgment of this board. Some background information, the community process. This went through a BPD-led, excuse me, Boston Planning Department-led community process involving several public meetings as well as IAG meetings. The applicant engaged with the Austin Civic Association securing their support. Their civic president, Tony, will be able to elaborate on that. They also worked with the Alston Village Main Streets as well as their abutting property next door, Alston Green, that previously went through a BPA-led process and was approved by this board. That information will defer to the board at this time. Thank you.

Thank you. Hi, we have Anthony Desidoro.

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. Tony Desidoro representing the Austin Civic Association. We would like to go on record in support This proposal provides badly needed housing that is accessible and affordable and it transforms the site into a hopefully vibrant mixed-use neighborhood. with a lot of publicly accessible open space and appropriate screening and buffering from the neighborhood buildings on Pratt Street. We are especially supportive of the number of two and three bedroom units. As you know, the Gardner-Pratt area, Ashford Street area, has a high concentration of For undergraduate students, housing and all the problems that go with it. And we want to emphasize the need to have this project be transformative for the neighborhood. and for the proponents to stay clear as much as possible from undergraduate student rentals. Graduates are fine, young professionals, families, seniors, all that works. But there has been a lot of problems over there with undergraduate student housing. And we would like this project to lead the way to a more transformative and stable neighborhood. Thank you.

Thank you.

And next we have Maynard Perez.

Thank you, Mr. Ambassador, Madam Chair, members of the board. This is Maynard Perez. I'm here representing thousands of union carpenters that live and work throughout the city of Boston. Also representing dozens of general contractors and subcontractors that keep our members employed, we are in strong support of this project. And kudos to the developer for hanging in there for a long and arduous process.

Thank you Madam Chair. There are no additional comments.

That may have a motion.

I make a motion of approval. This is a good project and I especially appreciate all the units for 50% area-medium income. I think that is very important, so I make a motion of approval.

All right, and you've heard a second. Thank you. Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Whewell?

Yes.

Mr. Collins?

Yes.

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

Thank you very much. Next, we have case VOA 176. 0425 with the address of 809-821 Beacon Street. If the applicant and or their representative are present, will they please explain to the board?

Yes, good morning, Madam Chairman and board members. My name is Larry Baker. I'm the owner of Priority Parking. We're here at 809 to 821 Beacon Street. The owner of the property is Children's Hospital. We're here for the conditional use permit to continue. It's been the same owners and the same operator over here for over 30 years. We're not looking to change any operations. Any capacity, hours of operation. We're here before the board because we have a proviso that says we need to report every five years. We're not looking to have the proviso removed. More than happy to come back. Five years now to readdress any issues, but no changes on the operation or the owners. Thank you.

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

Good morning Madam Chair and members. Siggy Johnson with the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services. This applicant has completed the ONS community process. Our office oversaw distribution of an informational flyer to all abutting City Parcels within 300 feet which solicited seven letters of support from abutting business owners and employees of local businesses and one letter of opposition from an abutter which have all been forwarded to the board. The Autobahn Circle Neighborhood Association has additionally met and had a dialogue with the applicant. With that background, our office defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Madam Chair, we have Santi.

Good morning, Honourable Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is Sandeep Karnak. I'm a 15-year resident at 16 Miner Street in a direct abutter withstanding. I respectfully ask that you deny priority parking or Mr. Lawrence Baker's application for renewal or variances or if anything is granted to adopt some clear enforceable conditions with specific or written findings. The harms are ongoing and documented. I've submitted a document to the board as well that categorizes those. The harms include staging of construction with diesel generators, heavy equipment on the land, unstriped parking against 16 Miners Facade with cars and other vehicles coming right up against the facade. Drainage failures, security and graffiti issues, event night queues spilling over onto the nearby streets, including Maitland, Brookline Minor, Fullerton and Minor. These are not one-offs, they are in fact operational patterns and continuous issues. If relief is granted, I would respectfully request that A continuous physical buffer is provided with setbacks. A stamped fire department access plan preserving a 20-foot lane behind the building so ladder trucks can come in. The operations should be noted as being quiet zone and no idling. and a BTD approved circulation plan as well to be included, especially for peak nights of traffic after events. Thank you. Lighting issues as well. Thank you.

Thank you, Sander. We have one more person, I think. I'm not sure if the number 508-662 is speaking in this case. If not, we have somebody from the City Councilor, Sam Courage.

Good morning Madam Chair, members of the board. This is Sam Courage with Councilor Sharon Durkan's office. The Councilor and her office have been in contact with a proponent as well as abettors and associations in the area. The Councilor would like to go on record in non-opposition of this proposal. The Councilor appreciates the work done by the proponent in terms of communication with the neighborhood, their willingness to come back every five years. We've also been in contact with local associations and abutters who do have valid points in terms of screening and buffering. And we would like to see possibly some conversations around the lighting. if that is a nuisance to neighbors particularly in the middle of the night but other than that the councilors are non-opposition. Thanks so much. Thank you.

Madam Chair, there is one more person. I don't know if we have time for this. One more. Okay. The number 617-653. You can unmute yourself now. The number that ends in 4-4. This is your opportunity to speak.

I'm sorry, am I being heard?

Are you speaking on 809 Beacon Street? Yes. Okay, please state your support. Yes, go ahead.

Well, my name is Dolores Bogdanian. Thank you, Madam Chair. I live at Park Drive and 452 Park Drive. I'm currently president of the Audubon Circle Neighborhood Association. And quickly, we did, in fact, meet with Mr. Larry Baker. who is very accommodating and clearly is sincere in wanting to be a good neighbor. But I think there is something that the neighborhood would like to see happen. This lot is abutted on three sides by residential buildings. It's a very busy lot. Children's Hospital employees and shuttles and Fenway ball game and concert crowds coming in and out so it is a busy lot and it does affect the abutters and I appreciate Mr. I would just like to make a few recommendations to the board. If you were to approve this, I would recommend, of course, keeping the proviso and perhaps making it two or three years. Thank you. Thank you. and also I would like to recommend the city suggest a EV parking space is at least two. This is an over 200 spot parking lot and I think EV parking stations are appropriate. and something that we'd like to encourage in our city. Talking about parking spaces, there are 249 listed. I think some of those parking spaces were lost and so whether that we have 249 is a question for you and I'd also like to provide that there be no construction staging and construction parking at this lot because it doesn't increase the impact Thank you. I'll stop talking. Bye-bye.

Mr. Hampton, can we hear from you from BPD's recommendation? Are you on? Okay, can the applicant respond to the feedback quickly?

Yes, thank you. And I'll go down the list real quick for you. In regards to the lighting, the same lighting has been in place for 50 years. We recently changed it three, four years ago and made it LED to make it quieter and drawing less power, but same poles, same lighting. We're going to look at It's at approximately 50 feet in the air. The people that are affected and the lights go straight down into the parking lot. They're not angled in any direction. I think if you're in a lower level unit and you look up, you're going to see the lights. I think that's the impact. But the yard directed straight down. In regards to the EV, that's something that we did speak to the Civic Association about that we'd look into. Also, keeping the proviso and communicating with the neighborhood on a regular basis. I'm all for it. I did meet with Dolores, the president of the Civic Association, We walked the property. We spent an hour over there just talking about the neighborhood in general. And I'd love to keep the lines of communication open and to work with the neighborhood.

Mom, should I have a question?

Yes.

Go ahead.

Thank you, I'm sorry. I see on the BBDA recommendation, the planning department, that there is a housing for a mixed-use building approved since 2021. What is going to happen with that project that was approved for this site?

That project is off the table. The funding, the agreement, everything is off the table in regards to development of the property currently. We're here only for the conditional use permit of the parking lot, but there is no development lined up currently.

Okay, so the only plan for this site is to be a parking lot for the next several years?

Yes.

Thank you, Chief.

You're welcome. Thank you. And I'm sorry, I'm going to miss your response to the screening and buffering comment. Could you comment about screening and buffering?

Yes, we've actually added eight Excuse me, seven trees recently around the perimeter. The buffer of the building years ago when the building was built 15 years ago, I put up three foot ballads across the back of the building. to prevent any damage to the building with cars or plowing and we've had zero issues on that buffering. I am going to upgrade it though. I did speak with Delores about upgrading it. The ballads are just staggered. We're going to run some chaining or some roping around it also to double the enforcement. But there has been no damage to the abutters buildings. in the 15 years it's been there. It got developed 15 years ago.

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

I'll make a motion to approve.

With the five-year proviso?

Yes.

Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia.

No, I think there should be some limits about the time in our plan for this site, so I'm going to vote no.

Ms. Kerner.

Was that Ms. Turner, you said? Yes, Ms. Turner, sorry. Okay, just to be clear, this is for the five-year proviso, right?

Supporting... This request with a five-year proviso, yes. Okay, yes. Okay, Ms. Whewell. Okay.

I guess I'm a little confused between the planning recommendation and this, so it sounds like we're, what are we approving, I guess?

Yeah, I think the motion is problematic because Basically, we're agreeing to remove the conditional use that this provision that it be allowed for parking go away. and then we're asking them to come back in five years but it sounds like You need to deny the proposal and renew it.

Let's have Mr. Hampton weigh in since he did not get to speak earlier because I think there's a little confusion about... What's being requested. Go, please. So I see your mouth moving, but we can't hear you. Are you trying to speak, Mr. Hampton? Because we still can't hear you.

I'm trying. We got a new computer. Oh, here we go. We got you. All right. My apologies. We have a new toy in my office, so I'm getting used to it. Good morning, everyone. Jeff Hampton, City of Boston Planning Department. We are in support of a five-year extension of this sunset, so I think an appropriate motion would be to extend The proviso for five years and extend the conditional use permit. I know it's a little confusing on our recommendation that you see denial. We would recommend denial of removing the proviso in its entirety. and having it just be in perpetuity a parking lot. That's not something that we would support. We would support a five-year extension of the sunset clause So I think that would probably be a better recommendation to extend the conditional use for an additional five years.

Thank you. So, Mr. Collins, would you like to revise your motion?

I think that's the current motion, isn't it?

That's what I thought, but I think everyone...

So right now it's a- That was his motion. Provisor. So it stays as is.

All right. Is that clear to folks? Is there a second? Second. Okay. Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes. I hope this is the right decision.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Whewell? Yes. Mr. Collins?

Yes.

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

Thank you. And again, I'm not looking to remove the provisor or do any changes. And thank you for your time today.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we have case BOA 174. 8157 with the address of 239 R Beach Street. If the applicant or their representative present, will they please explain to the board?

Yes, thank you, Mr. Stembridge. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board, Justin Burns with Pulgini and Norton Business Address, 10 Forbes Road, Braintree, Massachusetts. I want to thank you all for giving me the time to speak on 239R Beach Street. I'm here on behalf of the owners and proponents Craig and Kelly and also with me today is Jason Dolvane a project from EcoBuild. The proposal before you today is to construct a new three-story single-family dwelling in the existing lot to the rear of 239 Beach Street, which Craig and Craig and Michelle currently own. They are hoping to build this new dwelling to be the permanent home for their young growing family. The building will have four bedrooms and be an energy efficient home designed by EcoBuilt, which Jason can touch on in a bit more detail in a few minutes. Additionally, the home will have two parking spaces. The home will be accessed off of 239 Beach Street's existing driveway off of Beach Street. And this rear loft build is precedented in this section of Beach Street with 237R Beach Street and 235R Beach Street also being dwellings that are built to the rear of street side dwellings. and I can now pass it over to Jason to review the plans and I am happy to answer any questions at the end. Thank you.

Thanks, Justin. Hello, everyone. Just to give you guys a little bit of an overview of this particular house, if we go back to the very first page, whoever's kind of driving this. Actually, maybe the second page. Okay, perfect. So if you guys see, basically what's being built over here is sort of a two-story house that is actually a three-story At the rear of the house, it actually follows the natural slope of the grate over there to accommodate a walkout basement so that there's access to the backyard. It's Craig and Michelle and their two children. So they're building this house for them. It is going to be a passive house. So it's built to the passive house standards. It's 90% more energy efficient. It's oriented in the right way to be able to provide those energy benefits and if you go to page six I believe the elevations or maybe it might be seven just keep going yeah right there you can see over here on the on the top left is the is the front of the house and then At the bottom left is really the rear of the house, which kind of comes down at the back. About 90% more energy efficient than a normal house. Really, really low overhead for really municipal resources. It's also a lot healthier home as it's built to the Passive House standard. So it's a very breathable house to provide 80% better indoor air quality than a regular house. and that's all I have for that.

Thank you.

Are there questions from the board? Can you just go over access from Beach Street?

Yeah, so it's going to be access off of the current curb cut, so there will be no changes. We will have access, an easement with the 239 property. and it'll just be extension of the driveway down to that 239R property and then there will be two parking spaces there.

Okay, thank you. May I have public testimony?

Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Benbury. I'm the Rosalind Dale Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant and has completed the community process which consisted of a well-attended abutters meeting facilitated on September 10th with many abutters voicing their support for the proposal and a major concern of access being addressed during the meeting. But as we're concerned whether access would remain on Beach Street and not cut through Hobson Street, the proponent did confirm access would remain only on Beach Street. Following their boarders meeting, no further community process was required and the proposal was allowed to move forward. To date, our office has received six letters of support for the proposal, supporting how it is a great addition to the neighborhood and use of the parcel. 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.

May I have a motion? Motion to approve. Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge.

Yeah.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Whewell? Yes. Mr. Collins?

Yes.

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

Thank you very much.

Next, we have case BOA 1721875. with the address of 37 Bexley Road. If the applicant and or their representative are present, will they please explain to the board?

Yes, thank you, Mr. Stembridge. My name is Timothy Burke. I'm the architect for the project, and I have a business address of 142 Berkeley Street in Boston. The owner of this structure has asked me to somewhat legalize the use of it as a three family. It's well suited as a three family and there'll be minor work to make it code compliant in terms of egress. The building has been taxed as a three-family for 40 years and as part of this work we'll also be removing exterior Thank you very much. Office of Neighborhood Services conducted for us. Be happy to answer any questions. There'll be three units. The first floor is a three-bed, two-bath at around 1,100 square feet. The second floor is a two-bed, one-bath at 895 square feet. and the third floor is a two bed, one bath at 842 square feet. So be happy to answer any questions that you may have.

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

Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Bembry. I am the Rosalind Dale 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 29th. The proposal did receive one supporter from the Haley Cummins Neighborhood Network with a few inquiries from other guests regarding trash and construction debris removal as well as construction timeframe. Following the abutters meeting, no further community process was required and the proposal was allowed to move forward. To date, our office has not received any further community feedback at this time. Thank you for your time and the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services would like to defer to the board for their judgment.

Madame Chair, there are no additional comments.

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

Yes.

Mr. Valencia? No.

Yes.

Ms. Turner. Yes. Ms. Wewell. Yes. Mr. Collins.

Yes.

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

Thank you very much.

Next, we have case BOA 171-8701 with the address of 41 Hollingsworth Street. If the applicant and or their representative are present, will they please explain to the board?

Yes, Mr. Stembridge, my name is Kyle Smith, Stataro Law, business address of 359 Newbury Street in Boston, Back Bay. I also have the proposed business operator on the call. As well as the actual owner of the five parcels. So the sole thing we're seeking here is relief for a forbidden use. This has been a long-standing commercially utilized parcel or parcels. Our firm actually helped the current owner acquire the parcels years ago. If anybody's ever seen the vans driving around the entire city for Boston Standard, this is the prior operating location for Boston Standard. At their height they were acquired in 2023. at which point the acquiring company has now relocated to a much larger facility. They were literally just overflowing with personnel and fleets of vehicles operating out of the site. at its heyday there was about 50 vehicles and 100 employees that would operate out of this facility for Boston Standard. Just to give you a perspective, they had trash pickups twice a week, they had Recycling pickups twice a week. They had tractor trailers and UPS delivering things to the site daily. There is parking on site for about 40-some vehicles. The intended operators are trying to convert from the prior HVAC use. to an adult day healthcare or center. There's a proposal to have approximately 36 to 40 users daily of which it is anticipated that about 80% daily will be coming to and from the site via business owned and operated transportation Thank you for watching. Some of the largest concerns we've heard from the community is traffic to site, even though in comparison to what I just told you about the prior business owner and operator who can testify to this online, our daily comings and goings from this site will be reduced by probably a factor of 10 easy. So we've had a large number of community meetings. We've engaged rigorously with two different civic groups, the Cummings Highway Neighborhood Association as of August 21st. I have a six bullet point kind of MOU, if you will, with the Cummings Highway Neighborhood Association for their support. We believe that the Greater Mattapan Neighborhood Council is also in support of as well. So all of the intended work to the facility has been completed. They've taken two office spaces internally and converted them to an extra one and a half baths that you'll see on the lower side of your page. All of the work is done and completed. We're merely seeking relief for a forbidden use. Again, this was commercially utilized. For years, the total lot size is an assemblage of five parcels equaling about 26,000 square feet. The interior area between first and basement level is about 7,000 square feet. and with that I'd love to turn it over to the business intended business operators they do have other locations that they actively run They will be dealing with the city, the health departments, the state, a numerous layering of different public entities. And they have a track record of successful businesses. So I'd love to give them a quick opportunity to introduce themselves and answer any questions the board might have as far as the operations of the intended adult day health center.

