Zoning Board of Appeal

Good morning. The City of Boston Zoning Board of Appeal hearing for February 3rd, 2026 is now in session. This hearing is being conducted in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Open Meeting Law. including the updated provisions enacted by the legislature this year. The new law allows the board to continue its practice of holding virtual hearings through June 2027. This hearing of the board is being held remotely via the Zoom webinar event platform and is also being live streamed. Kahn. 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. As with our in-person meetings, comments and support will be followed by comments in opposition. The order of comments is as follows. Elected officials, representatives of elected officials, and members of the public. The Chair may limit the number of people called upon to offer a comment and the time for commenting as time constraints require. For that reason, the Board prefers to hear from members of the public who are most impacted by a project, that is, those individuals who live closest to the project. If you wish to comment on an appeal, please click the raise hand button along the bottom of your screen in the Zoom webinar platform. Click it again and your hand should go down. When the host sees your hand, you will receive a request to unmute yourself. Select yes and you should be able to talk.

If you are connected to the hearing by telephone, please press star 9 to raise and lower your hand. You must press star six to unmute yourself after you receive the request from the host. Those called upon to comment will be asked to state their name and address first and then provide their comment. In the interest of time and to ensure that you have enough time to do so, please raise your hand as soon as Mr. Stembridge reads the address into the record. Do not raise your hand before the relevant address is called. or the meeting host will not know to call on you at the appropriate time. We ask that you keep your comments brief and all public testimony will be limited to 90 seconds per speaker. Mr. Stembridge. You're on mute, Mr. Stembridge.

Okay, let's try this again. Good morning, Madam Chair, present.

Good morning, Mr. Valencia. Good morning, Madam Chair, present. Good morning, Mr. Langham. Is Mr. Langham with us? I don't see Mr. Langham, so I'll keep going. Ms. Better Barraza. Good morning, Madam Chair. Present. Good morning. Ms. Whewell. Good morning, Madam Chair. Present. Good morning. Mr. Brunel. Good morning, Madam Chair. Present. Good morning. So last call from Mr. Langham. Okay, so if someone could perhaps reach out to him to see if he's joining us, that would be fantastic. In the meantime, we are a six-member board, and I will turn it over to Mr. Stembridge.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We'll begin today's hearing with the call for approval of the hearing minutes scheduled for 9 30 a.m. These hearing minutes are from January 22nd. and January 27th of this year. I'll make a motion to approve.

May I have a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge. Yeah. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza? Yes. Ms. Whewell? Yes. Mr. Bernal? Yes. Chair votes yes, the motion carries.

Next, go to the extension scheduled for 9 30 a.m. Madam Chair, the first case we have one of our board members who accused himself I'll read the case in. They can recuse themselves at that point. We'll vote on that one by itself, and then we'll go through the rest of it. So first we have case BOA 1536698 with the address of 1208C, BFW Parkway.

Madam Chair, I have to recuse myself from this case.

Okay, thank you. Madam Chair, I think I should recuse myself from this one too.

Okay well since okay well if you're both recusing yourself Caroline we don't have a quorum for that one so let's move on does that make sense Caroline and see if Mr. Langham joins us later? Yes, it does. Okay. Okay, Stephanie, thank you, sorry.

No, no problem.

Okay, so we will defer that one for now and read the rest of the extensions.

So with that, we'll move on to case BOA 907-493 with the address of 1 to 5 Boardman Street. Next, we have case BOA. 117-1660 with the address of 970 Saratoga Street.

Next we have case BOA 150-9717.

with the address of 970 Saratoga Street.

Next we have case BOA-140-9103 with the address of 9 Kingsbrook Street.

and finally we have case BOA 1539718 with the address of 12 Assembly, Commonwealth Avenue. Madam Chair, those are the rest of the extended

Okay, any questions from the board? May I have a motion? Motion to grant the extensions as requested. Is there a second? I had a comment on one of these. Mr. Stembridge. Yeah. No. Mr. Valencia. Yes. Mr. Langham. I mean, sorry, Miss Better Barraza.

Yes.

Yes. Thank you. Ms. Whewell?

Yes.

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

point matter to continue on and come back to that one extension link.

Well, I don't think Mr. Langham has joined us, so that would make us a four member board, which means we cannot vote on it. So I think we will keep going and see if he joins us. Other than that, we'd have to defer that one, which we still can't have a vote for. So let's keep going for now.

That was good, that was true. Next we move on to Board Final Arbitration Case scheduled for 9.30 a.m. This is Case BOA-1345655. The act has come to a close with regard to the street. If the applicant and or their representative present will they please explain the case report.

Great. Good morning Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Kevin Cloutier with an address of 1990 Center Street in West Roxbury. I'm an attorney. I represent the property owner and applicant Mr. Chau Nguyen. I am joined by the project manager, Gavin Driscoll from Lighthouse Architecture. What we're asking this board to do today in its capacity as final arbiter is to approve a de minimis 10-inch height adjustment The project originally approved called for the demolition of an existing single-family home and the erection of a four-story, two-family dwelling and those stories include the first story is a garage. The total height of that approved project was 37 feet. We're asking to go to 37 feet 10 inches.

This adjustment arose as we transitioned into the construction documents and then the planning department to review and was recommended by the structural engineer in order to properly accommodate the floor assembly systems. Beginning in the garage floor. This issue was raised with the planning department during the design review phase. and the planning department indicated it would approve the plan subject of course to this board's approval. And we'd suggest to the board that the request does not alter the project's use, the project's footprint, or the neighborhood impact. and remains consistent with the board's original approval. So I would just ask the board to allow this at a minimus increase Of course, if the board has questions, I'd be happy to answer them or defer over to Mr. Driscoll if it's design related.

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

Madam Chair, I'd like to put forward a motion of approval. Is there a second?

Second. Second. Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza?

Yes.

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

Thank you. 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 from 9.30. Hearing none.

I think Mr. Springer has his hand up.

Yeah, I think, Marcus, this is your opportunity to...

Yes, hello Madam Chair. Marcus Springer, Springer Architects, 46 Waltham Street, Boston. We would like to defer our case BOA 176

0013. Mr. Stembridge, we'll read it into the record. Can you just say what address it is? 110 West Concord Street. Thank you.

That, I believe, is an 1130 case.

Yeah, I don't see that. Okay, so you cannot ask us for that extension until we call for 1130s. So please stay with us.

Thank you.

If there are no other requests or no requests for the nine, which also deferrals the 930, then we'll go to the first case, which is case BOA-180-71, 3-2 with the address of 137 Cottage Street.

If the applicant and or their representative are present, will they please explain the case to the board? Yes, thank you, Mr. Stembridge. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. Richard Lenz, the business address at 245 Sumner Street. On behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Nick Delibero, who's with us. We also have Chris Drew from 686 Architects for this project. I'll start just quickly, Madam Chair, to get the housekeeping matters out of the way. This is subject to Article 32 GCOG. We do have the Nohom letter as well as the Boston Water and Soil letter on file so I believe that in this particular case the conditional use This permit is appropriate for GCOT. With respect to the proposal, this involves the change of use and occupancy of an existing three-year residential dwelling is located in the Jeffries Point section of East Boston. Our proposal would change the occupancy from the three units to four units With a vertical addition.

