Zoning Board of Appeal

Good morning, Madam Chair present.

Good morning. Miss Better Barraza? Good morning Madam chair president. Good Morning. Ms Turner? Good Morning, Madam chair President. Good Mornin. Ms Wewell? Good morning Madam Chair, President. Good morning so just a note to applicants we are a six-member board today and with that I will turn it over to Mr. Stembridge.

Thank you Madam Chair We'll begin today's hearing with the approval of hearing minutes scheduled for 9 30 a.m these are the events from the June 16th hearings this year I'll make a motion of approval to this matter.

Sorry, second. Mr. Stembridge?

Yes, ma'am.

Mr. Langham? Yes. Ms. Perebraza? Yes, Miss Turner? Sorry, I didn't hear. Ms. Turner? Yes, can you hear me? Yes thank you because we will. Excellent. And the chair votes yes, the motion carries. So I'm so sorry. I was so excited to get us going. I forgot to read the thing we're supposed to read at the beginning if the ambassador wants to rewind to that. Thank you. Sorry about that. Good morning the City of Boston Zoning Board of Appeal hearing for July 14, 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 it's 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'll 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 and opposition. The order of comments is as follows elected officials, representatives of elected officials and members of the public

The chair may limit the number of people called upon to offer comment and the time for commenting as time constraints require. For that reason, the board prefers to hear from members of the public who are most impacted by a project that is those individuals who live closest to the project. If you wish to comment on an appeal, please click the Raise Hand button along with 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 hands 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. All right, we'll turn it back over to Mr. Stembridge

Thank you Madam Chair. With that, yes we'll go through the extension scheduled for 9 30 a.m there are nine extension cases of today They all appear to be reasonable, so we'll vote on them all together. And if there's any questions, you can deal with that as our reason is. will begin with case VOA 1590502, with the address of 8 Vernon Street. Next, we have case BOA 1175767 with the address of 16 to 22 Linden Street. Next we have case BOA 117-5793 with the address of 6 Pratt Street.

Next, we have Case BOA 155 4601 with the address of 62 North Beacon Street. Next, we have cage BOA 142 6452 with the address of 68 Terrace Street. Next we have Case VOA 054-7315 with the address 268 to 274, friends. Next we have case VOA 162-7005 with the address of 238 to 240 Maverick Street. Next, we have JCOA 148-0626 with the address 24 Dry Dock Avenue.

And finally, we have case VOA 1341015 with the address of 146N St.

Thank you. Are there any questions from the board? May I have a motion to grant the extensions as requested? Motion to grant the extensions as requested. May I have a second? I can't. Mr. Stembridge? Yeah. Mr Langham? Yes. Miss Better Barraza? Yes Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Whewell? Yes Chair votes yes, the motion carries

With that, move on to the hearing scheduled for 9.30 p.m. If at this point we'll ask if there are any request for withdrawals and deferrals from the 9 30 a.m here uh yes

Mr. Stembridge, 1-1H Washington Place Thank you, Attorney Smith

So this request is for case BOA 1846713 with the address 1 to 1H Washington Place. Would you like to explain?

Yes, thank you Mr. Stembridge. Madam Chair, members of the board, Attorney Ryan Spence with Adams & Maranci, business address of 168 8th Street 1st floor South Boston. We're here requesting an administrative deferral to allow the applicant to have a hearing in front of a full seven member board.

Okay, do we have any dates for Mr. Spitz?

We'll take the soonest date that we are expected to have a full seven member board.

Asking Caroline. Who's in there with you, Mr. Stembridge? Is it Caroline or is it Stephanie? Do we have a date that we can provide, attorney Spitz? Can folks hear me?

I can.

Okay, so okay just confirming. So is someone in there with you Mr Stembridge who can provide us with a date? Can you hear us Mr Stenbridge? Okay, I'm not sure. Okay so you cannot hear us so can someone come back and assist? Mr. Stembridge with a sound, sorry about that.

Oh Madam Chair? Yes. Apologies so there's they're having some technical difficulties but August 11 would be the next available date. Okay Okay, so with that may I have a motion?

Motion to grant deferrals till August the 11th. What is your name?

May I have second? Second. Well, I don't know if Mr. Stembridge can respond. Mr. Semberidge? We can't hear you. Okay, we'll keep going. Mr Langham? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza? Yes Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Whewell? Yeah. Chair votes yes, the motion carries.

Thank you.

We'll see you then. Are there any other requests? It looks like we have to, for deferrals. Okay well it looks like waiting on technical support from Mr. Stembridge so are going to need to pause again. Caroline, can you check in with folks to see when they can provide the support?

Yes, Madam Chair. I believe two people from IT are on the way right now.

Okay because we sure need our secretary. Yes, we do. All right, for those who are just joining please have patience. There's some technical issues over in our secretary's office so let's give him a moment.

But someone should probably stand by in case there's another issue.

Yes, in case you dremel turn, sure. All right. Excuse the smoke, but we were asking if there were any more requests for withdrawals of deferrals from 930 AM here? Hearing done. The first cases that occurred, if I have it correctly until August 11th? Yes sir. So we will move on to case VOA 1825908 with the address of 229 Harrison Avenue.

Is the applicant here to present for 229 Harrison Ave?

Yes.

Please state your name and address for the record.

This is Kyle, I'm the architect for this project. Also Rich Chen, his owner, he's also here. Do you mind I use my hard drive?

So we cannot share your screen, so whatever you submitted is what we're going by. So please guide the ambassador as to where you want, what page you want.

Okay, I also share with the ambassador PowerPoint. Is he open? Okay to open that or not? I shared another PDF. Yeah, like maybe 20 minutes ago.

I don't think they're going to be able to share anything from 20 minutes ago. You needed to have said that.

Okay, that's fine. If you go to the next page... So the address is 229 Harrison Avenue. The current use is two-family with no parking, so our project is to change the use to a four family unit As you can see, this is the existing basement plan just utility space. If you go to next page on the top left Existing plan, you know, we existing use is two families with like each unit has four bedrooms. Our proposal is to change each level to a different unit. So each unit has two bedrooms with four kitchen and two bathrooms, and an even dining area.

So basically, the first floor is Unit 1. Second floor is unit 2. Third floor is units 3 and then top floor will be unit 4. If you go to elevation please You know, essentially each floor has the same layout. If you go down to the elevation page Yeah, as you can see the existing fourth floor has a pit roof. So our plan is to demo the dormers and then Rebuild the roof so the ceiling height is the same. But we are keeping the footprint, the area unchanged and also the building height remain the same I think that's our project. We also tried to, I have some existing photos on my PowerPoint

You know, existing condition is not very good. So we try to use better installation and make this building more energy efficient and then existing building interior finish is also not good. So we also use the opportunity to improve the interior environment so that future occupants can have a better living condition During construction, we also follow all the requirements by the city and then by the building code to respect the neighborhood The job site clean and safe for everybody. So this is our presentation today. If you have any questions, please let me know. Thank you.

Any questions from the board? Hearing none, 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 229 Harrison Ave our office defers to the Board's judgment a community process was conducted including an abutters meeting held on 4-9-26 that was lightly attended by the community. The proposal was also reviewed by the Chinatown Neighborhood Council on 4-27-26 where some concerns were expressed about the plans not being conducive to families. and at the Chinatown Residents Association on 4-1-26 as well. Following the feedback from CNC, the applicant has updated their plans from three bedrooms to two bedrooms and an office. And at this time, the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services defers to the Board's judgment on this matter. Thank you everyone for your time and consideration.

Next, we have Alice from the Council of Flint.

Good morning, my name is Ashley from Councilor Flynn's office. Councilor Flinn would like to go on record in support based on a lack of any negative feedback from neighbors and nearby civic groups. You respectfully ask the proponent to work closely with the community on any quality of life issues.

Thank you.

Good morning, could I go? Can I? No. This is Councilor Murphy. Can I speak in support please? Yes ma'am. I just wanted to go on record and support and echo what Councilor Flynn's office said that work closely with the community going forward but like the plans and looking forward to the additional housing in the neighborhood. Thank you. Thank You, Councilor

Okay, next we have Debbie.

Good morning Madam Chair and members of the board, Chinatown Main Streets. We are in support of this project. I have a long history of knowing this building since I was young It's been over 60 years since any type of renovation has been done inside the building. I'd like to go on record to support this and I would like to request the members of the zoning board to read their requests. Thank you.

Thank You Madam Chair, there are no additional comments

Thank you. Any questions from the board? Hearing none, go ahead.

I'm just trying to understand the front elevation. I can put forward a motion It would be good for the BPD design review to take a look at the front elevation. I just see kind of stairs kind of floating and I'm just trying to understand if that's just a CAD error. because the plans are not detailed enough.

Would the architect like to respond?

Yeah, if the architect is there that would be great.

Just clarify. which I think that's a fire escape, let his work on fire scape you are referring to. The fire escape? Yeah the let his

I think maybe you're cutting off the stairs because on your plans it shows that you have stairs leading out and then your front elevation are just kind of floating.

Yeah, this is on the same era. What?

I was just pointing out that this was on 8-1 and 6-2. I see the same thing.

Yeah, that's our era. We will, you know... Yeah, fixed and resubmit.

Right, so basically you have stairs going all the way to the landing, correct? Yeah, and if you notice, you see that your proposed door is conflicting with your subgrade window.

Mm-hmm, I understand.

Yeah, so... I'm going to make a motion of approval without any code violation.

With no building code relief, is there a second? Second. Mr Stembridge? You're on mute, Mr. Stembridge. You just need to unmute yourself, Mr Stembridge. I see it. Oh great.

Yes. Okay, perfect.

Oh boy those technical folks need to stay close. All right Mr. Langham?

Yes.

Ms. Better Barraza? Yes. Ms. Turner? No. Yes. Mrs. Whewell? Yes. Chair votes yes, the motion carries. Good luck.

Good luck and please do hire an architect to do detailed drawings for you.

Okay, thank you.

Next we have case BOA 184. 0986 with the address of 500 Boyle Street. If the applicants and or their representatives are present, and if the equipment keeps working would you please explain to me

Yep, my name is Daniel Brennan. I'm here with BPC 8 Stonegate Lane Salem New Hampshire. I am a consultant handling the Just Salads permits and licenses Also joined with Jennifer Richter, Director of Construction for Just Salad. They currently operate two other locations in the city, one in Fort Point and one in Post Office Square We're here today seeking relief for the takeout use. If you could go to the next slide, please? So that's our layout. So this space was formerly a retail space, Talbot's over at 500 Boylston. It was demised into separate tenant spaces and we'll be taking one of them if this is approved

Our space is just under 2,000 square feet so 1,830 square feet consisting of a dining area service counter back kitchen and two public restrooms The current design has 12 stand-up dining counter spaces, but it may become 12 seats. Exterior work is just signage and will be on separate permits We feel that it fits in well with the community. There's many other quick service restaurants and this will give a nice healthy option to the area. Happy to answer any questions.

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

Madam Chair and Board Members, Ziggy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This applicant has completed the community process. His proposal is located in a commercial area where this use is common The applicants have met with the neighborhood association of the Back Bay and that group is in non-opposition. With that background, ONS defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Thank You Next we have Ashley from Councilor Flynn's office

Thank you. Councilor Flynn would like to go on record in support, thank you.

Thank you Good morning I'm sorry um i would like

So for the record, this is Councilor Anne Murphy. Oh yes, I am. Okay any other comments?

I don't see additional hands raised at the moment.

Okay with that may have a motion? Motion to approve. May I have a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr Langham? Yes Ms. Better Barraza? Yes Miss Turner? Yes Ms. Wewell? Yes. Chair votes yes, motion carries, good-bye.

Thank you have a great meeting.

