Zoning Board of Appeal

We are good to go. Stephanie is kind enough to read the intro for me and I just want to remind or let everyone know that we have a very long agenda so we are going to encourage folks to Thank you. That's very important.

Okay, so ready to go.

Good morning. The City of Boston's own Board of Appeal hearing for November 18, 2025 is now in session. This hearing is being conducted in accordance with the applicable The new law allows the board to continue its practice of holding virtual hearings through June 2027. This hearing of the board is being held remotely via the Zoom webinar event platform and is also being live streamed. In order to ensure this hearing of the board is open to the public, members of the public may access this hearing through telephone and video conferencing. The information for connecting to this hearing is listed on today's hearing agenda which is posted on the public notice page of the city's website boston.gov. Members of the public will enter the virtual hearing as attendees.

which means you will not see yourself on the screen and you will be muted throughout unless administratively unmuted when asked to comment. Board members, applicants, and their attorney or representatives will participate in the hearing as panelists, and they will appear alongside the presentation material when speaking. Panelists are strongly encouraged to keep video on while presenting to the board. As with our in-person meetings, comments in support will be followed by comments in opposition. The order of comments is as follows. Elective officials, representative of elective 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 required.

For that reason, the board prefers to hear from members of the public who are most impacted by the project. That is those individuals who live closest to the project. If you wish to comment on an appeal, please click the raise hand button along the bottom of the 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 can provide their comment.

In the interest of time and to ensure that you have enough time to do so, please raise your hand as soon as Mr. Stembridge reads the address into the record. Do not raise your hand before the relevant address is called upon. are the meet and hosts will not know to call on you at the appropriate time.

Thank you, Stephanie. With that, I'll do roll call. Mr. Stembridge. Move on. Move on, Madam Chair, President. Good morning. Mr. Valencia. Good morning, Madam Chair. Present. Good morning. Ms. Turner. Good morning, Madam Chair. Present. Good morning. Ms. Better Barraza. Good morning, Madam Chair. Present. Good morning, Ms. Wewell. Good morning, Madam Chair, present. Good morning, Mr. Langham.

Good morning, Madam Chair, present.

Good morning. The floor is yours, Mr. Stembridge.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm here, I'm here.

I think perhaps Daphne needs to mute.

Is that any better? Oh, perfect. Thank you. Thank you for letting me know. Sure. We'll begin today with the extension scheduled for 9.30 a.m. There is a number of them, so bear with me as I try and get through all of them. They all seem reasonable under the circumstances presented. I'll read them through. If we have any questions on accepting them, you can direct those to Madam Chair and we'll go from there. We'll begin with case BOA-128. 5218 with the address of 94 Morris Street. Along with that we have case BOA 128-5217 also with the address of 94 Morris Street.

Next we have case BOA 1456727 with the address of 270 Sumner Street. Next we have case BOA 759563 with the address of 80 Marginal Street. Next we have case BOA 1387348 with the address of 55 Meridian Street. Next we have case BOA 147-3283 with the address of 604 Metropolitan Avenue. Next, we have case VOA 1428646 with the address of 42 East Street. Next, we have case VOA 13077.

with the address of 306 Sumner Street. Next, we have case BOA-1197822 with the address of 131. Next we have case BOA 1461525 with the address of 48 Torrey Street. Next we have case BOA 1523713 with the address of 9 Vaughn Avenue. Next we have case BOA 1523713 with the address of 9 Vaughn Avenue. 3744 with the address of 11 Vaughn Avenue. Next we have Kate. Next we have Casey BOA 1523749

with the address of 17 Vaughn Avenue. Next we have case VOA 1523753 with the address of 19 Vaughn Avenue. Next we have case VOA 1387346 with the address of 631 to 633 Cummins Highway.

Next we have case VOA 1387346 with the address of 631 to 633 Cummins Highway.

Next we have case VOA 1387346 with the address of 631 to 633 Cummins Highway.

Next we have case VOA 1387346 with the address of 631 to 633 Cummins Highway.

Next we have case VOA 1387346 with the address of 631 to 633 Cummins Highway.

Next we have case VOA 1387346 with the address of 631 to 633 Cummins Highway.

Next we have case VOA 1387346 with the address of 631 to 633 Cummins Highway.

Next we have case VOA 1387346 with the address of 631 to 633 Cummins Highway.

Next we have case VOA 1387346 with the address of 631 to 633 Cummins Highway.

Next we have case VOA 1387 124-2680 with the address of 171 Quarry Road. Next we have case BOA 1536940. with the address of 8 Old Road. Next we have case BOA 1488429 with the address of 1523 to 1525 Blue Hill Avenue.

Next we have case BOA 114374 with the address of 449 Cambridge Street.

Next we have case BOA 3319 with the address of 2 Emery Road.

Next we have case BOA 149 4933

with the address of 260 Newbury Street.

And the last extension for today is case BOA1041086 with the address of 24 Spalding Street.

Thank you, Mr. Stembridge. That was a mouthful. We appreciate it. Any questions from the board? May I have a motion?

Motion to grant the extensions as requested.

May I have a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge? Yeah. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza?

Yes.

Ms. Wewell.

Yes.

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

Next, we'll move on to the Board Final Operator Cases scheduled for 9.30. First, we have Case BOA-118-2380. with the address of 5 Glenburn Street. If the applicant and or their representative are present, would they please explain the case to the board?

Good morning, Madam Chair and Board. My name is Matt Mueller. I'm the architect for this project. Can you all hear me?

Yes, sir.

Okay, so this project has a little bit of a history. Originally we had three parking spaces, but we had another board final arbiter that reduced to one because we were asked to keep some trees on site. And since then, The projects changed ownership and we were trying to get permitted when we realized this pole in front of the parking spot is extremely hard to move for several reasons I enumerated in my letter. I can go through those if you want. Probably the most serious are there creates a fire issue. There's a power line that goes close to the neighboring property. If we moved it any further to the right, it would bring the line even closer. That would create a fire issue. I met with Verizon engineers on site, and they walked me through several other problems, including There's three utilities that use this pole. Each one of them would have to get separate street opening permits to move underground lines connected to this pole.

There's a light that That illuminates the park, public park next door with a city park. So we'd have to figure out how to move that and if that would create any issues with lighting or safety. There's a gate in front of the property next door that we would Have to move in front of that would create some egress issues potentially and on top of all that we could potentially save another tree here and We're removing a parking space, but we're also removing a potential curb cut, so it kind of balances out. So I can address more questions about any of these issues. Also, the estimated cost for moving the pole would be up to $45,000 or more, estimated by Verizon. and could take potentially years or up to a year to get this done. So it makes the project sort of unfeasible. Excuse me. And I can take any questions or...

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

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

Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza? Yes. Ms. Whewell?

Yes.

Mr. Langham? Yes. Chair votes yes. Motion carries. Good luck.

Thank you all very much. Have a good day.

The next two cases are companion cases, so I will read those in together. First, we have case BOA-128-5218. with the address of 94 Marr Street. Along with that, we have case BOA-128-5217, also with the address of 94 Marr Street. If the applicant and or their representative are present, would they please explain to the board?

Yes, thank you, Mrs. Stembridge. Good morning. Madam Chair, members of the board, for the record, Richard Lins, the business address of 245 Sumner Street, on behalf of the petitioners, Rafael Galdanez and Nadia Tutoroa. Madam Chair, we have a brief history on a long agenda. This was approved by the board back in 2023. It's a vacant lot that is going to Be the location for a new four unit residential dwelling. Our plans that were provided to ISD indicated internal stairwells that would access the third and fourth level. However, based upon their review, they've asked us to include a separate means of egress because this is a four-story dwelling, not uncommon from other cases that we've brought before the board via the final arbiter.

As the board had already granted relief for all of the dimensional requirements to allow this project to proceed, ISD agreed that this was appropriate for board final advertisements. We're not increasing anything with respect to the rare setback. It's just an organization of the stairwell coming down from the fourth level to allow for the appropriate egress under the code. Very straightforward proposal. Happy to answer any questions from the board.

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

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

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

Yes.

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

Yes.

Chair votes yes, the motion carries. Thank you very much.

With that, we will move on to the Groundwater Conservation Overlay District 8 case.

Mr. Secretary, just to kind of interrupt, we were supposed to have a board panel arbiter. Matter on for today? Is it 11 here on? No, it is 53. It's by Dustin Street in Brighton.

Bear with me, please. Stephanie, do you have that?

No, it's not on the agenda for today.

Okay. Again, we'll move to the Groundwater Conservation Overlay District case scheduled for 9.30 a.m.

This is case BOA 1785891.

with the address of 85 Chandler Street.

If the applicant and or their representative are present, will they please explain to the board? Yes, good morning Madam Chair, members of the Board, Mark Lacasse, Lacasse Law, 75 Arlington Street in Boston, Attorney for Michelle Hediger, the property owner. This is a Groundwater Conservation Overlay District Conditional Use Permit case. There are no other zoning violations presented on our zoning code refusal letter. Say, gut renovation of an existing... You stole a cast, you are frozen.

Sorry, you froze for a second.

Is that better now? Yeah. Oh, got renovation of existing two-family in the south end, which involves installation of groundwater Recharge System. We have our Article 32 compliance letter from BWSC and we have also submitted our no harm letter from the civil engineer who designed the system and there are no other zoning violations on the refusal letter. That's this case.

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

Madam Chair, it's Christian Simonelli with the Groundwater Trust. Sorry. That's okay. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. Christian Simonelli, boss of Groundwater Trust, and we have both G-card letters from the applicant. Okay, thank you so much. Thank you.

With that, may I have a motion? Motion to approve. May I have a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza?

Yes.

Ms. Wuwo?

Yes.

Mr. Langham? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck. Thank you.

Next, we have a building code case scheduled for 9.30 a.m. This is case BOA-175-9580. with the address of 157 West Canton Street. If the applicant and or their representative are present, will they please explain the case to the board?

Thank you, Mr. Stembridge. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. Doug Anderson with Rimkus, with formerly C3 Boston, which is a name probably everybody remembers from a couple years ago. This is an existing single family in the south end. It was actually renovated about 20 something years ago and I worked with that developer on this project. Part of this renovation includes replacement of a roof deck accessed by a roof hatch for which there are no permit records at ISD. And so we got the, as a result, We received a refusal letter citing the building code section or provision that requires roof access be via a head house, which of course is in direct conflict

The zoning code, which would result in a couple of zoning violations, one of which is a restricted roof structure district provision in Article 64. It would also increase the FAR because it's outside the existing building envelope and so it's not kind of quote-unquote permitted under Article 64. and it is only serving a single family dwelling so the the life safety hazard is significantly Thank you. Thank you. The replacement railing and of course the hatch is invisible from the street. I have a nice the middle included a street view from down West Canton Street. I guess it's on the corner of Montgomery, so it's a little more visible than it otherwise would be because it's a corner building.

So that's the request is to retain the roof hatch for access to this roof deck.

Questions from the board? Hearing none, is there a motion?

Madam Chair, I'd like to put forward a motion for a relief of variance for the building code. Is there a second? Second.

Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Whewell?

Yes.

Ms. Better Barraza?

Yes.

Mr. Langham. Yes. Chair votes yes. Motion carries. Good luck. Thank you Madam Chair, members of the board.

Next we'll move on to On November 6th, I'll read through the cases, most of which were approved, and we can take a vote on them at the end. will begin with case BOA-1759609 with the address of 72 Layton Street.

The case was approved.

Next, we have case BOA 1772272 with the address of 364 Main Street, which was approved.

Next, we have case BOA 178-3484 with the address of 100 City Hall Plaza, which was approved.

Next we have case BOA-1702.

2910 with the address of 93 Charter Street.

The case was withdrawn.

Next we have case BOA 175-9889

with the address of 18 Rockland Square, which was approved.

Next, we have case BOA 17426Q2.

with the address of 917 East Broadway.

The case was approved.

Next, we had case BOA-17506-6013.

with the address of 78 Harbor View Street.

This case was approved with the proviso of removing one parking space and the

Site Plan to be reviewed by the Austin Planning Office, paying attention to the ground surface.

Next, we have Case VOA.

1710454 with the address of 118 Oat Street, which was approved.

Then we have case BOA 174.

9143 with the address of 29 Aldworth Street. Next we have case BOA 1766722.

with the address of 61 Wheeler Road.

That was approved.

Next we have case BOA 1766114 with the address of 8 Preston Road. This was approved. Next we have case BOA 1721220 with the address of 128 Garden Street, which was approved. Next we have case BOA-175-7994 with the address of 51-53 Brookline Avenue.

Case was approved.

Proviso, Plane Department, Design Review for Signage and Compliance.

And finally, we have Case BOA 1769103. with the address of 26 Windom Street.

That case was deferred until today.

Madam Chair, those are the cases from the subcommittee.

I'll make a motion to approve.

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

Yes.

Ms. Whewell?