Yes, good morning. My name is Edwina Nguyen and I am here with my partners Lula Bissier and Malcolm Nguyen. We are again seeking to launch an adult day health center. We have successfully launched two behavioral health clinics serving the greater Boston area. neighborhoods with behavioral health mental health services. Our extension of the adult day health center stems from our behavioral health clinics and wanting to serve the family as a whole.

Hi, good morning, everyone. My name is Lou Labissiere. I am a clinical social worker at LICSW. operate two different clinics, two different entities. One is called the Child and Family Wellness Center and the other one is Unlimited Behavioral Health Services. which is located in Brockton. So we we're here to serve the community and I think this is an extension of how we have served the community in the past seven to eight years.

Hi, my name is Malcolm Nguyen. I'm the president of Roxbury Action Program. We're currently taking on historical preservation in Roxbury. whereas we're trying to get an ADH program when that preservation is completed in Roxbury so I partnered up with them in Mattapan.

Thank you. Any 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 Mattapan Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed The community process which consisted of an abutters meeting facilitated on May 22nd where most were pleased with the proposal with a few concerns such as the use of the property. Butters were concerned that the proposal was for an adult health center or behavioral health center, as well as the type of events that may be hosted on the property and the effect it may have on traffic and parking. Although many thought that the idea was great for the elderly in the neighborhood, Anna Butter did voice their opposition to the proposal, feeling that it is out of character for the neighborhood. Next, the proposal was presented to Cummins Highway Neighborhood Association. Some concerns are voiced. For illegal parties at the site with a concern, as Kyle has stated, they reached out to them about support. To date, our office has received two letters of opposition maintaining the theme that the proposal is out of character for the quiet neighborhood with concerns for parking, increased traffic, and roadings. Thank you for your time, and the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services would like to defer to the board for their judgment.

Thank you.

Okay, we have somebody from the City Councilor, Enrique Pepen.

Hi, my name is Eddie Conley.

I'm with the Office of Council Enrique Pepen. I do see the Councilor is here, so I will defer to him. Thank you, Eddie. Hey, good morning, everyone. Councilor Enrique Pepén here. I want to go on the record requesting either opposition or a deferral for this case just because there has been a lot of concerns from... The residents and the there's actually the Greater Mattapan Neighborhood Council submitted a letter of opposition to this case so I know that there's There are some concerns in regards to variances being granted in the zoning for this site. So I just, I like for there to be a little bit more clarity in terms of communication with the neighborhood group, just because I, Thank you so much.

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

May I respond?

Yes, please, briefly.

Sure. So, six bullet points from Cumming Highway Neighborhood Association for just limitation on Fleets of vehicles and access to the parcel. Again, we control the entrance and operators and people coming to and from the site. It was the Cummings Highway Neighborhood Association that proposed an idea of using this site for kind of a block party, if you will. That was not our proposal. That proposal from the Cumming Highwood Neighbor Association kind of created some concern, but that is certainly not something that we are seeking to do. Again, this is a commercially utilized parcel that had Fleet's Vehicles, upwards of 50 vehicles for a very, very busy HVAC company. And we're looking to convert these to the adult daycare and its overall impact for traffic and other Access to the parcel is going to be reduced by a significant margin. So we do have a six bullet point letter of kind of alignment with the Cummings Highway Neighborhood Association. As the Greater Mattapan Neighborhood Council, we had limited communications with them, but they were on all respective communications with the Cumming Highway Neighborhood Association group, so we believed them to have also been online as well. So that all being said, we can seek deferral and work to communicate, but I think a lot of the misinformation that was spread was not at the fault of ours, and anything related to two parties or otherwise is definitively not going to happen. It was never our proposal.

Thank you. And I also add that we have community support from several neighbors on Hollinsworth Street. And we also have a letter of support from the Mattapan CDC. for support of the Adult Day Health Center.

Thank you. Any other questions from the board?

Yes, I do have a question. What would be the hours of operation for this Adult Day Health Center? 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. And do you know what the hours of operation for the previous business was?

Yes, well, I would say that the daily operation with people coming and going was nine to five, but with deliveries and otherwise, it was substantially longer outside of business hours. UPS and other deliveries are on site between 7 and later in the evening. So I would say the comings and goings of the prior business operator were significantly outside of the scope of intended business operating hours for the adult day health center.

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

I'll put forward a question of approval.

Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner. Although I do agree that they should re-engage the community, I do think this is a good project, so I say yes. Yes, we will.

Yeah, and just to add from what Ms. Turner said, I think it's a less intense use than the prior use, so it's my reason for voting yes.

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

Thank you. Thank you. Confirm no provisos, correct? Taking off Zoom. Correct. Thank you. Appreciate your time.

Next, we have case BOA 1727834 with the address of 83 Hamilton Street. If the applicant and or their representative are present, would they please explain to the board?

Yes, thank you. Good morning. Madam Chair, members of the board, my name is Sean Hallisey, and I'm representing Mr. Gomes for 83 Hamilton Street. The proposed project here is to add two shed dormers to the existing third floor residence. Existing FAR before the shed dormers was 1.0, which is a violation of the maximum allowed of 0.5. We're asking for relief to increase our FAR to 1.05. The existing height, the existing ridgeline is to remain, and we're going to keep the existing gable look in the front by setting the dormers back for 4'10 on the street side. So the new proposed third floor would just be adding a bedroom. Currently it's two bedroom, one bath, and we're adding a third bedroom to the third floor unit. Happy to take any questions from the board.

Any questions? 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 Dorchester Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process which consisted of an abutters meeting facilitated on August 18th with no abutters in attendance and no concerns were raised. Next, the proponent presented to Meeting House Hill Civic Association where they voted in support of the proposal. To date, our office has received one support letter from the Meetinghouse Hill Civic 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. Next, we have Brian.

Good evening, Madam Chair. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Timothy Guimond. I am here on behalf of City Councilor Brian Worrell We would just like to go on record in support of this project. As mentioned, they completed the appropriate civic engagement and we received no Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, I'm sorry, there are no additional comments.

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

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Wewell? Yes. Mr. Collins? Yes. Ms. Pinado? Yes. Chair votes yes. Motion carries. Good luck.

Next, we have two companion cases. The first is case BOA 1689097 with the address of 18 Robeson Street. Along with that, we have case BOA 1689101 with the address of 18R Robeson Street.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Stembridge. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is George Maranci. I'm an attorney with the business address of 350 West Broadway in South Boston. Madam Chair, Members, this is a proposed second dwelling building, a single-family dwelling on the same lot as and to the rear of an existing three-family dwelling at 18 Robeson Street in Jamaica Plain. The rear building would have an address of 18 R Robeson Street. To clarify a question raised in the planning recommendation, this proposal does not involve a subdivision. The existing lot is to be kept intact. I will speak to the zoning and then defer to David Freed of Chu and Company, the project architect, who will walk the board through the building and site plans. There are two permit applications here which resulted in two zoning refusal letters, one for the existing building and one for the new. No work is to be done to the existing building but it requires a conditional permit not a variance for two dwellings on one lot. The application for the proposed single-family dwelling at 18R at Robeson resulted in a zoning refusal letter also citing the need for a conditional use permit. owing to two dwellings on one lot, one to the rear of another. Again, this is not a variance standard. Pursuant to the applicable code section, Article 55, Section 41.12, and as noted in the planning recommendation, the requested conditional use permit conditions are deemed satisfied upon a finding by the board That open space for all occupants and light and air for all rooms designed for human occupancy will not be less. would be provided if the requirements of Section 5541.12 were met. In other words, if the proposed building were not to be located to the rear of the existing dwelling. The Boston Planning Department examined the plans and in its detailed recommendation found that open space and lighted air will not be less than would be provided were the proposed single family not located to the rear of the existing building. The planning recommendation correctly attributes this conclusion to the unusually large size of the lot, which is approximately 13,116 square feet in size. as well as the fact that all important zoning requirements are met. The relevant zoning subdistrict is a 3F4000 three-family subdistrict. where the minimum lot size required for a three-family dwelling is 5,000 square feet and the minimum lot size for a single-family dwelling is 3,000 square feet. for a total of 8,000 square feet for the proposed four units. Again, this lot is over 13,000 square feet in size. All required use and dimensional requirements as well as off-street parking requirements are fully met under this proposal. This includes building height, front, side, and rear setbacks, maximum floor area ratio, in minimum usable open space. Again, no variances are being sought My client noted the concerns of the planning department about the Lotz tree canopy and commits, if this were to be approved by the board, to submit a professional tree inventory and preservation plan to the planning department as part of design review. An unofficial inventory indicates that only one or perhaps two healthy mature trees would need to be removed and my client agrees with the planning recommendation. that any trees removed would be replaced on a one-to-one basis. My client also agrees with all planning comments with respect to the building's design with respect to Rocky Nook Terrace. It should also be noted that this property has had pre-existing non-conforming front yard parking for many years. As part of this proposal, that parking would be relocated to the area between the two buildings, which would greatly improve site aesthetics. Finally, and also with respect to the planning recommendation, we are confident that the proposal fully complies with fire department regulations as there would be a 10-foot wall. Excuse me, a 10-foot-wide driveway providing unobstructed access to both buildings, and the new building would be fully sprinkled. These are the two requirements actually specified in the city's ADU guidebook. With that, Madam Chair, I'll turn it over to David Freed, who will briefly walk the board through the plans.

Thank you very much, George. Madam Chair, members of the board, my name is David Freed, and I'm an architect at Schumann Company, and I'm pleased to take you through our drawings. If you could quickly go back to our site plan. Next page, please. Thank you. Our proposal is cited towards the end of the lot. Close to Rocky Nook Terrace. We do not have any dimensional yard violations. We'll be relocating parking that exists in the front yard of number 18 to the rear where those three parking spaces are shown there. And There will still be 4,182 square feet of open space once this proposal is constructed. Next plan, please. This project is, this house is 2,517 square feet of living space. There's a two-car garage in the basement. To the right of that is an excavated area. It would be crawl space. The first floor has open living, kitchen and dining, as well as a bedroom and a home office. The third floor is three bedrooms and two baths. So it's a four bedroom house with three baths total. Next page, please. The house is sited in such a way so there'll be minimum excavation because there is some ledge there. The exterior is clad in shingles and a lap siding to harmonize with the other houses in the area, which also has gable roofs and hip roofs. There will be custom garage doors as well. And that's our presentation. Thank you. Thank you.

Are there questions from the board? Yes, I have a question. Is there access to Rocky Nook from 18R? Can you just walk us a little bit through what the access looks like, whether it's Rocky Nook or Robeson?

Yes, I'm sorry, David. Yeah, I'll defer to David. But there is access there. You can access the site on foot. But the driveway is oriented to Robeson Street. The planning recommendation does note that there should be maybe some way marking there, some way to Make a better pedestrian connection between the 18R, the proposed new building and Rocky Nook Terrace. And I think that's a good suggestion and something we could certainly work on. David, I don't know if you want to comment on that.

Yeah, I think the community on Rocky Nook didn't want the connection from the house to Rocky Nook, but I think planning-wise it makes sense to have at least an on-foot connection.

Thank you. And one other question are about the trees in the area. Is there anything being done to preserve the canopy or to replace any trees?

For the most part, most of the site where that house is located It doesn't have trees. It's just gravel. But there are some trees that will be taken down. I think George mentioned there'd be two. And we would replace those trees in kind.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

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

Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Bembry. I'm the Jamaica Plain Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process, which consisted of an abutters meeting facilitated on April 17th, That was very well attended, but not very well received. Many abutters voiced their opposition to the proposal, opposed to the impact the removal of any putting stone would have on surrounding properties, including mature trees on Robeson Street. As recent construction has created damage, they have documented to the Puddingstone. Concerns for the rocky nature of the building site and again the impact it will have on neighborhood residences But it's felt the site was unbuildable without causing damage to those properties and serves no purpose on such a small lot. Other opposing inquiries include how the proposal benefits the neighborhood, if there will be blasting, what will be done for parking including the current parking in front of 18 Robeson Street, Black green space, affordability, and the design of the front of the building being out of character with the neighborhood. Next, the proposal is presented to the Jamaica Plain Neighborhood Council on April 16th and April 13th, where the vote remains split. 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, we have Eric Rosenthal.

Hi, thank you very much. I'd like to start by, my name's Eric Rosenthal, I live on Rocky Nook Terrard. I would like to clarify from the beginning that our neighborhood is not against Development and increased density. We have a history of support or at least lack of opposition. We have the Pine Street Inn. We have White Stadium coming. There's currently a new house that just got built on an adjacent property in a landlocked lot right next to the proposed property here. There was much less... I have a fear of a boy who cried wolf in reverse. where you say, well, you approve that, why don't you approve this? And the reason I oppose this is because it's not an appropriate use. It's not an appropriate use of the lot. This 13,000 square feet resides mostly in the front of 18 Robeson, not in the back. They have to destroy the Puddingstone Hill, causing potential damage to historical drainage patterns, which put the other houses from the top of the hill all the way down to Forest Hill Street at risk. and many more. We don't want our support for development and increased density to count against us when on the merits of the case, it's inappropriate to use it. Thank you. Please wrap up. Thank you.

Okay, we have two more. Caliga, now you can unmute yourself.

Sorry about that, Jesus. I was trying to help miss somebody else get their hand raised who isn't a butter, Beth Abelow, but it doesn't seem to...

I know that.

I said she's having trouble getting her hand up. I don't know. Ma'am, are you going to speak or can we move on? I am going to speak, but I'm just letting you know this is an abutter who I'm with. and she has trouble getting her hand up. She has something to say. At any rate, what I want to say is first of all And I always preface things with this. There is absolutely, I'm testifying right now. There is absolutely no housing crisis in Boston except the manufactured housing crisis. Thank you for joining us. We don't even need affordable because what they call affordable is not affordable. We need attainable housing. This is market rate. This is squeezed into an area that is actually perfect for a nature reserve. They will have to blast a lot of that pudding stone. That is disingenuous. They will have to take down trees. They will have runoff that will cause probably flooding and leaks into abutters. and it is just wrong. I have suggested, and this is not a whimsical thing, that City Realty make this a nature reserve. They can get a tax write-off. They can get good PR. Thank you.

Okay. Please focus on your, please be brief in your support or opposition.

Okay. Next one, we have the person with the number CC.

Hi, my name is Claire Conley. I am an immediate abutter at 17 Rocking Oak Terrace. I appreciate the opportunity to speak. You have seen, I believe, the board and Our City Councilors have seen a statement of neighborhood opposition to the project which outlines our objections to the granting of variances or conditional use permits or other forms of relief. It is true and I appreciate the neighborhood liaison stating the case on our behalf. We do not believe that this project warrants variances or conditional relief of any kind. There are significant negative impacts to the neighborhood and specifically to my property, which it's a 1920s era property. Home, Wood Frame with Stone Foundation. I'm very sure that it's going to be damaged by this project. Eric has mentioned the drainage, this natural aquifer that goes up to, I think, about 150, 160 feet at the top of the hill. And the baseline at this property is about 100 feet. They have tried to indicate that they will not need to remove much in the way of putting stone, which I believe is not the case. There will be extensive putting stone needing to be removed. And I also believe that there are misrepresentations in the plans that have been submitted in part because the dimensions from the property line at Rocky Nook Terrace to the existing structure only permit The parking as they're showing it, if they remove the existing staircase that is the second means of egress from the existing three family property.

Okay, thank you. Madam Chair, there is one more person. One more, one minute. Okay, perfect. Glenda, please unmute yourself and say your name and address and please your position about the project.

Thank you very much. My name is Glenda Yoder, and I'm an abutter at a three-family up the hill from this property. And I'm speaking also for my two co-owners. I believe the community expended enormous amount of effort into that statement of neighborhood opposition and I really hope you have had the opportunity to study that because I believe, I don't want to restate that. I want to say that that's what we stand by that. I want to also say one other thing about trees, which you've mentioned. We have a large tree in the rear of our property that sits on the Pudding Stone and it's Roots go down into, I assume, down the hill as well. And I've had two arborists this summer look at it and state that that tree would definitely be jeopardized. with a retaining wall five to seven feet down the hill. So trees and the natural Nature of a space is not limited to the specific boundaries of a property. So we state our opposition and really hope that you stand by the community. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay, does the applicant want to take a minute to?