Next we have case VOA 183 3097 with the address of 62-64 back to the street. If the applicants and or their representative present, they're going to line up for

Yes, good morning. My name is Thomas Cracolici. I am the architect for the project and I'll be representing Kelly & Nick, the owners We are seeking approval of a new construction roof deck on a four-story multifamily, 40 foot height over one story semi enclosed parking structure. The existing conditions, there's an existing roof hatch that is to remain and There are some AC condensers and penetrations on the roof. That's all to remain Tight lock conditions are typical in the area, making functional private outdoor space difficult. So we're just looking to create a functional private indoor space for an existing unit There's no change in use density or occupancy.

We're trying to maintain compatibility with the neighborhood character, enhance the overall site and building performance And again, just maintain the existing building form. No change. Respect the neighborhood scale and materials. There'll be minimal visibility from the street. Then we're trying to improve visual appearance and cohesion So just a brief summary of the proposed work. We're just looking to construct a minimally elevated 658 approximately square foot roof deck. There'll be a small pergola, and a 42-inch code compliant perimeter guardrail at the perimeter of this structure. The deck will be constructed over the existing roof using a pressure-treated wood support curb system with minimal roof penetrations, runoff openings.

It'll be fully flashed and waterproofed And again we're looking to have a seamless integration with the existing roof structure using hurricane ties and heavy duty twisted structural straps that are secured to the existing I-joist roof framing. So that's sort of a breakdown of the structure and then there'll be composite decking. That will be securely fastened, fully code compliant And the pergola will have a lightweight visual profile so it'll be open non-enclosed with minimal visual impact We have Design consultants on board including a structural engineer wasn't able to submit the plans in time for this meeting but we do have a certified structural engineer who has provided plans and details and notes as to how this will be achieved structurally.

We also have a certified existing and proposed plot plan from the Certified Professional Licensed Land Surveyor, as well. and yes I think that's I think that's mostly a summary of the project and we've been in contact with the neighborhood association. And were granted support from them, from their representative as well.

Can you talk about the pergola? How far set back is that? Is it visible from the street?

Yeah, it's about two feet setback. There's a small parapet that sort of obstructs it so when you're standing on the street, you will be able to see it. It'll be sort of clipped off But it's approximately two feet set back from the parapet.

And do you have any issues with possibly moving it that was just like beyond visibility view from the street? That was a comment from VPD. Say that again, I'm sorry. Would there be any concerns about moving the setback further? There was a comment from BPD about the pergola and visibility.

I think the building was constructed. They needed to seek a variance in order to build within the setback, but it's not encroaching anymore.

The purple itself, not anything else yet.

I'm not sure I'm understanding the question fully.

We'll move on. Are there other questions from the board? Hearing none, may I have public testimony?

Madam Chair and Board Members, Siggy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This applicant completed the community process ONS hosted an abutter's meeting on May 7th where no abutters chose to speak. The City-side neighborhood association chose not to meet with this applicant. With that background, ONS defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Thank You Madam Chair we don't have additional comments. Oh! We have Ashley from Cedar Councilor

Thank you. Councillor Flynn would like to go on record in opposition based on his longstanding policy against new roof deck construction and residential areas of South Boston due to years of quality-of-life complaints from neighbors including seniors, persons with disabilities and young families. With South Boston having become a destination for young people on the weekend neighbors in civic groups continue to call attention to roof decks as a source of disturbances and loud noise at all hours as well as concerns on public safety with gas grills or trash removal issues. Thank you.

Thank You.

Madam Chair, I don't see additional hands raised at the moment.

Okay any other questions from the board? May I have a motion?

Madam Chair, I'd like to put forward a motion of approval with the provisal that the project undergoes BPD design review paying special attention to the location of the deck and the setback from all building sides so that it is not visible from the street. Is there a second?

Second.

Mr. Stembridge

Yeah.

Mr. Langham?

Yes.

Ms. Better Barraza? Yes, Ms. Turner? Yes

Did you hear me? I said yes.

No, I heard you.

I didn't hear Ms. Whewell. Sorry, I didn' t hear you. Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Good luck.

Next, we have case VOA 1834696 with the address of 556556 East Broadway. If the city council can't stand for their representative or president, then please explain to the board.

How's it going? My name is Nick Schiffer. I am the owner of the property as well as a contractor. We had previously gotten approval to add an additional floor to the building, which we have since abandoned and we are simply asking to convert the building from a three-family to a two-family. All of the renovation work will be within the confines of the existing structure. No exterior changes will be made.

Okay, are there questions from the board? We have public testimony.

Madam Chair and Board Members, Ziggy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This applicant completed the community process. Our office oversaw distribution of an informational flyer to all occupied parcels in a 300-foot radius which solicited no comments to our office. The Gate of Heaven Neighborhood Association is supporting this application. With that background, ONS defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Next we have Ashley from Councilor Flynn's office.

Thank you, Council from Light Squad Record and Support. He respectfully requests the proponent continue to work closely with neighbors on any quality of life issues during the construction phase. Thank you.

Hi, thank you. I'd like to go in support and just wish the owner luck. Thank you.

Thank You Madam Chair we don't have additional comments.

With that may I have a motion?

Motion to approve.

Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge? Yeah. Mr Langham? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza?

Yes

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Whewell? Yes Chair votes yes, the motion carries good luck thank you

Next, we have case BOA 183-8244 with the address of 500 East 8th Street. The applicants and those that are representative of the president, if they please decline.

Good morning, my name is Jeff Gannon. Thank you Madam Chair and members of the board. I'm the architect and representative for David & Jill DeMello, the owners of 590 East 8th. Just showing here on the slide is an existing condition. We can go to the next slide that will also show the plans and the elevations. This is a two-and-a-half story home. There's a minor renovation at the second floor, and then an expansion at the third floor if we could go to the next slide. There are three areas of relief. The owners have owned the building since 2013 and lived there. They're a growing family, they have three young girls

and they're looking to expand for that reason there was also unbeknownst to them it is on record as a two-family so we are looking to change that to a single family as that is how it is Thank you for your attention. Here is the proposed design. You can see in the street rendering and the front elevation, it's dormering out the existing half story at the third floor and then you can see on the site plan we're calling for a full story at the smaller addition area on the back. Next slide. We'll just show the plans. Again, you can see the third floor which will be able to house bedrooms and a bathroom in a laundry area.

And then the roof modification of that plan on the left in the last slide please. The upper left is just showing the neighbors buildings, also residences and then showing the roof modification and the expansion upward. So happy to hear any questions or comments, thank you.

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

Madam Chair and Board Members, Siggy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This applicant completed the community process. Our office hosted an abutter's meeting on May 7th where no abutters chose to speak. The Gate of Heaven Neighborhood Association chose not to take a position on this application. With that background, ONS defers judgment to the Board. Thank you.

Thank you. Councilor Flynn likes to go on record in support. He respectfully requests the proponent work closely with the Butters on any quality of life issues during the construction phase. Thank you

Thank you. Madam Chair, I don't see additional hands raised.

Sorry, I didn't raise my hand. Could I go on record and support also?

Thank you. Yes, Councilor Murphy please identify yourself. Thank you uh with that may I have a motion?

Madam Chair, motion approval.

Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge?

Yeah.

Mr Langham?

Yes.

Ms. Better Barraza? Yes, Ms. Turner? Yes You're on mute. Ms. Wu will? Yes. Chair votes yes, the motion carries. Good luck.

Thank you. Next we have KBOA 185-5037 with the address of 100 Magazine Street. This is an Article 80 case. And if the applicant or their representative is present, they could explain to the board.

Is someone recusing themselves on this one? Yes, I'm sorry. I'm recusing myself on this. Thank you. So just to confirm we are now a five member board for this case? Is there someone to speak to 100 magazines straight?

That would be me, Madam Chair Pat Brophy. How are you? Madam Chair, Mr. Secretary, members and staff of the Zoning Board of Appeals, good morning. My name is Pat Brophy, and I serve as the Vice President of State and Local Government Affairs at Suffolk. We're proudly headquartered at 65 Allegan Street in Roxbury, and I'm joined this morning by my colleagues from Suffolk, Suffolks Design, and High Point Engineering. As you know, for over 40 years Suffolk has been a collaborative partner in Boston and anchor business in the Newmarket District. Our CEO John Fish is very proud to call Boston and Roxbury home and this renovation will support our anticipated growth, making it one of the largest employees in New Market District. We employ almost 500 people at our national headquarters who were encouraged by recent city investments in Clifford Park, Roxbury Prep and the increased public safety presence in the district. This morning, I'm here to introduce a major investment in our headquarters. This project was approved by the Boston Planning Board in December of 2025 and we're currently in construction

and plan to finish by October of 2026. This $30 million renovation of 100 Magazine Street will transform our office and warehouse space and to state-of-the-art office that will house Suffolk's technology, innovation research and product development teams. When complete 100 Magazine Street will be the epicenter of artificial intelligence in the construction industry. This plan reflects years of collaboration. Collaboration with the Planning Department, Transportation Department, Boston Police, New Market Bid and local stakeholders We have listened very carefully to community concerns and incorporate feedback into every aspect of our design. It directly supports the goals of a planned new market, including preservation of traditional industrial commercial uses Pedestrian Safety and Public Realm Conditions, a special alarm magazine in Gemble Street near Roxbury Park and Clifford Park.

enhancing climate resilience through increased landscaping, which includes a significant public improvements of 48 canopy trees and a 1500% increase in campus green space. We're installing dark sky compliant lighting, additional security cameras at the request of Boston Police Department and we are increasing our sidewalk widths. As part of the design process, we're proposing an eight-foot high steel picket black fence. This fence will be screened by new mature street trees and significant plantings within the campus. The scope item has been reviewed and approved by the city's planning urban design team. And the fence will mirror the rest of the Suffolk campus, and its height is consistent with adjacent businesses and institutions within the new market area. We are respectfully requesting your approval for the 8-foot fence. In conclusion, I'd like to thank Stephanie Haynes, City's Planning Department, ISD and ZBA staff for their guidance and professionalism throughout this process

We're hopeful that this will demonstrate our commitment to the improved aesthetics enabled and we look forward to your feedback and approval.

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 Bembery. I'm an engagement specialist with the Office of Neighborhood Services. At this time our office will defer to the board for its judgment. The proponent has completed the required article 80 review process The required article 80 community process has been completed. I believe our office is not aware of any outstanding community concerns or issues related to the proposal. Thank you for your time.

Next, we have Councilor Aaron.

Hi, thank you. This is Councilor Murphy. Just want to thank you Pat for coming on and also to Suffolk for all you do in the neighborhood so I'm here to support. Thank you.

Thank You Councillor. Next we have Nick Carter

Thank you. Nick Carter here at the Planning Department wanted to echo ONS's sentiments and also go on record in support, thank you.

Thank you, Nick. And next we have Elian Rimas from Council of Fitzgerald

Hello, Madam Chair, members of the board. Liam Remus from Councilor Fitzgerald's office. The council would like your record and support this proposal. Thank you.

Thank You.

And I think we have somebody from the public. Mark Delazio

Yeah, can you hear me? Yes sir. Thank you Madam Chair and members of the board my name is Mark D'Alasio I'm a business agent for Carpenter's Local 327 in Boston and we just want to go on record as being in full support of this proposal thank you.

Madam Chair, we don't have additional comments.

With that may I have a motion?

Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion of approval as Suffolk is a long-time good neighbor in the Roxbury neighborhood and a good business partner for the city of Boston.

Thank you.

Is there a second? Thank you, Mr Stembridge.

Second.

Mr Stenbridge?

Yeah.

Mr Langham? Yes. Is Better Barraza? Yes. Is Whewell? Yeah. Chair votes yes, the motion carries. Good luck.

Thank you.