As the ambassador is showing some of the context slides, you can see that the building is part of a series of buildings on Cottage Street and again the Jeffers Point section of East Boston. Maybe jump down to slide 12, Mr. Ambassador, so we can talk a little about the dimensional relief. There are a few items that we do require. Even though this is a pre-existing building, we do require relief. for a few items and I'll just run through those briefly for the board. This property is located in the relatively newer established EBR4 zoning sub-district. Multifamily use is permitted as a matter of right and therefore our proposed use is compliant with Article 53. I would also point out that the vertical addition that is proposed is Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As this board is likely well aware at this point, the minimum setback in the beer yard in the EBR4 district is one-third of the lot depth. Because this is an 80 foot deep lot, we are eligible for the shallow lot exception and therefore the actual setback would be 16.4 feet with the calculation to reduce The minimum rear setback to be compliant with the shallow lot exception. As you can see on the plan here, maybe it was difficult, but we're about 17.2 feet with our building to the rear property line. There is a shed that does encroach onto our property. We've authorized that shed to remain. If it is ever removed in the future, it won't be put back in that location, but that is a pre-existing condition, Madam Chair. One of the changes that we do propose, and we'll see this in the elevation plans in a moment, we do have a rear stairwell that we are reorienting from the back of the property.

While that isn't an extension of the physical building itself, It does come within the setback that is already a non-conforming condition. We believe that the variance that we're requesting is the minimal variance to allow for that change and we believe it will be appropriate in light of the scale and surrounding context of other properties. With respect to the additional violation that was cited, we were cited for off-street parking. Again, as this board is aware, A pre-existing building such as a 300 building as this that doesn't have any parking is not required to meet any of the parking requirements except for any proposed new residential dwelling units. In this case, because we are proposing one additional residential dwelling unit, we are requesting relief for the one space that would be required. As this board can see, Inability to add off-street parking is obvious.

We have no location on the site to add off-street parking or access the rear of the property from any driveway. Moreover, I'm sure again as this board is well aware, BTD's policy on creating curb cuts for one single off-street parking space is not necessarily favored and therefore we're requesting relief for that particular item. If you can jump to slide 13, please. Two of the other violations, and these are more technical violations that we recited for based upon the existing conditions of the property. Under amended zoning for East Boston, there's a maximum building block coverage of 60%. Because this building is pre-existing and already occupies more than 60% of the lot, any modification of the building would trigger a compliance requirement with the maximum coverage. and in this case we are seeking relief for the pre-existing condition that is intended to continue.

Likewise, we would also be subject to the minimum permeable area requirements, which is 30% in this particular district. We do sketch here the location of the area that would be able to One of the things I will point out is that even though the pre-existing condition is not at 30% permeability, the renovations to this building could certainly increase the current permeability to get us closer to 30%. which would be an improved condition overall, which I think is the intent of the code in this instance. We can jump down to slide 16. So we're really not proposing any work on the lower floors. This, Madam Chair, members of the board, shows the extent of the addition that is proposed for the fourth level. As you can see, we do access our roof deck. The roof deck is pushed

towards the rear of the building and therefore barely visible from the street and we do access it from that rear deck as you can see in the proposed plan here. Can you hit the next slide please? We have some renderings just to give the context of what this petition would look like. Certainly, based upon past experience, we believe this would be subject to design review.

Can you please? Thank you.

Sorry. By the Boston Planning Department. So we fully anticipate that there will be some tweaks or adjustments to the design, but we wanted to at least illustrate, not only for the neighborhood, but for the board, the extent of the addition. You can jump to the next slide, please. Again, just an additional view here, and we do set that upper addition back a little bit from the existing Cornice Line that pretty much consists along that side of Cottage Street. I will pause there, Madam Chair, to see if there are any questions from the board or address any comments.

Thank you. Questions from the board?

I don't have any questions, just more observations for my colleagues, which is within that block, it seems like this would be the first kind of roof deck proposal and also rear addition kind of vertical stairwell with a special kind of access to the roof. Just kind of observations. Thanks.

Any other questions from the board? Hearing none, may I have public testimony?

Hello, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Eva Jones, representing the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services. Regarding 137 Cottage Street, our office differs to the board's judgment. The community process was conducted, including an abettors meeting held on 10-14-20. The proposal was also reviewed by the Gulf Street Neighborhood Association at their meeting on 10-27-25. where they expressed support with a vote of four yes to two no. At this time, the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services differs as the Board's judgment on this matter. Thank you, everyone, for your time and consideration.

Thank you.

Mr. Simonelli? Good morning Madam Chair, members of the board, Christian Seminelli, Boston Groundwater Trust, and we have both G-card letters from the applicant. Thank you. Thank you.

Madam Chair, there are no additional comments.

Okay, anything the applicant would like to add?

Just that I did review the recommendation for planning and I believe it was approval with Barraza for design review. And I certainly understand Ms. Better Barraza's comments, but I believe that the rezoning of this particular neighborhood into EBR 4 contemplated vertical additions on existing Housing stock for that area, especially with the 50-foot height limit that's being proposed or that's allowed for that district. We're certainly below that, but just to give some context to the board as well, we'll have to do zoning for that area. Thank you.

With that, may I have a motion?

Madam Chair, I'd like to put forward a motion. I do agree with Richard in regards to increased density. The motion is going to be approval with a proviso that BPD reviews the fourth floor addition relative to visibility from the public sidewalk. and paying special attention to the materiality of that four floor addition and to also review just the rear access. Is there a second?

Second. Mr Stembridge? Yes. Mr Valencia?

Yes.

Mr. Langham?

Yes.

Okay. Is Better Barraza? Yes. Ms. Wheeler? Yes. Mr. Bernal? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Thank you very much. And we just confirm we are now a seven-member board.

Next, we have Casey Beaway. 180-7597 with the address of 295-297 Franklin Street. This is also an Article 80 case. If the applicant and or their representative are present, will the police find the case to report?

Yes, thank you again, Mr. Stembridge. And good morning again, Madam Chairman, Mr. Board. For the record, Richard Lins with the business address of 245 Stembridge Street. East Boston on behalf of the petitioner, Franco Hogan from LLC. With me is John Williams, DMS, who is the project architect. Mr. Ambassador, we can jump to slide five. Just real quick overview for the board. This is a proposal for an office to residential conversion of an existing five-story building located 295 and 297 Franklin Street, downtown Boston. This proposed conversion consists of the reuse of the pre-existing five-story building. This is presently occupied as commercial space with offices on the upper levels. We are proposing to change the occupancy to ground floor retail about 750 square feet, 18 residential units. That would be on floors one through five, and that would include a mix of studio and one bedroom units.