Yes, I'll be brief, Madam Chair. We understand that there's usually not much support for a second dwelling on one lot, but the fact of the matter is There are no variances here. This is not necessarily inappropriate density. As I said, the normal lot size for four units here is prescribed by zoning would come out to about 8,000 square feet. This is 13,800. 13,500 square feet, almost 13,100. We're fully cognizant of the concerns about excavation. As David Fried said, we believe that minimal excavation would be needed. and there are alternatives to rock blasting which my clients would employ here. There are expansive chemical agents, Not Explosive Demolition Agents, Hydraulic Splitting, and Controlled Foam Injection are just a few options for removing stone without the use of any explosives. So I don't think there will be any blasting here. and again as David said the amount of excavation here would be minimal. In terms of drainage any construction drawings would of course need to be approved by the Boston Water and Sewer Commission. The tree replacement my client is committed to there may be a couple of trees and the plans are accurate. They've been verified by the inspectional services department as they would continue to be approved through the construction drawings. and there would be no degradation of means of egress from the front building. So again, just we believe that all the conditions which are simply The availability of natural light and air are satisfied for the approval of the conditional use permit and hope that the board concurs with the findings of the planning department on that specific issue. Thank you.

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

I'll make a motion of approval. This is a very large 13,000 square foot lot and the proponent is seeking pretty minimal relief. But I want to... Add to provisos that there be a tree inventory conducted and that the plans be submitted to the planning department for design review preserving the existing tree canopy. Canopy, and if needed, replacement of trees for this project.

Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge.

I agree with the proviso, so therefore I will say yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Wewell? Yes. Mr. Collins?

Yes.

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

Thank you.

Um, we're at the, we're past the 11 o'clock hour, but, but, um, so at this point, I will ask, we will ask if there are any Request for withdrawals or deferrals from the 11 o'clock hour. Hearing done. We'll move on and go back to the 930 hearings. We have a note for the next two companion cases. Let me read them into the record and then we'll explain. First being case BOA 1765664. with the address of 80 Smith Street. Along with that, we have case BOA 1765668 with the address of 100 Smith Street. They are both Article 80 cases, and the note that I have says that they will be postponed, deferred. until November 18th at 11.30 that the cases need to be re-advertised. So that will be for those two. Next, we have case BOA.

Do we need a motion to defer it?

That might be a good idea, Madam Chair.

Okay. May I have a motion?

I'll make a motion to defer.

There are seconds. Second. Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Whewell?

Yes.

Mr. Collins?

Yes.

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

Now we'll move on to 7957 with the address of 395 West 4th Street. If the applicant and or their representative are present, would they please explain to the board?

Yes, thank you, Mr. Stembridge. Madam Chair, members of the board, Attorney Ryan Spitz with Adams & Maranci, business address of 168 8th Street, 1st Floor, South Boston. Joining me today is the owner, Sean McClory, and as well as the project architect, Tim Sheehan. Proposal in front of us today is seeking to confirm the occupancy as a single family, then change that occupancy to a two-family dwelling by maintaining the footprint of the building Providing interior layout changes and a two-story metal staircase in the rear for secondary means of egress. This parcel falls within an MFR sub-district which allows for the use being proposed. Unit 1 will be approximately Mr. Ambassador, if I could just trouble you just to continue to scroll through the pictures, I'm just going to try to, I know this has been a long agenda, I'm just going to try to make it quick for the board members. Unit 1, approximately 1,440 square feet, will be located on the first floor in basement consisting of a four bedroom, two bath, a kitchen, dining, and a living room. Not to mention that the basement is a full walkout into the rear yard. Unit 2, approximately 1,440 square feet, will be located on the second floor and the third floor, consisting of a four-bedroom, two-bath kitchen, dining, and a living room. We have violations for lot area and additional lot area. Lot size is 1,500 square feet and the code requires 2,000 square feet for the first unit. Then an additional thousand square feet for each additional unit. Despite being a pre-existing condition, proposal is aligned with other parcels supporting two-family residential use in this neighborhood. We have a floor area ratio violation. Required floor area ratio in this sub-district is a 2.0. Proposal calls for a 2.2, which again is consistent for other multifamily buildings in this area. We have a rear yard violation. The pre-existing rear yard is 6.2 feet, which is below the code requirement for this sub-district and has been cited for the relief due to the proposal of adding the second means of egress. We have an open space violation. The requirement is 400 square feet total for both units, and the proposed is 275 square feet, which is a pre-existing condition not being altered with this proposal. Lastly, we have an off-street parking violation. The requirement would be to provide 1.5 parking spaces for any new unit of housing and our proposal doesn't include any parking but is in an area well served by transit. Furthermore, the owner has acknowledged how difficult parking can be in this neighborhood. He has secured four off-site parking spaces located at 309 E Street, in which two spaces will be allocated to each unit. Again, in concluding, the proposal is aligned with the City of Boston's housing and development goals and are contextual with the surrounding neighborhood fabric. At this point, Madam Chair, I'm going to turn it back over to you for any questions or comments.

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

Good morning. Siggy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This petitioner completed the ONS community process. Our office hosted an abutters meeting on August 20th. which in a butter was opposed to increasing the density on the site without providing any parking. The City-side Neighborhood Association took no position on this proposal. With that background, our office defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, thank you. Next, we have Ashley from City Councilor Flynn.

Hi, my name is Ashley from Councilor Flynn's office. Councilor Flynn would like to go on record in support based on a good community process. He appreciates the proponents' attention to South Boston's existing parking crisis. and working to provide parking nearby. He respectfully requests that the proponent 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.

Madam Chair, I just would just like to add one more thing in. The Mayor's Office forgot to mention that there were seven letters of support from abutters that were also submitted for the record.

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

Motion is approved.

Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge?

Yeah.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

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

Good luck. Next case is deferred, so we'll move on to case VOA 1743977 with the address of 434 Meridian Street. If the applicant and or their representative present, would they please explain to the board?

Yes, thank you again, Mr. Stembridge. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. For record, Richard Lynn's business address of 245 Sumner Street, East Boston. On behalf of the petitioner, Madam Ambassador, can we just jump right down to slide nine? That's probably in the interest of time. We can jump back to the others if necessary. Madam Chair, members of the board, this is a pre-existing two-unit dwelling located in the Eagle Hill section of East Boston. Our proposal is to change the occupancy from two units to four units. which would also involve a vertical addition to the building. Being in Eagle Hill, the preference is to preserve as many of the structures, a lot of them have some historical significance in the neighborhood. However, there is general support for renovation and certainly with the amendments to Article 53 through Plan East Boston, expanding buildings like this is something that was contemplated through the rezoning of the entire neighborhood. This location is currently now zoned EBR 4, which does allow multifamily dwellings and up to four stories and 50 feet in height. essentially with the amendments to article 53 the elimination of FAR maximums minimum lot size and minimum lot size for additional dwelling units we are able to essentially do this building and many more. Thank you. So we do have, yeah, that's probably a good spot. So just our proposed site plan. We don't propose to change anything with respect to the footprint of the building. The proposal involves strictly a vertical addition of two stories above the existing structure. As you can see here, we do have ample open space on the site, certainly allows for enough permeability to even be consistent with The amended Article 53, which now has a minimum 30% permeability requirement. We're slightly below the 60% that we would be required to have for maximum lock coverage, so we would be compliant with that. and many more. We were cited for a few items by inspectional services, and I just want to take an opportunity to review those. The first we were cited for is height. I'm not sure if the plans examiner was simply going off of the previous zoning version, which allowed for a 35-foot height maximum, three stories. EBR4 zoning allows for a total of four stories 50 feet in height so therefore this would be zoning compliant as we're below 50 feet for total height. In addition, we were cited for side yard. The existing building currently is non-conforming with respect to the required side yard, which is five feet in the EBR4 zoning district. However, because we're not changing anything with respect to the footprint of the building, the nonconformities, existing nonconformities are permitted to remain. We do propose a stairwell in the rear of the building, but that stairwell is within the plane of the existing non-conforming left side of the building. and therefore is allowed under the amended provisions of Article 5330 which permits both vertical and horizontal additions onto a building provided you don't go beyond the existing non-conformity. With respect to parking, and maybe jump back to slide 13, which is the rendering of the finished product, but with respect to the parking, The requirement would be a total of four parking spaces. I'm sorry, a total of two parking spaces since there is existing two units in the building currently. Article 53 says that you're only required to have parking for the additional units you propose. I would point out for the board that up to three units no longer even requires parking in the East Boston Neighborhood District. So technically it's a net of one parking space that would be required under the amended zoning with this proposed change. I'm sure as this board is aware, and certainly being on Meridian Street, a very heavily traveled section of East Boston, Introducing a curb cut at this site would probably be less than optimal, if even possible. As you can see, we do have a bus stop That is located directly in front of the property. Introducing a curb cut there would likely be impossible based upon The MBTA's necessity of having access. I would also point out that creating a curb cut takes away from assuming the bus stop wasn't even here. would take away from off-street parking anyhow and therefore having a curb cut for one to two parking spaces is probably not the most best use of the space so therefore requesting the relief. So I reiterate for the board that this project does three things. First, it preserves the existing structure, allows for additional housing units that are consistent with Planning Sponsors Objectives in the amended Article 53 and is otherwise zoning compliant with respect to the dimensions including height, setback, and use. With that, I'll pause to answer any questions of the board. Thank you.

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

This is the board. My name is Eva Jones, representing the Mayor's Office and Neighborhood Services. Regarding 434 Meridian Street, our office differs to the board's judgment. A community process was conducted, including an abutters meeting held on 7-29-25 that was attended by three community members. The feedback from this meeting was some concerns about density due to the parking situation in East Boston currently, but overall there was productive community conversation. Additionally, we received one letter expressing opposition to the proposal due to the extensive parking problem in the neighborhood again. The proposal was also reviewed by the Eagle Hill Civic Association at their meeting in January of this year. The association expressed opposition to the proposal and has voted nine in favor and 11 in opposition regarding the proposal. At this time, the mayor's office of neighborhood services defers to the board's judgment on this matter. Thank you everyone for your time and consideration. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We don't have any additional hands raised at the moment.

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

Second, I think we want to add a proviso with BPDA design review with attention to the roof structure. Mr. Collins, are you amenable to that?

Yes, please.

Okay. Was that a second, Ms. Pinado? Yes. Okay. Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Whewell?

Yes.

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

Thank you very much. Have a great day.

Moving on to the hearing schedule for 11 a.m. We'll ask again if there are any requests for withdrawals or deferrals. Hearing none. We'll then move on to case BOA 1774650 with the address of 23 Wachusett Street. If the applicant and or

Good morning, Madam Chair and all representatives. This is Felix Sanchez representing Mr. Allen. Francis Mitchell. Can you guys hear me?

Yes, we can. Please proceed.

We're here today regarding the denial and where we'd like to show you on the plan that we're staying ourselves within the envelope of the building.

So can you prompt the ambassador what page you want them to be on?

You can start, every page has the existing and the proposed right next to it. So we can come up. Like to the first page, it shows the existing envelope on the left, on the second page, that one. And if you look, all we're doing is just adding a dormer to relocate the staircase because up on the third floor, we're adding a bathroom. And we are looking to extend. If you look on the third page, you'll see how we relocated the stairs. in order to add a second bathroom and another bedroom up on the second floor. It shows several violations in If you look on the left side of the existing front porch, we're just trying to add to the size of the same envelope within the existing. And we're just looking to add a deck up in the back, which is also within the envelope of the site.

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 Hyde Park Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process, which consisted of an abutters meeting facilitated on August 6th. with one abutter in attendance who voiced opposition to Dext on the second floor and rear, but not opposed to the extension of a first floor deck. Following the boarders meeting, no further community process was required and to date our office has not received any further community feedback at this time. 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.

Okay, with that, may I have a motion?

I'll make a motion to approve with design review.

Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge.

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

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

Thank you.

Next, we have two companion cases. Case of BOA 174. 6236 with the address of 31 Park Street. Along with that, we have case VOA 1746241. with the address of 31R Park Street. If the applicant endure their representable present, will they please explain to the board?

Good morning, Madam Chair. My name is Gavin Driscoll, Lighthouse Architecture and Design, Business Address of 180 Allen Street, Braintree, Mass. We're looking to convert an existing garage into a new housing unit. It's in a 2F 7,000 square foot zone. There's going to be no change to the existing footprint. You can go to the next slide. There'll be three parking spaces on the site. Can you keep going on the slide, please? You can just see that it's going to be a studio apartment at 350 square feet. And the applicant is looking to do this for his mother-in-law. So there'll be, like I said, no change in the footprint. We'll just remove the garage door to add a door to enter the space. I can take any questions if there's any questions available.

Thank you. Are there questions from the board?

Yes, the parking spaces that you will have, the three spaces, are new or existing?

There's currently two spaces now. There is one space to the left side of the garage, which is there's currently a fence there because you hold some equipment there. But we're going to remove the fence. So there currently is two, but we're going to remove the fence. So there will be three, but technically the third spot is there. But right now it's just used for equipment, so it's not technically a parking space right now. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions from the board? No public testimony?

Hello, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Eva Jones, representing the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services. Regarding 31 Park Street, our office differs with the board's judgment. A community process was conducted, including an abutters meeting held on 8-12-25, attended by four community members. The feedback from this meeting was resounding support from all attendees. The proposal was not within the catchment area of any civic association in this neighborhood and was not required to meet with any for this proposal. At this time, the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Service defers to have the Board's judgment on this matter. Thank you, everyone, for your time and consideration.

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

Okay, Madam Chair, there are no additional comments.

Okay, with that, may I have a motion? Motion to approve. Is there a second?

Second.

Mr. Stembridge.

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Whewell? Yes. Mr. Collins? Yes. Ms. Pinado? Yes. Yes, the motion carries. Good luck. Thank you so much.

Next, we have case VOA 1729631. with the address of 61 Columbia Road. Is the applicant and or the representative present? Will they please explain?

Yes. Good morning, Mr. Stembridge. Can you hear me okay?

Yes, we can.

Excellent. Thank you. Hi. Peter Vanco, Vanco Studio Architects here on behalf of Minority Association Mamlio is the client here and the owner of the property. They are an advocacy group. They're the Minority Association of Minority Law Enforcement Officers. They've been in existence since 1968 and have held a very prominent position in Boston policing. We are working on a full block long site on the west side of Columbia Road toward Blue Hill Ave. that they've owned for quite some time currently is their headquarters and currently is a multi-use building that is carrying some community functions. It houses offices. It does a number of different things for them. and the community. The proposal here is a new building on that same site. We have nearly a half acre of land. We are combining four separate lots, all under common ownership by Manlio. and the intention is that we are creating a single story building that would house a single story with a full basement that would house all of their uses and needs and we'll get into those programmatic needs but this is a great site plan view. The intention is to create A single story that really faces Columbia Road and somewhat shields the residential neighborhoods that are beyond that would be toward the top of this sheet view. We put all of our parking in the back. We have roughly 12,000 square feet of gross building area and we have 27 parking spaces as a result. Programmatically, we are housing a mix of some office space. They have partner groups like the NAACP that will continue to operate with them and alongside them. They will have their own offices and as well they have some rental spaces, things like karate, maybe like on weekends there's community outreach, there may be karate classes, there may be dance classes. People in the community use this. This will have a functional auditorium, which is going to be for their uses. It can be also for community use. It's a rental hall in the sense that it could be Weddings, things of that nature. As well in the basement, there is a little bit more of a training-centric idea. There's a large gym there for training. There are locker rooms, things of that sort. But we feel it's very appropriate, although it's a non-conforming use. That really is where the majority of our violations stem from. is that non-conforming use, the auditorium, the gym, and the offices, this is a residential district, so that is the primary reasoning that we simply are, we're different, but As we look up and down Columbia Road, even within a few hundred feet of this property, there are many non-conforming structures. This one would be unique though. Nonetheless, I have my client on the phone as well. We're happy to take any questions. We'd love to get your thoughts.

Thank you. So can you just address the violations, the setback issues, like how much are you non-conforming?