Next, we have case BOA-182-1667 with the address of 610610A Trumont Street. If the applicant and or their representative are present, would you please explain to the board? Is anyone available for 610 to 610A Tramont Street?

I think I see the person on the attendee section. Michel, Angel and Michelle if you can unmute yourself please.

My name is Angel Carrasquillo I will be or i'm the owner of um Leche and Mayo Bakery. And our proposal is that for variants from a drugstore to a bakery,

Good morning, members of the board. Thank you first of all for your time and consideration. My name is Michelle and I'm here with my father Angel who was the owner of Le Jamiah Bakery & Cafe Due to a temporary disability following a serious accident, I've been helping him to manage the project throughout the permitting process. And on the advice of ISD, the contact information for the application was updated to my name so that There would be a consistent point of contact and just to keep things flowing while he's temporarily unable. to move things along. But the ownership and division of the project remain unchanged Before this space, before it became vacant the landlord surveyed members of the Puerto Rican community

to ask what type of business they wanted to see in this location. And the community chose a traditional Puerto Rican style panaderia, which is... In Spanish it's It's just a bakery slash cafe and our family was selected to bring that vision to life by the residents. And we're honored by that trust, and we're committed to creating a bakery that reflects our culture while serving the entire neighborhood. Our family also owns Mana Escondido Cafe, which is a few blocks away from this space and there we proudly serve authentic Puerto Rican food since 2013. And this project Le Che Miel is a natural extension of that commitment

and we'll offer fresh Puerto Rican breads, pastries, coffee and other baked goods and lunch options. And we feel we'll be bringing a unique We are committed to being good neighbors, creating local jobs and providing a welcoming space for residents and visitors alike. We believe Leche Miel will add something special to the South End by celebrating Puerto Rican culture and providing the Puerto Rian bakery that the community has asked for. We've also received letters of support from community leaders who believe that this bakery will be a positive addition to the neighborhood. We'd be happy to provide those letters at your request.

And we respectfully ask for your approval so we can bring this vision to life and serve the South Bend community. Thank you for your time. Any questions from the board?

Hearing none, may I have public testimony?

Hello Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is Emma Jones representing the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services Regarding 610 to 610A Tremont Street, our office defers to the board's judgment. The community process was conducted including the distribution of a subcommittee fire on 5-2026 which I did not receive any community comments The proposal was also not in the catchment area of any civic associations and therefore was not required to meet with any. 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.

Next, we have Ashley from Councilor Flynn's office.

Thank you. Councilor, Flynn would like to go on record in support. Thank You.

Thank-you. Next, We have a Councilor Murphy

Hi, good morning. Yes this is Councilor Murphy I want to go on record in support and just want to thank the owner and his daughter for doing like just family work and seeing it forward and looking forward to visiting soon so thank you.

Thank you and next we have Nicolás Armando.

Nicholas. Thank you, CBA. My name is Nick Armada. I am the senior planner with the Boston Landmarks Commission. Just a reminder to this applicant that this application We will require review by the Southend Landmark Commission because this project is located in the South End Landmark District. Thank you.

Madam Chair, we don't have additional comments.

Well that may I have a motion? Yes, Madam Chair. I'd be happy to put forward a motion for Lecce Men which would be a really nice addition. The motion is approval. Do we have a second? Second.

Mr. Stembridge

Yeah.

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

Thank you. Thank you so much.

Next, we have a BOA 185-5600 with the address of three Blen's applicants. The applicant and or their representative are present. Please explain to the board.

Yes, thank you Mr. Secretary and good morning Madam Chair members of the board for the record attorney Matt Eccle on behalf of the applicant joining me today is Eric Zacherson from Contacts the project architect as well as Steve Daddario the project applicant We're seeking to erect a new residential building at Three Glines Ave with three units and two parking spaces on a currently vacant lot. The project sits on Glines Ave, which is in the Eggleston Square neighborhood of Jamaica Plain. Glines Av's a dead end street accessed from School Street and this would be the first lot on the right as you're going down Glines Avenue. The site is just approximately a tenth of a mile away from both Washington and Columbus Ave, which are served by MBTA bus services as well as half a mile from the MBTA Stony Brook station providing future residents Multiple means of transportation to go along with the two parking spaces we are providing. These three new residential units will be offered for home ownership,

And just to go through the floor plans briefly, the basement is common mechanicals and storage as well as sprinklers. The first floor would have the main entry which accesses all provides access to all three units Unit 1 located on the first floor is 810 square feet, a two-bedroom one bath with a walkout rear patio. The second floor will house Unit 2, which is a 975-square-foot two-bedroom, two-bath unit. And the third floor is designed the same as the second, so it'll house Unit 3, which also 975 square feet with two bedrooms and two bathrooms This project went through an extensive community process and the applicant worked closely with both abutters as well as the local civic associations. Some changes were made throughout the process, including to the design of the building as well as the location of the Building and at one point we had proposed a roof deck which has now been removed from the plans and is no longer part of the proposal.

Based on these changes, we did submit four letters of support including one from the Eggleston Square Neighborhood Association and one from Jamaica Plain Neighborhood Council. With that I'll pause and happily take any questions the board may have.

Thank you. Are there 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 Marie. I'm the Jamaica Plain Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community purpose which consisted of an embargoes meeting Facility, September 23rd. Two of voters expressed support for providing the addition of much-needed housing while recommending the inclusion of bicycle parking and an additional first Other abutters raised concerns regarding access to the rear yard for second and third floor residents, sidewalk replacement of windows in addition to the proposed setbacks, and whether a shadow study had been conducted. One abutter said that they would support But expressed strong opposition to the proposed three-family use, citing concerns that it could establish a precedent for future development in the neighborhood. Following the boarder's reading, the proposal was presented to Eglison Square Neighborhood Association with Bidbo. To date our office has received four letters of support including one from and Everson's Grand Neighborhood Association approving the proposal.

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

Next we have Councilor Murphy.

Yes, good morning. Council Murphy here just wanted to go on record in support of this project. Thank you.

Thank You Next we have Nicolás and Marta

Good morning, my name is Nick Armada. I am a member of the Boston Landmarks Commission staff's Association, and I'm just speaking on record in support of this project. I've worked with Matt on several occasions and his team... And we're confident that he will come up with a beautiful project

Madam Chair, we don't have additional comments.

Okay, with that may I have a motion?

Madam Chair I'd like to propose a motion on approval

Second. Thank you. Mr. Stembridge? Yeah. Mr Langham? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza? Yes, Ms. Turner? Ms. Whewell? Yes. Chair votes yes, the motion carries. Good luck.

Thank you very much.

Next we have case BOA 184 8048 with the address of 1422 to 1444 Dorchester Avenue. If the applicant is present, please explain.

I also need to recuse myself in this case too thank you.

Thank you so just a reminder we are now a five member board

and bear with me, Madam Chair because this is a companion case that has a companion which is case BOA 18488052 with the address of 22R to 24R Lennon Street. and this one is an article of both authors.

Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Madam Chair, members of the Board, Attorney Joe Hanley, McDermott, Quilting, Miller & Hanley representing Beantown Companies who is Mark Resnick David O'Sullivan and Arian Nicola are here as the project architects. This is a historic restoration and expansion project, so we're also working with Local Historic Consultant William Young as well as historic tax credit consultants for this project. Next slide, just to bring you to the site. You'll see the white building. This is at the intersection in the heart of Fields Corner and Dorchester

At the intersection of Dorchester Ave and Adams Street is the building, which also runs along towards its rear along Leonard Street. Next slide. Shows you a little more in closer context. This is looking at the existing building on Dorchester Avenue at that intersection The building is the former Ahern's warehouse building that was built around the early 1900s and became a music hall at one point. We have existing retail including the post office that's remaining on the ground floor and underutilized Office and Commercial on the upper levels, which will be integrated into the addition, which we'll show you. Next slide please. This is the view looking at the corner.

You'll see the post office that is remaining and the next slide takes you for a few looking, if you will Up Adams Street. I don't know if you can go to the next slide. This is the view looking up towards Adams Street. You'll see Part of this existing building in the music hall there are once these grand windows that are being restored. You can see them in the facade there, and that's a huge driver of the existing renovation. Next slide please. and a view from Leonard Street in the rear. So plan right, you can see as Mr Semper indicated there are two cases these are two parcels that are being combined

The existing Leonard Street parcel in the rear is a unimproved surface lot that we are seeking to construct an addition for new residential and you will see in the foreground An existing building which is known as the Clapp Fieldhouse. Thank you very much. to maintain and integrate that structure into the development, and we suggest that supports the zoning as well. Next slide please. So just a quick project overview. The amount of land for the combined site, a little over $26,000 635 square feet.

The gross floor area is broken up between about 40,000 existing for the building and 35,000 Addition for 47 new residential units both in the addition and in the underutilized upper levels of the existing music hall. 9 of the units will be affordable there's a mix of ones twos and threes we have 18 Parking spaces and 72 bicycle parking spaces. Project benefits, we're very excited to obviously be to restore the music hall but also retain the clap house To provide much needed affordable and market rate housing in a sustainable development, which would be all electric. And to remediate the heat island effect by removing the surface lot

and creating usable open space in a new public realm and the like. Next slide just takes you through the zoning real quickly, we were in a neighborhood shopping community commercial district The principal relief that is necessary is a conditional use permit to allow for residential on the main level, which you will see in the addition at the back to the right. and as well as the floor area ratio. It's an existing non-conforming building today. We're combining the lots. One is allowed, 2.5 is proposed. The height both stories and The elevation of four stories at loud and 40 feet. We are proposing six at the rear that is set back and approximately 68

I will note that there's about a 12 1⁄2 foot brain change that goes back towards the site and that helps to mitigate the height as well. We're in a walk shed, which you saw early on less than a quarter mile to the Fields Corner rapid rail redline train station along the bus routes helps to mitigate We are creating parking, but helps to mitigate the relief for 18 spaces and the base code is two per. The neighborhood design overlay went through Article 80. We were approved in August of last year. and we now have two buildings on one lot by virtue of combining these two parcels. And that is the result of keeping the Clapp Fieldhouse as the new building, if you will, as an addition to the existing.

So you see this now in the next slide, how this all comes together with the relief that's requested. And I have David O'Sullivan here if you'd like him to take you through the plans and renderings.

Only briefly, please do not go through every slide. Thank you.

David or Arion?

Yes, hi. Hi, Arion Micola from Sullivan Architects. We can quickly go through the floor plans. I'm not going to go into too much detail, but if you go to the next slide, you'll see this is again just a top-down view of the entire site and the courtyard and the adjacent parking lot. The next slide will show you the parking level. On the left-hand side is a new building, on the right hand side Next slide. We'll show you the first floor. These colored units are the residential units. And then we have a residential lobby coming off of Adams Street and Dorchester Avenue intersection,

Plan South, there you'll see the two-story existing historic house to also be sort of like restored into a renovated into two separate units. Next floor up is the second floor Again, the left-hand side is a new building. The historic house in blue as well detached on the right hand side the storage building with the existing commercial space to remain. The next slide, this one we could quickly skip is the mezzanine level of the second floor. And then now we're looking at the third floor. Now at this point all residential units left-hand side new building, right hand side Existing Storage Building. And then the floor above is the same as this one, it's a fourth floor

And then finally, if you go to the fifth floor, you'll see now the new building has one fewer units. The tall floor is pulled back a bit, and on the right-hand side you'll see the roof deck proposed and some of the amenity space on top of the existing storage building. and then the next slide is just a little plan of the entire development. If you can go to the next slides Yeah, here you'll see everything top-down. And then finally this the A401 which was right before this is a side section just to So like show the relationship between the two buildings. And then what you're seeing on the screen is side by side, so a real image versus rendering of what the new project will look like, sort of keeping the same angle. And that is this presentation. Thank you guys.