Three of those units would be restricted under Article 79, inclusionary development policy for the City of Boston, and they would all be at an AMI of 60% consistent with Article 79. We do require relief in the form of a conditional use permit. That is necessary because we do propose to have two residential uses on the ground level, while the retail use will be forward facing onto Franklin Street The zoning code requires a conditional use permit for any ground level residential. If you can jump down to slide eight, please. get head on view here. So just by way of very brief background for this building, Madam Chair, members of the board, 295, 297 Franklin, is a historically significant structure. It's now known as the Bowker Building. This is located within the National Register Custom House District. It was originally constructed around 1870. It was originally a four and a half story Queen Anne with a four bay structure.

The intention is to preserve the existing structure as you can see on the plans that have been submitted to the board. There will be generally just work that is done interior, very little work on the exterior of this building. It has been substantially rehabilitated already since the probably early 1980s, including the addition of that fifth level in the rear to make this a full five-story building. If you can jump to slide nine, please. As Mr. Stembridge indicated, this is subject to Article 80 based upon the size of the project as well as going through It has been approved by the Boston Planning Department. I do believe our project manager is available to speak on that matter. And it has already entered into the payment in lieu of taxes agreement with the City of Boston and is certainly are ready to begin construction once a primer is ready to issue. If you can jump to slide 11, please. Just showing our site plan for reference.

As you can see here, this is a roughly 2,400 square foot lot with the existing gross floor area of about 14,580 square feet. We are, if you go to the next slide, please. We are proposing to use the existing basement that will house the bike storage for the building as well as other building amenities and services. If we go to the next slide, please. We can see here the ground level showing the forward-facing retail at the front of the building with the two proposed residential units located behind the retail. We do make a very slight modification to the exterior for accessibility, and that is proposed to be consistent with the requirements to allow for persons with disabilities to access the building based upon the change of use. We can jump to the next slide, please. As we move up the building, we show approximately 40 units per level as you get up from floors two through five.

Pretty much the floor plans repeat as we go through. You can probably jump forward, Mr. Ambassador. and then we can get to the elevations which I believe is the next page as well so again we don't propose a lot of exterior changes to the building we will be The modifications do include the access Thank you for joining us. in conjunction with the Boston Planning Department in connection with our approval by the BPDA board. I will pause there and answer any questions of the board. But once again, the relief that is being sought is limited to just the conditional use permit. for the ground level residential that is proposed in this district.

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

Hello, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Emma Jones, representing the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services. Regarding 295 to 297 Franklin Street, our office differs as the board's The community process was conducted with the Boston Planning Department for this proposal beginning on 4-7-25 with the meeting on 5-21-25 where no major concerns were expressed. This time, the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services defers to the Board's judgment on this proposal. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you. Next, we have Gabriela. We cannot hear you. If not, next we have Zoe.

Good morning. This is Zoe Duvall. I'm a project manager in the development review division of the planning department. Just here to express planning department support of the project. This project did file their small project review application with us as an Article 80E small project under the Office to Residential Conversion Program on April 7, 2025. The Planning Department Department hosted a virtual public meeting for the project on May 21st and the project team conducted independent community outreach as well. The project was approved by the BPA board on June 12, 2025 and we're happy to see the project move Board and progress to the design review phase of Article 80 and defer to this Board for further action. Thank you.

Madam Chair, I think there are additional comments.

Okay. With that, may I have a motion?

Madam Chair, I make a motion of approval for the project to continue planning review.

Thank you. May I have a second?

Second.

Mr. Stembridge. Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Mr. Langham? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza?

Yes.

Ms. Wewell? Yes. Mr. Brunell? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Thank you very much.

Next, we have three companion cases. The first is case BOA. 1786074 with the address of 24 Williams Avenue. Next we have case BOA 1786086.

with the address of 26 Williams Avenue.

And the third case is case BOA 1786077 with the address of 28 Williams Avenue. It's the applicants and their representative present with their police communications report.

Thank you, Mr. Stembridge. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Gary Webster. I am the president of Taj Development Company. LLC with a business address of 49 Mather Street, Unit 2 in Dorchester. I'm here representing the homeowners, Winslow Marshall and Samuel DeShane, who own the property and currently reside at 26 Williams Ave. The intent of this project is to subdivide the existing lot, which is a generously large lot in Hyde Park, approximately 19,000 square foot lot. And they're going to subdivide the existing lot and create two new two family homes on the frontage of Williams Ave, which would be 24 and 28 Williams Ave. I'm joined by the team from Harchi who will go over the design elements as they relate to the zoning violations and will be happy to answer any questions at the conclusion of the presentation. If you can go back to the beginning.

Thank you Thank you Hi, everyone. My name is Jonah Manigan. I'm the architect working on this project with Gary and the homeowners. I think Gary did a great job explaining the basic Tenants of the project, as stated, it is a very large lot of 19,000 square feet, and what we are proposing right now is subdividing it into It's usually three different lots. The existing building, which is 26 William Street, will remain. And as you can see in this rendering, it's the building that appears smaller. in the image in the back and we are proposing to subdivide adding two separate lots one that would be on the left that would be that would become 24 William Street uh and then on the right of it another lot for 28 William Street. So essentially what we're proposing are 22 family buildings,

There will be basically the same floor plans. Of course, on the exterior, we will bring some elements that will help make them look a little separate from each other. And we are proposing to Parking spaces, provide parking and green space on the lot. If you can just scroll up a little bit, you can see the, so this is, This sheet here is showing the existing lot on the left-hand side where you have the existing two families. And on the right, you can see the proposed subdivision with the two proposed new subdivided lots. If you scroll up a little bit more, a little bit more again, if you don't mind. And this is basically the zoning sheet where we list all the violations. where we're asking for some relief done.

Basically, we are asking for relief for most of the zoning requirements, except maybe for 28 William Street where we feel like the FAR ratio will not be needed. If you scroll up again, this is kind of a larger view of the actual site plan that shows all three buildings. You can see the 26th William Street, we see it in the background, and the two new proposed buildings, 24 and 28 in the foreground. If you can scroll up a little bit more, this is kind of a zoomed in version of 24 Williams Street. You can see how the building sits on the side. We are providing spaces for two tandem parking spaces and a green space in the back. And if you scroll up the next way, you can see a similar situation for 28 William Street. We're also providing two parking spaces. Of course, there will be a shared driveway on this end.

that would go along to provide access to the 26 William Street parking, to the existing parking area for 26 William Street. The next page is, I think, we talk about the floor plan. Again, this is your typical two-family that we're all used to in the city of Boston. We are providing an open space in the ground floor. With three bedrooms, kitchen, living, and dining area. And that will be repeated on the second floor as well. There'll be a basement, and you'll see here maybe additional access for solar panels on the roof. I'm not sure that will be done at the time of the consortium, but at least they'll be ready for that. And basically, I think that's it. You can see the elevations.

for 20, I think that this elevation will be kind of similar on both buildings again, but after we go through the BPDA station review, we'll find some elements that can distinguish the two buildings one from another. And I think that's all we have for our presentation. And if you have any questions, we are ready to answer them. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Are there questions from the board?

Yes. Could you please go back to page number seven? Yes, that one. So this is 28 Williams, and I'm looking at the parking in the driveway, and just wondering if there is a better way to improve the configuration of the parking to increase open space. I mean, I think more than half of the, like probably 70% of the open space you have is covered in pavement. So just a suggestion if there is anything that your architect or your designer can do to improve the open space configuration.