Yeah, in general, they are very, very little. On the right side, we have a seven foot side yard, a 10 foot side yard is required. In the rear, A 30-foot rear yard is required. We have 29.3 feet, so we're off just fractionally there in the rear. and in the front yard it's supposed to be a 15 foot front yard however we are proposing a zero foot front yard where our glazed front is right on the sidewalk it has a more commercial So those are very, very minimal. I guess you could say the front yard is the place where we have probably the greatest differential from what Bayes-Sonin is looking for.

Questions from the board?

Madam Chair, yes. So basically, it's a non-conforming use in a residential neighborhood, but that's not really not going to change.

That is precisely correct. Currently exists. It's already being utilized. It has no on-site parking of any sort. There already are functions happening or things like that. In many ways, it becomes an improvement.

Thank you.

Has the proponent considered maybe finding another location that's a more commercial district for this type of use potentially? And the other concern that I have is demolition of a historic building.

That's a great question. So the existing building has no formal historic designation on it, as well as this has been a historical headquarters for MAMLEO. and they own the land outright, they own the building outright. Moving particularly in this climate of high prices was not considered.

What age is the building?

I would say the building is probably roughly 90 to 100 years old, but it has no historical designations.

Okay, but it's 100 years old.

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

Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Benbury. I am the Dorchester Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process, which consisted of an abutters meeting facilitated on June 18th with no opposition from abutters. Inquiries were made and addressed during the meeting, such as time frame, building height, and traffic study. Next, the proponent presented to Erie Ellington Civic Association, where they voted in support of the proposal as it stands. 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 we have from Consul O'Brien.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board, Timothy Guimon from Councilor Brian Worrell's office. We would like to go on record in support of this project. We appreciate the communication. We can confirm that Erie Ellington is... In support of the project and this is in their catchment area, the only concern that was raised was the backyard. Oops, sorry about that. Can you hear me?

Now we can't. You might want to go on, take off your camera and speak. We just can't. You came in and out.

Can you hear me now? Sorry about that.

Yes, please.

Yep, we're just on record in support of this project and appreciate the community engagement. Thank you very much.

Okay. Can we hear from the planning department on this?

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board, Jeff Hampton, City of Boston Planning Department. While we acknowledge that this is a non-conforming use on this site right now, we feel that the massing and the parking within this residential block is excessive. It doesn't fit with the context of the neighborhood. We also acknowledge that a few blocks down on Columbia Road in both directions, it is a commercial in mixed use. This particular block is purely residential. So we feel that the massing, especially the off street parking, is excessive for this. So we're on record for denial of this appeal.

Any other raised hands?

Sorry, Madam Chair. No, there are no additional comments.

Any other questions from the board? Is there a motion?

I'll make a motion of denial. I know Ma'am Leo does great work, but I don't think this is the right location for that project.

Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge?

No.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? No. Ms. Whewell?

Yes.

Mr. Collins?

No.

Ms. Pinado? Yes. The chair votes no. And the motion does not carry. Is there a second motion? I make a motion for approval. Is there a second?

Second.

Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Whewell?

Yes.

Mr. Collins? Yes. Ms. Pinado? No. Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Thank you.

Next, we have case BOA-177-2101 with the address of 122 DeWitt Drive, If the applicant and or their representative are present.

Madam Chair, I need to recuse myself. Thank you. Okay, thank you. We are now a six-member board.

Good morning. This is Antonio Rodriguez from Madison Park. I can't see myself, but can you folks see me?

We can see you and we can hear you, sir. Please proceed.

Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. I'm here representing Madison Park Development Corporation, seeking a conditional variance for our property at 122 DeWitt Drive, also referred to as the DeWitt Community Center. We're seeking to add a use for operating a private high school out of that space, out of one of the spaces in the building. I'm joined today by Lino Sanchez, the founder and Head of Schools for Urban Achievers. For folks who don't know, Madison Park has been in the Comprehensive Community Development space for nearly 60 years. We have about 1,250 units of Low affordable housing predominantly in the Roxbury neighborhood. And this center was constructed in 2018 and since the inception of constructing the center we wanted to have a youth program of some sort originally the plan was to have a child care center and that never came to fruition so we've Since then shifted gears and we were presented the opportunity to have Urban Achievers join us in partnership. We were in full support of trying to bring Thank you so much for joining us. Hand it off to Lino if there are no questions from a design standpoint or from where it's located. On the current slide, it would be the space closest to the left where it says after school one and two. and the adjoining hallway space and bathrooms and kitchen and management office space. So that space would be utilized as the Urban Achievers High School location. And it has two means of egress. But again, if there's In the interest of time, I'd like to have Lino present his slide and speak on behalf of the Urban Achiever School.

Thank you. Thank you, Antonio. Before I begin, I just wanted to confirm that they have the slides because I unfortunately, I don't have them here. I just wanted to make sure they had them. Is that correct?

They should have the slides as far as I know.

Okay. And I was just wondering if they'd be able to shift through them for us. No, it's the other slide, Dick. That's my, that was mine. And so we can start right on the title page. That'd be amazing. But I can't see them, so you know, I don't know why.

Urban Achievers, is that the slides you want?

That's correct, ma'am.

Okay, that's what we're on.

awesome awesome so then good morning everyone members of the board um thank you for granting us the opportunity to speak my name is leno sanchez and i am the founder and head of urban achievers high school Being here is meaningful because what we're presenting isn't just about a school. It's a pathway to relevant educational opportunities for young people with aspirations in the sports industry. Urban Achievers High School is Massachusetts only sports industry high school. And our guiding model says it all. Play hard, study hard, serve harder. That's the spirit driving everything we do. Next slide, please. Here's where we're headed this morning. I'll walk you through what we do. Where we're looking to do it, how we'll do it, and most importantly, why we do it. My goal is simple. By the end, you'll see how Urban Achievers isn't just transforming young people with a passion for sport. It's uplifting our neighborhood, our city, and our futures. Next slide, please. So what do we do? We educate, guide, and empower young people with a passion for sport to thrive, not just in school, but in their communities and in life. Our mission is rooted in a dual purpose. First, to channel the passion for sports into meaningful career pathways. And second, to use the values of sport to build leaders of character. We envision a future where academic and athletic excellence go hand in hand, where our graduates not only step into sport-related careers, but also lead with integrity and courage in whatever they pursue. And at the center of all this is our values, integrity, respect, perseverance, teamwork, discipline, and courage. This moral compass is what shapes every decision and every young man who comes through our doors. And to make this real, we need the right place. That brings us to the DeWitt Center. Next slide, please. This is my old neighborhood. For me, this is personal. This is the very place where my story almost ended. But instead, it's where a new generation story could begin. The DeWitt Center is fully prepared for use. In March, the Boston Public School Committee conducted a thorough evaluation of the property and granted approval confirming that it is safe, fully certified, and has ample space to meet our needs. And while our long-term vision is to secure a permanent facility, starting here matters because it keeps us rooted in the heart of the community we serve. Next slide, please. So how do we do it? Let me show you. We prepare our young men for meaningful lives by focusing on four stages. High school, where young people receive rigorous academics paired with athletic development. College, through dual enrollment, where they will graduate with micro-credentials and a tuition-free associate's degree in addition to their diplomas. Career, internships, and mentorship will give them hands-on experiences and exposure to the entire sports ecosystem. From management to media to medicine and technology and life, at the core of it all is service. Because we believe true success isn't just about personal achievement. It's about lifting others and leading with heart. Now we've seen how we prepare our young men for success, but understanding how isn't enough. We need to ask why. Why do we dedicate ourselves to this work? Let's explore why we do it. Next slide, please. Because too many of our young men are underestimated, underserved, and unseen. And while we lift them, we lift entire neighborhoods. Our cities and our future. Urban Achievers is about access, healing, opportunity, and legacy. Because every young person deserves an education that sees them, challenges them, and celebrates them. because sports opens doors to countless careers and because the pipeline of prison must be replaced by pathways to purpose and success. Next slide please. I'll leave you with the words of Nelson Mandela who said, sport has the power to change the world. It has the power to inspire. It has the power to unite people in a way that little else does. and that's exactly the power we're tapping into at Urban Achievers. Thank you.

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

Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Bembry. I am the Roxbury Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process which consisted of a very well attended borders meeting facilitated on September 17th that was very well received. The majority of attendees voiced their support for the proposal stating how much an educational program is needed in the community and we're pleased to see the youth's love for sports be the drive for their education. Following the abundance meeting, no further community engagement was required, and the proposal was allowed to move forward. To date, our office has received 11 letters of support from both individuals and organizations. I will name a few for the record, but not all. such as Dr. J. Keith Martley, Endowed Chair of Sport Leadership and Administration, University of Massachusetts Boston. Paul Francisco, Chief Diversity Officer and Head of Workforce Development Programs at State Street Corporation, Skye Robinson, Canuto, Boston Police Officer, Ed Powell, Associate Vice President for Workforce Readiness, Boys and Girls Clubs of Boston, and Asher Hurd, E.D., Boston College, Lynch School of Education, and Human Development. 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, with that, may I have a motion? Motion to approve. Is there a second?

Second.

Mr. Stembridge?

Seems like a very worthwhile venture, yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Whewell?

Yes.

Mr. Collins? Yes. Ms. Pinado? Ms. Pinado? Chair votes yes, motion carries. With that, ahead of our interpretation, let's take a 10-minute break.

Thank you very much.

Good luck.

Thanks.

Recording stopped.

Thank you. Mr. Stembridge.

Present, Madam Chair.

Mr. Valencia.

Present, Madam Chair.

Ms. Turner. Present, Madam Chair. Ms. Whewell. Present, Madam Chair. Mr. Collins.

Present, Madam Chair.

Ms. Pinado. I saw you, Ms. Pinado. You're just on mute. Oh, sorry. Present. No problem. Okay, Mr. Stembridge, I know we have to ask for deferrals or withdrawals first.

We will do that, Madam Chair. Yes, we'll ask if there are any requests for withdrawals or deferrals for the interpretation cases scheduled at noontime.

85 Center Street, Mr. Stembridge.

Yeah, we need 1130s too.

That's okay. Not hearing any for... 62 L Street for 1130.

Yeah, we need to do the 1130s, Mr. Stembridge.

Yeah, that's a good point, Madam Chair, folks. I'm sorry, folks, if you would ask again for any withdrawals or deferrals from the 1130 time frame.

85 Center Street, please.

Center Street. So this is for Case BOA. 165-2955 with the address of 85 Center Street. Go ahead and start your video.

Thank you, Ms. Stembridge. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board, Attorney Jeff Drago with Drago & Toscano with the business address of 11 Beacon Street. We're here seeking a withdrawal of 85 Center Street. My clients are not going to be going further with the project at this time.

Okay, sorry, you read it into the record, right?

Yes, I did.

Okay. May I have a motion?

Motion to withdraw this case. Second.

Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Whewell? Yes. Mr. Collins.

Yes.

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

Thank you very much. And there was at least one other request, I believe.

Yes, for 62 L Street.

This is for case BOA 1575425. Would you go ahead and explain, please?

Yes. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the board. I'm the applicant and homeowner of 62 L Street, a three-family home in South Boston. Our proposal to this point has been to rebuild an existing exterior stair and construct a new roof deck. We were seeking variances for an insufficient side and rear yard for the Exterior Staircase portion of the proposal, as well as a variance for access to the roof deck not being via a roof hatch, which is required by code for the roof deck part of the proposal. I'm just uh just yeah so after feedback from our third voters meeting um and and from our most immediate impacted neighbors at 60 L Street with whom we share a roof. We regrouped with our architect and assessed alternatives. We shared the revised plans with our neighbors and we're going to alter the design and seek a deferral at this time. We're going to remove. We just need time to get approval of the revised plans from ISD and to conduct a final abutters meeting. So the plans are already being submitted now. It's just as long as it takes to get approval from ISD. They're pretty simple plans.

So perhaps- Steph or Caroline? Do you know when the Butters meeting is going to be?

Not this time until we know once we get approval on the new plans from ISD, we won't be able to schedule the Butters meeting. But I'll defer to

Let's schedule it for December 9th, just to be on the safe side.

Right, and then you could defer again if you need to. With that, may I have a motion?

Motion to defer this case until December 9th.

Second. Second. Mr. Stembridge.

Yes.

Mr. Valencia.

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Wewell? Yes. Mr. Collins?

Yes.

Ms. Primato? Yes. Chair votes yes. Motion carries. See you then.

So with that, we'll return to the interpretation cases scheduled for 12 for noontime. And we'll begin with case BOA 177. 5900 with the address of 5 Redlands Road. If the applicant and or their representative are present, will they please explain the case to the board?