Thank You, Madam Chair.

I have one question I just wanted to follow up on. In our materials and the memo That is nine plus IDP units, and I didn't see any explanation for what plus stands for. Does anyone know what the plus signifies?

So the IDP requires 17%. We're doing a little over 19%, and so that equates to nine units plus... They round, so if you're like under the 0.5, in other words going to 10, you pay in based on a pro rata for that. So that's what that refers to.

Got it, 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 Benbury. I am the Director of Community and Peat Specialist Services. At that time our office will defer to the board for its judgment. The proponent has required article 80 review process A public meeting held on June 24, 2020. Community feedback reflected mixed views. Many of voters expressed support for the proposal, particularly the present existing However, concerns were raised regarding parking. While some residents of the addition of new housing units they did not support the spaces Next, the proposal was presented to Fields Corner Civic Association where the proposal generally well received. Following their community meetings, the proposed was approved by the board on August 14th, 2045. This time our office is not aware of any outstanding community concerns or issues related to the proposal. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. I just want to thank Joe and his team who came to my office over a year ago now, I think, and really explained what their vision and plan was as a neighbor here in Dorchester. I'm excited to see this investment Looking forward to what it will bring to this neighborhood. So thank you for trusting our neighborhood, Joe and team, and just want to go on support in full support of the project. Thank you.

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

Thank

Next, we have Mark DeLazio.

Yeah, Madam Chair and members of the board, thanks for the opportunity to speak. My name is Mark Delazio I am a business representative for the North Atlantic States Regional Council of Carpenters and we just want to go on record as being in support of this project. Thank you.

Next, we have Nicolás Armata Madam Chair, my name is Nicholas Armada, Senior Planner for the Boston Landmarks Commission. The proposed work at 1442-1444 Dorchester Avenue combines two elements which are essential to Boston One much-needed housing for Boston residents and two, the preservation of two historic central to Fields Corner development. The 1772 Clapp Field House in the 1886 Dorchester Music Hall O'Harnes Storage Building The development team worked diligently with the Boston Landmarks Commission staff to change their initial design, to pivot from demolition of the Clapp Fieldhouse and instead embrace The preservation and adaptive reuse of both of these historic structures. Therefore, the Office of Historic Preservation enthusiastically supports the zoning variances requested by this applicant. Thank you.

Next we have Tyler Ross

Thank you Madam Chair, members of the board for allowing me to speak here. I just want to go on record and support a project manager from the planning department we had public Pueblo attended, average local newspaper. The Councilor is on record in support of this project. Thank you.

Madam Chair, we don't have additional comments.

Okay any other questions from the board? I just have a comment. I know that the project has been undergoing BPD design review. I just want to make a comment here on the record and hopefully, the project managers listens to some of this feedback I just, I find the base along Leonard Street to be Very barrier-like, and what I mean by that is that you have almost a full story of just mainstream. I know that there's bikes right in front. If there's a way to make it a little bit more pedestrian-friendly, so you don't feel like you're walking by a 10 foot wall along Leonard Street. Other than that I don't have any other comments.

Can I make a quick comment to that? The architect, this has actually been addressed very briefly. We have actually planted right along the building we have added detail to break and also with a new stair coming down, we have addressed that moment where you enter the building. So hopefully that helps and we have updated drawings to share at some point.

Okay, that's great. Just because there's a huge gray drop and I think detailing would benefit the project a lot. Thank you.

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

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

Mr. Stembridge?

Yep.

Mr. Langham? Yes. Ms. Greta Barraza? Yes, Ms. Turner? Oh sorry there's Wuerow Yes. Chair votes yes, the motion carries.

Thank you very much.

Good luck.

Next we have case VOA 183.5904 with the address of 105 Pleasant View Street, if the applicant and their representative present would like to speak to the board

Yes, good morning Madam Chairperson and members of the board. My name is Lorraine Moyo I'm with Simba General Contractors representing our client Victor Maxwell the owner of 105 Crescent View We are requesting zoning relief to convert the existing owner-occupied one-story single family home into a two-family residence with an addition of a second story. We're seeking relief for three zoning issues. The first one is excessive floor area insufficient front yard, insufficient rear yard. These conditions are largely the result of older zoning regulations and dimensions of the existing lot and not an attempt to overdevelop the property. Also many homes throughout the neighborhood share similar setbacks, and a lot characteristics.

The property will remain owner-occupied and we have consulted immediate arbiters, and they've expressed support for this project. Can I have she, geezer there one please? Oh no that is, if that's easier. All right, so this is what it will look like. So currently there are single family but this is why it would look like the addition of the second floor. So the existing footprint of the house will remain essentially unchanged We're building vertically rather than significantly expanding outward. The existing driveway access is maintained. Existing side circulation remains the same. The project is designed to be a traditional two-family, consistent with the surrounding development.

I think it's the next one.

So here we have the existing first floor unit, that first floor dwelling remains substantially intact Improvements will include code compliance egress, modernized living space and structural upgrades to support the SIGINT IV. Sheet A102 please. All right, so the second floor will be approximately 1,140 square feet. It'll include two bedrooms and a full bathroom Open living room, kitchen and dining area. So the layout will provide comfortable family-sized housing while remaining compatible with the scale of the neighborhood. Sheet A21 All right, elevations here. You'll see simple residential architecture, pitched roof, consistent siding materials, balanced window placement

Modest Exterior Stay Locations, and it will resemble the neighborhood and many existing two-family homes found throughout Hyde Park. And 301 Place A3013202 So here's the new structural flow system, fire radius separation between drilling units. We have saw insulation roof construction foundation relationship and Sheet S001, which is the last one. And here it's just a structural part of a new LVLB with reinforced floor framing, engineered roof framing, new bearing walls and upgraded structural support. and that's it. So we respectfully request the board to grant zoning relief for this family, please.

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 Bambury and I am the HAWC Community Engagement Specialist with the Office of Liquid Service. That's completely the required community process which consists but is meaning facilitated on May 14th. for stating that it is a logical expansion of the existing home. No additional community process was put into date, our office has not received any further community feedback. Thank you for your time and the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services refer to the board.

Thank you.

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

With that, may I have a motion? I put forward a motion of approval. Second. There's a second, thank you. Mr. Stembridge? Yeah. Mr Langham? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza? Yes Ms. Turner? Yes Ms. Wewell?

Yes.

Chair votes yes, the motion carries. Good luck ma'am.

Thank you so much.

Next we have case VOA 183 3442 with the address of 17 R Belkin Road. If the applicant and or their representative are present, would they please explain to the board?

Hi, my name is Steve Fine and I'm the contractor for this project. Thank you for your time. So this is a building owned by a local charity and they have had this garage since Building was built. The garage is in terrible shape and needed to be redone. And the proposal is to rebuild it in exactly the same place as the original, exactly the size and height. Just taking down the one that was there in poor shape and replacing it with a new one.

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

Madam Chair and Board Members, Siggy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This petitioner completed the community process. Our office oversaw distribution of an informational flyer to all occupied parcels in a 300-foot radius which solicited no comments to our office The Brighton-Alston Improvement Association is supporting this application. With that background, ONS defers judgment to the Board. Thank you.

Next we have Nicolas Almada

Nick Armato, Senior Planner for the Boston Landmarks Commission. The proposed scope of work at 17R Melton Road in Brighton includes the full demolition of the existing garage which is more than 50 years old The scope of work requires an application to be submitted to the Boston Landmarks Commission under Article 85 of the Balting Zoning Code. The proponent will need to complete the application for demolition online at boston.gov forward slash landmarks and receive a determination from the Landmarks Commission staff. No demolition permit can be issued until the Article 85 process is completed. Thank you.

And we have a Councilor Murphy.

Yes, wanted to go on record in support. Thank you.

Madam Chair we don't have additional comments.

With that may I have a motion?

Motion to approve. Is there a second? Second.

Mr. Stambridge? Yep. Mr Langham? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza? Yes, Ms. Turner? Yes Ms. Wewell? Yes. Chair votes yes, motion carries.

Thank you.

So before we go to the 11 a.m here.

Okay, we will take a five-minute break. See you then. Recording stopped.

Present, Madam Chair. Thank you.

Mr. Langham? Present. Thank You. Ms. Better Barraza? Present Ms. Turner? Present President. Great, thank you. Please proceed Mr. Stembridge

Certainly Madam Chair. We'll begin by asking if there are any requests for withdrawals or deferrals from the 11 a.m here? Mr. Stembridge, I'm sorry there is one person who's looking for a referral

Ethan, if you can unmute yourself please. I can. Can everybody hear me?

Yes, what case are you?

I'm here for 44 Granger Street. We still need to set up a City of Voters meeting coordinated with O&S.

Thank you. Mr. Stembridge needs to read it into the record.

Thank you Madam Chair. This request is for case BOA 1836310 with the address of 44 Rancher Street. Would you go ahead again and explain, please?

Certainly. So an initial City of Butters meeting was held on the initial plans that were approved but they have since changed and no Butters Meeting So I've been interfacing with Mr. Newman as of last night, so with ONS we're going to be setting up that City of Butters meeting We should only need a brief deferral in order to finish coordinating that

Okay, Ms. Caroline?

They have August 11th, August 25th or September 8th

Let's aim for the 25th. I want to give myself more time than I need, if that's acceptable to the board. Okay. May I have a motion?

Motion to defer this case until August 25th

Thank you. Mr. Stembridge? Me, yeah. Mr Langham? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza? Yes Miss Turner? Yes Ms. Whewell? Yes Chair votes yes, the motion carries. See you then.

Thank you very much. You all have a nice day.

Thank-you.

If there are no more requests for withdrawals and deferrals We'll go back to case VOA 1834869 with the address of 231 Princeton Street. If the applicant and those that are represented were present, would they please go into the void? Is any club present for 231 Princess Street?

I see somebody. Zach Jones, you can unmute yourself now.

Can you hear me? Yes we can. Yes, I'm the homeowner at 231 Princeton Street.

Great. Can you state your name and address for the record? And please tell us what you're looking for.

Yep, my name is Zachary Johnson. My address is 231 Princeton Street and I hired the contractor whose name is on the application, Auggie D'Souza to help me basically add a flat landing to the back of our home, and that would become a deck. And then we were looking to enclose the deck underneath as well for some usable space in the back.

Okay, questions from the board? Hearing none, may I have public testimony? Is there any public testimony on this?

Hello Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Elizabeth Jones representing the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services regarding 231 Princeton Street our office defers supports judgment A community process was conducted including an abutters meeting held on 5-2026 that was lightly attended by the East Boston community members. where conversation was amongst neighbors and very productive. The proposal was also reviewed by the Eagle Hill Civic Association at their meeting on 9-27-25, and the association expressed support. 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.

Motion to approve. Do I have a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge? Yeah. Mr Langham? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza? Yes Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Whewell? Yes Chair votes yes, the motion carries, good luck Thank you Next we have KVOA

170-4408 with the address of 191 Main Street. If the applicants and or their representative present, then please explain.

Yes, thank you Mr. Stembridge. Good morning Madam Chair and members of the board my name is George Maranci I'm an attorney with the business address of 350 West Broadway in South Boston I represent the owner of 191 Main Street, Sing Ming Chan who is proposing to temporarily relocate a liquor store he owns and currently operates at Charlestown Liquors, 10 Thompson Square which is nearby to the first floor of the building that he owns at 191 Main Street. The reason for doing this is because the 10 Thompson square site where His current liquor store is located was approved in September of 2024 for a new three-story mixed use building. After construction of the Thompson Square building is completed, my client would plan to relocate this liquor store use back to Thompson Square. At this time, zoning approval is required because the liquor store use at 191 Main Street is a conditional use.