Have you talked about this? Yeah, there are potential ways we may be able to reduce the amount of pavement on this side. Maybe having the parking be a little bit more, be tender instead of having them side by side as we do have On 24 William Street, that will probably reduce the number of paving on the site. The actual drive itself is a little bit generous, drive aisles, so we can probably reduce that a little bit. but again maybe potentially making the building slightly smaller but there are there are plenty of ways of course this will be permeable surfaces for the driveway themselves and so So you're correct, there are potential ways that we can actually provide more green space on these sites, and that will be part of the design review process. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Will that man public testimony?

Madam Chair and Board Members, with the Office of Neighborhood Services, this applicant has completed the process. Our office hosted an utterance meeting On November 3rd, where an abutter raised concerns about increased density, about a loss of green space, and the loss of a pine tree, abutters were also concerned about any potential Exxon parking on the street, which they said was tight currently. and our increase in density. Our office received two letters of support that have been forwarded to the board. With that background, further judgment is deferred to the board. Thank you.

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

Is there someone named Sue who's wanting to raise your hand? Can you raise your hand if you want to speak on this matter? Hi, yes, I'm with my mother, Judy Burke, the property owner, so I'll let her speak. Okay, if you can just identify yourself and your address and please let us know if you're in support or opposition.

Okay, my name is Judy Burke. I'm at 22 Williams Avenue in Hyde Park. I do want to address something that they keep referring to Williams Street. There is no Williams Street in Hyde Park. It is Williams Avenue and I strongly oppose the proposed construction and subdivision concerning 24 Williams Ave, 26 and 28 Williams Ave. The amount of relief sought speaks to how significantly this will change the dynamics of the neighborhood. This project will drastically reduce the amount of parking on the street, I and many of the neighbors do not have driveways and rely on street parking to access our residences. The curb cut will take away at least one vital parking spot in addition to spots used by any resident of the proposed dwellings that park on the street.

Adding two two-family dwellings will result in overcrowding. The dwellings are too large for the space. Additionally, there isn't a sufficient side yard setback, which directly affects my property. The project also eliminates green space in the neighborhood and reduces the amount of sunlight on neighboring properties. Thank you. Thank you.

Are there any other raised hands?

Madam Chair, we don't have additional hands raised at the moment.

Okay. Would the applicant like to briefly address those concerns?

Yes, Madam Chair. Thank you very much for the opportunity. I think One of the things we try to be very careful of is understanding the need for parking that is often raised in a lot of the community meetings that we've attended. We are proposing one curb card and taking advantage of an existing curb card. So there may be an effect of one curb card on the neighborhood. But we're also providing parking spaces for the post buildings. So we feel that we are addressing that in the best way that we can. As far as the green space concern, we're talking about a very large lot, over 19,000 square feet. And if you look in the neighborhood currently, most of the lots are much smaller than that and then they brought up between 4,000 and 5,000 square feet.

and we are proposing to subdivide the lot into similar size lots. And the buildings that we are proposing are really, in terms of size and scale, are comparable to all the buildings that you'll see up and down the street. and this is a really, I would feel, an elegant way of addressing the need for additional housing that is and all over the city. We are not proposing to multiple Family buildings, apartment buildings, we are proposing smaller to family that are really in keeping with the character of the feel of the neighborhood. Okay, thank you. Thank you.

May I have a motion?

Oh, can we have just a clarification? Sure. Yeah, I noticed. Oh, I see what... Mr. Valencia was kind of noting to where the access to the middle The property at the rear is actually through 28. So, right? Because it needs to go all the way to the garage at the rear.

That's correct. Yes.

So that you're right, Mr. Valencia, that's That's a lot of surface pavement to provide that access. OK, I just wanted to understand that, because on your survey plot plan, Doesn't show really clearly that kind of what is green space versus asphalt.

Yeah, I think we may be showing that on the architectural site plan, but of course this will not be asphalt. It will be permeable surfaces.

Yeah, and so then the other, on your survey plot plan, although you said only one proposed curb cut is being proposed, I see two proposed curb cut, one for 28 and the other one is for 24, although we're basically, Madam Chair, are we putting a motion for both cases or just for 28?

Well, Mr. Stembridge read all three companion cases.

So we're doing all three at once? Correct. Okay. So if it's okay with my colleagues and feel free if... You want to add another kind of proviso, but I would suggest a motion of approval with a proviso that BPD reviews the site plan of vehicle access. to all three properties with an intention of increasing open space and avoiding front yard parking. Is there a second?

Second. Second.

Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Mr. Langham?

Yes.

Ms. Better Barraza? Yes. Ms. Wewell? Yes. Mr. Bernal? Yes. Chair votes yes, the motion carries. Good luck.

Thank you very much.

So since we are a seven-member board and we're- That means- Oh, sorry, go ahead. That means he got it? Okay, so before the rediscussion, can we go back and vote on that extension now that we have sufficient board members?

We certainly can, Madam Chair. Great, thank you. Returning to the extension schedule for 9 30 a.m. The first case is case BOA 1536698 with the address of 1208 C, VSW Parkway.

So those who are going to abstain.

I'm recusing myself.

Refuse. I need to recuse myself, too.

OK, great. So now we're a five-member board. Is there a motion? We'll make a motion. Motion approval, Madam Chair. Second. Thank you. Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr. Langham? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza?

Yes.

Ms. Whewell?

Yes.

Chair votes yes, the motion carries.

So with that we will go forward to the rediscussion case scheduled for 9 30 a.m.

I'll ask

If there will be any requests for withdrawals or deferrals?

Hearing none, we move on with case BLA-173-3319. at the address of 22 Pratt Street. This is also an Article 80 case, so if the applicant and or their representative are present, will they please explain the case to the board?

Good morning. For the record, Chris Rainier from Goulston & Stores with an address of 1 Post Office Square in Boston. I'm here on behalf of the developer this morning and I have with me Matt McCollum from the developer as well as James Gray and Mark Whiteside. We're here this morning to reaffirm and supplement previously issued zoning relief for a multifamily project at 22-24 Pratt Street in the Alston neighborhood. This shows the project. Next slide, please. The project consists of approximately 318 units of multifamily housing with significant affordability, about 54 units, significant open space, as well as other benefits outlined on the slide, including all electric,

The project site is outlined in yellow here. It's an irregularly shaped lot with older, underutilized industrial buildings. The project site is a split zoning lot. I'll come back to that. The site only has narrow access to Pratt Street and slopes down from Pratt Street and is primarily bordered by train tracks to the north The Alston Green Multifamily Project to the West and South and other properties. Next slide, please. These are some pictures showing what is on the site currently. Next slide, please. Prior to the original appeal, the project's design was modified in response to comments received during the review process, including those from Mitsabata at the Alston Green project, which on this slide is to the left and to the south, or to the bottom.