Madam Chair, I'm sorry to make things more difficult. I think I agree with all except for the Main Street item. I tend to agree with Planning about living space below the design flood elevation where they recommended denial. And I think the subcommittee approved. Do I have that right?

Yes.

So how would I, I think, parse that out procedurally that I agree with the recommendations aside from that one?

Well, in the absence of Caroline, I'm going to suggest we defer that unless anyone else has a comment.

Okay, so, Katie. Madam Chair, this is Stephanie. Yes. I think Katie can just vote no, just like how you would do it in a regular case, and we'll just have her as the interposed to that project.

Thank you. Okay, so I think you're voting no then, right? No. Okay, Mr. Langham. Yes. Okay, the chair votes yes, the motion carries. Thank you, Stephanie. You're all.

Next, we'll move on to the hearing schedule for 9.30 a.m.

At this point, we'll ask if there are any requests for withdrawals or deferrals from 930?

Yes, 50704 Metropolitan Avenue, please.

So that, this would be for case BOA 1720983 with the address of 70704 Metropolitan Avenue. Would you go ahead and explain, attorney, this?

Yes, thank you, Mr. Stembridge. Madam Chair, members of the board, Attorney Ryan Spitz with Adams & Maranci, business address of 168 8th Street, 1st floor, South Boston. We're here asking for a deferral as there is a sister application that was not advertised. So again, those applications both need to be advertised at the same time. So we're requesting a short deferral.

Okay. Stephanie, what do we have for dates? December 16th.

That works.

Thank you.

Okay, may I have a motion?

Motion to defer to December the 16th.

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

Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza?

Yes.

Ms. Wewell?

Yes.

Mr. Langham? Yes. Chair votes yes. Motion carries. See you then.

Any further requests for withdrawals or deferrals from this time frame?

Good morning.

Yes, we're here for 122 Wood Ave. That would be good. That's not on until 1130. Be able to please that schedule for 1130.

You can ask for a deferral at that time. Any other deferrals or withdrawals for 930?

Is the plaintiff being deferred? I'm sorry? And a resident wanted to speak about 122 Wood Ave. That is not even on until 1130, so we don't know until 1130. Oh, 1130, okay. Hostage.

Okay, so Mr. Secretary, sorry, I had asked Stephanie about another board panel arbiter matter. I just sent her an email confirming her confirmation for today for that matter. If Stephanie could just check her emails and confirm, it'd be appreciated.

I will talk to you after the hearing. Okay.

Thank you. Okay, if there are no more requests for deferrals, I'll turn back to Mr. Stembridge and remind presenters that we have a long schedule. So please be efficient. Thank you.

While we're on this subject, Madam Chair, did have a note for another deferral from 930.

Okay.

Which is case BOA. 1696317 with the address of 58 Mallet Street. No one is responding, but the note that I have is this has been deferred until December 9th.

Okay, so may I have a motion?

Motion to be deferred until December 9th.

May I have a second? Second. Second. Stembridge. Yeah. Mr. Valencia. Yes. Ms. Turner. Yes. Ms. Peterbaugh.

Yes.

Ms. Woodbaugh.

Yes.

Mr. Langham. Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

I'll return to the case of schedule for 930 AM.

We begin with two companion cases.

First is case VOA 1690497 with the address of 60 Canal Street. Along with that, we have case VOA 178. 9293, also with the address of 60 Canal Street. If the applicant and or their representative are present, will they please explain to the board?

Thank you, Mr. Stembridge. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the board. Attorney Jeff Drago with Drago in Toscano with the business address of 11 Beacon Street. Here on behalf of the applicant, Mark Blotner, who's the owner and developer of the building. and with me I also have Arthur Chu who's the architect on the project. The first matter is a zoning matter for Jean Codd, and the project, if you stay right on that slide, Mr. Ambassador, just so folks can see the front of the building. This building is located at 60 Canal Street and this is an office conversion proposal. to change the occupancy from office, sports shop with a snack bar to office, general retail, and residential use, converting the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth floors of the building Thank you.

Thank you. which is commercial use, retail use. This particular building falls under the Bullfinch Triangle District. It is a historical architectural district in Boston. and part of our proposal is to and this is why it fit well with the conversion program is to maintain the existing structure all of the work would be done, the majority of the work would be done in the interior of the building converting to six units Thank you. Thank you. That the BPDA changed back in March of 2025 to actually allow for residential housing.

When we filed this back in January, back in December and got our refusal letter In January of 2025, you were actually cited for two needs for variance. One, obviously, was GCOD, and we've submitted everything to Groundwater Trust and and Mr. Simonelli should have all of that. The second was for the residential use. That has since been updated. We did notify The only relief now that would be required would be for the GCOD on the zoning side of this. Just to go over, if we go into the floor plan section. V. The basement first and second floor would remain that commercial retail space. The tenant is the Ski Monster. They're already located in the building and will remain.

The third, fourth, fifth, and sixth floor would house the six residential units. These are larger, family-sized. Unit 1 is a two-bedroom at 1,864 square feet. Unit 2 is a two-bedroom slightly over 2,100. and then Unit 3, which would be the owner's unit, the owner is moving in the building as well, would be 2,782 square feet and that would go from the fourth 5th and 6th floors like a townhouse style and then the 4th, 5th and 6th units are also two bedroom in the 2,000 square foot range and those would all be housed upstairs as well. As we went through this proposal, we were able to get West End Civic Association as non-opposition and the support, and I believe they're on the call of the downtown crossing. North Association as well.

The second, and the BPDA support, the second part of this matter is the building code refusal that was issued. and Mr. Chu is going to touch upon that and the reasoning. It has to do with the height of the building because we're now converting from commercial to residential. This is all former office space. has not been rented in a long time, especially since COVID and we felt that residential was more appropriate given the changes of the BPDA. and the City Councilor had asked for to encourage new residential housing and office conversion. This building matches all of the other surrounding buildings and it was made quite clear to us that both the neighborhood the BPDA and planners wanted to see this building Thank you for joining us.

works on those kind of conversions. And so with that, I wanted to turn it over to Arthur Chu just to go over the building code issue and why we're seeking relief.

Thank you, Jeff. The reason why we're going for building code Variance is that it's an existing building. We have no extensions or additions planned for the building. The jacket says it's six stories and 99 feet. All in 5B, 3B construction, which only allows five stories and 75 feet. Since we got the violation, we've done additional research into the building and surveys and found out it's actually 4B construction, which allows 12 stories and 180 feet. To ensure that this is the case, as we expose it, we're going to paint it with an intermissive paint, giving everything the Every timber, wood, and steel, and abbey-clad, which will give it a two-hour rating, and all new elements that we put in this building will meet the current codes.

With that, I've taken up the board's time. I can pause to answer any questions.

Thank you. Are there questions from the board? The process, but what they should not do is delay a vote on a bill that the House is going to... I'm sorry. Is there a question from...

Yes. Are the six units, are those going to be homeownership or rentals?

So they're likely to be rentals. The owner is moving into one of the units himself, the largest unit, and he does own a number of rental buildings, so it will be rental for now. It'll be condo ready, but rental for now.

Thank you.

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

Hello, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Eva Jones. I represent the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services. Regarding 60 Canal Street, our office defers to the board's judgment on this matter. A community process was conducted, including an abuttors meeting held on 227-25, which was lightly attended. My office has received one letter in support regarding the proposal citing revitalization of the neighborhood and support for more housing in the city. The proposal was also reviewed by the West End Civic Association and provided a formal letter of non-opposition submitted to the board. At this time, the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services defers to the board's judgment on this matter. Thank you, everyone, for your time and consideration. Thank you, Mr. Simonelli.

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board, Christian Simonelli, Boston Groundwater Trust, and we have both G-Card letters from the app. Thank you. Thank you.

Hi, next we have Sam Courage, please.

Good morning Madam Chair, members of the board, Samantha Courage from Councilor Durkan's office. The Councilor would like to go on record in support of this proposal. We've been in contact with local neighborhood associations who are in non-opposition. The council also proudly works to make housing allowed in the Bullpens Triangle and this is in support of us. Thank you so much. Thank you.

The last person is Jay Walsh. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board, Jay Walsh on behalf of the Downtown North Association. Very excited to see this building activated again, and again, we'd like to run record and support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. No additional comments?

Okay, with that, may I have a motion?

Motion.

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

Yes, Madam Chair.

Okay. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza?

Yes.

Ms. Whewell?

Yes.

Mr. Langham. Yes. Chair votes yes. Motion carries. Good luck.

Thank you very much. Thank you. Next, we have case BOS 161-8586. with the address of 1812 Columbia Road. If the applicant and or the representative are present, will they please explain the case to the board?

Yes, thank you, Mr. Stembridge. Madam Chair, members of the board, Attorney Ryan Spitz with Adams & Maranci, business address of 168 8th Street, 1st Floor, South Boston. Joining me today are the owners, Brian and Patty Clarity, and the project architect, David Freed. This proposal seeks to raise an existing structure which has already been approved through the Article 85 process with no delay initiated. and to erect a new three-story, three residential dwelling with five garage parking spaces on a corner lot consisting of approximately 4,673 square feet. The site is an unusual pizza-shaped corner lot surrounded by a mix of two three-story structures with multi-unit residential land uses. The unit matrix consists of one 700-foot studio unit and two 2,000 square foot three-bedroom units, each with its own dedicated balcony. This project scope aligns with the stated housing goals in this area, encouraging development of medium density infill housing.

The ground floor will consist of parking for five vehicles on the left side of the structure, while the right side of the structure will consist of the studio unit. The second and third floor will consist of two bi-level units, one on the left side and one unit on the right side. There is one variance in two conditional use permits that are being sought. First one being the variances front yard setback. A typical front yard setback requirement in this sub-district is five feet. However, due to this unusual block type containing only two other properties, the modal front yard setback requirement is 20 feet. and this proposal calls for approximately three feet further due to the unique circumstance of this also being a corner lot the zoning code here creates an undue hardship not experienced by the owners of other interior lots A reduced buildable envelope makes it impractical to construct a new structure reasonably sized within this neighborhood. This hardship arises from the lot's configuration, not from any action of the owners.

The requested variance would allow reasonable use of the property while maintaining the character of the neighborhood. Next is we have a roof structure restriction violation which is a conditionally used permit as it relates to the proposed height due to a text amendment to the zoning code when raising an existing structure. A new project exceeding that height of the existing structure shall be subject to a conditional use despite being compliant by the zoning code in this sub-district. The existing height of the structure being demolished is approximately 32 feet, while the proposed height of the new structure is approximately 35 feet. We believe this board should approve this conditional use permit based upon the proposed height being compliant Under the zoning code and its alignment with other buildings within this area. Further, I'd like to mention that it's noted within the planning department's recommendation that there is need of zoning reform for this type of violation. as that they propose to at some point in time to eliminate that violation.

Lastly, we do have the Greenbelt Protection Overlay District, another conditional use permit. which is triggered in this overlay, we're proposing over 5,000 square feet of gross floor area, which will require Boston Parks Department review to increase flood resiliency through site plan and plan selection. At this point, I'm going to turn it over just to David Freed quickly. I think it's important for David to show some of the contacts photos on how the design actually fits in with the cap. So David, I'm going to turn it over to you quickly.

Oh, thank you very much, Ryan. My name is David Fried. I'm an architect at Schoon Company. And if you could please go back to at least in the beginning, there were some neighborhood There's a page of neighborhood photos. OK. Right there, please. Thank you. So in the immediate vicinity of our product is the South Boston Yacht Club. We've got a three-story structure here. On our block here, we have A two-family three-story structure and a six-family three-story structure. Across the street, we've got the boatyard condominium project, which is four stories. The old nursing home, which is being converted into 16 units. So there's a mix, an eclectic mix of different Housing Types and Uses. Next page please. And then these are just some immediate pictures of the site.

You know, here's 1808, our immediate abutter. Image on the upper right is the house that's going to be demolished. And you can see behind us is a four-story structure. The lower left is looking down East 7th and the image on the lower right is again East 7th. You can see that Our house is very close to the street. It's 2.2 feet at the closest points. And 1808 is a zero front yard setback. And if you go to the immediate block, After us, going west, again, they have a zero-foot front yard setback. If you could flip to page 18, please. Thank you. Here we just did some overlays showing the footprint of the house in relation to some of the immediate buildings in the context.

And you can see that our footprint is in line with the structures surrounding us. Next page, please. Again, here we have a 3D view. And you can see that, again, we're in line in terms of size for our parcel with the The other structures and there's a very eclectic mix of structures and sizes in the immediate neighborhood. Next page please. Here's a rendering on the scene from Columbia Road and towards East 7th. Next page please. This would be a view of our project looking down East 7th West. Next page please. Here we're looking east on East 7th. And finally, this is a view from Columbia Road. And I'll turn it back to you, Brian.

Thank you. Thank you, David. And then, Madam Chair, before I turn over to you, as we are all aware of the planning department's recommendation, which is very consistent on the proposal that you're seeing here today, so again, Thank you very much, and I'm going to turn it back over to you for any questions or concerns, Madam Chair.