Yes, good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Kevin Cloutier. I have a business address of 1990 Center Street in West Roxbury. at the Cloutier Law Firm. I represent the applicant, or the appellant, I'm sorry, Stephen Marsh, in this appeal. And as the board is aware, this is an appeal for a legal interpretation. And specifically, We are asking this board to vacate or in the alternative to impose conditional use and variance requirements to the permit. So the property at issue here, if we could just stay on the second slide, please, momentarily. Thank you, Mr. Ambassador. Again, we're here because ISD improperly issued a permit by right For Five Redlands Road to be used as a congregate living facility as the applicant calls it. But what the property will really be used for is a homeless shelter slash transitional housing, which are clearly defined by the code. Further, so the permit should have been denied on conditional use grounds. Secondly, the permit should have been denied because the project as it stands requires a variance. for the following insufficient off-street parking, insufficient off-street loading, and driveway width and maneuverability requirements. So it's been made very clear throughout the public process that the applicants are proposing a homeless shelter and transitional housing for this site. Any argument to the contrary is simply unreasonable and completely separated from fact. If we can go to the next slide, please. Thank you. The primary purpose of the zone and code is to regulate uses. And in this case, the applicant is applied for the use as what's called congregate living. Congregate living is not defined by the zoning code. So by operation of law, the definition defers over to the building code. But what the zoning code does very clearly define is a homeless shelter in transitional housing. And I'll provide that here. It's on the screen. But a homeless shelter is a facility providing temporary housing for one or more individuals who are otherwise homeless. Transitional housing aligns exactly with what the proposed use is. A building or portion thereof in which temporary residential accommodations are provided for persons or families who are not related to the owner, operator, or manager. Such residential accommodation shall be operated by a nonprofit organization and shall include social services on-site or off-site to assist individuals or families living there. Transitional housing may contain a common kitchen and eating area and shared bathroom facilities. That is exactly what is being proposed at this site. Now, how do we know what's being proposed? If you can go to the next slide, please. Because the applicant, who I'll just refer to as Burke, the Burke family company owns the property, has leased this property to MOC, making opportunities count. I'm just going to refer to them as MOC. MOC is a homeless shelter and transitional housing operator, among other things that they perform for underserved populations in Massachusetts. But MOC and the EOHLC, that's the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities, states that the goal of this EA family shelter system is to provide a shelter as a temporary place For your family to stay as you search for your next place to live. During meetings that the applicant has had with the community They further describe the program as one being to provide safe, dignified, and trauma-informed emergency shelters for families experiencing homelessness while supporting their rapid Transition to Stable Housing Further enforcing their mission, the mission of the EA program is to make homelessness rare, brief, and non-recurring. Next slide, please. Further evidence of the intended use of the property as communicated by Making Opportunities Count, and this was provided in their own written documentation, that this site, meaning 5 Redlands Road, as part of the Commonwealth's strategic shift to transition away from hotels and ensure stable shelter operations for families experiencing homelessness. Now, the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities has also spoken to the community about this project. And they very specifically identified MOC as one of its preferred contractors for operating sites and shelters under the EA Family Shelter Program. So there is no doubt what this use is. And when we talk about the code and the use definitions, remember, A congregate living facility is not defined by the code, but the building code definition, just give me one moment, provides that congregate living is, quote, a building or part thereof that contains sleeping units where residents share bathroom or kitchen facilities or both. So that's a very vague, broad definition. But the zoning, the drafters of the code went a step further and they very intentionally carved out a specific use that could fall under a congregate living umbrella, but they went in a very intentionally defined homeless shelter. They very intentionally defined transitional housing facility. And then they clumped the two of them together as a specific use classification. And then the code very intentionally determined that that use was made conditional at this site at 5 Redlands Road. Therefore, any applicant like MOC and the owner here If proposed such a use for that site, which they have, then that permit should have been denied on conditional use grounds. That did not happen here. And if I could provide by way of analogy to sort of send this message home, If the city's to rely on congregate living facility alone, without looking further at the code and actually identifying the very specific use, then logic requires that if an applicant proposed to erect a dormitory, say Northeastern wants to build a dorm, and the NS District in West Roxbury. Well, a dormitory fits the definition of congregate living, but a dormitory is also separately referenced in the code, separately defined in the code, and has its own use classification. And that is forbidden in Center Street. But under the current logic that the city's employed They would have to approve a dormitory if the applicant said, I'm applying to change the use of a building to congregate living, even though it's a dorm. And I further want to provide as context This city has gone through a very drastic rezoning process, very well thought out, very deliberate and very intentional. and one of the main initiatives was the Squares and Streets program that this administration is very proud to have championed. And the underlying use classifications in every square and street Zoning District, and there's five separate classifications within that program. And every one, shelter services are a forbidden use. And while Squares and Streets has not yet been adopted in West Roxbury, The intent of that program is to increase housing opportunities along primarily business main corridors through each of the city of Boston's neighborhoods. So again, the city through which rezoning is very deliberately prohibited this type of a shelter service along its squares and streets program and that will ultimately end up being the Center Street Quarter at some day if that's the, you know, based upon the current trajectory of the city's rezoning. So now I'd like to transition, even if the city were to adopt this use as congregate living, again, which it should not. But if it does, there are still issues with this project. First and foremost, as a congregate living, has a conditional use for living on the first floor. And in fact, ISD did originally deny this application because as proposed, The application included living quarters on the first floor, and that is because this building at 5 Redlands Road is a two-story building with a lower-level basement. This building has been permitted as such dating back to its construction in 1961 and I provided a number of historical permits which all show this property being designated and described and then later signed off with permitting as a two-story building with a basement. And in fact, the applicant and its initial stamped plans provided floor classifications as lower level, first floor, second floor. And they also had their own contractors performing interior work apply for gas fitting and plumbing permits for the basement. But once having a basement became legally inconvenient, meaning received a refusal letter and had to go through zoning for conditional use. The applicant withdrew the application. When it resubmitted the application, it, I'm sorry, if you can go to the next slide, please. When it resubmitted its application, it reclassified the floors and renamed them. And if you can go to that slide there provides just a snapshot of some historical permits describing this as a two-story building. Building with a basement. Next slide, please. So if you look on to the left where it says existing two-story masonry building, this was the applicant's first application. That's a stamped plan that a professional prepared and was submitted to ISD as a two-story building with a basement. and then when that became legally inconvenient again they changed the plans and if you look to the right when the applicant resubmitted plans the ISD voila has turned into a three-story building The reason that's important is because by relabeling the levels as first, second, third, Now the living quarters that were previously on the first floor, they never moved, but the applicant just renamed that floor as the second floor in order to avoid that violation. Now, if you go to the next slide, please. Just another example of the flooring reclassification on the original plans. They clearly identified the first level as being a lower level, so not first floor. and then they included level one level two well in the amended plans again to avoid that zoning refusal they relabel the floors as one two and three and again changing the words That doesn't mean you're compliant. It just means you're concealing the actual truth about the layout of this property and where the actual living quarters would be. And then if you go to the next floor, you'd ask, well, how did we get here? Well, how do they reclassify this? Well, if you can go to the next slide, please. The code defines a basement as any living area that is 35% or more below grade. Now again, The applicant identified that first level as a basement on prior submissions to ZBA. They were stamped. and so they must be relied upon. But when it became again legally inconvenient for the very first time, the applicant provides a grading without any supporting survey underlying it, in which they calculated that that first level is only 34.82% below grade. So they just snuck under the 35% threshold. And that's important because that actually either requires them to go through the zoning process or not. and ISD simply accepted that reclassification, almost forgetting about the fact that prior plans said something completely different than what was being presented in the amended plans. So they applicant is sidestep zoning Again, first by trying to call it something other than what it is. Now, thereby reclassifying the floors, they've escaped zoning scrutiny once again. And if we go one step further to the next slide, please. We actually have been able to identify in the submission actual documents that have been altered by the applicant. In their original plans, they included fire alarm Thank you. Thank you. With the same date, with the same professional stamp was altered to provide a building description claiming there's a first, second, and third floor. But those changes weren't made by the professional that signed these documents, that created this report. They were made by the applicant. because we could see it in the PDFs they provided. You actually can see changes made by Alex Burke, the owner's son. He's, as far as I understand, not a professional engineer and certainly not the professional that stamped these plans. So we have altered documentation that again ISD just seemed to accept that face value. So I'll move on now to, again, if you're going to be a congregate living facility, you have to remain one throughout the whole analysis. Because now we get into parking. In a congregate living facility, This area provides 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit. Now, it is clearly stated in public and in documentation that the intent is to house Thank you for joining us. have four beds. MOC has stated they expect about three to four individuals per dwelling unit. So the analysis is this, 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit. But because there aren't actual dwelling units here, the code provides a formula that for every four beds, If we use 130 people, which is what has been communicated by the applicant and the shelter operator, then 130 beds divided by four equals 32.5 dwelling units. 32.5 dwelling units requiring 1.5 parking spaces per equals 49 off-street parking spaces. Now, listen, the word simple... Yeah, I understand. I appreciate that. Thank you. The applicant has provided math that just defies all mathematical logic. It makes no sense. And in fact, the plans, the stamped letter... that was made a part of the approved plan set is now admittedly wrong because the parking analysis that the applicant provided to this board for the purpose of this hearing has completely recalculated what they provided for in the initial plans. Essentially, The applicants relying on a formula which would require this board and ISD to believe there are only 58 beds Exist at this location. I won't get into the numbers. I know the chair and everyone's being patient. I'm going to move on. But I implore you to look very carefully at the parking calculations. They want to be a congregate living facility. They have to be for all regions, including parking. and moving along there next slide please go two slides down that's titled loading bay the ISD did previously deny this permit because no loading bay was provided a loading bay is required On the left is the original application. Application denied. There's no loading bay. On the right, amended applications provide not a loading bay, just a loading zone. But a loading zone isn't a loading bay. If you look in the code, I mean, there are very specific design requirements for a loading bay. It's a place to actually come bring a truck and load and offload supplies. Whether or not this facility is going to need it, or not, well, the code requires it, whether it's practical, that's an issue that would be part of a debate over whether this board should allow a variance for this issue or not. But bottom line is there's no required loading bay on the site and I included photographs down the bottom left which show an enclosed fenced in area where a loading bay would essentially have to be adjacent to their quote loading zone, which is nothing more than lines drawn on a piece of paper. And there's no practical way to have a loading bay there, and their plans don't even show that fenced-in area. Finally, if we go to the next slide, and I appreciate your patience, I'm wrapping this up. This project was also previously denied for insufficient off-street parking design and maneuverability. And the code defers to the Boston Transportation Department requirements that the driveway be 10 feet wide. And the reason, one of the reasons this was denied early on is because the survey provided shows a nine foot wide driveway. Now, that nine-foot width has been shown on prior plans, and lo and behold, once that became legally inconvenient, the applicant submitted another plan, but miraculously, that driveway went from nine feet to ten feet. Again, and ISD just seemed to accept that at face value. So somebody's wrong here. The engineer that stamped the prior plan shown was nine feet, and now it just goes to 10 feet without any corresponding work done in between to expand the width of that driveway. Again, it requires heightened zoning scrutiny and heightened scrutiny by ISD and this board. And the last, second to last slide just again talks about the maneuverability. I don't believe any plans been presented to the Boston Transportation Department, but I cannot imagine under any circumstance that the Boston Transportation Department is going to look at this of the City of Boston, and the City of Boston. you know a number of other factors to show that trucks can actually maneuver in and out of there not to mention the actual vehicles under no reasonable circumstances Can this configuration accommodate those requirements? Now, what we're asking, if we can go to the last slide, please. So before I go to the ask, I just want to make a couple of final comments. Zoning is the backbone of neighborhood democracy. It is democracy pushed down to the street level. It gives the neighbors a seat at the table, a seat that this administration has guaranteed to the residents of the city of Boston. We've just spent two hours today considering Very reasonable arguments on both sides about extensions of living space, another floor, increased parking spaces, decreased parking spaces, all of which were required to be brought to the public forum for consideration and debate. and then ultimately for the ZBA decide whether the requested uses and requested exceptions to the code were an appropriate project for that area. That gives the neighbors a seat at that table. has been, that process has been cut out of this. And I know we've had public meetings primarily at our own request, but the discussion at those public meetings aren't necessarily relevant to this board's consideration. because only when this board is considering the granting zone relief to the neighbors concerns be brought into that process? And are they weighed? And are they considered by this board whether or not to issue the zoning relief requested? And now I put at the bottom of each slide a saying, and it has meaning. We're asking this board to restore the process, to uphold the law, and to respect the community. Because if we allow City Hall to skip the rules here, as they have done, then they can skip them anywhere. So what we're asking this board to do is to exercise common sense. Look at the definition of transitional housing and homeless shelter. Look at what's actually proposed, not what just they wrote in the application. and apply that common sense and order one of two things. Either that ISD vacate the existing permit, or that in the alternative issue an order that ISD apply the appropriate use classification of homeless, shelter, transitional housing and then issue a zone and code refusal Citing the conditional use requirement, but also the variance requirements. And then have the applicant enter the public arena, talk about this project, allow it to stand on its own merits, and be debated in that forum to ultimately come back to this board at some point with reasonable arguments on both sides of the issue Thank you. Thank you. A common sense approach would apply the facts to the law and deny the permit. And I ask that, oh, finally, as far as the support, and I know there's a lot coming in, I know this is a legal interpretation, so maybe not entirely on point to the normal considerations by the board. but we've submitted well over a thousand letters and signatures in support of our appeal, not in support of the project, in support of our appeal, including letters from Political elected leaders, including Senator Mike Rush, Representative McGregor. And I'm not trying to, you have their letters. So something so much slightly. So I just ask this board to consider all of that information. When reaching its decision today. And I appreciate all your time and patience to answer any questions.

Thank you. So we're going to give the applicant a brief opportunity to Explain their position. Any questions from the board and we will have brief testimony. Are there any questions from the board first?

I have some questions about certain definitions. So I don't know if there's somebody from our team that can answer those. Feel free to throw them out there and we'll see. Okay, so first definition that I want to know about is what is the definition of temporary or transitional? Is there like a time period on it or anything like that?

Can I answer the question or were you directing it to the city? I don't know.

I mean, I would prefer the city to answer it, but if you have an answer.

Well, I did provide the definition of transitional housing in the materials, and it doesn't place a strict So that's my question, is what's the definition of temporary? Well, the temporary is not defined, as I know, specifically in the code, but I think the common sense definition applies. There's no, without a timeframe, I would say it matches what MOC has said that their intent of this shelter is to provide brief stays Okay, temporary stays. They don't further define temporary. They just, I think, relying on the common sense application of the word.

Okay, and then the next question I have, which is possibly going to be answered in the next presentation is, was the ground floor, first floor, basement. Whatever it's referred to now, was that always below 35% grade? Like, is there any proof of that? So that's my second question, which will possibly be answered in the next presentation. And then thirdly, I'm having a really hard time understanding the difference between congregate living and a homeless shelter because if congregate living says you share kitchens and bathrooms and then also homeless shelter this particular iteration of a homeless shelter does the same thing I don't understand the difference except for if there is some type of definition with the word temporary. So those are some of my concerns.

Thank you. Any other comments or questions from the board?

My question is, it sounds like If we chose to approve a family homeless shelter, it would trigger a number of violations that would have to come before us. Is that correct? Yeah. Okay, so that really our choice is to either vacate the current permit or I'm not quite sure what, or just re-characterize what's been asked for.

You're either assuming ISD's interpretation is correct or incorrect. They're either incorrect or correct in issuing the permit. Okay. If they're incorrect, they need to come back. And then they need to come back. Okay.

If I'm wrong, Caroline, please correct me. And Madam Chair, the third option is also to refer it to the law department if you would like more legal analysis on those issues.

Right. In terms of potential, in terms of a potential motion, those, the three motions will be either you believe ISD erred initially the permit, you believe ISD was correct in issuing the permit or you referred to law department. We haven't gotten there yet, but those are. Okay.

Okay.

Thank you. Think on those. I don't know if that, I think Mr. Collins had a question or a comment.

Yeah, is anyone from the planning department on? I just, if it's an as of right project through Congregate Living, The recommendation from the planning department calls out violations. So I guess it's a little confusing from their perspective as well.

No, Mr. Collins, we don't get involved in the interpretations. You didn't even see this. I don't know why that was submitted, but we don't have anything. We don't get involved. This is entirely something that you have to determine based on ISD's actions.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions from the board? Just to say one thing, there is a BPDA recommendation that highlights, but I don't know what it means.

I think Mr. Hampton's point is that was provided in error. Is that correct? Mr. Hampton, that was provided in there. Okay, so moving on. If there are no other questions, are there any other questions from the board?

There's just a clarification I wanted to ask Mr. Cloutier. Maybe this is for the next presentation. The organization or the entity that has been supporting this project is not the city, it's the state, the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities. Is that correct? Yes, it's the exact EOHLC funds these programs and chooses the vendors.

Yes. Okay.

Yeah, they're not the vendor.

All right. So the city is not the one promoting the project. It's the state.

It's a state-run program, but of course the city is the permitting authority for the project. Okay. Thank you.

One more question, Madam Chair. Hopefully in the next presentation we'll get the answer, I think, to what Ms. Turner was asking, which is I think to properly identify the use, we need a lot of information about their operations. So how long are people expected to live there? Before maybe finding more permanent housing if you could just be really detailed about your operations I think that would help us in our deliberation. Thank you.

Thank you. That's a good segue. So we will give the applicant a brief opportunity to clarify any points.

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. Paul Ruffo, I'm an attorney in Boston at Smith, Duggan, Cornell, and Golub, 101 Arch Street in Boston. And if the screen could be... shared with our presentation. We can walk you through this Very good. So just first to sort of start at the end and talk to Ms. Turner's very you know relevant and important questions because that's really where I'm going to start with this which is The abutter's appeal is defective and should be denied for basically two reasons. One is that this is not a homeless shelter. This is a congregate living facility. And you put your finger right on it. and asking the question, what's the length of time? The building code defines temporary as up to 30 days stay or less than a 30 day stay. It does that because hotels are considered temporary, homeless shelters are considered temporary, etc. A homeless shelter, like the... Wonderful people at Pine Street Inn, Rosie's Place, all the others that dot this city. Care for people on an overnight basis, typically. And the abutter has attempted to mischaracterize this project as a homeless shelter, which it is not. It is a residence. And a residence is defined as a stay of 31 days or longer. And the requirements of any of these families who are either at risk or experiencing homelessness is that they sign an agreement It's not a lease, but they sign an agreement that they will stay in this residence for at least 31 days, up to six months, and that can be extended. Some people come back. It can be extended longer than that. Okay, so I'm sorry, I'm getting some feedback.

Anyone who's not supposed to be speaking. Thank you.

Thank you. But that is a critical question, and that is a critical distinction, and it's a critical mischaracterization by Mr. Marsh in an attempt to set aside the commissioner's I represent the owner of Berkshire Investments LLC. That's Rob Burke and his son, Alex Burke. They have leased this property To making opportunities count, you'll hear from Colby O'Brien, who's the Vice President of Programs. and he'll explain to you as people have already kind of sorted out that the executive offices of housing and livable communities Selects this nonprofit, Making Opportunities Count, to run these programs. They'll explain to you that they have run numerous of these programs and facilities very successfully.

I'm going to.

So it's important. The use. This is the property that you're seeing there. The use as a congregate living facility, as I say, is defined by the length of stay. If you can go to the next slide. Yep. Because the building code, the zoning code rather, doesn't contain a specific use, section 2.2, article Section 2.2 says look in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts State Building Code, also known as the International Building Code, and that defines what a congregate living facility is, and it references residents. Residents share bathroom, kitchen facilities, etc. You'll hear from Mr. O'Brien that the residents will have their own room. They'll use this as their address. They'll enroll their kids in Boston schools using this as their address. They'll apply for jobs using this as an address, et cetera, et cetera. The second reason that I want to just highlight up front, and it's a foundational issue that this board, I suggest, and perhaps an appellate board, appellate court, must consider, is whether, in fact, Mr. Marsh who lives in a completely different zone. He's in a butter. He butts the property next door to it. But it's a one family, 6,000 square foot zone. That's where he has his house. This is a neighborhood Business Sub-District, a neighborhood shopping district. It's a completely different zone. And I would suggest to you, and I've submitted legal arguments to the effect that Mr. Marsh does not have standing to bring this because he does not have a legally recognizable interest.

Can you focus on the abutting so we can get to some testimony?