The project was approved by BCDC and the BPDA after completing large project review and the project zoning relief is consistent with other projects in the neighbourhood and its relief is less than that granted for the abutting Alston Green project. At its hearing on October 28th, after a detailed presentation on the project, the Board voted to grant zoning relief for the project. At that hearing, the applicant submitted a letter of support from its largest abutter, the LBC, which is the owner and proponent of the Alston Green Project, together with a letter of non-opposition from Alston Village and Main Streets. The Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services and the Alston Civic Association spoke in support of the project and there was no opposition voiced. Subsequent to the hearing, but before finalizing the decision, the applicant and ISD realized the project needs one additional item of zoning relief, a variance to allow the access drive to and from Pratt Street to be utilized for multifamily use.

As I mentioned, the lot is in a split zoning district. So the driveway is in the 2F5000 sub-district. The previously issued variance for the project for multifamily use was for the remainder of the site which is in the LI1 sub-district where the building is located. The applicant has submitted the supplemental appeal to request the Board reaffirm the previously issued zoning relief for the project and approve a variance for the multifamily dwelling use in the 2F-5000 subdistrict in respect of the project's access. which is outlined in red on this slide. No changes have been made to the project and this request does not seek to modify the previously issued zoning relief. Thank you with that. That's the remainder of our presentation. Happy to answer any questions.

All right, thank you. Any questions from the board? Hearing none, is there public testimony?

Madam Chair and members, Siggy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This application underwent a Boston Planning Department-led community process with public meetings in fall of 2023 and 2024. There was also an impact advisory group meeting held in 2024. The Alston Civic Association is aware of this application. They have met with the applicant. It represents an administrative cleanup of previously ruled relief. That background, our office refers further judgment to the board. 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. Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Mr. Langham? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza?

Yes.

Ms. Whewell?

Yes.

Mr. Bernal? Yes. It votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck. Thank you very much. Okay. With that, I'll see everyone back at 1130.

Recording stopped.

Mr. Stembridge

President, Madam Chair. Mr. Valencia.

President Valencia.

Mr. Langham.

President, Madam Chair. Ms. Better Barraza.

President, Madam Chair.

Ms. Whewell. Present Madam Chair. Mr. Bernal. Present Madam Chair. Excellent. I'll turn it back to you Mr. Stembridge.

Thank you Madam Chair. We will move on to the rediscussion hearing scheduled for 1130 a.m. We will first ask if there are any requests from withdrawals. or deferrals from this time frame.

Mr. Secretary, this is Mike Ross. If I may? Yes. Thank you. Thank you, sir. 567-577 Adams Street, please.

That request is for case BOA 1790972 with the address of 567-577 Adams Street.

Go ahead and explain it, Chair Ross. Yeah, thank you, Chair. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. We are seeking a quick deferral, if we could. We've learned of some Issues around community support that we'd like to respond to and we just feel that one brief delay will allow us to do so.

Okay. Stephanie or Caroline? March 10th, March 24th, or April 7th.

March 10th would be great. Please.

Okay. Does that man have a motion?

Motion to defer till March 10th.

May I have a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge? Yeah. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Mr. Langham? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza? Yes. Lou Will? Yes. Mr. Grinnell? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. See you then. Thank you.

Any further requests for withdrawals?

Mr. Springer, are you seeking a deferral? Yes, I am. Thank you. For 110 West Concord Street.

So this is for case BOA-176-0013 with the address of 110 West Concord Street. Would you go ahead and explain please?

We are in conversation with one of the direct debaters and we would like a short deferral so we can be in a better position for the next hearing.

Okay, Stephanie? March 10th, March 24th, on April 7th.

March 10th, please.

Okay, may I have a motion?

Motion to defer to March 10th. May I have a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge?

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

Yes.

Ms. Wewell?

Yes.

Mr. Bernal? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. See you then. Thank you.

And we'll ask again if there are any requests for withdrawals or referrals from this time frame. Hearing none. We'll move on to the first case, which is case BOA 1790800 with the address of 191 Works Street. If the applicants and or their representative are present, would they please explain to the board?

Yes, good morning again, Madam Chair, members of the board. For the record, Richard Lins, the business address of 245 Summer Street. Here on behalf of Jorge Rodriguez, with me is Eric Zachrisson, who's the project architect. Probably jump right to slide eight, Mr. Ambassador. I should give a quick overview of what we're proposing here. Madam Chair, this matter was before the board back in this past December where we proposed a larger four-unit residential structure. We had an opportunity prior to that hearing to review the Planning Department's recommendation in addition to some comments that were provided by the surrounding neighborhood. We have gone ahead and revised this project. I know that the list of violations looked lengthy. We, I believe, have successfully removed or eliminated at least four, if not five of those violations, and two of them are no longer applicable. are applicable. So just a quick overview.

This property is located in the EBR3 zoning sub-district, which is in the Eagle Hill section of East Boston. This is on the Brook Street. The portion that's closest to the top of the hill is White Street. You can see here from the photo that there is an incline in grade as you come up Brook Street, our building being on the right-hand side. This lot was part of the City's Butters Lots program, so it's remained vacant for the better part of the last 30 to 40 years. There's a deed restriction imposed. When the lot was originally sold off, those deed restrictions from the 90s have been expiring, and we have successfully arranged to have that restriction released, which now makes this site eligible for redevelopment. If we can jump down to slide 12, that would probably help us talk a little bit about just how the site sets up.

So one of the significant changes that we've made with respect to this project is that reducing it from four units to three makes that a compliant use. up to three units. So it's actually up to six units that are allowed on an individual site in the EBR3 district, but it has a lot to do with the width of the lot. So the original violation that was cited was for use. That is no longer applicable since we are proposing this as a three unit dwelling as opposed to a four unit dwelling. The next item that we were cited for had to do with the minimum area for permeable space on the site. We were, as a larger building, A little bit further in the back of the property and therefore did not meet the 30% permeable requirement. We had the architect go back, make some adjustments for the property.

and now we can achieve 30 permeability even though the site is relatively smaller we do are able to incorporate the permeable features onto the site The next item that we were cited for had to do with the rear yard setback. As you can see, the length of the depth of this lot is 75 feet. in a position to be able to move that building back closer to the front of the property and create a setback of 12.8 feet. The minimum setback typically in the EBR-3 district for the rear yard is one-third of the lot depth, which would be 25 feet. However, because this would be considered a shallow lot condition, we are eligible to reduce the 25 feet down to 12 and a half feet total. So this condition would be in compliance with the Revise or amended zoning for East Boston.

With respect to the off-street parking requirement that was originally cited, Madam Chair, because we've reduced this from four units to three units, Under the amended East Boston zoning, there is no parking requirement for one to three units, so that once again addressed one of the violations that were cited originally, and that was certainly something that was raised by the and the community as being a violation that they had some concern with. With respect to the roof structures restriction that was also cited, this comes up a lot. We deal with ISD on this particular question regularly. The roof structure restrictions found in Article 53, Section 25 apply to existing buildings where the roof line is being altered. It does not apply to New construction. So a roof deck that is proposed in connection with any new project that's being constructed is not subject to the roof restriction conditional use permit.