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

Good morning Madam Chair and members. Siggy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This applicant has completed the ONS community process. Our office hosted an initial abutters meeting in July of 2024, after which revisions were made to the proposal. Updated plans were submitted on May 27, 2025. A second abutters meeting was held on July 15, 2025, at which time there was a mix of support and opposition. Five individuals spoke in opposition, raising concerns about the setbacks and the design. 13 individuals spoke in support citing the positive revisions to the proposal and the good character of the applicants. Officers received 101 letters of support. Seven of those letters signed an address in the 300-foot abutter's radius. Our office also received six letters of opposition. Our office is aware that there are other comments and letters that have been sent directly to the board. The City Point Neighborhood Association is the active civic group in this area. They are opposed to this application citing concerns about the height and about the front yard setback. With that background, our office defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Thank you, and we have a lot of raised hands, so I'm gonna ask you to be brief and build on information people have said. Thank you.

All right, so first we have Ashley from the Councilor Flynn office.

Hi, my name is Ashley from Councilor Flynn's office. While Councilor Flynn acknowledges deferring and passionate opinions in the community on this case, he would like to go on record and support based on a few reasons. Please note, Councilor Flynn originally supported a landmark designation that was denied by the City of Boston Landmark Commission earlier this year in February. However, once that landmark destination failed to pass at the city level, and with both the ZBA's historical record of approving the majority of variances requested, including a study years ago that claimed over 91% of cases passed, And now with only 800 units of housing approved in Boston's halfway through 2025, Councilor Flynn understood the very real possibility something will be built at this site. As a result, he advocated for genuine concessions during the community process.

The proponent subsequently reduced the project from four stories down to three, changed from three flats to one flat, and to Duplexes and attempted to make the massing and design more in line with existing buildings nearby. The project also includes five parking spots at the time that the city is constantly reducing parking and at odds with neighbors on South Boston's existing parking crisis. Flynn acknowledges many of his neighbors may believe more work could have been done, but he also believes their advocacy in the proponents willingness to work with the community resulted in a better project. In the final analysis, there have been several projects on Columbia Road in recent years. One had strong community opposition that Councilor Flynn was opposed when it was denied at the ZBA, but it was then subsequently overturned in court.

Others have had either community support. Okay, next we have Anthony Gilardi.

Morning Madam Chair, members of the board, Anthony Girardi from City Councilor, Aaron Murphy's office. The council would like to go on record in support of this project. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Next we will have a Jim Cohen.

Yes, I live right in the area and I am in support of this project. The violations... The zoning code that are being sought relief on are just sort of routinely given both on the height and the front yard setback and it's a nice looking structure. and I think it'll be an asset to the neighborhood so I support this project. Thank you.

Okay, next we have Christopher.

Hello, can you hear me? Yes. Hi, my name is Chris Ram. I live at 794 East 7th Street. I'm a direct debutter. I'm about 75 feet directly across the street. I'd just like to voice my opposition to this project. The variations that are being sought are not hardships per se, they're desires that the developer seeks to overcome as a direct provider. This is going to impact my light, my air, it's going to impact the overall look and feel of the area. So strongly encourage the board to deny any exceptions or variances. Thank you. Okay, thank you.

Next we have Thomas Casper. Madam Chair, members of the board, my name is Thomas Casper from Senator Nick Collins' office. The senator would like to go on record in support of this proposal. Thank you. Thank you.

Next, we have more... Four more people. Both, you are the next one.

Hi, my name is Bob Swabalis. I live at 1808 Columbia Road. I'm a director butter. While the updated design presents an improvement over the previous design down, you know, four stories down to three, It would be appreciated if they could make additional updates to bring their future development into compliance with the existing zoning. or at least the spirit of the zoning they've pushed right out to the curbs it seems as though you know they've just ignored the zoning they're going up very high and Again, to echo Chris's point, this is not a hardship issue. They have chosen to do this. They lived in the house as it is now for the last 20 plus years. Clearly it wasn't a hardship.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Madam Chair, there is one more person in the panelist section. Yes, sir.

Yeah, please be brief. Support or opposition?

The person with some user name. Zoom user with the raised hand. Okay.

Keep going.

Okay.

We'll take a few more.

Okay. People in the panelist section, carry.

Good morning, Joe McSally here, can you hear me? Yes. Okay, thank you. My name is Joe McSally. My wife and I live 100 yards to the west of the house and we did the exact same procedure. We raised our single family to two families. We've reviewed the plans that the Clarities have made and we're 100% for it. It's going to be a wonderful addition. From a 100-year-old's house to a brand-new house, and we just feel that it's great that they're allowing their family to stay together in the city. Boston needs youth. It's critical to the life of a city to have children living in the neighborhood. Help us and we need more youth and they're about to do that. So thank you so much and see you later.

Okay, next, Katie, you can speak, please.

Hi, can you hear me?

Yes.

Hi, Kathy Lafferty, a resident of East 7th Street in South Boston, a neighbor of the Clarities for decades. As a lifelong resident, we've seen more complex and controversial projects allowed in this community. that have had significant negative impacts on our neighborhood. This project is not bad. This is a family who is hoping to change their home so that their children can remain in this community for the decades to come. That is what's important to this neighborhood. I 100% support this project and I urge the board to do so as well. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we have Robin Adams. Keep going, Jesus. If not, next brief. Yes, Nick.

Yes, hello, hello. Hi, Robin Adams, 794 East 7th Street, Direct of Butter. I would support a renovation. This is a teardown and luxury condos with private elevators. There's been a failed community process that has focused on the who and the why. And I'd like to address some design concerns. These are new comments. No one has said these comments. I don't think there should be a basement. I think that this could be an ADU or a bedroom or a future finished space in the basement. Next to a flood zone. So I would like the basement to be eliminated down to just elevator service. I'd like the board to look at the boxed out storage set on the second floor balcony.

There's basically a blank wall in the center of this project that is a very poor design choice to accommodate a walk-in closet on the interior that needs to be fixed. There's too many balconies and not enough green space. And having all of the balconies fulfill the zoning requirement, Children and families need grass and the community does not want to see maxed out lots along the beach. I'd like to touch on something the attorney said that is a hardship, the shape of the lot. I would like to counter with the shape of the lot is being used as a through lot and that is an advantage to maxing out this lot. It means that a 20 foot rear setback is not required So there's the 20-foot modal front setback. Also, getting a variance for that is pretty ridiculous. And I'd like to talk about how to bring this project... Please wrap up.

Yes, of course, but no one has said these comments. Yes, that's fair. So as a right, you can lower the building four feet to get it to align with the height. and there's an eyesore that's a garage and you could eliminate the garage and put in two garage doors so you drive through and have two or three indoor spots, two or three outdoor spots. That would eliminate the setback problem and we wouldn't need to be here. Thank you.

Thank you. And I'm going to ask people to, we're going to take two more comments and I'm going to ask everyone else to put their comment in the chat as we have 20 or 30 more cases left. Thank you.

Okay, sounds good. Okay, next we have Caroline Sullivan.

Hi, this is Carolyn Sullivan. I'm a direct abutter along with my husband at 790 96th Street. We appreciate all that the Clarities have done to change this property and we 100% support them in this endeavor. Thank you.

And the last one is Luan.

Yes.

Sorry. Yes, good morning. Can you hear me? Yes, ma'am. Okay, Lou Anne O'Connor, President of the City Queen Neighborhood Association. We voted on this particular project on September 25th and the Membership had both brand new members coming in to vote on this particular project as well as long-term membership. The vote was overwhelmingly in opposition to this project. With that being said, I would like for the board to take a look at who in fact are director butters versus non-director butters or even about butters for that matter. There are quite a few people that are in support of the project that have no relevant or legal standing. They are supporting this project based on who the owners are.

This is also, as the board is aware, has become a political hot button issue. So please be aware of that when you're making your decision. We ask that this particular project is either denied or denied without prejudice. and it goes back to the drawing board to work with, in fact, the direct debaters. This is our beach line on Columbia Road. The architect did not show that piece of Columbia Road. They kept going east, which is a different housing stock. And this particular house does not fit into that area where

Thank you. Okay, so let's give a quick opportunity to hear feedback from the applicant on the concerns that were raised, and I do want to acknowledge that we received many emails in support or opposition.

Great. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll be brief. A lot of the issues that we heard regarding the design of the front yard setback can be addressed during design review. Again, the proposal here is very consistent with the planning department's recommendation was around surrounding the five yard setback as well as the two conditional use permits and nothing specifically pertaining to the design. But again, those setbacks can be addressed during the design review. I'd like to mention there was comments about regarding the height. We are compliant under Article 68. We are at 35 feet. However, due to that roof structure restriction text amendment, again, just want to highlight it again for the board members that within the planning department's recommendation, they did say there was a need of zoning reform due to that. Rue Structure Restriction with the potential of eliminating it. Again, Article 85 demolition permit was approved with no delay initiated and again there is no livable space in the basement itself so

That pretty much wraps it up and I just like to say that I do know there were over 271 letters in support that were emailed over to the board.

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

Here, I'll make a motion. I'd like to put forward a motion of approval with two provisos, one being that the project goes under BPD design review, and the second that the project also goes under the review of the Department of Parks and Recreation due to its location on the Greenville Protection Early District. Is there a second?

Second.

Mr. Stembridge. Yup. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza?

Yes.

Ms. Whewell? Are you on mute? You're on mute.

Yes, but I also just wanted to add a little bit about why I'm supporting this. The shape of the lot is an odd shape which drives some of the relief with the front setback. I think this allows for a slight increase in density which is consistent with city goals and Overall, I do think the height is largely consistent with the neighborhood. I do agree with the provisos for designer view because it does need a little bit more work.

Thank you. Mr. Langham. Are you also on mute, Mr. Langham? Sorry, yes. Thank you. Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Thank you. Next, we have case VOA. 173-6225 with the address of 921 to 925 Parker Street. If the applicant's ambulatory representative is present, you can please explain to the board.

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. Attorney Adam Braillard with Prince Labelle Tye on behalf of the Applicant T-Mobile Northeast LLC. My office is located at One International Place in Boston, Massachusetts. With me in the meeting here is Matt Bandle. Matt is with Northeast Site Solutions and also here is Ryan Ramos with T-Mobile's Radio Frequency Department. These folks are here to answer any technical questions that the board and the public may have. We're here in connection with a conditional use to install and operate a wireless communications facility on the existing Boston Housing Authority Building located at 221-225 Parker Street also known as 40 Bickford located in the Jamaica Plain neighborhood district

If you just scroll back up a little bit, you can see that that's the existing... Yeah, so these are the renderings here. What we're proposing to do is install... Panel antennas, remote radio units, and cabinetry is a standard telecommunications installation on the rooftop and conceal it behind screen. So if you scroll down, you'll see a photo of the existing BHA Building, seven story building. And then the next photo is a rendering of what it will look like on the roof. And so that would be concealed. So the concealment, we believe, informs the existing characteristics of the building. And that's a proposal we can go into, certainly can go into more detail if the board and the public would like. Thank you.

Are there questions from the board?

Yes, I believe this building belongs to the VHA portfolio and I didn't see any letter or any opinion from the VHA about this project. Do you have any agreement with the VHA about this installation?

Yes, we do. We've signed a lease agreement with the BHA earlier in 2025 this year. This is actually A relocation from another existing building at the BHA, it's 265 Center Street. That's being renovated and so the BHA has asked that T-Mobile relocate to this building and we signed an agreement and worked through the design with the BHA over the past few years. and the BHA knows that we're in the permitting process now.

Okay, thank you. Thank you. Does that man have public testimony? Sorry, I have another story.

Yeah, can you comment on the safety of radio frequency, any type of safety measures that need to be approved so it is not harmful to the residents nearby?

Sure, we, T-Mobile and all of its installations as well as all of the carriers are regulated by the The FCC guidelines for safety emissions and we have to fall within a or underneath a certain I have another question.

May I have public testimony?

Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Benbury. I am the Jamaica Plain Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process, which consisted of an abutters meeting facilitated on August 26th. With no avoidance on attendance, no concerns were raised. Next, the proposal was presented to Jamaica Plain Neighborhood Council on September 17th, who voted to approve the proposal. To date, our office has not received any further community feedback, and the Minnesota Office of Neighborhood Services would like to defer to the Board for their judgment. Thank you for your time.

Okay, Madam Chair, there are no additional comments for this.

May I have a motion? Madam Chair, I'd like to confer a motion of approval with BPD Design Review. Is there a second?

Second. Second.

Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

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

Yes.

Mr. Langham? Yes. Chair votes yes, motion carries. Thank you.

Next, we have case VOA 1723491 with the address of 107 Magnolia Street. If the applicant and or their representative present, they please explain for the board.