Thank you. Go ahead. Next slide. So as this slide makes clear, I've already mentioned it. Homeless shelter. Less than 30 is temporary housing. Building code says that's less than 30 days. Congregate living facility, 31 days. That's a significant difference that residents have to sign on for. Next slide, please. Okay, reaching the issue of the, I don't know if you want to go into this right now, Madam Chair, but reaching the technical Objections that they raise. We worked through this with the Commissioner's Office as to the parking and as to the loading zone and as to the driveway width. Again, We submit that Mr. Marsh doesn't actually have standing to raise these issues. But on the parking issue, there's no question that this is affordable housing. because every one of the residents there has to meet certain income and asset requirements that are well below the federal standards for affordable housing. In the code, Article 56, Table I, it says when you're applying an affordable housing factor, it's footnote 3 actually, the parking requirement is .7 spaces, not 1.5. as has been mischaracterized here. Therefore, we're going to have 40 rooms for the residents. They'll each have their own room. There are two rooms in the building, one on the second floor, one on the third floor, that can only accommodate two people. The code, footnote two says, if you can only accommodate two people, that's one unit. Okay, if you can accommodate more than two people, which 38 rooms can accommodate more than two people, Then you count every four beds as one dwelling unit. That gives us a maximum of 58 beds that we can provide in those dwelling and those other rooms, 38 rooms. That's 14.5 dwelling units. The total number of dwelling units therefore is 14.5 plus 1 is 15.5 multiplied by 0.07 is 10.85 required spaces which is rounded up to 11 spaces. Quite frankly, the way that we arrived at that was to count backwards from the 11 spaces that we are providing including one accessible space and that tells us and the size of the rooms, how many people, what the occupancy is. The occupancy is going to be 120 people, not 130. As has been represented. And again, that was worked out very carefully with the commissioner's office. And that's based upon the size of the room, of each of the rooms, and how many people can be accommodated in each room. So it's not going to be the number of beds that Mr. Cloutier mentioned. On the loading space, because I want to get to these folks and they'll explain to you what they're going to do on these technical violations. On the loading, they attempt to use, the abutter attempts to use the Boston Transportation Department requirement, which is not what article... 56 Table I requires. That sends you over to section 24-2 where the size of the loading zone It's supposed to be 10 feet wide by 20 feet long. And in fact, there's not going to be any height. There's not going to be enclosure on the height here because there's not going to be any nighttime deliveries. That's only required for nighttime deliveries. So that's a straw argument. On the width of the driveway, the driveway has always been 10 feet. If you take a tape measure out there, which we've done, which Mr. Burke has done, On the previous plans, it's always been listed as 10 feet. There were plans that were submitted that said 9.8 feet. We believe it was done based on a computer. There is 10-foot width for that. Mr. Burke is going to Tell you how the calculations of which answers the other question that Ms. Turner had, the calculations of why this is Three stories above grade. And so if we can go to that next, that next slide is the loading zone just quickly. Yep, as I mentioned, the proper design standards are Article 24, Section 2, which is 10 by 25, which we have. And then the next slide. width of the driveway I mentioned. It's all the plans that you see historically. I'll show a 10 foot driveway. If you go out there with the tape measure, it's a 10 foot, 10 foot wide. It's plenty long enough.

Okay, please move on.

The next slide, please. Thank you. Mr. Burke, Alex Burke, will explain to you why historically this building was never actually calculated, whether it was 35% above grade. Alex, are you on the call?

Thank you, Paul. I will be addressing the building as it relates to story classification. Building Permit 1507 was applied for in 1961 for the construction of a nursing home which was three years prior to the adoption of the Boston Zoning Code in 1964. That code introduced Article 2 definitions which, for the first time, defined key terms such as story, height, grade, and basement. At the time Building Permit 1507 was applied for and issued, those terms were undefined within any zoning framework. This absence is important as it establishes that the original permit was reviewed under a framework that did not yet provide definitional guidance. Over time, various short-form building, plumbing, gas, wiring, and fire alarm permits were issued, which self-reinforced the original permit and do not change or confirm the user occupancy. and there were no previous calculations to determine the percent above or below grade. The parcel at 5 Redlands presents a unique topographical condition characterized by a continuous and irregular grade change along the building's frontage. Through field verification of spot elevations and application of the definitional standards now contained within Article 2, it was conclusively determined that the lowest level is a first story as now defined. Therefore, the building properly comprises three stories under the current definitional framework. And now I'll turn it over to Coby, who is the VP of Programs for Making Opportunities Count.

Mr. O'Brien is going to explain to you the operation, which should answer a bunch of those questions as well. Go ahead, Colby.

Next slide, please. Thank you. Members of the board, thank you. I'll be brief for the opportunity to speak. My name is Colby O'Brien. I serve as the vice president of programs that make an opportunity count. We are a community action agency headquartered in Fitchburg. Next slide, please. Our organization provides a wide range of anti-poverty and housing programs across the Commonwealth and our staff work really hard every day to support families to achieve stability and self-sufficiency. We are an EA provider, emergency assistance provider. We were contracted through the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities to provide both rehousing and emergency services, emergency EA services to families experiencing homelessness. Currently, we manage 157 units of EA shelter throughout five locations, including two congregate shelter sites. At the height of the emergency shelter response, we operate more than 600 units across 12 facilities in Massachusetts. So the scale and structure of this project at Rodlands The goal of the program is really to provide wraparound supports and a housing first model, ensuring that families not only have a safe place to stay, but access services that they need to meet their goals and have self-sufficiency. The Redlands site is going to be staffed 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It's closed to anyone except staff, resident, families, and approved service providers. This is not a transient shelter. This is a A congregate site. Families here will receive mail here. They will receive official documents. They will use this as their address. School-age children living at Five Redlands, they will attend Boston Public Schools or through McKinney-Vento, the school that they originally became homeless in. and so the standard length of stay in the EA program is six months. Families may be eligible for an extension. If necessary, they may reapply through EOHLC and eligibility for placement is solely EOHLC's decision. And that includes extensive quarry, story, background checks, income verification, residency requirements. And we'll talk about the current average length of stay for families is 258 days. and that is of October 16th. And so as the colder months go on, facilities like Five Rutherlands are going to become even more critical, particularly because this site prioritizes Boston-based families to keep them close to their community, schools, and support systems. Go ahead to the next slide. So site overview, the site, every family have their own private bedroom with shared bathrooms. and the building includes common areas in each floor. And the first floor specifically has a shared kitchen with three cooking areas, a dining area, two playrooms for infants and toddlers, a media room for school-aged children, Office space for our team or case management service providers and as per the current operation procedures we conduct Three inspections a week to maintain integrity of the site, good condition of the rooms, address maintenance concerns and wellness concerns. The last point I want to make is no level two or three sexual offenders will be placed at Five Redlands by EOHLC. This is a firm policy and a shared commitment for the safety and well-being of not just the residents living at the site but also the surrounding neighborhood. Next slide, please. Since early spring, we have engaged with the community through a series of public meetings, five of them to be specific. Each was designed to provide transparency, invite questions, and incorporate feedback. These meetings have been very valuable to helping us listen and respond to concerns in the community. And in October, we actually hosted the delegation for a tour. They got a firsthand look at the layout, the safety protocols, asked questions. They were all on site. And so in the recent weeks, EOHLC has also released additional documentation and Q&A materials which have addressed the operational details and the frequently asked questions that many have. They have also participated directly in community meetings that we all have been a part of. Next slide, so I'll be brief. We're grateful to also receive more than 60 letters of support from community members who recognize the importance of safe, stable housing for families in need. I want to emphasize that the families that live At Five Redlands will be members of the community and they will shop at the same stores, visit the same parks, participate in the same community events and local schools, just like any other neighbor. Next slide, please. and here you will see headlines from local press coverage. We recognize this project has generated significant attention and at times tension within the community We want to reaffirm our commitment to being good neighbors and fostering open respectful communication. Our goal is to create ongoing feedback loops that involve the community and address things productively and solution oriented wise and we want we want the Redlands families to call this their home thank you and lastly I have one more slide um last slide please Nope, one more, the one above it. I can't speak more critically or urgently for the need for this facility. Boston, nearly 70% of Boston's homeless population or families. Those are mothers, fathers, children. They deserve the same stability, dignity and opportunity as all of us. As we head into winter, our EA program will become not just vital, but essential for survival. and this does support Mayor Wu's expansion for affordable housing initiatives and family-centered housing across the city. So thank you, thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Can I just two quick points that were misstatements that were made?

I just don't want this to be a back and forth. So I'm going to give you this last chance and then we'll move on.

Great, thank you very much.

Our presentation's not done, I'm sorry. I'm going to turn it over to Alex for the very last slide.

Okay, well, I need you to wrap up. Is someone else from your team speaking?

Alex, last slide.

If you want to go scroll to the next slide, frequently asked questions. We've been listening to questions from the butters at the community meetings and want to summarize some of the most frequently asked questions. Additionally, community members have appreciated our willingness to correct the record based upon the appellant's purposeful misinformation campaign. First, currently the lease with MOC is for five years and the use will remain the same. Private trash or rodent services are provided to ensure a proactive rodent action plan. Visitors are not allowed unless there are essential service providers. The site will be fully secured 24-7 surveillance. Entry doors are always locked. Security cameras are monitored around the clock and the building will always be staffed. Last, we have secured additional parking for 10 cars from a neighboring business.

Thank you.

Thank you for your time.

Are there other questions from the board? I just want to remind everyone we're focusing on the classification, first world living space, off-street loading, off-street parking. Any other questions from the board?

Yes, the zoning violations are existing from the time the building was a nursing home. Are there any new zoning violations? Are you building any additions? Are you creating any new zoning violations with this project?

No.

So the violations are from the building that were there before, from the use that were there before.

This is an allowed use.

I think that's the issue that we're looking at, Mr. Williams.

Because the question is whether it's a congregate living facility or a homeless shelter. So it's allowed as of right. Thank you.

Okay so while we do not we're not required to take public testimony we will take some for this case but I'm limiting it to one minute per person that includes any public officials that may be on so So testimony is limited to the use classification, the first floor living space, off-street loading, and off-street parking. Those wishing to testify again are limited to one minute and someone will be cutting you off. Be clear why you're in support or opposition and your reasoning. Thank you.

Sorry, Madam Chair. I can make points and rebuttal.

Well done. Madam Chair, would you like to hear from the building commissioner? Briefly.

If that's helpful, briefly.

Commissioner Joseph?

Are you on?

Yes, I'm on. Yes, good afternoon Madam Commissioner. Madam Chair and good afternoon, everyone. It's Mark Joseph from ISD, the Building Commissioner. And we acted on an application that come before us, as we've done in the past for many, many different Thank you for joining us. according to zoning code is an allow use and the number of parking provided met all the requirements and that's what ISD did. And with respect to the height, The first story is above 35%, 65% as the zoning referred ISD or plan examiner to do. And that's what ISD did. The nowness of the driveway. This is an existing driveway. It was not there before. It was there before for the nursing home that was there existing. and then the land surveyor submit another plot plan that showed it as 10 feet and then our plan examiner had to act on the documents submitted by professionals approved by the state. And that's what ISD did. And I don't believe ISD aired on this.

Thank you. Madam Chair, can I just make those two counterpoints again? You had mentioned I could after the applicant. Briefly, please. Very briefly, regarding residence and temporary, neither are defined in the zoning code. They're not defining the building codes. I don't know where Councilor got that information where we provided temporal designations to both. So according to the code, This board and ISD has to apply the definitions as provided in Article 2, and that is for transitional housing and homeless shelter. And when applied to these facts, not just what the applicant wrote on the piece of paper, I think ISD has to actually listen to the facts, as I believe Ms. Whewell said, regarding the operations and apply that. Just because they wrote congregate living on the application doesn't mean that is what's going to happen at this facility. What's happening at this facility is a homeless shelter and use and transitional housing use. So I just want to clarify the issue with definitions of temporary in the building code. It's not there as councilor represented, so. I'd appreciate it. And I would defer at the end, the alternative would be a deferral over to the law department for a very top to bottom thorough analysis of the facts in the law. Thank you.

So again, I'm going to open it up to public testimony and limit it to one minute per person. Caroline is going to cut you off at that one minute. So we'll begin with public officials. Jesus, if you want to manage that, please. Thank you.

Sure, Madam Chair. So we have first Antonio Gilardi, please.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the board. For the record, Anthony Anzalardi from City Councilor Erin Murphy's office. The council submitted a letter to the CBA. I'm just going to read excerpts from the letter, and I'll be very brief, Madam Chair. It's been a long... I have heard from many residents who are deeply concerned about the scale and process surrounding this project. While I support the City's commitment to addressing housing and shelter needs, I also believe that each proposal must comply with zoning requirements and move forward through a fair, transparent and lawful process. The concerns raised by neighbors about zoning compliance, traffic, parking, and safety are legitimate and should be thoroughly reviewed before any decision is made. The community also deserves clear communication and genuine opportunities for input prior to the project approval. I respectfully urge to ensure that all applicable zoning provisions are met and that residents' concerns are fully considered as part of your review. Thank you for your time and careful attention to this matter. Sincerely, Aaron Murphy. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Next, we have City Councilor Ben Weber.

Thank you, Chair. If you can see me, you can't see, can you hear me?

We can hear you. You have a minute. It's ticking.

Yeah, OK. Thank you. Ben Weber, City Council for District 6. I just want to express my strong belief we have an obligation to ensure families in Massachusetts have a safe place to stay. I hope the ZBA will do its job here, which is not to You know, to not to let, you know, fear or political pressure dictate its decision is to apply the zoning code. You know, we've heard about three definitions, homeless shelter, transitional housing, congregate living. They're both in the zoning table for this area. And so even if there isn't a definition of congregated living in section 2.1, you still have to interpret that and apply that. I would just point out for the ZBA, that the word temporary appears in the definition for homeless shelter and transitional housing. It does not appear in the definition of congregate living under the International Building Code. You have to give those terms their effect. You can't just nullify the zoning table by saying that their congregate living isn't defined, so we're not going to allow it. And it is defined if you look at 2.2. You also have to look at temporary, and what does that mean? My understanding is that temporary homeless shelter is really one night. Temporary transitional shelters are up to 30 days. Conger living is longer than that. But again, you have an obligation here to just interpret that code, use the legal interpretation, and I hope you approach that in the best way and dispassionately. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Okay, next we have Kerry Forde, please.

Sorry, did you say Katie Ford?

Yes.

Okay, thanks. Hi, my name's Katie Ford. I live on Shermer Road, which intersects Redlands Road. I strongly oppose the appeal to this permit being built. I just would beg the... ZBA to look through the noise and really look at the zoning issues that have been brought up here and presented by the builder and the nonprofit In addition to that, I did help collect approximately 90 letters from my community in support of this project. I know that there's a lot of noise from the opposition, but I would kind of throw back the words into the attorney for the Pelley's I would say that the process has been restored. You hopefully will uphold the law, and I do think it would be respecting the community if you do allow this project to move on so the building is no longer abandoned sitting there. I have two small children they go to the dentist next door they will still go to the dentist next door and the pediatric dentist is actually really thrilled to have and welcome these families into West Roxbury so again please look through the noise and make the right decision here and just Make this a permit issue and not.

Next, we have Mike S. Mike.

My name is Michael Shurns. I live at 12 Manhattan Road, West Roxbury. I'm a director of Butter to Five Redlands Road. I've worked in the construction industry for over 50 years. A simple visual inspection shows that the basement of 5 Redlands Road is clearly more than 3-Pin-4-A below grade, which should disqualify it for being considered and Lowe toward the building, habitants floor area. Determination allows warrant further reviews by ASD. Developer also claims 11 parking spaces behind the property. From first observation, I do not see how it's possible for emergency vehicles or delivery vehicles cannot safely access or turn even when it's empty. let alone the multiple cars parked there. I also request how the developer was permitted to...

Okay, next we have Karen Bishop.

You just need to be clear if you're in support or opposition. And again, we're limiting it to one minute.

Yes, I've got a timer going. Okay. Thank you for taking my comment. Also, thank you to the board for the work that you do over the years that I've been here, almost 20 now. I've worked with my neighbors, and you've made it so that We got to know what they were doing and to support them in that. This shelter is something that I really support in our community here. We're a very giving place and we participate in our community. Also, I've got about 10 years of intense work with shelters. I've already volunteered. to help any way that I can in actually volunteering my time since I'm retired to the shelter, however I can help them. So thank you for taking my comment and I think this is a very worthwhile effort to bring into our community. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Chair, we have six more hands raised.

We're going to do as many as we can with the one-minute limit, so we'll take those and go from there.

Julia Hansen from Boston Publix, please you can unmute yourself Julia Hansen Okay, if not, next we have Kelly.

Kelly, you can unmute yourself. Okay, we're going to keep going. I don't know what folks need to unmute yourself when you're called on.

Yeah. Okay, next we have a Matthew Smith.