The reason being is that the specific language of Section 25 Article 53 talks about any existing roof structure that's in existence at the time Moreover, Article 23, Section 25 does permit roof decks, provided they meet the setback requirements. set forth in Section 25. So that, while a violation cited, is not something that we necessarily require of the court. If we can jump to slide 13, I believe we have the floor plans and the elevations. And as you can see here for level one, this is proposed as a slab on grade, Madam Chair. We're not proposing any foundation or basement, I should say. And the bottom two levels, levels one and levels two, would be two-bedroom units. Level one would be accessible for persons with disabilities and designed to meet and compliance with the ADA requirements. Level two is very similar to level one.

If we jump to the next slide, we can see level three and four. What we did was we proposed this to be a bi-level unit to provide a little bit more space. So this is a three plus layout. We have two levels. You would enter the third floor, but have additional living space for bedrooms on the upper level. and I'll explain the elevation in a moment because I think it's significant for purpose of where this property is located. As you can see, we do propose the roof deck with the appropriate setbacks. This setback towards the rear of the building There is a hatch headhouse that is used to access it from the internal stairwell. There is no spiral staircase or access from over here to get up there. Again, this is permitted under Section 25, Article 53 as permissible use. Can we go to the next slide, please? Just our section plan. We can jump down to the next slide. Probably should use the elevation grid. Yes, perfect. So what we're looking at here is the right side elevation of the building.

Showing windows on this side because we do have the appropriate setback on the right side of the building. We are setting our building at a zero lot line on the left side, but that is entirely consistent with The precedent in the area which does allow for row house. Row house does not require a side yard on a common boundary where any row house is being proposed. For a row house you have to have at least Three contiguous buildings. There are a number of buildings along Brook Street that all have attached party walls, so this would be very consistent with the spirit and technical code for Saiga and South Back. which leaves us to the essentially the main two items for relief and that is the height of the building. We are proposing this as a four-story and 42 I believe it's 42 feet or just over 42 feet in total height. If we can jump back to slide 8, Mr. Ambassador, that will help show the context of how we come up with the height of this building.

So as you can see, Madam Chair, members of the board, our property directly adjacent to us on the left is also a triple decker. But it does have that condition of the exposed foundation or the elevated foundation, which is very typical along buildings on this side of Brook Street, especially as you travel up the hill. Because that building would be at a higher elevation than our building, In addition to our building not having the elevated foundation, instead we just have that accessible level. What we're trying to do is design, we try to design this building to be consistent, if you will, with the adjoining properties along that side of Hook Street. We believe that the continuity of this building with its height as compared to the buildings immediately, Jason, makes this a nice contiguous addition to this area. With that, I will pause to see if there are any questions on the board or address any comments for this proposal. Thank you.

Thank you. Is Mr. Hampton available? Can you speak up now?

Yes, Madam Chair, thank you. Good morning, everyone. Jeff Hampton, City of Boston Planning Department. We received the revised plans and rejection letter from ISD the day after we sent the recommendations over to you. We do acknowledge that The appellant had deferred this case from December to make adjustments based on our recommendation. And we acknowledge that they have done a substantial job in doing that, including changing from the four units to three. and eliminating more than half of the zoning violations. So we acknowledge that the new proposal is better than what we saw in December. However, I don't have the authority to switch That recommendation from denial to approval. However, I would ask if the board does seem fit to approve,

that they attach proviso for design review. Typical. But we do acknowledge the changes in the application by the appellant based on our prior recommendation.

Thank you. I have a question. So listening to recent councilor hearings, Coletta have brought up the issue of undergoing a huge community process and and decisions are kind of going against the new approved In Boston, zoning changes. So, you know, what's, you know, this one is ERB, which allow three, which allows for three stories. And so what's your feedback on the height violation? That it's not going with the new kind of approved East Boston zoning changes? Who's that question to? Is that to Mr. Hampton?

Yeah, I mean, it's been a critique, so I do agree that it's... Lesser units, which is commendable, and the rear yard has been increased to allow a little bit more open space. But I just want to... Just bring that to the board, right? Are we being consistent or is this, I guess maybe it's more for the applicant to, Be able to speak on that. We have this new zoning change which really kind of regulates massing and height. And so now we're going four stories. We're in this block, it's three stories. Two and a half, three stories.

So I just want to make that comment that it has been brought up at City Councilor and Councilor Coletta discussing this long community process and now we're still giving variances. So just wanted to bring it out there, you know.

Through the chair, I can speak to that. And I don't know if Mr. Hampton would add to this, but I would point out While I do appreciate the process and certainly being a practitioner before the board, a lot of it being in East Boston, I'm very familiar with the process that went to amending the code. One of the things I would point out is that within Article 53, and I believe it exists throughout other sections or other code sections in the city, We do have the exception to building height, especially where you have buildings taller on adjoining lots. So there is precedent and certainly provisions within the code that allow through designer view to review projects that may exceed the height limit Thank you, Mr.

Chair. is lower than our building. It would actually be taller if we applied a strict reading of the height limit for this district.

I was going to say that the corner building, you know, it's a corner lot, so I can see there being that kind of condition. Right next to 191 Brook, there's that corner building. Do you know what the height is of that? Is it... Does it exceed 35 feet? It's maybe 40?

The one to the left of us?

Yes.

Yeah, I think it's closer to 40 because I'm putting, I think it's a typical triple decker, but you can see the... and I know the angle is a little different, but it's almost taller than the car that's parked just before the building. So that condition actually adds probably five to six feet The Board has approved a residential structure at The lot that you can see is the open space lot close to the bottom of the screen, which has similar height characteristics because of going up the hill with having additional height towards the lower portion of the lot. So we are trying to design these pretty consistent with what the trend is on this section of Brook Street. And I think that as you go up the hill towards White Street, you do have

A pretty good elevation change that would take into account a lot of this design that we've incorporated.

Yeah, I think, I just bring it up and I think, you know, I think what I'm trying to also show is that this is on a case by case basis and I think the corner It seems like a six flex bow front does look like it exceeds 35 feet. So I think that would be your kind of precedent in terms of context that you are That it should be okay. But I just want us to just be mindful of just the latest zoning changes and when does it become a case kind of condition that we would provide a variance for the height. No further questions. Thank you.

If I can add to the conversation, I'm looking at the Google Studio. It seems that this is not a flat site. It seems that there is a slot. Going down the hill. And with that, I'm looking at the properties to the left of this project. It seems that those properties, especially the one in the corner, is like three and a half floors. So with that, this new project is probably not going to be hired as Mr. Lynch mentioned before. Now, my question is about if Mr. Ambassador can go to the previous slide, number seven. Yes, so I see that building over there, the building has a few windows, also some antennas, could be direct TV antennas.

So how are you going to manage the interaction with your above to the left? And how much space? I haven't seen an elevation showing both properties, the project, the new project and the existing building. So how are you going to manage The light for those windows and also the reception for those antennas. Sure.

I know we have our architect, Eric Zafferson, but I know this question came up as well. Two things I will point out. Our client, who is the owner of the lot that's being proposed, also owns this building. And we have taken into consideration the building code requirements for not having unprotected openings. We do not believe, and I think Eric can confirm it, that Lower Window is probably the only one that is really impactful because of where it's located, but the others are not significant opportunities for light. So I think we can address those pretty easily. But I'll let Eric address those in his comments as well because I know we did look at that.