There's also a cited off-street parking violation on the zoning refusal letter, but it's worth noting that the 191 Main Street building was approved by this board in 2022, at which time it received an off-street parking variance for a ground floor retail use. There's been no use in there since the building received its certificate of occupancy. This proposed use is in fact A retail use under Table E of Article 62, off-street parking requirements. Which leads me to conclude that the current off street parking violation was Aroniously issued and unnecessary because the property already benefits from a variance. That being said, in conclusion as noted in the Planning Department recommendation We strongly believe that this site is an appropriate location for the proposed use. It will not adversely affect the neighborhood, constitute a serious hazard to vehicles or pedestrians, or create a nuisance. Mr. Chan is inexperienced

of this type business and will maintain adequate and appropriate facilities for the proper operation of use. With that said, I'll pause and take any questions that members may have.

Thank you. Any questions from the board? Yeah, I have a few questions. One, back in 22 when this building was first proposed It seems like there were concerns, first of all about how it got passed. But one of the stipulations was that there would be no liquor sold at this address and so I'm just wondering A little bit of the history of this property and a little bit about why back then There was that concession made about no liquor being sold at this address. And then second, there are concerns about loading zone and trash, and if you could address those as well. Thank you.

Certainly. I actually, and to be honest, have no recollection of a conversation at the time when 191 Main Street was proposed of a liquor store use on the ground floor. I don't recollect that and again, I don' t remember why that would have come up because as I said my client at that time still does own a liquor at Thompson Square, which is very close. So I don't know why there would be any concern that he would be opening a liquor store here. I don t remember that. I am aware that there are no provisos on the ZBA decision. If I had any recollection, I would certainly let the board know but I don't. And in terms of trash and deliveries like any Neighborhood Business on Main Street or anywhere in the city and like the current liquor store at Thompson Square which is actually three times the physical size of this

Deliveries and trash would be handled on Main Street. Thank you.

So just to be clear, though. There's no point where there would suddenly need two liquor stores?

No because to be clearly my client has one retail package store license and that has to go through the Boston Licensing Board for transfer to 191 Main Street. And as I said, the Thompson Square location That is a much larger location now. The new liquor store there is about 3,000 square feet as opposed to about 1,000 squared square feet here So this is a bit of a stopgap measure. This license will be going back. My client is not applying for a second license here, it's the same license.

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

Madam Chair and Board Members, Siggy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This petitioner completed the community process. Our office hosted an abutters meeting on April 15th of 2025 at which an abutter was concerned about the representation of the proposal as temporary and requested the applicant agree to a sunset provision to ensure the store does move back to its original Location as they represented. Another abutter raised concerns about a buildup of trash and mattresses behind the property, which the applicant stated would be addressed shortly after the abutters' meeting The applicant did meet with the Charlestown Neighborhood Council which determined at its May 5th meeting to take no position on this change in use. Our office received two letters of opposition, which have been forwarded to the board. With that background ONS defers judgment to the Board. Thank you

Madam Chair, we don't have additional comments.

And Madam Chair, I'm sorry just to address once again Ms. Turner's questions. I actually went back while Siggy was testifying to my saved notes from my presentation to the board Back in 2022, I made no mention of a liquor store in my main presentation. And I don't know if there was testimony But there was nothing in my presentation about no liquor store going into 191 Main Street, and as I say, there was no proviso on the decision.

Thank you, I appreciate that. I just want to bring up some of the concerns of the abutters.

No, understood and that was the first thing I heard that there may have been a representation made at that time so I just wanted to double check.

Thank you, and certainly a proviso could be added to ensure that only one of those locations has a liquor store moving forward. So with that may I have a motion?

Madam Chair, I'd like to put forward a motion of approval.

I'll second that. And yeah, I'm not sure we could and other properties, kind of liquor license or kind of property separately. So I would not do the Profesa.

Okay, Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Langham?

Yes.

Ms. Barraza? Yes Ms. Turner? Yes Mrs. Whewell? Yes Chair votes yes, the motion carries. Thank you.

Next we have case BOA-2857327 with the address of 769 Columbia Road, if the applicant is a representative present.

Thank you. Stembridge. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the Board, Attorney Jeff Drago with Drago and Toscano at the business address of 11 Beacon Street here on behalf of the applicant of 15 Fenton Street, LLC, and Fernando Del Fiore who is the owner of 769 Columbia Road. This is a straightforward proposal. The description is to renovate Completely got renovate the interior of the building and right now this building is an existing large three-family double wide three unit building. In Dorchester, the proposal is to add a small rear addition to each unit and then change the occupants. If you could just remain on this slide please. Yeah, that's fine for now. Thank you.

To change the occupancy from three units to six condominium units and also add living space in the basement Besides the small rare addition, all of the existing structure would remain and all of work within the interior of the building. This gives us the ability to create some additional units. There's also, if you go to the next slide please Mr. Ambassador thank you there's also an existing curb cut 12-foot curb cut on the property That leads to a very dated garage structure in the back. We would also propose to remove that existing garage that only houses one spot and that would create three rare parking spaces as well. This slide is actually

Helpful slide, it just shows sort of the building layouts along Columbia Road. And you can see and that is why we got Recommendation of approval from the BPD and their recommendation is that if you look at the streetscape, you can see many of the buildings in this area go back in the rear of Father in the Rare, then our building. And so what we're proposing in that three-story rare addition it's just 228 square feet and the back of each unit for a total of 684 square feet. The lot size is 5,310 square feet And you can see it, we have a very large front yard area with green space that will remain and put a new landscape plan together as well.

The composition of this area is mixed. If we could go to the next slide please? You can just see in this slide that I provided there's condominium units and rental buildings, multifamily up and down this corridor. Many of which are similar utilizing the large basements and also utilizing of converting from three units to six units. There's a number of six unit buildings within the immediate area that have been condo-ized as well. If you can go to the next slide, please. These are existing three-bedroom one bath units of what we would be creating is utilizing additional space in the basement that would have seven foot six inch ceiling height minimum. The unit one and two would be three bedroom, two bath proposed at a thousand 1,015 square feet and 1,130 square feet.

So we'll be making those family-sized units. Units 3... 4, 5 and 6 would all become two bedroom one bath unit. Now even with the addition Our FAR would still be under the allowable FAR for this area, which is 1.3. We would be at 1.11. Our height would still remain and be allowable under the code. The areas we would be seeking variances for is additional lot area, it would be about 700 square feet under Open Space would change slightly in the formula so we would need a variance for open space and then off-street parking as well although we're creating more parking

We are in a great spot for public transit. We're 500 feet from Dorchester Ave, which has multiple MBTA bus routes on it. and we're also approximately 500 feet from the JFK UMass MBTA station which houses The Red Line, which makes this great for those folks that would be commuting as well. With that, I can pause and answer any questions that the board may have. Thank you.

Thank thank you. Are there questions from the Board? Yeah, public testimony.

Madam Chair and members of the Board for the Brooklyn, my name is Jeremy Benberry. I am the Roxbury Community Engagement Specialist with the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process which consisted of an abutters meeting facilitated on April 23rd where concerns were raised regarding the size and proximity proposed building to the adjacent property at 771 Columbia Road, with abutters expressing concerns about private as an overall scale of the proposal. Residents also voiced concerns on construction-related noises and the potential impacts on the surrounding neighborhood throughout the duration of the project. Butters also expressed a lack of confidence in the current property owner's ability to responsibly manage the property. Butters noted that the property has approximately 27 recorded violations and that this reflects a long-standing pattern of poor maintenance and inadequate property management. But as further described, persistent issues including excessive trash, fire safety concerns and a significant road infestation expressing concern that these existing conditions have not been adequately addressed.

Several residents thought that the proposed development would improve conditions given the property's current state. Thank you for your time, and the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services will like to defer to the Board for their comment.

Next we have Leon Rimas

Madam Chair, members of the board, Liam Ramos from Councilor Fitzgerald's office. Due to strong concerns expressed through our office that how LA previously from both Neighbors of Project and the Local Civic Association are also on record in opposition to this proposal. Thank you.

Chair, we don't have additional comments.

If I may respond... Would you like to? Yes please. So there was a prior property manager. First, my client was unaware of the tickets they were not being sent. They were trashed tickets and the moment they found out about it, they actually removed the prior property manager. They hired a new property manager There is no rodent issue directly caused from this building. There seems to be a rodent He also hired the company, The Exterminator has been abating just as a precaution as well. As part of this proposal, we are converting these to condominiums. So I know there was just concern about folks had asked could we update the property and that is part

is the general plan as well. This will be completely changed to a new building as well Thank you

Mr. Bunbury, do you want to add comment?

Yes, ma'am. I failed to add that the proposal was also seen by the Columbia 7 Hill. They received overwhelming opposition at that time.

So, if I may also point out the Columbia-Savenhill group has a zoning subcommittee that we first presented to. The recommendation of the subcommittee was for approval based on the zoning variances needed being minimal and the project being reasonable. It then did get denied by the full group But again, and based on the variances we're asking for which are minor it's very commonplace to have this kind of a building. up and down the corridor, and I know it was mentioned that some folks said the development was excessive. This is a minimal addition in the back to 284 square feet It also keeps family units and adds some additional space, and as the BPD mentioned all of this

We maintain the building and there is a strong recommendation on the architectural integrity of this area. It was mentioned, I know, in their proviso if approved for BPD Design Review would be kept on because this is a historical area, because of the design of the buildings up and down the corridor. But we are keeping right in line with the other buildings in this area. Thank you. Thank you.

Any other questions or comments from the board?

I only have concerns with a little bit of lack of open space given that you're increasing the occupancy and You have a very tight driveway of close to 9 feet, 8 foot 10. And I'm concerned with the maneuverability of a car getting into parking 3. So if this project moves forward, we should ask BPD to review The amount of parking and to ensure safety, maneuverability for the cars. and for people.

Understood, we are removing the garage Miss Better Barraza so um we do open up that area but uh you know obviously it's uh

It's asphalt, right? It's all for parking.

And it is now as well, most back there so but yes we would be happy to change the parking scheme in the rear As suggested, we just wanted to try to get additional parking spaces in for the community.

And you're open to reducing it to two parking space if the BPD determines that it's Is this a safety issue in regards to mobility? Absolutely. Okay, great. Thank you. I don't have any further comments. Thank You. May I have a motion? Madam Chair, I'd like before a motion of approval with BPD design review on the amount of parking and balance with open space. and to also review the exterior, to comply with the characteristics of a neighborhood. Is there a second?

Second. Mr. Stembridge?

Yeah.

Mr. Langham?

Yes.

Ms. Better Barraza? Yes Ms. Turner?

Yes, but I would encourage applicants to really reach out to the neighbors and make it clear that their concerns will be addressed. Thank you.

Understood. And we will do that. Thank You.

We will. Yes? Fair votes yes, the motion carries. Thank you very much.

Next we have case BOA 1824479 with the address of 128 G Street. If the applicant and or their representative present would please explain to the board

Anthony, I think you can... Yep.

Can you guys hear me all right? Yes we can. Alright, I would throw my camera on here. I don't know where I have the ability to do that. Would you guys mind unmuting my dad as well? We're co-owners in this property so I'd appreciate it if you guys could find him and

So can you let users know his name?

Bob Reynolds.

Okay, are you ready to proceed?

Yes. Yep.

Okay please do.