Good morning Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is Bonnie Tam with JCBT Architect. We are proposing an eight-unit condo at 107 Manolia Street, Dorchester. The proposed structure will have three-story roof frame construction with five parking spaces off street. The first floor will consist of two residential units, The second and third floor will have three units each floor. Each unit will have two beds, two baths. The units are ranging between 950 square feet to 1150 square feet. Under Article 50, we are seeking variance on minimum lot size, front yard and side yard setback, FAR, open space, and Minimum Parking where eight parking spaces required and we have five.

The current property is a vacant lot with unpaved parking spaces used by the adjoining buildings. The property is surrounded by multi-family residents. We have received support from the Senate's office. The roof is actually for mechanical only, so we won't have any roof deck above. This is the end of my presentation. Thank you. Questions from the board?

I have a question, Madam Chair. Could the applicant take us through the parking, especially? Along Magnolia Square, there's one, two, three, four parking spaces, and I'm just unclear on how those will be accessed.

That's the corner lot. We can have that enclosed with garage doors if it's a visibility issue.

What is the plan now? Would it be just one curb cut? One really wide curb cut? Wide curb cut, yes. Okay, yeah, I think my, I just, I think the site design is a little inefficient, especially with the parking, four along there and then one on Magnolia Street. So I'll just leave it at that for my comments right now.

Thank you.

Any other questions from the board? Hearing none, I'll take public testimony.

Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Pembery. I am the Dorchester Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process which consisted of an Abarba's meeting facilitated on May 20th that was very lightly attended with one constituent voicing support for the proposal and the owner who they felt communicated well with the neighborhood. Next, the proposal was presented to Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative, who voted in support of the proposal, as the committee was pleased to hear that one of the eight units would be affordable. Thank you for your time, and the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services would like to defer to the board for their judgment.

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

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

I'd like to say this project is a real nice project for that area. I'm really familiar with that area. So I'd like to make a motion to approve this project.

Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Barabarraza?

I'm going to vote no. The amount of units is good. I find the parking very odd within its massing, so that's why I'm going to vote no.

Thank you. Ms. Leroux.

I will also be voting no. I agree with the recommendation from planning. It would be nice to see something here if it's currently This is just parking, but I think this project needs a little bit more work around the parking and the massing. Thank you.

Mr. Langham? Yes. The chair votes yes. The motion carries. Thank you. Thank you.

The next case has been deferred, which takes us to two companion cases. Case 308. 1728734 with the address of 725 Adams Street, Along with that, we have case BOA 1728737, also with the address of 735 Adams Street. If the applicant and or the representative present Would they please explain the case to the board?

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. I'm Don Wiest with the law firm of Dane Torpey. We're at 175 Federal Street here in Boston. I'm here on behalf of Adams Street Village, LLC, and with me this morning is Mary Davis who is a representative of ownership. This is an unusual and very technical presentation board. We're actually not asking for new zoning relief. This is an approval that goes back to 1966 and 1967. What we're technically looking for is amendment of provisos that are older than I am. I'm 56. This is almost a 60-year-old set of approvals. So we're looking to amend old provisos that are no longer appropriate today or in the alternative to get relief in the form of variances from today's parking requirements. But in short, if we can pause here on this parking plan. Adams Village, just off Adams Street, Dorchester.

It's an 88-unit rental apartment complex in two buildings. Number 725 has 40 units. Number 735 has 48 units. When the project was initially approved back in the 1960s in two phases, 1966-1967, a provisor required one parking space per unit. This is our proposed parking plan. The original requirement of one space per unit meant 88 units. Today, we can actually only fit on the land that we control 63 spaces. The plan in front of you shows the proposed 63-space layout. You'll see all the spaces are nice and square, and they're above and below A right-of-way that runs east-west through the property. We're facing north looking up here. So east-west, you see a right-of-way running through below the two buildings, and all the spaces are properly outside that right-of-way. That takes us to the next slide.

Somehow, in the 1960s when this project was approved, a number of the required parking spaces were erroneously laid out in this Thank you for joining us. The owners of the butters up and down this roadway and therefore the parking spaces were erroneously laid out. We don't know how this happened. Again, it was almost 60 years ago. But this came up in the course of a routine periodic commercial refinancing. We obviously need to bring the property into zoning compliance. The good news is that we can fit a total of 27 spaces that will support Number 40, we can fit 36 spaces that will support number 48 together in those 63 spaces. represent a ratio of about 0.72 spaces per unit.

If we were permitting this project today, that's what the Boston Transportation Department would say is about the upper limit of the range that they would I believe we have Patrick Hoey available this morning from the Boston Transportation Department. who can speak to this. So we're here not because we are looking in front of We have an error that affects the zoning compliance. We need to make sure the project is in zoning compliance. No one today is responsible for this mistake. We believe we have a reasonable solution that does bring us well within today's modern parking guidelines. There are also old provisions we'd like to address at the same time. One pertains to maintaining a cedar board fence at the site, which is expensive and maintenance. A nightmare would like to have that. That lifted.

It's no longer applicable. There's also a provision relating to no fees for parking and current practice and recommendation from the Transportation Department is that Parking is charged separately from rent to discourage people bringing cars unnecessarily to the city who could use other modes of transportation like the T, the bus, etc. The final thing I will point out is that even before this change, all 88 spaces were not in use. Our most recent registration rolls, when the building was 99% occupied, had only 64 tenant cars registered with us. We'll have 63 spaces going forward. Anyway, that's the basis for our appeal. Again, Patrick Coey is here, who may be able to shed some additional light on How we comply with today's parking expectations.

Thank you.

Are there questions from the board? Just to confirm that you have a total of 27 parking spaces?

The math comes out to about 0.72. That's correct.

Okay. And so in this site plan, what I'm seeing along the public way, The ones that are being removed are shown what's in the public way, correct?

Yeah, so if you can see the red, if that's clear on the screen, those ones being removed, and the things a little subtler, is north of the easement that runs through the site. Some of those bases are just nosing into the private way also.

I'm not sure if you had a chance to look at the BPD recommendations, but they are recommending that we preserve that private way. Do you see an issue with that for the preservation of that Paraiso?

The private way is an issue of title. We own that income with lots of other neighbors and it's been in existence for many decades. Nothing about that will change. We just can't count parking spaces towards being Arizona-compliance. No, right, right. Accidentally located there.

That's what we're changing. Yeah, I think that's... I think it was more of that the ability for it to maintain a kind of a public way. needs to be kind of preserved. So I just wanted to understand if there was any issues with that. I don't have any further questions. Thank you.

Yeah, it's a great question. We're not changing the way in any way besides this.

Correct. Thank you. Thank you. With that we'll take public testimony.

Hello Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is Emma Jones representing the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services. Regarding 725 to 735 Adams Street, our office differs to the board's judgment on this matter. A community process was conducted including a flyer distribution and based off of community feedback, my office opted to host the Butters meeting held on 9-17-25. That was heavily attended by several Dorchester community members. The feedback from this meeting was significant opposition to the loss of parking, citing ongoing issues with parking in the neighborhood. Additionally, we received four letters expressing opposition to the proposal, referencing many of the same concerns expressed in the up-butters meeting. The proposal was also reviewed by the Ashmon Adams Civic Association at their meeting on 11-6-25 and they expressed support regarding the proposal and have expressed that these changes will place The property in compliance with current zoning code and caused no disruption to the community at large. Regarding the proposal, they have provided a formal letter of support submitted to the board. 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.

Hello, Madam Chair, members of the Board. Liam Ramis from Council Fitzgerald's Office. Our office has let go on records for this proposal. Thank you.

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

Okay. My name is Melissa Rowe. If it's okay for me to speak, I'm a resident. Oh, yes, ma'am. Okay, thank you. Please read the address of the record and briefly state your support.

Yes.

Melissa Rall, 11 West Moreland Street. I just want to go on record. I understand that the project is complicated. It does have to do with dating from a long time ago. My husband and I are opposing removing the parking spaces only because we do have an influx of residential parking needs that are in our neighborhood. We're abutting residents on West Mullen Street intake on a brunt of the parking from Adams and Adams Village businesses. So I just wanted to voice my opposition. If there was another way that you could work around putting these parking spaces in, I just feel like we are going to take on more of the brunt of parking on our street and our neighbors are already You know, having incidents, having to report 311 with issues of, you know, cars being left here for days on end, etc. So just a little bit of a worry about that. If you could take another look at the design. Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, I think there is one more person. I'm not sure. Mary Volnaife?

Yes, I'm Mary Volnaife. I'm at 8 Westmoreland, a direct neighbor across the street from Melissa that just spoke. The details of my concerns in the chat for the sake of time, but basically just echoing what Melissa said, I would appreciate if they could come up with a plan that addresses the issue but maintains the current number of parking spaces as we're already dealing with the overflow. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay. With that, any other questions from the board? Is there a motion?

Madam Chair, I'll put forward a motion of approval with a proviso that the pedestrian access be maintained at 735 Adams Street by the 1966 proviso. Is there a second?

I'm going to second. I agree with that. It sounds like we're just legitimizing some existing conditions that warrant bringing the site into zoning compliance by removing some parking spaces.

Mr. Stembridge.

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza?

Yes.

Ms. Whewell?

Yes.

Mr. Langham? Yes. Chair votes yes, motion carries.

Thank you very much.

Next, we have two companion cases.

The first is case BOA1709606.

with the address of 56 Old Morton Street. Along with that, we have case VOA 1732175 with the address of 56R Wichita Terrace.

If the applicant and or their representative are present, will they please explain the cases to the board? Good morning Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Michael Chavez. I'm the architect and representative of the owner for this project. This is essentially an ADU. It's a conversion of a two-car garage into an additional dwelling unit that's on site. There's an existing two-family home on the lot and the existing garage in the rear is being converted. Just for clarification on the address which we're working on, We were assigned the address of 56R Wichita Terrace, which is the road that's behind the lot. And because we've designed it as an ADU and it's associated with, you know, connected utility-wise and everything else to the building, we're working on getting a call at 56R Old Morton Street. So that it has the same edges as the existing home and everything comes and goes from the front of the house. And in short, essentially it's a two-car garage conversion. It's going to be a two-bed, one-bathroom.

It's going to have its exterior redone to have a more residential look to it. New windows, new doors, common access to the rear yard. It's got some yard space on both the side and the rear of the garage so again they'll just have some more open space there and all of its utilities will be connected from from the ADU we're calling it to the house as designed and in compliance with Boston's ADU program. This is just outside of the ADU district in Mattapan so therefore the The zoning variance is its second dwelling on a single lot. It also has a side yard and rear yard setback variance that we're asking for. as well as an FAR when you combine the new unit, the two-car conversion with the two-family that's there now. It exceeds the FAR for the lot. But the building itself will be receiving

A number of different structural improvements, envelope improvements to be compliant with residential code, energy code, and yeah, I'll stop there for any questions.

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

Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Benbury. I am the Madam and Community Engagement Specialist of the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process, which consists of an abutters meeting facilitated on August 11th, with one supporting a voter in attendance who was delighted to hear the area would be cleaned up. Next, a proposal was presented to River Street Civic Association where concerns for parking were conveyed and the proposal was allowed to move forward. Thank you for your time, and the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services would like to defer to the board for their judgment.

Okay, next we have Timothy Guimond, I'm sorry.

Thank you very much Madam Chair, members of the board. Timothy Guimon from District 4 City Councilor Brian Worrell's office. We'd like to go on record in support of this project. We appreciate the community process that has taken place and we have confirmed that not in opposition with the River Street Civic Association so we would like to go on record in support. Thank you very much.

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

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

One second. Next motion is approved.

Barraza, second. Thank you. Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Barraza?

Yes.

Ms. Whewell?

Yes.

Mr. Langham?

Yes.

Chair votes yes. Motion carries. Good vote.

I thank you for your time.

The next case has been deferred.

So that takes us to case BOA 1732895 with the address of 8 to 12 Ambrose Street.

If the applicant and the representative are present,

What's that you put into sprites on the board?

Thank you, Mr. Stembridge. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board, Attorney John Plagini here on behalf of Bob Greisfelder for this proposal located at 8 to 12 Amherst Street in Roslindale. The proposal before you today is to demolish the existing structure in 8-12 Amherst and in its place construct a three-story three-unit residential home ownership building. The two-family structure currently on this lot is an absolute eyesore and has been vacant for many years. For context, this lot is a 2F5000 sub-district on the edge of the newly established S1, S4 squares and streets sub-district. The lot itself is next to an existing three-family when you're looking at the building. A three-family to the right. and existing two family to the rear. And to the left, there is the Cooperative Banks Commercial Building.

And across the street, there's a nine-unit building. To quickly summarize the proposal, it will be three stories that house three condos, as previously mentioned. Each unit will have three bedrooms and two and a half baths. making it suitable for families. Each unit will also have two car parking within the building as well as a small roof deck. The approximate size of each unit will be around 1800 feet. The proposal went through a full community process and based upon some feedback received, Mr. Reisfelder met with the rare abutter and revised the plans based upon that meeting. The result was redesigning the building which narrowed the building from front to back. and was able to increase the rare yard setback from 6 to 14 feet, giving an additional 8 foot of setback. And if you look at the BPDA recommendation, it is recommended for approval with design review. and in closing it is just providing three homeownership opportunities with absolutely no displacement.