Thank you. Thank you. Can you hear me? Yeah. So basically those windows are three foot two inches from our building. So it would not create a fire code separation because our building is going to be a four story. It'll also have a one-hour rated wall so that could create a safe separation between the two and as Rich mentioned, The upper windows are not going to be significantly blocked from light. The two lower windows are probably going to have some significant impact of light, but they are over three feet from the face of our building.

So three feet, do you think that is going to be enough space for the next door to manage all of those trash barrels?

Yes, yeah. Trash barrels are 22 inches or so wide, so that's manageable.

Yeah, and that provides for appropriate egress from the existing building, and then our building would have its own egress as well.

Okay, thank you, Myles. Thank you. May we have public testimony?

Hello Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Eva Jones, representing the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services. Regarding 191 Brook Street, our office defers to the board's judgment, a community process was conducted, including an unbuttered meeting held on 6-18-25. That was not attended by any East Boston community members. The proposal was also reviewed by the Eagle Hill Neighborhood Association at their meeting on 6-18-25. Oh, excuse me. Yes. The Association voted to oppose with a vote of 13 opposed and 7 support regarding the proposal. At this time, the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services differs to the Board's judgment on this matter. Thank you, everyone, for your time and consideration.

Thank you. Madam Chair, there are no additional comments. Oh, no, there is one person, I think, PJ.

To the board. My name is Peter Pianidosi. I am a direct abutter to the south, the lot that's actually being redeveloped also. I know that I've worked hard actually with the owner in a lot of the improvements that have recently been made and obviously from the point of which this was brought in front of the Eagle Hill Community Board this project has dramatically changed For the good and just you know at one point that I'd like to bring out to the chair you know to the board in regards to the elevation some of these pictures really don't do the incline justice I think the best The determination to really look at it is if you look at the house next door as you're going up Brook Street, you'll see the foundation and the elevation is actually, the foundation height is actually

Thank you for joining us. And as you go into the backyard and you look in the backyard of this project, you'll also see that there's a dramatic height. So this, even though it is built as a four-story building, It's really not as overwhelming as it appears to be. And it is all within the restraints. And I know that I worked very close with George in regards to this to be able to get this to where it's at and I think they've made dramatic improvements to what this project has become. And again, speaking to what the community board originally voted on, These are two different projects, to be honest with you. So at this point, I would just say as a Director Butter, I'm all in favor for what's being presented here today.

Thank you. Any other raised hands?

Sorry, I'm mute, Madam Chair. There are no additional comments.

Great. Is there a motion?

Madam Chair, I'm going to put forward a motion of approval with the Planning Department and the Senate Review.

Is there a second? Barraza, second.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Mr. Stembridge?

Yeah.

Mr. Langham? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza?

Yes.

Ms. Wewell?

Yes.

Mr. Bernal? Yes. Chair votes yes, motion carries. Thank you very much.

Next case has been deferred. That takes us to case BOA 1554854 with the address of 69R Perrin Street. Is the applicants and or their representative in front? Would they please explain to the board?

All right, morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Tim Longdon, 1A Treetop Circle in Northborough. I'm the owner of the subject property at 69 Alperin Street. where I'm proposing to erect a three-story, three-unit residential building with three outdoor parking spaces. Just a brief overview. The site was originally a portion of a much larger parcel, 67 Parent Street, which I purchased in March of 2023. I subdivided that lot into three separate parcels. 67 Parrot Street, where I rehabilitated an existing three-family home. 71 Parrot Street, where I built a zoning-compliant three-family home. and this parcel, 69 Our Parents Street, where I'm also seeking to construct a new three-family. This is a rather simple and standard three-story, three-family dwelling on a non-standard lot.

The parcel is 6,040 square feet and is in a 3F4,000 zoning sub-district, making the proposed three-family dwelling perfectly suitable for the site. The zoning refusal letter was issued owing to four cited violations. First, there's a FAR violation. I'm actually not certain this violation was correctly cited. The maximum FAR under zoning is 0.8. Here, Unit 1 and 2 are each 1,360 square feet. Unit 3 is 1,413 square feet for a total of 4,133 square feet plus approximately 100 additional square feet of non-unit area. 4,832 square feet are allowed by zoning. If the examiner counted the basement space, which is proposed for storage, it would likely exceed allowable FAR, but only to a very small extent. There is a cited front yard setback violation. The required setback is 20 feet.

While the front of this building is approximately 14 feet from the lot line separating this lot from 67 Perrin Street, That area of the 67 Parrard Street lot is a parking area, so there's no impact on the residents in that building, which is located nearly 45 feet away from its rear lot line. There's a sign of rear yard insufficiency. The required setback is 30 feet. Whereas the provided setback varies from approximately 11 to 12 feet, but there is a significant setback of the building to the rear from its own rear lot line, mitigating any potential negative impact from this violation. The violation is caused by the perpendicular geometry of the lot and is unavoidable in order to allow for the reasonable three-family development of a lot that meets minimum lot size requirements. Also, there is a violation arising from the lack of screen and buffering of the building's three-spot parking area. If the board were to see fit to approve this, I'd be happy to work with the planning department on a suitable landscaping plan.

as well as to refine the architectural plans in light of the neighborhood design overlay district. I also wish to point out that the fire lane access from Burton Ave was reviewed and approved by the Boston Fire Department and is stamped on the site plan as complying with 527 CMR. This project was presented to the board on December 9th of last year and deferred with the board's hope that further effort to engage the residents of Burt Nav would be made in order to obtain their feedback after they were not heard from at previously scheduled debaters and community meetings. On January 6th, I sent certified mailers to each address on Burton Ave with copies of the plans and a link to a private Zoom hearing I was holding on January 20th. Of the four addresses mailed, two responded, and they happen to be direct abutters, 6 and 8 Burton Ave. I met with them on site, and after the discussion, they submitted a letter of support for the project yesterday.

Prior to the meeting with Brett and Alva Butters, I again met with the Roxbury Path Forward Community Group, and after reviewing the project again, they submitted a letter of support as well. I've been working on this project with the community for the better part of two years. It was originally proposed as a six-unit residence, but during the community process was cut down to the three-family residence proposed today due to the incorporation of the Neighbors Feedback. I've been encouraged by the last few meetings with the community groups and abutters, and I believe I satisfied the board's request to obtain feedback from the neighbors on Burton Ave, which was thankfully both productive and supportive. Thank you for your time.

Thank you so much. Are there questions from the board?

May I have public testimony?

Madam Chair and board members, Siggy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This applicant has completed the community process as requested by the board at the last hearing. They've been able to meet with the direct abutters at 6 and 8 Burton Ave and received, our office understands, their support for this proposal. To date, our office has received nine letters of support, with one from Roxbury Path Forward citing the developer's agreement to plow the shared road after storms to remove snow as is a private way. The developers have also included other community benefits as a result of the community process. With that background, the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services defers judgment to the Board. Thank you. Thank you.