Okay, so I had some slides here but we can work off of this that my architect had provided. Good afternoon everyone, my name is AJ Rinaldi as I mentioned I'm the owner of 128 G Street with my father. And our ask today is to approve a basement unit That is fully furnished right now. It would put us from a two-unit house to a three unit house As I mentioned, the unit as it stands right now, as we had bought the house is fully furnished with a bathroom kitchen and a place where you could put a bed as well. So would be identified as a studio unit On top of that, we would be adding the necessary utilities as well. So that would be its own electric meter and water heater as well

As well as that, I did go through the process and I worked with Siggy to get approval from the necessary communities. Gate of Heaven Community and Dorchester Heights where I went in person and met with these groups presented these plans and I received nothing but positive feedback from them. As well as that, I did do an abutters meeting on April 7th where we received support from them as well. So no opposition up to this point, hopefully we're able to gain your guys' support and like to point out too my father and I were not developers nor are we architects so if i'm missing anything in this process Please, you know, I'm happy to answer any questions but please point it out and we'll get everything cleared up. So that's really all I have for today. Dad?

Yeah, I was just going to add a couple of things if I could to what AJ said. So as the records indicate this property that Previous owners that owned for quite some time had been recognized, I think from a tax record standpoint, for a three family for 20-25 plus years. I'm not sure if that's consequential in any way, but it has been recorded again tax wise as a three family property. Maybe the other thing that AJ and I should call, it's really more AJ than me. He lives up the street at 62 G Street so he's He's not an investor. He's really a member of the G Street community as a young 26-year-old person, you know, really wanting to make the best out of the neighborhood and improve it in any way that he can.

And so we, yeah, and maybe just the last thing in closing. We're just... It could probably go without being said but the approval from you all to get this third unit approved would allow us Not just as property owners, but for people that are seeming to badly need a place to live in South Boston we would have the ability obviously to provide that to them which I think is sort of a win-win. Good for us as property owners, but also good for the city of Boston to have a fully ready unit that someone could move into tomorrow or whenever you would provide such approval to us. And that I think is all we have to say.

Thank you. Are there questions from the board?

So this is moving forward, you like to convert from a two family to three family?

Correct. Yes.

So as a three family and you're adding sprinkler systems.

We come to this call not knowing whether or not that needs to be done, so the answer is we don't know.

Okay, what's the ceiling height in the basement?

Is it called out, Adrian, on the diagram?

I know. I'm trying to see. I can pull up our apartment set too. When we had the architect through there There wasn't any indication that he thought there was going to be any issue with ceiling height. As any basement, it differs in certain areas but it's... It seemed like it was maybe eight and a half feet of ceiling height. I don't want to put a number out there that I can't stand by, but it wasn't a drastically low ceiling height

A.J., sorry, Madam Chairman, members of the board, this is Eric Zachrisson, the architect. I happen to be on but couldn't find my mute button. Yes, the ceiling height varies quite a bit, but it's at least eight feet in...

and other places. You answered the question because when you're going to a three-family, you have to have seven foot six. So thanks for that. What about going into three family and adding sprinkler?

We understand that we will at a minimum be sprinkling the new unit and equipment, and are not asking for any fire code or building code.

Okay great thanks Eric glad you were on thank you

Thank you, Eric.

With that, may I have public testimony?

Madam Chair and Board Members, Siggy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This petitioner completed the community process. Our office hosted an abutters meeting on April 7th at which no concerns were raised The applicants met with Gate of Heaven and Dorchester Heights neighborhood associations. We're not aware of any concerns from either group. With that background, ONS defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Next we have Ashley from Councilor Flynn's office

Thank you, my name is Ashley from Councilor Flynn's office. Councilor Flinn would like to go on record in support based on a good community process and positive feedback at the meeting with the Dorchester Heights Neighborhood Association. We respectfully request that proponent continue to work Next, we have a Consular Murphy.

Thank you. Wanted to go on record in support of this project, followed the community process and happy to see that and also just want to go on record to thank my staff is on a well-deserved summer vacation. So, thank you for bearing with me on this now I know how hard our staff works on these Tuesdays so thank you everyone. Thank you.

Madam Chair, we don't have additional comments.

Okay with that may I have a motion?

I put forward a motion of approval.

Is there a second?

Second.

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

Thank you. Next, we have case BOA 1835385 with the address of 63 Telegraph Street. If the applicants and or their representative are present, would they please explain to the board

Good morning Madam Chair, members of the board. I'm Nick Landry from DRP we're the architects on a project. The owner Michael Norton wasn't able to join the call today so I'll be running through the presentation So we're here today for 63 Telegraph Street, which is the white building shown here in a rendering. It's located toward the top of Telegraft Street near Dorchester Heights. We're requesting relief for four violations, I think two of which might be an error. Can we go to the next page? So if you want, I don't know if we can zoom into the zoning code refusal letter. But so the first violation we had is off-street parking We have an existing two-family building here. We're going to be keeping it as a two family, we're just doing a small addition off the rear of the building so that use doesn't change. So the existing two families has no parking and the new project at the end will have no parking.

There's a roof structure restriction because we are changing the profile of our roof line and extending the third floor back about four-and-a-half feet. There's a side yard violation. Again, because we're extending the rear of the building, we're just continuing to profile the existing footprint which creates a side-yard violation on the left hand side of the And there's a rear yard violation here. I think we have a shallow lot, so I think that violation may be an error. We're keeping the existing footprint of the building and the deck. We are staying within the existing We can see that on the next page. So, the left-hand side here we have an existing survey You can see there's a deck in the rear and a stair on the rear, and then there's this second story bump out of the rear. And the third floor kind of steps back

What we're proposing to do is rework the existing stair. It doesn't connect all the way up to the top floor, so we're going to be removing the stair, running that all the up to top floor and then installing two new decks but we're not getting any closer to the property line than the existing deck? You go to the next sheet, please. So as I mentioned, it's an existing two-family. The drawings on the top show one unit on the first floor and then a second unit on third floor. The unit on first floor will stay unchanged. The basement is unfinished with mechanical space down there? The second and third floor unit will change. We're going to be infilling the back right portion of the second floor, you can see on the upper plan there's a stair coming down we're gonna rework that stairs so we can square off the back in the building which is causing that side yard violation. And then on the top floor, we're going to be pushing that rear wall back about four and a half feet and creating an exterior walkout deck which will access that second ingress stair.

Go to the next page, please. So again this is an existing view of a building on the left-hand side so you have that first floor unit and then the second third floor is the second unit We're going to be changing the roof to a mansard, adding some dormers and residing an entire house. You can see that on the right hand side. We're gonna go to the next sheet please. I'll go through these elevations quickly. I think this is a good one where you can really see the dashed line on the left-hand side, that's the proposed elevation. You can see we're extending our top floor about like I said four and half feet there will be a walkout deck that will connect to that new egress stair and where you see the two windows on the east elevation, the existing elevation we're going to be boxing that area in. And there won't be any windows on that side because we are so close to the property line but I think if we want to flip through the next few slides

So again, on elevation we are going to be raising the roof height but we're still about four feet below what's allowed. Go to the next slide. Again, this is a view from the left side of the house. You can see that extension on the third floor if we go to the next slide. So here we can see the back, so you can see there's that third floor deck with their egress stair that we'll be putting in connecting all the levels down. Go to the next slide please. And I think this is the last one that's relevant for today. Yeah, you can kind of see that's so that's the finished product. We have a third floor extension, the new man tower with the dormers and some decks on the rear of the new EVA stair connecting us to the ground level. And that's all.

Thank you. 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 petitioner completed the community process our office hosted in a Butters meeting on May 12th at which Butters were supportive The applicant met with the Dorchester Heights Neighborhood Association where the proposal was well received. With that background, ONS defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Thank you Madam Chair and members of the board. This is Sydney from Councillor Flynn's office. Councillor Flynn would like to go on record in support based on a good community process and positive feedback at the meeting with the Dorchester Heights Neighborhood Association. who respectfully request that the proponent continue to work with the community on any quality of life issues. Thank you. Thank You.

Madam Chair, we don't have additional comments.

Okay, well then may I have a motion?

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

Second. Mr. Stembridge? Yeah. Mr Lano?

Yes.

Mr Barraza? Yes Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Lewell? Yes Chair votes yes the motion carries good luck thank you

That is here we have passed the 1130 conference. So I will ask if there is any request for a withdrawal or deferral from the 11.30 p.m. time frame? Hearing done. Continue with the 11 o'clock hearing and that takes us to case BOA 1857936 with the address of 151 Lenox Street.

And I need to recuse myself from this one, this is the last time today dates.

Okay thank you so for this case we are now a five member board.

This is also an article 80 case and we'll ask if the applicant as well the representative present feels quiet.

Good afternoon Madam Chair, members of the board. Jacob Taylor here from Klein Hornig. I represent Tenants Development Corporation. Klein Hornigs business address is 101 Arc Street and we represent Tenants Development Corporation with respect to the 151 Lenox Street project. Tenants development corporation is a local non-profit developer and owner with a 50 plus year history of providing affordable housing in both the Roxbury and South End neighborhoods. The 151 Lenox Street project represents an opportunity to turn a vacant city-owned parcel into 38 units of affordable housing for local seniors. The project is on a corner lot at the intersection of Tremont and Lenox Streets. It's located in the Multifamily Residential & Local Services Subdistrict within the Roxbury neighborhood district It's also in the Coastal Flood Resilience Overlay and Boulevard Planning Districts. The surrounding area contains a mix of commercial and residential uses.

And the location is close to the retail and commercial hub at Mass Ave in Tremont, We're before the ZVA today seeking dimensional relief under Article 50, Section 29 with respect to additional water area per dwelling unit. Floor Area Ratio, Building Height, Usable Open Space and Front Side and Rear Yards. As I mentioned this building is on a corner lot We're also seeking relief under Article 50 Section 43 for off-street parking and loading. We are in the GCOD, so we need a permit there. And we need relief with respect to screening and buffering and traffic visibility across the corner. The applicant has incorporated community feedback into the design and presented the project to neighbors at three community meetings, all of which were well attended. It's received overwhelming support. We're submitting over 30 letters from neighbors and members of the community in support of the project

The project triggered small project review that's been completed by the BPDA in December of last year. and we have submitted the engineer certification and the Boston Water & Sewer Letter for the GCOT approval. I'll turn it over now to our project architect, Laura Chella-Mowat from Davis Square Architects and she's going to provide more information regarding the program and design of the project.

Thank you, Jacob. Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is Laura Chalamot. I'm a principal at Davis Square Architects, and we are the architects for 151 Lenox Street. Jacob described the context a little bit, but I wanted to show the proposed building in context right here at the corner of Tremont and Lenox streets. The parcel is 4,700 square feet. And with the project we're proposing sidewalk improvements for the site. The proposed building will total just over 30,000 gross square feet and will be seven stories which allows us to fit 38 affordable apartments For seniors and the support programs that are needed on site.

I'll quickly run through the plans and elevations. This is the ground floor where we have the main entry, and support spaces including a community room office Package Room, Laundry and Bike Room. There are two units on the first floor, two sets of stairs and two elevators to get you up to the upper floors Each of which have six units. and a mix of one bedrooms and studios. So the total is 38 units with 32, one bedrooms, and six studios. In addition to the units themselves, the project will offer enhanced accessibility which will promote aging in place by local seniors and support services needed for them.

The building is proposed to be seven stories. We worked closely with the city, and as Jacob said had many community meetings The two important goals of providing affordable rental housing for seniors within a building that is contextual to the environment. So here's the view The East Elevation and the view on Lenox Street. And then I'll just flip back to the view of Tremont Street and the north side. I'll hand it over to the board to answer any questions

Thank you. Are there any questions from the board? Do we have public testimony?

Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record my name is Jeremy Membry. I'm the Roxbury Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services This time our office will defer to the board for its judgment. The proponent has completed the BPDA community engagement process which included a public meeting held on September 29th, 2025 The proposal received 34 letters of support, including two from elected officials, Senator Miranda, Representative Moran and Councilor Culpepper. and was approved by the board on December 11, 2005. The project proposes 38 units of 100% affordability for senior housing providing Opportunities for Asian residents to remain in the city and continue to be a vital part of the neighborhood. There is no civic association within the project area, and at this time our office has received one letter of opposition from the legal representative of the abutting neighbor.