I'm happy to answer any questions that anybody has.

Thank you. Are there questions from the board?

Hearing none, may I have public testimony?

Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Benbury. I am the Roslindale Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process, which consisted of an apprentice meeting facilitated on July 21st. that was very lightly attended with one or butter inquiring about setbacks that was addressed during the meeting. Next, the proposal was presented to West Village Neighborhood Association on September 18th, which included the community process and the proposal was approved to move forward. To date, our office has received one letter of opposition from an abutter opposed to providing a variance for the height and size of the proposal. Thank you for your time and the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services would like to defer to the board for their judgment.

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

Madam Chair, I'll put forward a motion of approval with provisos that plans are submitted to planning for designer view to work on enhancing the walkway lighting and signage indicating where the main entrance to unit three is.

Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge.

Yeah.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza?

Yes.

Ms. Whewell?

Yes.

Mr. Langham. Yes. Chair votes yes, the motion carries. Good luck. Thank you, everybody. Enjoy your Thanksgiving. Thank you.

You as well. Next, we'll move on to the hearing scheduled for 11 a.m. And with that, we'll ask if there are any request for withdrawals.

I believe you missed one. Sorry, there's another six minutes in time.

We're just asking, because it's 11 o'clock, we're just asking if there are any. We'll come back to the cases.

Yes, Mr. Stembridge, 32 Gordon Street, please.

That would be case VOA 1719823. with the address of 32 Gordon Street. Go ahead, Attorney Spitz.

Thank you, Mr. Stembridge. Madam Chair, members of the board, Attorney Ryan Spitz with Adams & Maranci, business address of 168 8th Street, 1st Floor, South Boston. I'm here on behalf of my colleague, George Maranci, requesting a short deferral as the advertisement was incorrect and will need to be re-advertised.

Did you say January 13th?

Yes.

Okay, with that, may I have a motion?

Go ahead Al. No, no, go ahead, go ahead. Motion to defer this case. Do we postpone this case until January 13th?

Is there a second?

Second.

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

Yes.

Ms. Rubel?

Yes.

Mr. Langham? Yes. Chair votes yes. Motion carries. See you then. Thank you.

Any further requests for withdrawals or deferrals from the 11 o'clock timeframe? If not, then we'll return to the last case for schedule for 9.30. and this is case VOA 1749533 with the address of 27 to 29 Everett Street.

I believe Terry Morenci is going to speak to this? No. And this is 6 Manton Terrace. This came after the last... I just want to make sure we have the correct record.

I tell you. Okay. Okay.

Thank you for putting that up.

So we're going for a case VOA 1762986 with the address of 6 Manton Terrace.

Okay, go ahead. Thank you, Ms. Stembridge. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board, Attorney Jeff Drago with Drago and Toscano with the business address of 11 Beacon Street. Here on behalf of the applicant, Justin and Bruce Efron from the Efron Property Group, and we also have David Fried from Chewing Company, who's the architect. What you're looking at is the front of an existing structure. We are not changing anything to the contours of the building. We are changing or seeking to change the occupancy from three residential units to four residential units by way of converting an existing basement space to a residential unit. The total lot area is 4,500 square feet. If we go to this slide, and it's actually helpful,

There's this particular building falls within an MFR, multifamily residential zoning, so the use is allowed for this particular area, and you'll see, and even in the BPDA's recommendations, that this fit. It fits within the housing stock which is multi-family large apartment style and also similarly situated buildings that have either attic space or basement space that's been utilized for additional units. And that's what we were trying to do, create one additional unit. The zoning code violations, just to go through them, we got cited for FAR, what's allowed. is one and we're at 1.1, so slightly over allowable FAR. Off-street parking, although we do have parking on site, this building has

2 curb cuts one is shared on the left the other one has one spot on the right and there's actually parking in the rear so we do have parking on site for units side setback is a Pre-existing Violation. The unit in the basement that we're looking to create would be a proposed 18, sorry, 835 Square Foot, Two Bedroom, Two Bath with Seven Foot Six Inch Ceiling Height, Two Egress on the side and the rear and that would be sprinkler of course as well. and just in terms of BPDA recommendations, they mentioned this really does fit within the context of this area as well. And with that, this would be a rental unit. To stay with the rest of the building.

With that, none of the other building, exterior or anything, except for the window wells to create light and air, would be touched on the building. With that, I can pause and answer any questions that the board may have.

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

Madam Chair and Board Members, Siggy Johnson with the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services. This applicant has completed a community process. An abutters meeting was hosted on August 26th of this year at which no concerns were raised. the Alston Civic Association is in support of this application. That background, our office defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Thank you.

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

Motion to approve.

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

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza?

Yes.

Ms. Whewell?

Yes.

Mr. Levy? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck. Thank you very much.

Next, we will now return the bill to case BOA 1749533 with the address of 27-29 Everett Street. the applicant and or their representative Crung, would they please respond and state to the board.

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. Joining me today are the owners, Jason and Hannah Krupp. This is a proposal to change the use of an existing three-unit structure to six units by way of a new vertical and rear addition. The Comic 3 family parcel consists of a 5,000 square foot lot where the rear is entirely paved and used for parking. The proposal falls within a 3F4000 sub-district, which results in a use violation. This portion of Everett Street is closer to North Beacon Street, and the abutting property is zoned as Guest Street LI-2, where this area contains a mix of buildings that are predominantly multifamily units. Also, the property is very close proximity to 15 North Beacon Street, a mixed-use building with heights ranging from 5 to 10 stories.

The proposal is in line with the goals highlighted in the Alston Bright and Needs Assessment January 2024 for housing and density. Unit 1 will be located within the original building on floors 1 and the basement at approximately 2,000 square feet. Unit 2 will be located on the second floor of the original building. at approximately 1162 square feet. Unit 3 will be located on the second floor of the addition at approximately 800 square feet. Unit 4 will be located on the third floor of the original building at approximately 1,095 square feet. Unit 5 will be located on the third floor of the addition at approximately 800 square feet. and Unit 6 will be located entirely on the fourth floor at approximately 1,262 square feet. We have additional violations for the additional lot The requirement in this sub-district is 2,000 square feet per additional unit, but this proposal is aligned with many of the other properties that do not meet this requirement. Height, we have a violation both in stories and feet.

The maximum building height is three stories and 35 feet and the proposal calls for four stories and 46 feet but consistent with other properties along this portion of Evans Street to name a few. 24, 25, 9, 1, 2, and 12 Everett Street. We have a floor area ratio violation. Zoning allows for a 0.8 and this proposal calls for a 1.42, which is also comparable to other multi-unit buildings in this area. Rare Yard Insufficiency Zoning requires 30 feet and proposal calls for 18 feet, but I'd like to mention that this is directly abutting a lot that's used currently for parking in the rare. In open space violation, 650 square feet is required for each dwelling, and this proposal calls for 225 square feet per dwelling. and lastly parking insufficient code requires 1.75 spaces per unit and this proposal calls for four total spaces

which is aligned with the major initiative reducing dependency on private vehicles, especially where the site is in close proximity to transit options. And I'd like to end it by mentioning that the proposal is very consistent with the planning department's recommendation of approval. At this point, Madam Chair, I'm going to turn it over to you for any questions or comments.

Thank you.

Are there questions from the board?

Hearing none, we have public testimony.

Madam Chair and Board Members, C. Johnson with the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services. This applicant completed a community process. Our office hosted an abutters meeting on August 19th at which no concerns were raised. The applicant also met with the Alston Civic Association. Their letter raised a concern about displacement of any tenants that currently occupy the property but their membership voted to support this application. With that background, our office defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, there are no additional comments.

With that, may I have a motion?

I put forward a motion of approval with the proviso that the plans are submitted to the planning department for design review. Is there a second? Second.

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

Yes.

Ms. Wuwo?

Yes.

Mr. Langham. Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Thank you.

At this time, we'll move on to the hearing schedule for 11 a.m. We have

To begin, we have two companion cases.

The first is case VOA 1692087 with the address of 15 to 19 Edinburgh Street. along with that we have case BOA 1692090 also with the address of 15 to 19 Edinburgh Street. If the applicant and or their representative are present, Will they please explain the cases to the board?

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. Attorney Sean Regan with a business address of 125 High Street, Boston at the law firm of Dalton and Feingold. Here representing the project proponents, the Lung Family Realty Trust. The project is located at 15 to 17 Edenboro or more commonly known as the Moon Villa restaurant building. With me today is the project architect Phil Horesco. Today we are simply seeking to legalize the long existing uses that have been at the property for well over 30 years. This legalization has resulted in a simple parking violation

and the need to make certain building code improvements which also require the approval of this board. Again, no changes are being made to any uses or to the structure beyond those required to bring the project up to building code. And so with that, I would like to pause and either offer up the project architect to answer any questions or simply answer any questions from the board at this time. Any questions from the board?

Hearing none, we have public testimony.

Hello Madam Chairman, members of the board, my name is Eva Jones representing the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services. Regarding 15 to 19 Edinburgh Street, our office differs to the board's judgment. A community process was conducted including an abutters meeting held on 4-3-25 that was well attended by the Chinatown community members. The feedback from this meeting was support for the proposal and addition of housing. The proposal was also reviewed by the Chinatown Neighborhood Council on 4-14-25. and has received support regarding this proposal. At this time, the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services differs from the Board's judgment on this matter. Thank you, everyone, for your time and consideration.

Thank you. Okay, thank you. Next, we have Ashley from Councilor Flynn's office.

Hi, my name is Ashley from Council Flynn's office. Council Flynn would like to go on record and support based on a good community process conducted by the opponent's team, which resulted in the support of both the Chinatown Residence and Association and Chinatown Neighborhood Council. Councilor Flynn respectfully requests that the proponent continue to work closely with the community on all neighborhood and quality of life issues. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay, there is one more person, but I don't think that, I'm not sure if this person is for this case.

No, she's asking you about a different case.

Yes, it's a different case.

Okay, any other questions from the board?

May I have a motion?

Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza?

Yes.

Ms. Wuwo?

Yes.

Mr. Langham? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck. Thank you all.

Next, we have case B08169. 7382 with the address of 417 to 421 Hyde Park Avenue.

This is a cannabis case and I ask if the applicants

and all the representative present to explain to the board.

Good morning, Mr. Secretary. Thank you. My name is James Christopher of 686 Architects with the business address of 10 Forbes Road. I'm here today on behalf of Zenith Dispensary, and Emmanuel Amante, who is on the call as well as the owner and the security specialist for the For the dispensary, if you could go to the next slide, please. Essentially, this is a tenant fit-out of an existing commercial building to be used as... A cannabis dispensary. So the existing basement currently has some bathrooms and storage rooms down there. Next slide, please. This is the existing first floor. Again, previously used as a different commercial space. We intend to rework this space to be used as a cannabis dispensary. Next slide. And then here's our exterior elevations. Next slide, please. Keep going. Thank you. This is our proposed plan.

So within the proposed basement, we would have an additional office and a storage area and the sprinkler room for the storage. Additional employee space. Next slide, please. On the first floor at the left end of the building, we would have our controlled entry. So the clients would come in, their ID, we'd have a two-step verification process. It'd be verified here. When ready, they'd be entered into the sales floor, which is to the right end of this plan here. They'd go through, make their purchase, head to the pay terminals, and then exit. Pretty consistent with other marijuana uses and functions in the city. Next slide, please. Very little change to the exterior. We'll build a new parapet wall, new windows and doors. Essentially, this is a tenant fit-out.

The use is conditional. The project has received approval from the Cannabis Control Commission, was supported by the local butters and civic association. I believe some city councils have provided letters of support. The hours of operation will be Monday through Saturday 9 to 10 and then Sunday 10 to 8. So with that I'll hand it over to answer any questions that I can. Questions from the board?

Yes, I have one small one. I'd just like to know what kind of security system you guys are going to have?

Sure. Emmanuel, who is on the call here as one of the owners, is also a security background and specialist. We'll have a full... Camera system that will record at 24 hour intervals, high def interior and exterior. We'll have Security personnel on site full time as well as protocols for calling in any incidents to BPD, the security team, and ownership.

Okay, thank you. Question. Yes. Yes, Canary's business should be located at least half a mile from, no, 500 feet from my schools. I understand that this building is close to The Philbrick Elementary School, is that correct?

That is correct, thank you. That school will be closing at the end of this year. By the time this project is operational, that school will no longer be in operation.

Okay, and is this a minority applicant?

It is.

Okay, thank you.

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

Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Bembry. I am the Rosalind Dale Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process, which consisted of A community meeting that was held on January 25th. Some residents expressed concern about a potential uptick in litter and loitering. Other residents left excited about a business moving into a long vacant storefront. and the prospect of the dispensary generating foot traffic. The applicant met with a local civic, Mount Oak Canterbury, which opted not to take a stance. They were approved by the Boston Cannabis. Thank you for your time. And the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services would like to defer to the board with their judgment.