Next, we have Michael Kosu. Hi, my name is Michael Kozu, Project Right 320, the letter A, Bluva Avenue. We've had several meetings with the developer, with the Nine Streets United, Neighborhood Association that's impacted by this and Alaska Parent Association. I think the key part was we want to make sure that the Burnton Ave residents were informed of this. It appears that has met the case. The other conditional that residents want to express was to make sure that this doesn't become a cut through from Copeland to Burton to We really do want to encourage the developer to maintain a fence that would actually add to the safety of his properties where people don't see this as an opportunity to cut through. With that, we defer to the judgment of the board.

Can we mute folks who are not speaking? Thank you.

I think the person Zoom user also wants to speak on this case.

Okay. Hi, this is Lorraine Painwheeler, and I am here today on behalf of Roxbury Path Forward Neighborhood Association, and we do support the project now. We think that this additional time that the board gave us by deferring the project was very productive and it was important to us that the street Burton Avenue be repaid. And now that the developers have agreed to that, we really do support the project. So thank you.

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

Great. With that, may I have a motion?

Madam Chair, I would like to put a motion of approval with Provisis to submit plans to Planning for Design Review.

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

Yeah. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Mr. Langham? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza?

Yes.

Ms. Wewell?

Yes.

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

Thank you.

Madam Chair, we have an interpretation discussion scheduled for noontime. Okay. So I'll read that in, see where we go. Interpretation, Rediscussion Case Scheduled for Noon Time. This is case VOA 1689794. with the address of 62 to 66 Condor Street. If the applicants end on their representative presence, will they please apply?

Yes, once again, Madam Chair, members of the board, Richard Lins, 245 Sumner Street, on behalf of the petitioner. This is actually being deferred again to Sun for interpretation. We have been able to reduce the number of violations that were cited by ISD. They've agreed with our interpretation for the most part. We're waiting for an updated refusal letter for one outstanding violation that we may require interpretation form. I'm going to leave this on the docket until we have that updated refusal. So if we could get just a brief deferral, I expect to fully withdraw this particular interpretation once we see the updated refusal.

Okay. March 10th to 24th or April 7th?

March 10th is fine. Okay.

That may have a motion.

Motion to defer to March 10th. Is there a second? I can't.

Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Mr. Langham? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza?

Yes.

Ms. Whewell?

Yes.

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

Thank you, have a great day.

Thank you.

Returning to the 1130 cases. We have two companion cases, which are case BOA-178-3686 with the address of 180-182 Savin Hill Avenue. along with that we have case BOA 178-3689 also with the address of 180-182 Salmon Hill Avenue. If the applicant and or their representative present that could explain the cases to the board.

Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Good morning, Madam Chair, afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is James Christopher of 686 Architects with the business address of 10 Forbes Road in Braintree, Mass. I'm here today on behalf of Christopher Tomasini, the owner of 180-182 Savin Hill Avenue. The proposal before you is to construct a third-story shed dormer on the Caspian Way side of the building. No change to occupancy or building footprint. Next slide, please. This is our proposed site plan. Again, there's no change. We had originally... Next slide, please. incorporated some rear decks. Oh, that was the use of premise, sorry. The... The rear decks have been removed and the proposal now is to construct just the shed dormers. This project schedule would be before the board last month. We deferred at the request of a rear abutter who was unaware of the project.

We spent the last month meeting with that about her to try to revise the design to keep the rear decks. Since then they've been removed so that this proposal is to construct again that shed door on the third floor, no change to occupancy. and the the tandem style Parking for EVs to the right side, so that would be a new curb cut on that side of the building to accommodate parking for the building. And that's illustrated there. That easement exists and is already recorded. Next slide, please. So that's the use of premise application, and then we can go back to the plans for the building permit. Next slide, please.

Go down to the plans. Uh...

Yeah. It looks like you only have these premise plans. It should be another application that shows the building footprint plans. It was one second. We've been working on getting it up. There you go. In conjunction with the existing plans. Keep going. So there's no work on the first, second, and third.

These are the existing. Go to the A drawings, please. There you go, you can stop there. So you can see on the left side, we're proposing to construct a shed dome on the length of that bump out on the house, including photovoltaic array on the roof. Next slide, please. Again, no work in the basement first or second floors. Next slide. So within the Shedd Dome, we would create, there's already two bedrooms on this level. We would reorganize the bedrooms and the living levels in the living area so that the space is laid out a little more optimally. We incorporate a new front deck, and a new entryway to the building. Next slide, please. So that front porch there would be rebuilt so that the stairs currently address the corner of the building. They wrap around toward the side facing Caspian Way and now they will address Salmon Hill Ave.

and those are the decks in question. As per the agreement with Arriera Butter, those decks will be removed and there'll be no change to the end wall location of the building. And with that, I'll turn it over to any questions.

Thank you.

Are there any questions from the board?

I mean, this question is for Jeff Hampton. I saw your BPD recommendations, and you're requesting for a design review for Dormer. And I don't see this. Necessary, it seems like the planning board members should probably spend their time better with much more complex projects. It seems like pretty straightforward. So I just would like to know the reasoning behind that.

It's in a neighborhood design overlay district.

So that's the reason?

Okay. Yes, ma'am.

Yeah, it does not state that. So it requires design review because it's in Savin Hill. Got it. Thank you.

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

Hello Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Eva Jones representing the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services regarding 180 to 182, Seven Hill Ave. Our office defers to the board's judgment. The community process was conducted, including on a butters meeting held on 3-18-25 that was not attended by any community members. Following the meeting, my office received an email from an abutter expressing concerns about the project, the placement of the decks in relation to his child's room, and concerns about the firing for the proposal for him and other neighbors. Following the deferral of this proposal, the applicant worked collaboratively with the abutter and agreed to remove the decks to the proposal. The proposal was also reviewed by the Columbia Seven Hills Civic Association at their meeting on 8-19-25. At this time, the Mayor's Office and Neighborhood Services differs to the Board's judgment on this matter. Thank you, everyone, for your time and consideration.

Thank you.

Next, we have Brandon.

Good afternoon, members of the board. My name is Brandon Cook of Burleigh, McGough, and Kutching here in Boston, 44 School Street. I represent the Director Butters to the rear at 5 Caspian Way. The applicant's correct. We appreciate that they work collaboratively with us to revise the plans and reach an agreement. So I just speak to clarify for the board that the abutters have No objection with the project moving forward so long as that agreement with respect to the proposed rear decks is reflected in the board's decision today. Thank you.

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

With that may I have a motion?

Yes, so given that the project is under a zoning overlay of neighborhood design overlay district, it seems like it's also on a zoning overlay of the Harbor Park, Dorchester Bay, and the Ponce River waterfront. And it also is noted under the MHC historic inventory areas, I'm going to put forward a motion of approval with a proviso that it undergoes BPD design review. Is there a second?

Second.

Mr. Stembridge?

Are you Mr. Stembridge? Yeah. Okay. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Mr. Langham? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza?

Yes.

Ms. Whewell?

Yes.

Mr. Bernal? You're also on mute. Yes. Thank you. Chair votes yes, the motion carries. Thank you. I think is that the...

Have them do it Madam Chair.

Okay well thank you everyone and have a great rest of your day.

Thank you. Bye thanks. Recording stopped.