The letter of opposition states that the proposed seven-story, 84-foot building is significantly larger than the surviving neighborhood, exceeds the zoning code's district height limits and is incompatible with the area's existing scaling character. The above also objects to the building's location along the shared property line, citing concerns regarding this lack of setback, loss of natural light, increased shadow impacts, reduced property value and potential safety issues resulting from High difference between the buildings. Thank you for your time.

Thank You Next we have a Christian Simonelli Good morning Madam Chair, members of the board, Christian Simonelle Boston Groundwater Trust and we have both g-card letters from the applicant Thank you. Next we have Nicole.

Colleen? Okay. So I'm on here for a different project, 146 M Street by colleges.

Okay thank you. From the public we have Robert Moran Robert, if you can unmute yourself.

Good morning. Can you hear me?

Yes sir.

My name is Robert Moran I'm an attorney at Gilman, McLaughlin & Hanrahan. My office is at 101 Merrimack Street in Boston And I represent 888 Tremont Street, LLC via Butter and Frank Williams the principal of the Butter. Basically this project is, the applicant is trying to put an enormous project Enormous building on a tiny lot. The lot is 4,709 square feet where a 38 unit Thank you very much.

and there's almost no dimensional requirements that the project complies with. Lot area, It's 4,000 square feet for the first three units then a thousand square feet each additional unit. That would require, as I said, somewhere around 38,000 square foot lot.

Can you keep it tight and get to your point? We can tell you are opposed, so.

Sure. And the point is that the project is very large and it's not compatible with the district. And, the applicant hasn't met The requirements for a variant, there are no special circumstances. This is just a tiny lot. There are plenty of tiny lots in the area. 792-794 Tremont Street, it's just down the road. It has all the aspects that the applicant complains about. It is on the corner of a couple streets and it It's a small lot, and it's attached to another building. So there's no special circumstances. Two, this isn't the minimum relief The reasonable use of the site could put a much smaller building here.

This is an unreasonable use of this site and it affects the neighborhood, and the building is enormous and the applicant has tried to downplay the size of it by comparing it with the smokestacks of adjacent buildings, the church steeple. But we're talking about 84 feet. 45 is allowed in this- Sarah, please wrap up.

We have 90 seconds a speaker likely exceeded that. Please wrap up Okay Thank you.

Thank you Next we have Jason Farrell

Thank you Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Jason Farrell and I'm a project assistant at the planning department. And here on behalf of Camille Platicasta, the Project Manager at the Planning Department for the 151 Lenox Street Article 80E small project The project filed their small project review application with us on September 8, 2025. A virtual public meeting was held on September 29th, 2025 which was well attended The project was approved by the BPDA board on December 11th, 2025. The planning department is in support of the project moving forward. Thank you.

Thank You Next we have Mark Delacio Thank you Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Mark Galacio. I'm a business representative for the North Atlantic States Regional Council of Carpenters and we just want to go on record as being in support of this project. Thank you. Thank You.

Madam chair will have additional comments

Okay, any other questions from the board? Does the applicant want to address concerns that were raised?

I'll just note that the applicant has worked closely with the abutters. We understand they have some concerns around the scale of the project, but they did work with them and incorporate some feedback into the design trying to trying to space out their building from anybody's building as best they could while still providing a significant number of units of senior affordability.

Thank you. Does that man have a motion?

Is there a second?

Second. Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr Lino? No. Ms. Better Barraza?

Yes.

Ms Wewell? Yes Chair votes yes the motion does not carry is there a different motion

Madam Chair, I'm wondering if the appropriate next step is to defer given that a member had to recuse herself and we're down four members. You can feel free to make that motion. All right, motion to defer.

Is there a second? Second. Okay, Mr. Stembridge? Yeah.

Mr. Langham?

Yes. Ms. Better Barraza? Yes Ms. Wewell?

Yes

Chair votes yes, the motion carries.

Is there a- August 25th or September 8th?

Mr. Taylor? Sorry it was August 25 you said?

Yes.

or September 8th? Yeah, I think we would prefer the earlier meeting. So August 25th.

Okay, thank you. We'll see you then.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, a couple of things. The next case has been deferred and we do have an interpretation case coming up at noontime. We'll wait or shall we proceed?

Okay, I mean we should just hear the next case and then we'll take the interpretation. Is there anything?

Yeah. With that We will go to case BOA 1837040 with the address of a free booster. Good morning, almost afternoon. Members of the board, Madam Chair, this is Mike Ross, Attorney of the Law for Prince O'Bell.

I'm here on behalf of the Appellants, Brian Jason Chavez Dorchester residents who are seeking to add basement living space to an existing non-conforming two family home located at 3 Bruce Street and the Dorchester Neighborhood Zoning District in a 1F5000 subdistrict. The project was originally approved by this board in May of 2024, and then later amended through the Board of Final Arbiters. The appellant pulled a building permit earlier this year and began construction of the project. During construction, it occurred to the team that the vast basement area which is not very submerged would be a good candidate to convert the ground floor one bedroom unit into a family size four-bedroom duplex. And so that's what team pursued through the community process and now is back here in front of the board We're here on one single violation. F.A.R., as it relates to the additional living space in the basement.

You can fast forward, because this is internal work only for the most part, to slide 7 which is also called ZV.0 and you can see, that's perfect. Thank you Mr. Ambassador. Slide seven. Yeah, that right. So what you see here is the conversion of basement from storage to living space. The net increase is 1290 square feet, resulting in an FAR 0.67 where 0.5 is allowed. Here, the basement floor is being lowered an additional 12 inches which will result in a 9-foot ceiling height. New full-sized windows will be installed in the basement and then the internal stairwell leads to the upper floor duplex which you'll see on the next slide. Z5.1, this is showing the before and after.

The right is what we're proposing showing the first floor of the plan now connected to that lower level of the duplex which will result in this four bedroom unit which will be 2,588 square feet from what was I mentioned a previous one bedroom that was 1290 square feet. If you go to slides 9 and 10, it shows the upper second unit, which is just slightly reconfigured, which will be a five-bedroom unit. And it will remain a five bedroom unit. Slide 11, which is called Z6.0. Actually you were just on it, Mr. Ambassador. One back please. These axons there Small changes to the existing external stair of the building, as well as an open air patio that's coming off the side of the buildings. You can see right there. Next slide please.

Here on the south and east elevations, you can see minor changes to window fenestration throughout the building as well as that full-size basement window at the basement level. The next slide shows you North and West elevations, and you will see the basement's a walkout basement. It's not deep into the ground. And the additional full-size windows that will be created as well as other minor Fenestration, other windows. Also the board should have received a notice of unanimous support from the St. Mark's Barrier Civic Association and with that I'll pause if there are any questions. Thank you.

Thank You. Any 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 3 Bruce Street our office defers to the Board's judgment a community process was conducted including an abutters meeting held on 5-11-26 that was well attended by the Dorchester community. One attendee expressed support for the proposal's bedroom count, noting that the inclusion of family-sized units was preferable to a greater number of smaller units The proposal was also reviewed by the St. Mark's Area Civic Association at their meeting on 5-26-26 and have expressed support. 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.

Next we have the Consolidated Morphine.

I thank you. I just wanted to go on record in full support, I live in the neighborhood and have been driving by the renovation and it looks beautiful and happy to hear that they're taking this opportunity to extend and expand living space in the neighborhood. So I wanna go on record and full support, thank you.

Thank you. Madam Chair we now have additional comments.

Okay for that may I have a motion?

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

Mr. Stembridge?

Yeah.

Mr Langham?

Yes.

Mr Barraza? Yes Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Newell? Yes Chair votes yes, the motion carries Thank you very much have a great day

So at this point, we will go to the interpretations case scheduled for noontime. And this would be Case BOA 185-2440 with the address of 142 Palm Street. If the applicants and or their representatives present, Did they first find the case on board?

You think somebody, Michael? Yes. The person who was just promoted as a panelist, I'm not sure if he's... I am here.

Are you here for 142 Arlington Street? Yes, I am. Okay please state your name and address for the record and proceed.

It's Michael Kim, registered architect. Address 1 Holden Street, Brookline Mass.

Okay please let us know what your

Okay, we have a rejection from ISD on three points and we feel the three points are inaccurate. As stated in my appeal and letter, The first violation cited is off-street parking insufficient. This permit is simply to make the make a former, now abandoned illegal basement apartment a living space for the owner of the building. It is essentially a man cave.

Therefore, there is no change of use and the parking on the site has a two-car garage. There is a requirement in the 2F-5000 zone for 1.8 spaces on the property, the garage suffices so we believe that parking is sufficient and With this permit, there's no change to the parking. The second is related. They say the use is forbidden. It is currently a two-family house The basement space is finished but abandoned. This simply changes it to usable space. It's still a two-family, so a two family isn't a lot of use How these is forbidden, we don't quite understand. And then finally, usable open space insufficient.

We had the site re-plotted or a new plot time set out. We measured the outside. Close, square footage of the site. We've stamped it there as sufficient open space. So we feel that these three violations are in fact not correct.

Is Mr. Joseph, Commissioner Joseph or someone else available from ISD to speak?

He's on if some person can elevate him.

Jesus, can you elevate? What, Joseph? Is someone able to elevate Mark Joseph so they can speak? Yes, can you hear me? Now we can, sir.

Thank you very much. Good afternoon everyone's here. I just heard partially what the applicant said and Check with the violations. He's not changing from a two-family to a three or something else. Technically, if he has the space, he can increase or enlarge the size of any of the units That shouldn't be a violation. The use is not forbidden because two families, two family. The only thing that could have been triggered here but it's not there. It's FAR. But that has not been triggered. And for the parking space, I agree with the applicant that off-street parking should have been triggered, so is open space.

If the open space 800 square feet per dwelling unit has more than 1600 square feet That means that those violations, if I had to write them today, I would not have written them.

So can you confirm, so my understanding, our understanding is that ISD inspected the property and noted that the space was a separate unit with separate kitchen and all of that. That's what we're here to discuss, correct?

No, that is not what we're here to discuss. ISD two years ago did inspect it and there was in fact a illegal unit done 25 years ago by the previous owner. That is not in dispute. Immediately the owner kicked the tenant out and dismantled the kitchen. So it is no longer, it has not been an illegal unit for the last year and a half. So we are not here to discuss that. We're simply here to the three points that are keeping them from using the space to invite their friends over to watch the World Cup.

So that means that, sir, if I had to ask a question about this. That means you combine the two spaces of the first floor and the basement together.

Yeah, the owner's unit is in fact on the second floor. But he wants to use this. There's adequate egress. There nothing perfectly conforming to both zoning Sanitary and Building Code. It's just space that they can use, and the three articles cited as violations of the zoning code are not correct.

So and about the space itself, what is the use of that space? Where can that place be classified as?

It is a family room. It's a man cave. It has no kitchen, it is not a unit. Sorry? It will be for the second floor unit. So, but those spaces are not contiguous?

There is no requirement for that in any code. Of course there is because you cannot jump from one space to honor the speech by using a common area.

I disagree with that and we had AI search for that, Well, the two spaces must be contiguous so if that pertains to the same unit. Sir, if you would cite a requirement for that we'd be happy to comply. There is no requirement in any code for that.

Well, that means either it's a dwelling unit or it's space by itself For the use, you did not specify the use. Therefore, it might be a forbidden use because the zone is a two-family zone. So if you have a different use, man cave, It's a use if that's the way you want to see it. The term forbidding is appropriate for this because there is no use for this.

I would ask the board to intercede because I don't believe that to be the case.