Okay, next we have Timothy Dimon.

Thank you Madam Chair, members of the board. Do you want to go off camera? It's hard to hear you. for City Councilor Brian Worrell's office. We'd like to go on record in non-opposition. We did connect with Sorry about that. We'd like to go on the record in non-opposition. Mount Hope Canterbury also was a non-opposition. So we just wanted to confirm that. And thank you very much. Thank you.

Madam Chair, no additional comments.

With that, may I have a motion?

Motion to approve.

May I have a second?

Second.

Mr. Stembridge.

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

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

Next, we have patient BOA 173, 3651, with the address of 26 Barnum Place. If the applicant and or their representative are present, would they please explain the case to the court?

Yes, good morning Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is Janice and this is my husband Dave. We are looking at building two family homes in the lot across from where we currently live with the hopes of Moving into one of them to expand our family and of course move my mother in who's been elderly and has been looking to sort of move in. Thank you, Janice.

I'm going to run down the requests that we have for violations relief, starting with the first one, insufficient lot area per unit. What we did to keep this consistent with the original plan for the area that we had for our place in 1984, the plan that they passed had approximately 1,000 square feet Per unit, which we're consistent with. The next one is excessive fire. This is mainly driven by finishing the basement in the building, or is driven by finishing the basement in the building. The next one is the building height exceeded. We did consider this and discuss this with the abutters as well. This is why when you look at the design, there's a head house, the actual

The beginning of the roof starts at 41.5 and the peak is at 43.6, which is also consistent with two of the buildings that have been recently updated in our area in 2016 and 2025. In our neighborhood. Insufficient, the next one, insufficient front yard setback. This was, actually addresses another violation below, but is and basically good lines of building up with other structures on the Bernard Place Road so when you turn down it looks correct or it looks nice when you come down the beginning of the street on the private way. Location of parking. The parking is on the corner. We reasonably would place the parking for both units where they are. It also reduces traffic on the Bernard Place Park, sorry, the Bernard Place private way.

Therefore, it only really goes by one unit and people will be able to park and they'll leave the rest of the units with the open space on the tee with no traffic. It's an excellent location. Traffic visibility around the corner. Again, we'll replace the building. It's approximately 13 feet for the corner. There's only three units that are past that, so there are approximately three cars. Again, on a dead end on a private way. And the final one, insufficient parking, consistent again with the plan, the original Bird Art Place plan, we just have one unit per, one car per unit. And with that, I'll pass it over to our architect. Nick Landry to run through the claims.

Thank you, Dave. Nick Landry from DRT. I actually, I don't know how much more you guys want me to run through the plans. I think Dave did a great job. The one thing I would say, can you scroll up to the third slide, I think it is? It's the site plan, the proposed site plan. When we're Down a couple, sorry. One more, one more. Perfect. So East Second Street is up at the top of this plan, but our place comes down off of that. And then there's a T at the end. And as Dave mentioned, you can see we have parking on either side of our structure. And that parking will allow for some sight lines But it's essentially a private way, and there's only four cars that are parked as you come down the street and you take a left. There will only be four cars. There's not a lot of traffic going to be over there for the sightline concerns. Aside from that, if there's any other questions, I'm happy to circle back.

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

Madam Chair and Board Members, C. Johnson with the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services. This application completed a community process. Our office hosted an abutters meeting on August 13th at which abutters were supportive of the proposal. The Gate of Heaven Neighborhood Association is in non-opposition. That background, our office defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have Ashley from Council Flynn's office.

Council Flynn would like to go on record and support based on the good- So maybe not.

And you mute folks who are not speaking. Thank you.

Councilor Flynn would like to go on record and support based on a good community process and the proponent working closely with neighbors and abutters in the Benaro Place area. He respectfully requests that the proponent continue to work closely with the community on any neighborhood and quality of life issues during the construction phase. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Next, we have somebody from the Attendee Section, Jean.

Yes, good morning Madam Chair and board members. My name is Jennifer Salmon. I've lived on Bernard for 31 years at 10 Bernard Place. Ms. Provenzano confirmed via email that you received my detailed letter in support of this project, so I'll just reiterate that Janice and Dave are wonderful, involved people in the community for 11 years now. They communicated with the neighborhood steadily and considered our feedback throughout their planning process. I attended their butters meeting to review the designs once again and remain 100% in support of their project. Thank you.

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

With that, may I have a motion? A motion to approve. Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza?

Yes.

Ms. Wewell.

Yes.

Mr. Langham. Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck.

Thank you very much.

Madam Chair, we've arrived at 1130. So at this time, we'll ask if there are any requests for withdrawals or deferrals from the 1130 time frame.

Ross, are you trying to? Yeah, I am. Sorry. Can you hear me? Can you hear me? Sorry about that.

Yes, we can.

My apologies. Good morning. I am looking at 26 Wyndham, please. Was I supposed to give you the reason or does he read it into the record first?

No, I'll read it into the record first.

Okay, thank you.

So this would be for case BOA 176. 9103 with the address of 26 Wyndham Street.

Go ahead, Attorney Ross. Thank you. So there are changes to the plan that need to be advertised by ZBA staff. We appeared at subcommittee on October 23rd, and a butter requested that we increase the rear yard setback, which we agreed to do, and we're doing that. But also, Member Better Barraza correctly pointed out that a use variance should be applied due to the fact that the ADU is a bump out and so we have since gotten that put onto the and that needs to be advertised and I think the next available meeting that you have would be great because I just think they needed another week or so to get that advertised.

We have that for December 16th. December 16th.

December 16th. Okay, great. Thank you so much.

May I have a motion?

Motion to defer this case until December 16th.

May I have a second?

Second.

Mr. Stembridge.

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza? Yes. Ms. Whewell?

Yes.

Mr. Langham? Mr. Langham? Is Mr. Langham with us? I see Alan, Mr. Langham. Yes. Thank you. Sorry. Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Thank you very much. Have a nice day.

Anyone else here to speak to? Who wants a deferral?

Yes, my name is Jody Sanchez and I'm here in connection with 501 Boylston Street on behalf of ownership. And I'm from... Let Mr. Stembridge read it into the record first. Certainly.

So this would be for case BOA 1670349 with the address of 501 Boylston Street. Go ahead and explain please.

Thank you very much. My name is Jody Sanchez from Golston & Storrs representing the ownership. We would like to request a deferral to permit our air pollution control commission process to commence and conclude. We're currently aiming for A January hearing on January 14th, so we respectfully request a hearing date for the CBA after that. Okay, Stephanie, what do you have?

January 27th. That's perfect. Okay, with that, may I have a motion?

Motion to defer till January the 27th.

Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza?

Yes.

Ms. Whewell?

Yes.

Mr. Langham? Yes. Hearing votes yes, the motion carries. Thank you very much.

Any further requests for withdrawals or deferrals?

Good morning, this is Celine Rosa. I'm sorry, just to confirm, this is for the 1130s? 1130s.

Are you requesting a deferral?

Yes, please, Madam Chair, for 122 Wood Ave.

Okay, Mr. Stembridge.

There are two cases. The first one is two companion cases. The first one is case VOA 1690859. with the address of 122 Wood Avenue. Along with that, we have case BOA 1690861 also with the address of 122 Wood Avenue. Would you go ahead and explain, please?

Yes, please and thank you. Yeah, so basically plans were resubmitted with revisions and we received an updated refusal letter and it's in the process of being re-advertised and we will need some extra time to go through this process.

That's going to also be December 16th.

December 16th, ma'am? Yes. Okay. May I have a motion?

Motion to defer this case until December 16th.

I have a second. Can I speak as a resident? So we are deferring the case, so if this is about this case. This has been second or third deferment. Thank you. Is there going to be a real continuate? Okay, did I have a motion and a second? Who seconded? I do. Okay, thank you. Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza?

Yes.

Ms. Whewell?

Yes.

Mr. Langham? Yes. Chair votes yes, the motion carries. See you then. Thank you.

With that, we'll move on to the rediscussion. Back to the rediscussion scheduled for 11.30. We'll begin with case BOA 1765730 with the address of 75 to 77 Dorchester Street. This is also an Article 80 case. If the applicant and or their representative would explain the case to the court.

Yes, Mr. Stembridge, I believe we have cases left at 11 a.m. Yes.

Yeah, we missed about two cases.

What case are you on? I apologize. Washington Street?

Yeah, yeah. I know 44 Center Street was not called yet.

We have, my apologies folks, we have three cases for sure. We'll begin with case VOA 1766192. with the address of 1948 to 1950 Washington Street. If the applicant and or their representative present, believe they are.

Hi, this is Fran. Thank you Madam Chair and members of the board for giving me this opportunity to speak today. My name is Srivani Desanidi, owner-manager of Crystal Spoons Fine Dining Restaurant at 1950 Washington Street. I'm here today regarding my application to zone 80 of my restaurant for live entertainment. We have already designated a specific area on our current approved plan which includes two standing space. We now seek to repurpose and zone this area for live entertainment. Our goal is to introduce cultural experience to our diners and to create opportunities for local artists to perform. We believe this addition will enrich our space and support the community and enhance the overall dining experience.

We have been working in a restaurant industry for over a decade and have experience hosting the live entertainment event and have established an enjoyable experience for guests and it was well received by the neighbors. Thank you again for your time and consideration.

What hours are you planning to provide the live entertainment?

We are hoping to do it from 11 30 a.m until 3 a.m on the weekends. and on all other days we will be having it around 7 p.m. until 11 p.m.

So I'm sorry, what are the hours of your establishment if you are asking us at 3 a.m.?

Yeah, 11, sorry, I mean 3 p.m. So from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. is the afternoon timings on the weekends like the Saturdays and Sundays. We would also like to post it on the Okay, thank you for confirming, clarifying.

Questions from the board?

What kind of entertainment are you going to have here?

We are going to have singers sing either Indian cultural music or any of the traditional music. Sometimes we also have tabla and instruments also performed. We also tried with a one-time live entertainment at our space and it was well received by the neighbors. Thank you.

Other questions from the board? May I have public testimony?

Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Benbury. I'm the Roxbury Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Migrant Services. The applicant has completed the community process which consisted of an abutters meeting facilitated on September 15th that was very well lightly attended with two guests in attendance. An inquiry on the expected noise level that was addressed during the meeting and following the abutters meeting no further community process was required and the proposal was approved to move forward. To date our office has received two letters expressing concerns for how the trash is being handled and disposed on the property Butters reported trash bottles and cans being dumped on the property and the odor of food and spices being overwhelming in the general vicinity. Thank you for your time and the Mayor's Office of Services would like to defer to the board for their judgment.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, there are no additional comments.

May I have a motion?

Motion of approval.

Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge.

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza?

Yes.

Ms. Whewell?

Yes.

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

Next, we have case BOA 17707. 2-4 with the address of 44 Sensor Street. It's the applicant and their representative present.

Would they please explain the case to the board? Thank you, Ms. Stembridge. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board, Attorney Jeff Drago and Drago and Toscano at the business address. I will live in Beacon Street here on behalf of the owners of the land, Lisa Berger and Ed Blank. There are a couple and they actually own the building next door at 48 Center Street, which I'll get into an existing one family. in the Roxbury neighborhood. We also have Michael Chavez who's the architect who designed the plans that we're going to be showing today. This particular rendering, Mr. Ambassador, you can just stay on that for a second, shows the new proposed one-family structure on the five parcels. You can go to the next slide. The proposal from my client is to combine six parcels. And you can see in this aerial view, the project site is open space.

and it involves five parcels plus the existing single family to then be subdivided into two parcels. Both would include a one family dwelling. They currently live in the existing building on the right. It's a house that they restored over the years. Their idea now as they're getting to retirement age is to build this new house that they can utilize. It would have all new features and amenities. It's not a large building. It's also easy to maintain. and it has parking in the interior of the building that we're proposing. This A particular lot was zoned as Open Space Urban Wild and in speaking with Jeff Hampton, the BPDA, everything else around here had changed to 3F

or multifamily residential as you can see there's large apartment style complexes across the street and there's really no other structures besides a few buildings in the immediate area and then you get in the rare. And so this appears to be something we think in speaking with the BPDA that was missed when they up zoned or changed the zoning. The lots were obtained through the garage sale program years ago. and many more. These are now taxable My client wants to utilize the land for themselves, felt that a one family, given everything else that's around here, It seems to be larger and it's a 3F district, was reasonable.

We got cited for one violation which was usable open space being insufficient. I could not find that anywhere in the code. I did question inspectional services department and the plans examiner. They felt what they cited it for was correct. I know the BPDA in their letter also mentions this as well. However, we're moving forward obviously with the proposal. The building floor plate is 1,120 square feet for the new one family. It resembles a barn style look and the reason being is there was an older barn of similar style that was My clients restored the house to the right. They wanted to replicate this look for themselves, something different, something unique.