Hello, my name is Matthew Smith. I live on Redlands Road. I entirely support The production of more housing and transitional housing and shelters for the homeless. But I do think that just as a matter of law, which takes seriously the question about whether this is transitional housing or congregate living, The way in which the proposers are defending the claim that this is transitional housing is the Thank you very much. or could if they wish exit prior to that time. So in general, I just think we should take this seriously and refer it back for a proper zoning meeting where the community can speak. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have Joan.

Yes, hi, my name is Joanne Shaughnessy. I live at 103 Redlands and I am against this shelter as it's been proposed. So, you know, my first question is, it seems clear that it's a shelter. The type of shelter, to me, the style is congregate living, but MOC is a shelter operator. and from the beginning the developer has been secretive and even in the last permit If they were in the right, why did they submit documents that had been submitted before and illegally alter them instead of going out and get professionals to back up their claims. So I agree that this community is very welcome and opening, but we want to be sure that the residents of this facility

Okay, next we have Julia Hansen.

Hi, can you hear me? Okay. I'm I'm speaking. I know this has my work tag. I'm not speaking as my professional capability. I'm speaking as a private citizen and as a resident of Redlands Road. I am all in support of the shelter. I think you've heard the arguments here today about the zoning. Unfortunately, I think a lot of the people who are against the shelter are trying to find zoning loopholes to be against it because they don't want any outside people living in our community And I say that if it's fine with the zoning, I'm very happy to have these people as my neighbors and in my community. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have Kelly.

Hi, can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay, perfect. I had written something out. Good morning, Madam Chair and Board. My name is Kaylee and I live in the Charlestown Naval Yard. I also work downtown where I've experienced the St. Francis House firsthand. Our neighborhood is taking initiative with... I'm sorry, are you here for Red Wind by Red Winds or... 153rd Avenue.

No, I'm here for the 3rd Street. That's why I thought it was on. So we're on 5 Redlands. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. That's next.

Next, we have a team. Please make sure to unmute yourself.

Hi, can you hear me? Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Gordon. I just speak today in opposition of the shelter use of by Redlands Road. It's clear. It's clear from Many of the concerns raised today that this is definitely a case that would require additional review by the law department at the very least. And I think it's very It's unfortunate to hear some people refer to serious concerns of lifelong residents as noise. It's simply not noise and it's unfair to classify serious concern as noise. I do take offense as a lifelong West Roxbury resident.

Thank you. Right.

Do we have time? I think that comes to further review by the city.

Thank you. Thank you. We'll take two more. Okay. Kate Lee Manley, please.

Yes, I would encourage this board to take a look at the zoning issues that the Marsh family, that Steve Marsh brought forward in this appeal. I am in support of the appeal against the shelter at Five Redlands.

Thank you. Paula?

Yes, can you hear me? Yes.

Yes, ma'am.

Yes, I agree with the last comment. I believe that this was all very rushed and I'm against the shelter right now until there's more closer look at how all this went down with the ISD and the community only heard about this in the last week or so and I prefer if this is all looked at before they would say yes to a shelter.

Thank you. Thank you. There is one last person.

The last person. One minute. Yep.

Rosie.

Hi, I am about two doors down from What they plan on putting in as the shelter, I am against it. I have two young children. I feel like it would, the whole neighborhood would just, Trying to go down, meaning there would be like so many people on the street. You don't know who's actually going to be living there. Yeah, and where like we've seen last night, a ton of other shelters have been, there's been fighting amongst the people, the residents that actually live in it. I just don't want that for the people there or us. Fire Hazard. If there's too many people all together in one spot, something could happen. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you everyone who testified. We received many by email. So are there any other questions from the board? Are you ready for a motion?

Would you like me to present the board with the three options for the motion? Feel free to repeat it. Yes. Sure. So the first option for members of the ZVA board is option one, that ISD was correct. in administering its permit as of right Option two, ISD was incorrect in issuing the permit as of right. Or option three, this matter can be referred to the law department for more legal analysis.

Thank you.

I'd like to make a motion that ISD was correct in issuing the permit.

Is there a second?

I second.

Mr. Stembridge.

Yes.

Mr. Valencia.

Yes, I think that this project is not going to be an overnight shelter. It's not going to be a recovery site. This project is going to provide Housing for families and children especially who are struggling until they find a more stable place to live. And I agree with Commissioner Joseph about that. Congregate Living isn't allowed to use, so I second the motion. Thank you. I say yes.

Thank you. Ms. Turner. Yes, and I think that this is urgent given the time. People are struggling right now and it's about to get worse. So I believe that ISD was correct in issuing this permit. As we will.

Yes, I think the information provided indicating around the typical length of stay kind of is more in line with congregate living. So that's why I'm supporting that motion. Yes.

Well, Mr. Collins.

No, I believe that the proponent misled ISD by doctoring stamped and professional equations and documents.

No. Ms. Prado. Chair votes yes, the motion carries.

Thank you. Thank you.

Next, we'll move on to Case BOA-177-1531 with the address of 153rd Avenue. If the applicant and or their representative are present, Will they please respond to the board?

And please be mindful, we just spent over an hour on our last interpretation, so please be succinct. who is here to speak on 153rd Avenue.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Tanya Treveson with Mirioni, Shaughnessy, and Utey for the appellant. Okay. Please proceed. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. As I said, I represent the appellants, which include many residents of Charlestown, including direct abutters to the property at issue here. which is located at 153rd Avenue in Charlestown Navy Yard. This is in the historic monument area. The appellants are appealing the issuance of the building permit that was issued by ISD on July 23rd to renovate and change the occupancy of the pre-existing Charlestown YMCA and hotel and restaurant into 149 residential apartments as well as renovating the YMCA gym, pool, and recreational facility daycare. The renovations to this building were subject to large project review by the BPDA pursuant to Article 80. However, the building permit significantly differs from the proposed project as approved by the BPDA. The VPDA had approved 100 units total, which included affordable housing apartments and 48 units of permanent supportive housing. In contrast, the plans on file at ISD show 149 residential apartments including 64 units of PSH. So there are actually 32 units of permanent supportive housing on each of the second and third floors with communal kitchens and common lounge areas. There are significant key differences between the use of the property for affordable housing apartments versus permanent supportive housing. Residents are not simply tenants under a private lease with regard to permanent supportive housing. They are participants in a managed service-linked program with ongoing case management and supervision, and that transforms the building's function from residential housing into a hybrid residential institutional use. Also, the community impact would be significantly different. As documented in my October 22nd letter and accompanying photographs, similar PSH developments operated by this developer, for example, the St. Francis House on Boylston Street, gives rise to visible street-level issues, discarded hypodermic needles, overdoses on the sidewalk, people loitering, and public defacement of the property. These observed conditions are not characteristic of traditional apartment living where management does not provide or supervise behavioral health services and residents are not congregated based on vulnerability or their treatment needs. So by way of background, there's the 1978 deed as between the Bend VRA and the USA General Services Administration, which provides that the National Park Service retains complete jurisdiction over all use and control of the property within the historic monument area, which is where this property is located. and it requires compliance with the program of preservation and utilization as well as within section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. So our arguments on appeal here first is that this is a change in use from a hotel into affordable apartment units and permanent supportive housing units. for homeless individuals and individuals with mental health and substance abuse issues. This was not reviewed and approved by the Federal Advisory Council on Historic Preservation as required under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act or in compliance with Article 42F, Section 42F-13 of the Zoning Code. Section M106, review by the Massachusetts Historical Commission, as the developer would argue, does not suffice here as the MHC is only authorized to review This is not a federal project. This is a project by a private developer and requires approval from both the MHC and the ACHP. The ACHP response to our public records request, which is attached as Exhibit A to my letter dated October 22nd, demonstrates that the ACHP has no record regarding the redevelopment of the Constitution Inn. The abutters are concerned that the conditions observed at the developer's other PSH locations, such as the St. Francis House on Boylston Street, would transpire here. Again, my letter from October 22nd shows those photos. A man overdosing and lying on the sidewalk, people loitering, excrement on the sidewalk and the walls of the building, and discarded hypodermic needle on the sidewalk. Permanent supportive housing is not allowed within the Charlestown Navy Yard. Article 42F, section 42F-14 of the zoning code outlines the residential uses that are allowed within the Charlestown Navy Yard. They include building or group of building for occupancy by three or more families in separate dwelling units. Group Residence Limited as defined in Section 2-1, Convalescent Nursing or Rest Home, and Lodging or Boarding House. The proposed use here does not fall into any of those categories. While the residential apartments are allowed use under the zoning code, permanent supportive housing units are not mere apartment units and differ significantly, as I stated earlier. Permanent supportive housing is a distinct category that combines residential occupancy with social services, often classified as supportive or institutional residential use, not a mere apartment building. Also, we argue that the area designated as urban renewal area overlay district was not properly voted upon or enacted by the Boston Zoning Commission because certain members of the Boston Zoning Commission were not active members when the vote was taken. So those regulations should not apply to this area. We also argue that the use of the recreational swimming pool is expressly prohibited by the 1978 deed and should not be allowed further. And we also argue that the BPDA did not issue a valid certificate of compliance for the project as an in, An independent advisory group was never provided with an opportunity to review and comment on the project, thereby invalidating the BBDA's certificate of compliance. By executive order of Mayor Menino in October 2000, There was the creation of the IAG's for all projects subject to large project review under Article 80. The purpose of this executive order was meant to ensure public involvement in the process. While the mayor could not force the VP day to recommend an IAG would be appointed, it is curious here and in fact consistent with the way this project has been shepherded through the city with little opportunity for public input. Why did the BEPDA not recommend an IAG? So here, we also argue that failure to comply with Article 25A of the Zoning Code which is the building's mechanicals being below the required minimum level sea level rise. They are still in the basement level and that is concerning due to the sea level rise that is the area where the property is subject to. But based on these arguments, the appellant's request that the board ordered her building commissioner to rescind the building permit is issued unless and until these issues are addressed.

Thank you. Are there questions from the board? Is the applicant here to briefly rebut?

Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm Kevin O'Flaherty. We represent the developer here, which is a joint venture between St. Francis House, Inc. and the planning office of the Boston Catholic Archdiocese. I'll refer to those. I want to address the five issues that have been raised in the appellant's appeal and we submitted a memorandum which is in the record of about 14, 15 pages that goes into those issues very much in detail. But before I do that, I think I need to talk a little bit about what this project is and what it isn't. The appellants have spent a good deal of time to suggest that we are proposing A shelter, a homeless shelter for transient people. That is not what this project is by a long shot. The appellants have also spent time trying to suggest that this is some form of congregate housing. We heard a lot about both of those things in the prior hearing. You probably well understand now the differences, but we are not congregate housing. What is being scrolled through on the screen right now is a It's a hundred apartment units, totally self-sufficient living areas with kitchen, Bathroom, Sleeping Area. These are apartments And they are not, this is not transitional housing. This is not a congregate living facility where people share bathrooms and share kitchen areas. Each one of these 100 apartments is going to have its own bathroom and its own kitchen. And as you can see from these slides, It's a building that is going to be renovated beautifully. Hardly any work to the outside, but it's all really interior work. And these are the kind of apartments that are going to be produced at the end of it. These apartments are going to be subject to a year lease with the tenants. There's 100 units, not 149, as the appellants urge. The building permit, mistakenly, I think, in a scrivener's error, identifies the project as building 149 or renovating this building into 149 units. That is not the case. The project has been permitted and reviewed and the plans of the project, which are on the BPDA website, show that there are a hundred units and that's what we've been permitted for and that's what we will develop there a hundred not more If we do more, we'll be in violation of our permit. And if we do more, we'll have to come back to the VPDA for more approvals. because this project was an Article 80 project. It underwent extensive, many, many months of public review, of intense scrutiny by the BPDA, As a large project under Article 80 and all its impacts were very thoroughly studied and the BPDA after that time and its staff recommended approval of the project and recommended to ISD that a building permit issue because we were in compliance with every aspect of zoning in this project. Just a couple words about the site and the building. The site is in the historic monument area in the Charlestown Navy Yard. However, the building Only was built in 1992. This is hardly an historic building. It's no more historic, frankly, than any of the condos and the townhouses that have sprung up in the Navy Yard since, I don't know, the 1990s. This is not a structure which is entitled to any kind of historic review. Thank you for joining us. We didn't get federal approval. If you look at our memo, you'll see how it works for a project like this which can be approved, reviewed and approved for historic preservation purposes by the Mass Historic Commission under the Massachusetts regulations and law. and that the Mass Historic Commission performs what I've described as double duty and reviews the project under the mass regs and the mass law and it reviews the project under the federal. Ms. Treveson says, well, this project is not a federal project. It's a private project. Therefore, you've got to go to the feds for approval. She's wrong about that. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act says that a federal undertaking has to be approved. Undertaking means more than a project that is federally approved. and many more. Fully understood it triggers historic review. But that historic review, as we say in our memo and we supply the law that backs this up, That historic review is conducted under the regulations and under federal law and state law by Mass Historic. and in the in the materials that we've submitted there is mass historic certification that there is no adverse impact on any historic And that's really not surprising given what I said earlier, which is this building was only created in 1992. The building was built by the YMCA in 1992. The YMCA at that time started operating its fitness and wellness facilities and a swimming pool and aquatic facilities. Thank you for joining us. because of COVID for the most part in around 2020. And at that point, the YMCA decided to look to redevelop that part of the building. And ultimately, it was my client that came in to do that. And this is what I would call an adaptive reuse of this building to turn What was once a 147 room hotel for transients into 100 units of permanent, safe, Decent, affordable housing. And the fact that there are community spaces in this building doesn't transform it into some other kind of use. Doesn't... doesn't create a congregate use facility. It's still an apartment. Thank you for joining us. perhaps libraries, reading rooms, and the like. So the point is this. This project has been thoroughly reviewed by the BPDA and was recommended to ISD for approval of a building permit and they've appealed the building permit. I have mentioned I've talked about what their first issue is, the 106. We got the 106 approval. You can see it in our papers. I won't belabor that. The second issue Ms. Treveson raised that they put before this commission for review is that A 2023 zoning amendment was not properly enacted. She says it was not properly enacted because there were holdover members of the zoning commission who voted. There is nothing against, in law, Holdover Members Voting. That's what happened in 2023. But the fact is, under the Boston Zoning Code Section 10A of the Acts of Chapter 665 of the Acts of 1956 under Section 10-8. If you want to appeal from a zoning commission action, you have 30 days. Those 30 days are long past. And finally, if the map that was enacted in 2023 is invalid, which it isn't, the underlying zoning Section 42F of the Zoning Code provides that apartments are allowed uses in this area. That is the use that we're introducing. Let me just talk a minute about the swimming pool. That's issue three they raised. The swimming pool has been there since 1992. There is nothing in the building permit which they're repealing from that has to do with the swimming pool. It doesn't allow the construction of the swimming pool. The swimming pool is there. That would not be a basis for overturning ISD's issuance of the building permit. even if it were, the swimming pool is required according to a 1978 deed that none of the appellants are parties to. They don't have as a legal matter the right to try to enforce The fourth issue they raised is that there was not an IAG appointed in the Article 80 process. And the appellants point to two executive orders by Mayor Menino. Those are attached to our memo. We attach those executive orders to our memo. They do not. The executive orders don't say what the appellants say they say. The executive orders don't require in every case The B P D A here for very reasonable and Good Reason did not think the appointment of an IAG was necessary. Why? Because IAGs review impacts of projects, traffic, light, noise, Height, Shadow. The building is there. The building Exist today. It's not going to create any of those impacts because they already exist. Therefore, an IAG really wasn't required in this particular case to review impacts like that. And it was perfectly reasonable for the BPDA not to require an IAG. And there was a ton of Thank you very much. The project will comply with Article 25A of the zoning code. That is an article about resilience and flood-proofing buildings. Mechanicals in this building exist today in the basement. They will exist in the basement going forward. There will be no change to that. What will change is that the developer will introduce a bunch of flood proofing strategies and facilities to protect those mechanicals from sea level rise, climate change, those sorts of things. That is perfectly allowed under the guidelines to which this building is subject and to which the coastal resiliency analysis proceeds. Those are the issues. Let me just conclude, if I may, just by saying, I just ask the board not to be fooled into thinking this. This project is something other than it is. It's a hundred units of much needed affordable decent housing for for People who are going to sign a year's lease, some of whom are disabled, but that doesn't mean that their housing... Thank you for watching. single apartment housing for these people. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Are there questions from the board?

I have a question. So the tenants of this building, this facility, is it adults, families? Who's going to live here?