Because you still will be able to go forward with the billing codes, because the contiguity of the spaces matter.

because the two spaces might be contiguous. I would love to agree to you if you would cite the portion of the building, the sanitary or the zoning code which simply doesn't exist Are there bedrooms in this space? No. There were a few code violations, those have been removed. It's just playspace.

Are there questions from the board? I do have a question. Is there a modern or a current floor plan? Because the floor plan that you showed us, it does show like three bedrooms and a kitchen. Yes. I just want to have an understanding of what it looks like now.

Yes, that was submitted. The plan that was shown on screen was the existing floor plan before The existing floor plan as when it was an illegal apartment. There is a plan accompanying the The Permit, which shows it all as family room and study and so forth. Furthermore, all the doors in the space have been removed, therefore it's one continuous space.

Okay, so we don't have the current floor plan to look at though.

I don't know why since that was submitted in the whole package. I can put it on screen if you would like.

I think we do have it. I'm not sure if the ambassador can pull up, but what I'm looking at is right after the existing condition page.

It's isolated, doesn't have the second floors. I see what Shamia has which is just The existing and proposed basement plan.

Right, there's no proposed work in any of the other floors. Also, there's a diagram to show the FAR including in the attic.

Just for clarification with this proposal of removing the kitchen and kind of an illegal use of that You submitted suggesting that it's being removed, the kitchenette and you're using I think we're missing the first floor to understand how the first floors connected to that extended use. So I don't have enough information for me to create my application because you and Mr. Joseph were going back and forth with not really...

having common grounds in terms of understanding the whole project so well I think the issue let me just give that if you are submitting this you're then saying that ISD is gave you the wrong violation, which ISD gave you a violation for off street parking requirements. and you're saying you don't need it because you're extending that use. So I would recommend that this gets deferral until we have complete drawings and understanding

of your proposal.

That is what I'm recommending.

Okay, with respect there's a misunderstanding it is not to be contiguous space It is as if it was above the garage or something. And it's not attached to the ground floor, it's attached to second floor.

But this is not part of the continuous unit? There's a unit in green, is that correct?

Correct. And my argument is there is no written requirement in any code that space be contiguous.

Can we hear Mr. Joseph speak? Yes, please.

Now if you see the configuration of this space itself, you'll see they removed the term bedrooms. They used guest area but the same thing remains You have closets here. You have the space itself, and also you have the windows that makes... This is before. Please let Mr. Joseph... No, that's the proposed. You have a guest room, guest area, you are sturdy. They're sturdy eight foot ten. You'll have the same configuration stage. You have the closets there. And then you have a kitchenette. Everything that makes a bedroom, a dwelling unit is there and also you have mechanical rooms there inside that unit So everything is there, not contiguous.

The print examiner reviewed it as a third unit that's why the Forbidding is there. That's why off-street parking is there, that's why open space is there because if you have to go open space eight times three gives you 2400 square feet. You don't have that If you have to go for the third unit, the zone is 2F. Therefore cannot accommodate a third family and also all the violations you need also one All street parking per dwelling units. If it's a dwelling unit, all the violations cited by the plant examiners are legit.

Mr. Joseph, thank you so much. I think I have enough information to perform a motion.

Excuse me, my screen is not showing the proposed plan.

Okay, well in any case... It sounds to me like the board is ready to make a motion.

Could I make one more point? If you're adding new information. Yes, I can. The proposed plan, which unfortunately I can't see, removes the doors to the bedroom and expands the openings to five feet. Per the sanitary code for habitation, those do not conform to the definition of a bedroom. Furthermore, the kitchenette does not have an oven nor a refrigerator of 11 cubic feet. Therefore, by the state's sanitary charter it does not qualify as a dwelling unit. This space, as its drawn... It cannot be defined as a dwelling unit because it does not meet the requirements. Can we please go to page three?

As defined, can someone move us to page 3?

As Mr. Kim is speaking, okay great this is the proposed...

Okay this is a kitchen that is allowed as long as it does not meet the requirements of the state sanitary code which it does The other studies do not have adequate privacy to qualify as bedrooms per the sanitary code. Therefore, if this space does not meet those requirements it cannot be classified as an additional unit Therefore, the three zoning violations are null and void.

Let me give you the definition per building code of a dwelling unit. The dwelling unit must have four components for sleeping, eating, living and also bathing. All these things are there, sir. I disagree. You have living, you have cooking, you having bathing, and you have living space. You family home there. So the definition of the building code as a dwelling unit It's all there. Exactly as it was before, you just remove the term and put study and guest room. Those two rooms are bedrooms You have kitchen, you should call it Kitchenette. You just remove one little thing that can be put in all the time. The building The plan examiner is right by making this a dwelling unit. That's exactly what it is.

I think we're, I have enough information to put forward motion.

Okay, any other questions before a motion?

Please.

Ms. Better Barraza.

I'd like to put forward a motion of denying the interpretation request and would like to make a recommendation if this was to move forward it has to be put forward as an appeal to the Massachusetts Building Code Commission. Is there a second? Second.

Mr. Stembridge. Mr. Langham?

Yes.

Mr. Barraza? Yes, Ms. Turner?

Yes Ms. Wewell? Yeah, from what I've heard it sounds like a dwelling unit is contained and can't be split or sort of sandwiched between floors. So I uphold the Commissioner's decision so yes.

Chair votes yes, the motion carries. Let's take a 15 minute break.

Thank you, Mr. Stembridge. Thank you. Mr. Langham? Yeah. Ms. Barraza?

Here.

Ms Turner? Ms. Wewell?

Present.

Is Miss Turner back? Well, you can start reading but we'll be a five-member board until Ms. Turner returns.

Okay, Madam Chair. So we'll return to the 11 o'clock cases and at this point we'll be going to case BOA 1824464. at the address of 679 Kentbury Street. If the applicants and or their representative are present, would they please explain to me in case there was more?

Yes, good morning Mr. Secretary can you hear me all right?

We can.

Thank you very much Madam Chair members of the board Dennis Quilty attorney representing the applicant the business address of 28 State Street The matter before you today is a former restaurant site of actually the well-known Simcoe's at the bridge. My client Mr. Lateef seeks to open and operate his kebab style restaurant in this location which has housed a similar takeout food operation for many, many years But there is a proviso from the existing use or the previous use rather, which limited the relief to this petitioner only. We seek simply to remove that proviso so that Mr. Lateef can operate his business on site He is a well-known and respected restaurant operator.

We did meet with the local neighborhood organization, the Mount Hope Canterbury Street Neighborhood Association on March 14th. They were fully supportive of our application. We were not required by ONS to host an abutters meeting given the We are happy to take any of your questions Mr. Lateef and his partner Mr. Azim I hope are both on board, I can't see them but

Okay. 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 Benberry. I am the Roslindale Community Engagement Specialist The applicant was not required to complete a full community process. The proponent did present to the Mount Hope Canterbury Neighborhood Association and have received one letter of support from the Mount Thank you for your time, and the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services would like to defer it to the Board for their judgment.

Thank you.

Next we have Martinelli

Hi, members of the board. Matt Marnelli from Councilor Dryden-Royal's office has mentioned this Westbrook has supported the Civic Group and was well received at the Civic meeting. Councilor Worrell is on record as being supportive. Thank you.

Madam Chair, we do have additional comments.

Okay, may I have a motion?

Motion to approve.

May I have second? Second. Mr. Stembridge? Yeah. Stalingham. Yes. Ms. Better Barraza? Yes. Miss Turner? Yes, Ms. Whewell? Yes Chair votes yes motion carries good luck thank you

Next we go to case VOA 183-9907, the address of 81819 to 1829 Center Street. If the applicant is present, will they please respond? Aye. Yes I am here.

Can you state your name and address for the record? And let us know what you're applying for.

Hi, my name is Alisa Subot and I am owner of Subot Beauty Space at 1819 Center Street in West Roxbury. That's our consideration or application today. We are requesting approval to add cosmetic permanent makeup service to our existing Licensed Beauty Salon. This service included eyebrow, lips and eyeliner. They are a cosmetic procedure preferred by appointment only In a clean, quiet professional. We are not opening a tattoo shop. We're not changing the building and we explain the business

Our noise or traffic, we were grateful to receive the support of the West Roxbury neighborhood council and landlord. and local community. We are respectful, ask for your approval.

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

Madam Chair and Board Members, Sigi Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This petitioner completed the community process. Our office oversaw distribution of an informational flyer to all occupied parcels in a 300-foot radius which solicited no comments to our office. The West Roxbury Neighborhood Council is supporting this application. With that background, ONS defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Thank You We have Natasha

Natasha, it's my friend who can help me for translator but I think... Ah yes, good afternoon.

All right, so if...

I'm also a client for the public hearing. If you'd like to serve my ceremony let me know.

If want to state support or opposition please feel free. Okay, with that, may I have a motion?

Motion approved.

Better Barraza second. Thank you. Hello? Mr. Stembridge? Yeah. Mr. Langham? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza? Yes, Ms. Turner? Yes Ms. Whewell? Yes Chair votes yes the motion carries good luck ma'am thank you so much have a good day

With that, we'll move on to rediscussion. Scheduled for 1130 a.m., and with that we have case VOA 180. 5913 with the address of 42 East Street. The applicant and or their representative present, if they please explain the case to the court.

Good afternoon, my name is Bonnie Tam with JCBT Architect. We have presented this case back in August 2023 with the ZBA approval of six of the violations And somehow my clients filed for a building permit and realized there were three missing violations on this matter. including Article 65, Section 8, use regulation. Section 9, additional lot area per dwelling unit Section 9.2, location of main entrance. We submitted back in October for BPDA approval and we received the approval data October 17, 2024. And the changes included shifting the building

To obtain more front yards at back, increase open spaces, reduce... Three additional guest parking in the rear to increase where there are open spaces, change their facade style from contemporary to match adjacent properties. and change window styles, and siding materials, and combining two garage doors into one for each one of the units. We're here to seek approval for the three missing violations and we have completed all community meetings as required too.

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

Madam Chair and members of the Board of the Record, my name is Jeremy Benbury. I'm the Rochester Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant was not required to complete a full community process Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Next, we have a Jeff Campton Thank you Madam Chair, members of the board, Jeff Hampton City of Boston Planning Department. This was deferred from the last meeting on I think it was May 19th because the plans that were being shown to the board did not have the BPDA staff that was done. Back in October of 2024, there were different plans that were being shown to the board rather than the ones that were stamped by Seth Reisman here at the agency. So I just wanted to confirm to the Board This project, even though it has new zoning violations already has a set of stamped plans by the agency. but they were not the ones that were being shown to the board and that's why I had asked for a deferral back in May so if we could pull up

I'd like to make sure that we are all on the same page because the plans that were shown originally had two garage doors and the stamp plans have one garage door.

I apologize, so I would like to clarify that I spoke to Stephanie Hansover at the BOA after the last May hearing. And she said because the case has been closed and that we cannot upload new drawing into the portal unless we file a new Bill 8 case matter.

Right, but my point is your client already has Stamps plans from the city's planning department and the plans that were shown back in May were different. So... We are in support of the zoning relief that's being asked. We are just asking that the board put a proviso on it that the new plans that have been submitted to the board for this review get sent over to the planning department to ensure that the previous design is consistent.

Understood, thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Is there a motion?

Madam Chair, I'd like to put forward a motion of approval with the proviso that the project be submitted to BPD for their design review and insurance. that the approved BPD stamp drawings are indeed what is being proposed to be built. Okay, is there a second?

Second.

Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr Langham?

Yes.

Mr. Better Barraza? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes Ms. Wirall? Yes Chair votes yes, the motion carries Thank you All right. Thank you. All right, thank you everyone. Have a good one. Thanks.

We're good there folks.

Recording stopped