But we also set it so that we leave the majority of the open space on the lot. So this will have 5,778 square feet of open space. We will also have a rear setback of almost 36 feet, a side yard setback of 43 and a half feet on one side, and 20 feet and a half on the other side and a 15-foot front yard setback just to keep that open space and minimize the size of the building. The building would have utilities only in the basement, a sub-basement, a two-car garage at grade that would have an open living space, kitchen, and then upstairs would have the bedroom and an open living area with a bathroom and this would be for them.

We also fall within the Highland Park Architectural District and we did have an initial meeting. Obviously, they wait till zoning if to be approved to make final designs, but we would have to go back as part of that. Landmarks process with them as well. And so we also have From our immediate abutters, holding one, two, three, four, seven letters of support from 45 Center, 47 Center, 64 Center, There were submitted 51 166 Highgate that's off the side as well. With that, I can pause to answer. Oh, and just to point out, I'm sorry, if you go through the plans for a second, Mr. Ambassador, there is... This would have a shared driveway. And another point in the BPDA notes is we're maintaining almost all of the trees.

So three trees would have to come down, but all of the rest would remain on site. There is a site plan I just wanted to point out because I think it's helpful. One more down, I believe, once we get one more down. Yes, right here. Right here. Thank you. So there's an existing curb cut. It would just be slightly enlarged. It would have one space for the existing one family. and then a path that would lead to the two interior garages. But I think this is helpful for the board to visualize the tree canopies and then also the open space that would remain on the site. So with that, I can pause and answer any questions or the architect can answer any questions.

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 Venvery. I am the Roxbury Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process, which consisted of a lightly attended abutters meeting facilitated on June 18th, where abutters voiced concerns for occupancy and whether it will be owner-occupied for rent or for sale, as well as an open space concern per the violation. More than once a vote is voiced that the barn is out of character for the neighborhood. One a vote of voice support for the proposal and inquired if the curb cut would be wider. Next, a proponent presented to Highland Park Neighborhood Association where they voted to oppose the proposal stating there is a concern for green space and the removal of trees. The association also signed the deed stating the six lots were de-restricted as urban wow to request the board to overturn the proposal. Unfortunately our office does not have any letters of support. I'm not Okay, actually, apparently these letters were sent approximately one hour by email. I do apologize.

I haven't had a chance to review those letters. They were just sent to different CVAs. but there appears to be some letters of support. I thank you for your time and the Mayor's Office of Unlimited Services would like to defer to the board for their judgment.

Thank you. Thank you. We have one person from the attending section joined since then.

Yes.

Yes, you can say your name and others, please.

Thank you. My name is Joan Seamster. I live in Highland Park about two and a half blocks away. I've participated in the initial meeting with the HPNC. I'm not an abutter. And I was asked to attend this call and reflect the community comments and some of the reasons for why the HP&C, which is the Highland Park, Neighborhood Coalition rejected the proposal. So there are three major issues. One is the size and the color of that barn. The rest of that street is single homes, quiet colors, and in contrast and in conflict. to this proposed barn.

It's a very visible street and so people have asked for this proposed to fit more into the rest of the neighborhood because it's a really important piece of our neighborhood and it's very visible. Secondly, yes, it was urban wild. I'm just going to update the language. Instead of a garage sale, it was a yard sale back in 1991. And yes, the time has expired. People would really like, the neighborhood would really like that urban wild to be respected. So that's the second issue. And then thirdly, it has

Okay, Madam Chair, there are no... Well, I see planning has your hand up. Dylan, are you here for this?

Oh, sorry, this is not my project. I was just getting promoted for the next. Okay.

All right. Thank you. Any other questions from the board? Does the applicant want to briefly address the comment?

Thank you, Madam Chair. So one, just on the size and scope of the other buildings, if you look at the street, the other building is their building that's one family. As you go across the street in the rear, all the buildings are larger than their building. We purposely kept this building to an 1,120 square foot one bedroom with interior parking to minimize that issue. And we also have almost 6,000 square feet of the lot as open space. I think folks were a little misunderstood. The deed restriction was the same, and I have a copy of the deed restriction, is the same deed restriction that's put on all of these yard sale or garage sale lots. and that's that for that period of time it's either used for parking which we could use which can be used now it doesn't mean it's all going to be maintained as open space can be used for an addition to the existing structure, meaning housing could go there as long as it's an addition during that period. and or open space.

So we felt given the fact that that's long been expired and the need for housing, they're going to live there and it's a minimal one family. We felt that was very reasonable in comparison to the other building. So thank you. Thank you.

I have a question. Can I ask it now, Madam Chair? Yes. Okay. Can you just describe, are you waiting for the conservation deed restriction to be lifted by the PFC, who was originally the one that designated it?

We're not, Ms. Better Barraza. So the time period has elapsed. Now that if we were to be approved to something, we would just get the release from them knowing that. And I've already spoke to them.

So there was a duration, and if that lasts, it just closed originally without... The restriction to the owner of the land.

Under Massachusetts statute as well, it can only be 30 years at maximum. So sometimes they're 20, sometimes they're 25. This was 30, so.

And is there precedent in the nearby area that it has been lifted and the land goes back to residential use? Has there been a precedent?

I mean, I personally have represented a number of developers to this board even where these have expired and now it's time to create. That was the whole point and then housing will be built on it after.

Yeah, that's really helpful because I know how the urban wild is such a necessity at times in urban neighborhoods in regards to climate change. So thanks for that. Thank you. With that, may I have a motion? Madam Chair, I'd like to put forward a motion of approval with a proviso that the project goes through Boston Landmark Commission for review, if required.

Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza? Yes. Ms. Weber?

Yes.

Mr. Langham. Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck. Thank you very much, members of the board.

Next, we have case BOA 175. 6156 with the address of 8 Frost Avenue. If the applicants and or their representative are present, will they please explain to the board?

Thank you, Mr. Stembridge. Madam Chair, members of the board, Attorney Ryan Spitz with Adams & Moranty, business address of 168 H Street, 1st floor, South Boston. Joining me today is the owner, Andrew Ulrich, as well as the project architect, David Freed. This is a proposal to erect three new townhomes and a dormer expansion to an existing single-family dwelling for a total of four units. The townhomes will create more home ownership opportunities within this neighborhood. The current single-family parcel consists of a very large lot of 10,140 square feet. and falls within a 2F5000 sub-district which results in the use violation. The addition will have three townhomes. Each townhome will consist of a basement, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd floor containing three bedrooms, an office, and an open concept living dining room with an exclusive used roof deck. Each townhome will be approximately 2,068 square feet.

All units will have grade level parking accessed by an existing curb cut. We have additional violations for height. We have a violation in stories as we are proposing three stories due to the elevation drop going from the front of the property down to the rear. and two and a half is what is compliant by the code. The relief is consistent within the neighborhood. Further, the proposal is compliant in respect to feet. We also have a floor area ratio violation. Zoning allows for 0.5, and this proposal calls for a slight increase to a 0.81, which is actually low compared to some of the neighboring properties that we do have. And last and ending, this proposal is aligned with the BPDA's planning recommendation for approval. and I'd just like to notate that you all should have 28 letters of support including the local civic group for this proposal. So Madam Chair, at this point I'm going to pause and turn it over to you and the board for any questions or comments.

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

Hello, Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is Abitul and I'm representing the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services. Regarding A. Frost Ab, our office differs from the board's judgment on this matter. A community process was conducted including an abutters meeting held on 8-19-25 attended by several community members in the Dorchester neighborhood. The feedback from this meeting was primarily opposition to the proposal, citing the character of the neighborhood, loss of green space, and continued parking issues in the neighborhood, although there were two constituents who did not have concern for the proposal and felt that it would be a good addition to the neighborhood. Additionally, my office has received 32 letters in support, 11 from direct abutters, citing the wonderful addition to the neighborhood and the benefit of more families living in the neighborhood. I've also received six letters in opposition, three from Director Butters expressing that the applicant did not provide an adequate hardship to the community, the fact that the lot is not actually unique and is quite common in the neighborhood, and that the attorney minimized the actual impacts to the community.

The proposal was also reviewed by the Popes Hill Neighborhood Civic Association and they have expressed support for this proposal citing the benefit of additional housing to the neighborhood, the good community engagement conducted by the applicant, and the support received by Director Butters. They have also provided a formal letter of support submitted to the board. At this time, the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services differs to the board's judgment on this matter. Thank you, everyone, for your time and consideration. Thank you.

Lolo, Madam Chair, Members of the Board, Liam Remus from Councilor Fitzgerald's Office, Officer Letgo on Records for this proposal. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Next, we have Anthony Gilardi.

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

Thank you. And we have Mary.

Hi, my name is Mary Cooney. My husband and I live at 27 Boutwell Street, right around the corner, party of interest. A letter of opposition was submitted. That fully explains opposition and I'll summarize now. On November 6th, we received a copy of the ZBA appeal application. That showed incomplete documentation as well as being unsigned. We oppose this project because no hardships to justify the variances were explained as required on that appeal application, which is treated as a legal document. We oppose the project because although we would welcome the owner to the neighborhood in his single-family home over the project that conforms to the 2F5000 zoning, this plan would significantly alter the neighborhood density. Setting a precedent by building a forbidden housing type without justification and adding at least 12 bedrooms. Efforts to increase density around transit is the city goal, but we're a mile away. And obviously, until zoning reform happens, this board

should make decisions with an accurate and complete application and we believe that no one in this neighborhood benefits when hardships for variances that would so significantly alter this neighborhood district aren't required so we respectfully request that the board Delay or deny this appeal. Thank you.

Thank you. Now we have Adrienne. Adrienne.

Hi, good morning, thank you. I live at 11 Frost Ave, which is directly across the street. We are opposed to this as the street is a tiny one-way off a dead end and it's too congested as it is. There's no parking to begin with, which is an issue to begin with now, but again, there's no parking and it's very congested. We are opposed to it.

Thank you. Madam Chair, I think there was one. More person who?

I don't see a raised hand.

All right.

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

Madam Chair, I make a motion of approval with the proviso that plans be submitted to the Planning Department for the Sangre View.

Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza?

Yes.

Ms. Whewell?

Yes.

Mr. Langham? Yes. Chair votes yes, the motion carries.

Thank you. The next case has been postponed, deferred. Madam Chair, Since it is noon time, we will proceed to the interpretation. Is the schedule for noon time? We'll begin with case BOA 1689794 with the address of 62 to 66 Condo Street. The applicant and or their representative are present. Would they please explain to the board?

Yes, thank you again, Mr. Stembridge. I'll make this quick for the chair and for the board members. This is a deferral. We're just about... through working it out with ISD on some of the violations. I know some of them have already been removed. We have a few remaining that we're working through. So I'm gonna ask for a brief deferral on this one.

Um, January 13th.

That's fine.

Okay.

May I have a motion?

Motion to defer till January 13th. Second.

Thank you. Mr. Stembridge. Yeah. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza?

Yes.

Ms. Whewell?

Yes.

Mr. Langham? Yes. Chair votes yes, the motion carries.

Thank you. Next one we will withdraw. We've resolved all the issues with ISD on that.

So that will be for case BOA 168. 5295 with the address of 265 to 269 Mapin Street.

Yeah, for the record, just as Richard Lynn's business address of 245 Sumner Street, I want to put on the record that we did receive an updated refusal with the violations that we were requesting interpretation on. So we are satisfied that ISD has it correct. So we respectfully request to withdraw this appeal.

Thank you. I'm sorry, go ahead.

Then I will make a motion that this case be moved on.

Thank you. May I have a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Better Barraza?

Yes.

Ms. Whewell?

Yes.

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

Thank you very much and have a wonderful Thanksgiving.

Thank you. And with that, I'm going to have us take a 15-minute break.

Thank you.

Mr. Stembridge.

Present, Madam Chair.

Mr. Valencia. Present, Madam Chair. Ms. Turner. Present, Madam Chair. Ms. Better Barraza.

Present.

Ms. Wewell.

Present.

Mr. Langham. Present. OK, floor is yours, Mr. Stembridge.

Thanks, Madam Chair.

The first case has been deferred.

This will be for the rediscussion scheduled for 1130 a.m.

The first case has been deferred.

So that takes us to case VOA 17657. 3-0 with the address of 75 to 77 Dorchester Street. This is also an Article 80 case and if If the applicant and or their representative are present, would they please explain some more?

Yes, thank you, Mr. Stembridge. Madam Chair, members of the board, Attorney Ryan Spitz with Adams & Maranci. Joining me, well, with the business address of 168 8th Street, 1st floor. Joining me today are the owners, Jim and Andrew Stateris. as well as the project architect Tim Johnson. The proposed project consists of a new five-story mixed-use building at 75-77 Dorchester Street, The new building will contain 15 residential units, including three income-restricted affordable units pursuant to Article 79's inclusionary zoning requirements and an expanded restaurant space. Project site includes 4,330 square feet of land. The Dorchester Street parcels are currently the site of a one-story restaurant. also known as Stats Bar and Grill and a two-family dwelling. The project site is within a multi-family local services zoning sub-district under Article 68.