Adults, and some with families. There are some two-bedroom units that would be, and one-bedroom units, frankly, would be maybe suitable for a parent and a child. One of the things that is unique about this project, I think, is that 52 of the units are just going to be All of these are set out in a lottery. People that make between $30,000 and $80,000 roughly are going to be able to get into a lottery for 52 of the units. 48 of the units are going to be reserved for people with various kinds of disabilities. And of those 48, 32 of the units will be reserved for women. or households who are headed by women. And 16 of those 48 units will be reserved for veterans. So the focus of this project is on providing affordable housing for people who are working but can't find a decent, safe, affordable place to live. and for people who have various sorts of disabilities.

Thank you. Did you have any other questions, Ms. Turner? Any other questions from the board? Okay, we're going to open it up to public testimony. Again, one minute.

All right, so let's start with Antonio Gilardi, please.

Good afternoon again, Madam Chair, members of the board, Anthony Giuliani from City Council, Aaron Murphy's office. I will be very brief. Councilor Murphy submitted a letter, and I'd like to read excerpts of the letter. So I'm going to just proceed now. Be very brief, like I said, Madam Chair. I am writing in strong support of the Charlestown Residence and Butters. Appealing building permit number Alt 1596439. for 153rd Avenue in the Charlestown Navy Yard. The concerns raised in this appeal are serious and deserve immediate attention. These procedural failures cannot be dismissed as technical oversights. They represent a breakdown in the public review process and undermine trust in how development decisions are made in our city. The historic monument area is subject to federal protections for a reason. and the residents of Charlestown who have worked tirelessly to preserve the integrity and character of the neighborhood deserve to have those rules upheld. Last paragraph. I respectfully urge...

Okay, next we have Kelly.

Okay, thank you. I live in the Charlestown Naval Yard. I also work downtown where I've experienced the St. Francis House firsthand. Our neighborhood has taken initiative with private fundraising to oppose this project. This development is deeply concerning. The location is entirely inappropriate. There are multiple daycares, playgrounds, and a navel yard across from the proposed site at the Constitution Inn. School field trips visit this area regularly to introduce a high-risk population here without any enforceable expectations. of Sobriety and Behavioral Accountability is to knowingly jeopardize the safety of our children and families. Having worked in the St. Francis House, I've witnessed the reality I've had to call 911 on multiple occasions out of fear that someone was dead. That environment is being brought into the naval yard. Charlestown's emergency resources are already limited. The project will overwhelm them, diminish public safety, and destroy the character and integrity of a historic, close-knit neighborhood. We are not...

All right, next we have Elaine. Elaine.

My name is Elaine Scatting. I'm a lifelong resident in Charlestown. I didn't prepare anything, but I am adamantly opposed to this. Charlestown is not a town full of NIMBYs. We have a sober house and multiple, multiple programs for people who are struggling with substance abuse. And this is a totally inappropriate place to put a facility like this. Without a sobriety requirement. We have daycares and hundreds of elderly people and not to mention the people that come from the Spalding unattended. and you can't guarantee that they their safety at all so please reconsider the location of this project we had women and children who lived here Quietly working on their sobriety and it was just wonderful. But this for chronically homeless people would definitely not work and set them up to fail. Thank you.

Okay, next we have Rosemary Massero. Rosemary?

Yes, thank you very much. I'm an attorney by trade. I live at the Navy Yard and I want to take issue with a couple of things that the Proponents Council said. First of all, the project does say 149 units. This board needs to absolutely make sure that that is corrected so that under any circumstances not more than 100 units of whatever type are put there. Of those units, there are 64 units which are permanent supportive housing. Those permanent supportive housing units are basically a studio unit, which is like a hotel room with bathroom. It has a kitchenette. If anyone uses it as a real apartment, they'll probably burn the building down. Those floors, two floors, the second and third floor, which contains 64 units, have a common kitchen on it. That renders those floors congregate housing. The Navy Yard Zoning is the Waterfront Activation Plan from 2007, which specifically prohibits congregate housing zoning, which means that this

Okay, thank you. Next, we have Angie. Angie, please. And everybody else, make sure to unmute when it's your turn.

Hi, thank you. I didn't have anything prepared either, but I did want to say I am a resident of Charles Dump for 15 years. I do have a child as well. This is absolutely the wrong place to do this. As the group said that Article 80 was bypassed because there were no changes that were going to affect the neighborhood is completely incorrect. He said that there are going to be no changes to sound, traffic, etc. But we have seen absolutely nothing but staggering statistics that prove he is absolutely incorrect in terms of the amount of police, fire... Thank you for joining us.

All right, next we have Connie Gutierrez.

Thank you. Yes, I did submit a letter in opposition to this building permit on October 21st. I'm not going to repeat what I said there. I want to address something Attorney O'Flaherty said regarding the Article 80 large project review. I made a request to the BPDA, a FOIA request as well, asking them to provide me with a list of every project, every large project under Article 80 that did not have an IAG and their response was there was no other. This is the only project where the community who will be severely impacted did not have an opportunity to have feedback to the proponents. We had one meeting. I don't know where Mr. O'Flaherty thinks we had an opportunity to go back and forth, but we did not. We had one meeting. Also, I would like to just indicate that...

Okay, thank you. Next, we have Thomas Kuip.

Yes, my name is Tom Cork. My wife and I live at Paris Landing in the Navy Army. We're within a block and a half of this project. We strongly support the project. We participated, I participated in three public meetings with the Charlestown neighborhood. I participated in the BPDA meeting. As far as I'm concerned, this is a wonderful project serving an underused group of people in our neighborhood. I support the supportive housing for women and veterans as well as the 52 units of workforce affordable housing so that people who live in the neighborhood and grow up with the families can afford to live here. So, thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have John's iPhone.

Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is John Caniff. I live at Paris Landing in the Navy Yard. I'm concerned about three specific points to the development of this housing. One, There is no parking for this facility. There's tremendous pressure on the parking in the Navy Yard as it presently seems. 2. There is very little or limited public transportation. The 93 bus comes through the Navy Yard only once an hour. through the business hours of the day and there's no other public transportation to or from the Navy Yard. There is absolutely no public services, i.e. food stores other than a small convenience store and a Dunkin' Donuts. in the Navy Yard for these additional hundred individuals or so.

Okay, thank you. And we have two more. Phil Smith.

Hello, can you hear me? Yes. Hi, my name is Philip Smith. I live in Paris Landing. I have nothing prepared today, but after hearing the Proponents Council, I just can't help myself. 149 units versus 100. That is not a Scrivener's error. It's either incompetence or it's intentional. This has been indicative of how this entire project has been pushed down the throats of the residents here. It has been reckless. I do not believe that the proponent has been an honest or genuine counterparty. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, the last person is Cass. Cass, if you can unmute yourself, please. All right. Okay. Hello?

Hi, can you hear me? Are you Cass? I am Cass.

This is Cass speaking. Okay, please proceed. Yes, I live in Flagship Wharf and I am very supportive of this project. I feel that The present that having women and veterans getting supportive services and people getting housing that is affordable is very reasonable for this area. It is, I think the BPDA, St. Francis House, and the groups that have worked here have been very responsive to us in the community and have in fact changed much of what they were going to do here in response to the community's input. So I would say this should go forward. Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there questions from the board?

That's great.

Okay, so Caroline, do you want to recap the options?

Yes. So option number one, ISD was correct. Option number two, ISD was incorrect. And option three, that this gets referred to the law department for a thorough legal analysis. Thank you.

Any questions on those from the board? May I have a motion?

Madam Chair, I make a motion stating that ISD was correct in issuing the permit.

Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Whewell?

Yes.

Mr. Collins?

Yes.

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

Everything that was said. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

With that, we will go to the rediscussion hearing scheduled for 1130. Before I ask for withdrawals and deferrals, I'll note that the first case that the applicant, the representative to the applicant had to leave and that I'll put a motion and they ask for the case to be deferred. The date we came up with for the deferral is November 18th. So I'll make a motion to defer Bear with me as I read the case. Thank you. Case BOA 1781936 with the address of 12 Perkins Avenue. It requested a deferral and the date that has been proposed is November 18th. So I will make a motion to defer this case to November 18th.

Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge?

Yeah.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Whewell?

Yes.

Mr. Collins?

Yes.

Ms. Pinado. Yes. Chair votes yes. Motion carries.

I apologize, Madam Chair, because this is a companion case.

Okay, if you can read that into the record.

The other case is case BOA-170-9737 with the address of 12 R Perkins Avenue. I'll make a motion that this case also be deferred to November of 18th.

Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Whewell? Yes. Mr. Collins?

Yes.

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

Next case has been withdrawn. So I will ask for the remaining cases in this time frame, if there are any requests for withdrawals or deferrals. 1. The last case in this time frame, 62 L Street, has been deferred, already been deferred. So that takes us to two remaining cases. This The first one being case BOA 1724209 with the address of 6 Groom Street. If the applicant Okay, please explain to the board.

I am. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Good afternoon, members of the board, Madam Chair. This is Mike Ross from the Law Firm of Prince Elbel, One International Place. This is a proposal to add a fourth floor unit and roof deck to an existing three unit plus basement ADU approved building located within a 3F4000. This site plan that you're on right now, Mr. Ambassador, on the left you have the existing site plan and on the right you have the proposed site plan. There is no increased living space as you can see from the outline of the two structures on the right to on the left in terms of living space. What you do see is the roof deck that's outlined on the top of the roof. In the green, you see existing previously approved retaining walls to allow for a walkout basement that was previously approved. And then you see the existing stairwell and front roof decks that were previously approved. Of course, on the fourth floor and the roof deck, the stairwell was continued. That is net new. I'll show you that in a minute. And then the front deck as well. on the fourth floor is net new, but everything else there on the right had been previously approved. Next slide, please. So this slide shows the previously approved basement and first floor plans. The red writing in the middle is ours. It's by our architect and describes that the addition of 1,105 square foot fourth floor unit and roof deck creates a total proposed gross flow area of the entire building 5,187 That's all five units. So that's the three that existed, the fourth ADU, and then the fifth would be that new fourth floor unit, and then the roof deck. Next slide, please. This slide highlights what I said earlier that the rear stairwell and front porches are the same in the same position as previously approved. other than the addition of the fourth floor units. Next slide, please. So this side on the left is the new fourth floor unit floor plan. It is a three bedroom, two bath unit. And then on the right, you see the 766 square foot deck. Next slide, please. Here you see the elevations. Now it shows that fourth floor unit and then the deck as well. Next slide, please. These renderings show the proposed fourth floor and roof deck. And then I just point out the head houses. They've been angled. to minimize any kind of vertical blockage or view blockages from neighbors. Next slide please. and then this is the uh the other rendering shows the other views of the site as well as kind of the ground floor condition those um retaining wall areas to allow for the Basement Walkout I described earlier. We can sit here and I'll just quickly mention the relief we're seeking. The net new one apartment unit would have required a 1.25 Parking, which is not available on the site. For use, as I mentioned, this is a 3F district. and this would the fourth floor unit would would equal the fifth unit so that requires variance the eight Additional dimensional violations are all pre-existing. We're further burdening them in certain areas, and some we're not, but they're all pre-existing. Insufficient lot. The lot is 3,400 square feet within a 5,000. Frontage. Frontage is frontage. It's pre-existing. Open space. Open space shouldn't have been cited. It only applies to buildings that are Allowed within the 3F and then the other building category lists open space as none. But in any case we're not impeding additional open space and in fact we're adding these rear decks and then that roof deck. 700 some odd square feet on the top. So actually probably improving the open space. Height, we are 2.5 stories is what's allowed in this area. We're at 4. Height is also 35 feet and we are at just around and just over 42 feet. and then the front side and rear lots were pre-existing as well, pre-existing conditions. I would just point out that the PPDA recommendation was to support this proposal. I'll pause there and see if there are any questions.

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

Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Bembry. I am the Dorchester Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process, which consisted of an abutters meeting facilitated on July 28th With one abutter an attendee, no inquiries or concerns were raised and no further community process was required. To date, our office has not received any further community feedback at this time, to my knowledge. Thank you for your time, and the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services would like to defer to the Board of Directors.

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

All right. Madam Chair, there are no additional comments.

Okay. With that, may I have a motion?

Motion is approved.

Second. Okay. Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Wewell. Yes. Mr. Collins. Yes. Ms. Pinado. Yes. Chair votes yes. Motion carries.

Thank you very much. Have a nice night.

And next we have case BOA 1730151 with the address of 208 H Street. If the applicant and or their representative

Yes, thank you, Mr. Stembridge, Madam Chair, members of the board, Attorney Ryan Spitz with Adams & Maranzi, business address of 168 H Street. First Floor, South Boston. Joining me today are the owners Ingrid and Sebastian Hazard. Also joining us is the project architect Nick Landry. This is a proposal to add a three-story rare addition to an existing single family along with an interior renovation and an expansion of the existing roof deck. Proposal was cited for floor hazard districts in Greenbelt Overlay District, but this proposal does not meet the applicability requirements. Therefore, these two conditional use permits were cited in error, therefore leaving us with two violations. Roof structure restriction violation as we are altering the profile of the roof line with the expansion of the roof deck and as well as the insufficient rear yard. This property measures at 60 feet deep, which falls under the shallow lot exception. which will require a 15-foot setback rather than the 20-foot what would be required by Article 68, and this proposal calls for a 14.5-foot setback in the rear. At this point, I'm going to hand it over to Nick Landry. He's just going to do a quick run through the drawings and then we'll turn it back over to you.

Thank you, Ryan. Nick Landry from DRT. We're the architects on the project. Was there a presentation that went along with this or is this all you have? And if this is it, that's fine. We can just keep scrolling. We can keep scrolling down. There should be a site plan in here. So we can, if we want to, yep, keep going. And can you keep going? Should be a proposed site plan after this one. Perfect. So the The building is located at 208 H Street, which is between Marine Road and East 8th in South Boston. And you can see there's a footprint there. If we zoom in on the house, you can see the footprint of the existing building and then the proposed addition. The proposed addition is about an 11-foot extension in the rear and what that's going to do is it's going to allow the new owners to have enough space in the house for their family. Currently it's a two-bedroom. We're going to be converting it to a three-bedroom. and then with that we're also going to be extending the roof deck currently and that new roof deck will extend to where the stair in the rear is shown. You can kind of see that dashed line. That's the roof deck. That aligns with the existing stair that's in the building. and it will not be visible from the street. The current roof deck is set back five feet from the front of the house. You can't see it from the street and the proposed roof deck will be the same. We're just making it a little larger and providing access from the interior and not from a rear stair. If you keep continuing down... So you can see right here, we're going to be removing a rear stair that accesses an existing roof deck. And then if you keep going down... Keep going. Keep going. So that's the extension there you can see in the rear. It's an 11-foot extension. It's dark gray walls. That gives us about roughly a 14 and a half foot rear yard setback. Keep going down, please. and so you can see here originally there was there was two bedrooms on this floor and by with the uh with that extension we're able to split the rear into two bedrooms side by side create a total of three bedrooms on this floor and keep going please. And you can see there's a spiral stair in the center of that plan. That's how we're gonna be accessing that roof deck. through the hatch that you can see there, that square hatch will be the access for the roof deck. Again, it's still held back from the street and it doesn't go any further than the existing stair that accesses the current roof deck. You can keep going down. And that's just a side view. So you can see from the elevation, you can see the roof deck, but with the perspective of being on the street looking up, you won't be able to see it. and I think that should be about it. If there's any questions, I'm happy to circle back. Sorry, I'm just trying to be quick for everyone's time.

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

Good afternoon, Siggy Johnson with the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services. This applicant completed the ONS community process. Our office hosted an abutters meeting on June 30th at which abutters expressed concerns about the setback on the rear of the property. and about potential impacts to water runoff due to properties in the area having basements below sea level. There is also a concern raised about the potential loss of a mature tree. The Gate of Heaven Neighborhood Association supports this application with that background. our office defers judgment to the board. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay, next we have Ashley from Councilor Flynn.

Hi, I'm Ashley from Councilor Flynn's office. Councilor Flynn would like to go on record and support, due to a good community process, that it will remain a single family and there is an existing roof deck already. He respectfully requests that the proponent to work closely with neighbors on any quality of life issues and concerns during the construction phase. Thank you.

Madam Chair, there are no additional comments.

Thank you. With that, may I have a motion?

I make a motion of approval with a proviso that the plans be submitted to the planning department for design review. Attention to the rear yard permeability.

Second.

Thank you. Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner. Yes. Ms. Whewell.

Yes.

Mr. Collins.

Yes.

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

Thank you. Thank you very much. Have a nice day.

All right, and thank you to everyone.

Thank you.

All right, have a good day.

Have a good day.