Proposed project will offer many public benefits to the surrounding neighborhood and to the City of Boston, including creation of 15 new dwelling units, along with three affordable units, Generations of tens of thousands of dollars in revenue annually to the City of Boston. The expected creation of approximately 50 construction industry jobs to complete the proposed project, a one-time bike share contribution of $4,500 to the Boston Transportation Department, and improvements to the public realm. The site is currently zoned for multifamily residential use and the surrounding area is a mixed use in nature. The proposal will add to the mix of emerging multi-story, multifamily housing and commercial spaces in and around Perkins Square and on West Broadway. The proposed project will complement similar projects nearby and recently approved including 457 through 469 West Broadway, 472 West Broadway, and 480 through 482 West Broadway.

The site is located to the active Perkins Square and within a 15-minute walk of both Andrew and Broadway Red Line rapid transit stations. Multiple modes of public transportation are available to businesses and residents in and around Perkins Square, including trains, buses, zip cars, and blue bike stations. Due to the concerns from the surrounding neighbors, the owners were able to negotiate an agreement for 15 off-site parking spaces on an abutting lot across the street between Athens Street and West 3rd Street for a total of 15 years. Page X01 shows images of the existing site. Page CO1 shows the proposed site plan, including the widening of sidewalks of Duochester Street and Athens Street. There will also be two new street trees as well as a new raised crosswalk to enhance pedestrian safety. Page 03. Let me go back one more.

Page A01 and A02 show the basement and the ground floor, which consists of 3,519 square feet of new expanded restaurant space. Basement will also contain the restrooms and storage. Each floor will also be accessed by elevator. On the ground floor in the rear, will contain the trash room and a bike room which can be accessed directly off of Applin Street. Page A03 is the second floor plan. Contains units one through four with a mix of one and two beds ranging from 690 square feet to 988 square feet. Page 804 is the third floor plan containing units five through eight with a mix of one or two beds ranging from 690 square feet to 988 square feet. And again, page A05 is the fourth level plan containing units 9 to 12 with a mix of one or two beds. ranging from 690 square feet to 988 square feet.

And lastly, page 806 is the fifth floor plan containing units 13 through 15 with two beds and one bed ranging from 597 square feet to 898 square feet. Pages V01 through V06 will show you the contextual photos of the building itself. We have the following violations. Insufficient lot size and an additional lot size. As this proposal falls within MFRLS sub-district, the lot size requirements is 5,000 square feet and 1,000 square feet for each additional unit. The current lot size is 4,330 square feet, but this proposal is aligned with many of the other properties in this area that do not meet this requirement. Use is forbidden and conditional restaurant is a conditional use, but a large restaurant with takeout is a forbidden use. Again, that's pre-existing as well as in that location at this point, but the uses are consistent with other surrounding uses within this neighborhood. Roof structure restriction.

Since we are demolishing the existing structures, the new development height exceeds the height of those existing structures. There is also a height violation as 35 feet is code compliant, and the proposal calls for 50 feet But again, the proposed height is consistent with some of the recently approved projects in this area. Further, as you may recall from the drawings, the proposed building is attached to a six-story build. We have an excessive FAR, 1.5 is allowed by the code, and the proposal seeks a 4.4, again, which is also comparable to other multi-unit buildings in this area. Open space, 200 square feet per unit as a result of the community process. All roof decks and balconies were removed due to the concerns of the community which generated the open space violation. Side yard, a three foot requirement is required, but this type of setback is consistent with other mixed uses of buildings in this area. We've rare yard of a shallow lot. I believe this was cited in error as this is a corner lot and rare yards do not apply.

We have an off-street loading requirement. The requirement of a proposal like this requires one loading bay, and this proposal does not provide one. I'd also like to correct the advertisement as to stating that there is a proposed loading dock on a different lot, which is untrue. There may have been an image on one of the drawings implying such, but that has been revised and removed to clear up any sort of discrepancies. off-street parking violation one space per one bedroom units and 1.5 parking spaces for the two bedroom units is the code requirement the proposal does not include any parking on site however in good faith the owners have secured The 15 off-site parking spaces for this proposal, hence the reasoning for the violation there. And lastly, we have the traffic visibility across the corner. This is a corner lot that has a structure that's taller than two and a half feet. So at this point, Madam Chair, I know that's a lot of information. I'm gonna turn it back over to you and the board for any questions or comments.

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

Madam Chair and Board Members, Segi Johnson with the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services. This application underwent a Boston Planning Department-led Article 80 community process, which solicited public comments. Public comments raising concerns included concerns about a new height precedent in this corridor as well as concerns about whether the off-site parking spaces that have been promised are formalized in language relating to this approval today. No civic association chose to take a position on this proposal. With that background, our office defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, now we have Ashley from Councilor Flynn's office.

Hi, my name is Ashley from Councilor Flynn's office. Councilor Flynn would like to go on record in support. While he acknowledges and shares concerns from neighbors as it relates to the hike, Flynn supports stems from a series of good faith compromises by the proponent on quality of life issues. These include securing 15 parking spaces in the nearby lot, Removal of all decks and balconies, windows on Athens Street being inoperable, agreeing to discontinue outdoor dining, trash stores located with the interior of the building, and bumping out the crosswalk to the opposite side of Dorchester Street and Athens Street to provide additional on-street parking along with three affordable housing units. While Councilor Flynn acknowledges concerns remain from neighbors, he is aware of the City's continued advocacy to reduce or eliminate parking and new developments. and he appreciates the team willingness to work on concerns related to South Boston's existing parking crisis among other quality of life issues. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we have Anthony Gilardi.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the board, Anthony Gilardi from City Council, Aaron Murphy's office. The council would like to go on record in support of this application. And since this is my last case, I just want to wish everybody a very happy Thanksgiving. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.

And next we have Dylan Norris. Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is Dylan Norris. I'm the project manager with the Development Review Division at the Planning Department for this Article 80E small project. The Proponent Team filed a small project review application on February 6th of 2025, which was distributed through the South Boston Neighborhood Distribution Lists. Planning Department then also sponsored and hosted a virtual public meeting on May 6th, 2025. Public meetings were posted on the Planning Department calendar. advertised in local newspapers and email notifications were sent all subscribers of the South Boston neighborhood email update list. Local elected officials and their staff were also notified of the meeting. The comment period on this small project review application closed on May 13th. The project was then brought before and approved at the BPDA board in June of this year.

So happy to take any questions the members of the board have related to Article 80 process, but we defer on the decision.

Thank you.

Thank you. And then we have Frank.

Yes. Frank Knippenberg, 289 West 3rd Street, South Boston, resident of the community for 20 years, would like to go in support of the project. Stats has been a great member of the community and I believe they should be able to move forward with the project and it's consistent with other buildings in the area that have recently been constructed. Thank you.

Thank you. The last person is Rick Baker.

Hey, good afternoon, Rick Baker. I live at 480 West Broadway, directly next door to the project, and my family and I are in full support of this project. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Madam, there are no additional comments.

Okay, with that, may I have a motion?

Second?

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

Yes.

Ms. Whewell?

Yes. Mr. Langham?

Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Great. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Next, we have two companion article A cases.

The first is case BOA.

1765664 with the address of 80 Smith Street along with that we have case VOA 1765668 with the address of 100 Smith Street. Again, these are two Article 80 cases. If the applicant and or the representative would explain the cases to the board.

Oh, I see you, Mr. Hanley.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, Madam Chair, members of the board, Attorney Joe Hanley from Dermot, Quilty, Miller & Hanley representing the developer mission. Associates. It's also the owner, Dave McKay, who's their representative, is with us today. Also with us is Ben Juan from Rhody Architects. I'm going to take you through very quickly the first six or seven slides. and then ask Ben to take you very quickly through the project plans. Stay on this, if you may, just for a quick minute. You will see the project site indicated with the arrow. 80 and 100 Smith Street. Those are the two proposed new buildings. 90 is an existing building to remain. You will see that to the north across Smith Street is Mission Main Apartments, which is an important stakeholder in the neighborhood that we've worked closely with on this project.

To the south beneath on the plan is the Our Lady of Perpetual Help, Mission Church, Basilica, and Campus. This combined site is almost 1.5 acres. At one point, it was part of the Mission Church, included St. Alphonsus Hall and the convent. Those were approved for demolition in 2005 and have since been raised, so we now have Two vacant lots on each side of this large property site. Next slide, please. So project timeline, just basically what's unique here about this case is in 2005, this board or the zoning board at the time approved a residential development of two buildings and also to reutilize the existing middle building at 90.

It was slightly taller, a little more units. Obviously, some things happened in 2008, and the relief was tremendous. is no longer in effect and so we returned to for our notice of project change with the BPDA in 2022. So we spent the last three years really digging in on this notice of product change. Real quickly, back in 2005, this was subject to the BCDC, Boston Civic Design Commission, and for this NPC over the last three years, We had the benefit of returning to the BCDC. We also had an extensive process where there was a scoping DPIR issue that we worked through and resulted in the approval of the BPDA board. in January of this year next slide please

So just quickly to show you the history of what I was talking about. You will see in the plan, plan right is what is being proposed. Plan left is what was approved in 2005. We have made Major improvements to it. The zoning remains the same. The housing crisis is obviously far more advanced than it was. So the original approval was 14 stories and eight stories and then we've reduced that high-rise component to 13. You'll see the FAR meaning the scale of the buildings are less. We're still able to deliver 218 units and I think if you look at the bottom line here increase the open space with an appropriate reduction of on-site parking.

This is also in a catchment area very close to the Green Line, just in close walking distance to Brigham Circle. Next slide, please. So just the overview of our goals. This project, through this extensive NPC and the engagement with the Impact Advisory Group, the elected officials are important. Butters has been improved. To really recognize the historical character and the past of this site, its relationship to the church, but also the context of the immediate area that you'll see here that have greater heights and and really support the context of what was approved in 2005 and what is being improved now. 218 units. We are very proud that

33 of these are income restricted at 15 percent that is five more than would be ordinarily required at 28 so a massive impact on affordable housing opportunities, improvements in pedestrian infrastructure. It's very important for us to also introduce some traffic calming and of Vehicular Safety Measures, especially as it relates to our adjacency to Mission Main Apartments, as well as Mission Grammar School, who we worked with closely, especially over the past year since being approved at the BPDA Board and before coming to you. and then obviously improving the landscaping not just with more ground plane space but making it more publicly accessible and the like and

Last but not least, a sustainable development, all electric, which would not have been the case had this been built, obviously, in 2005. Next slide. Unique land conditions. This is obviously a unique site. It's an acre and a half. We're not subdividing. This is the existing building. Harvard School of Public Health was a tenant for many years that is remaining. And then you'll see on the right and the left, Obviously, this is a corner lot that corners on both St. Alphonsus and Smith Street. The church, Mission Church, is our only direct abutter not only but the Mission Church as well as the playground and those are two really important constituencies.

Madam Chair, you have a letter of support from the Mission Church that was provided and you'll see in the BPDA process we have and continue to work with Parks Department to be stewards of the playground. and across the street with Mission Maine. I want to thank Ms. Willie Pearl Clark from the task force. We worked really hard. with her and the IAG on some of these public safety and infrastructure measures that are part of our board memorandum as well as working constructively on a construction management plan well in advance. and so the site for the relief granted obviously we're also in subject to landmarks so we'll be continuing to work with them on this new construction they authorized demolition and that's why you see those

Thank you for joining us. We do need relief for is the FAR, which has actually been reduced since 05 and is 3.88 and an allowed 3.0 consistent with I think all the benefits that we're providing but also the context of the area similarly The height, which allows for 55 at this location. We've reduced the story since 2005, but we are still in excess of What the zoning code requires which has not changed but we are contextually complementary to our surrounding adjacencies.

Open Space has been improved to an extent that we do not need a variance for the mid-rise building at 80 Smith, but we need a slight variance at 100 Smith and A rear yard slight rear yard variance between 21.2 and 9.9 for the mid-rise building. which again directly it puts the church and so we've worked through those adjacencies and we're proud to have their support. Next slide you see how this all comes together and the refusal letters again Two sites, 80 and 100 Smith. And with that, I will hand it off to Ben to take you really quickly through the design.

Thank you, Joe. My name's Ben Wong. I'm a principal with Rhody Architects, Business Address 535 Albany Street, number 405. So the program that Joe was describing, the way that we took that Knowing that it had to comport with the historic church campus and with a very varied existing context that we're budding. So we're taking our buildings and using their heights to step down From the highest heights that exist across St. Alphonsus Street, you can see those in the distance in the top image, transitioning down from the 21 storey that exists across the street to our 13, and then down to 8 as we about the baseball fields which are there in the foreground. We're also using material choices to thread what we're calling contextual masonry bases into that historic church campus and using proportions and massing and heights to be respectful of the datum lines and cornices that exist in the campus. and using those proportions to sort of create a composition of buildings that complete the existing church campus.

Next slide please. So through extensive review with the Planning Department, the BCDC, and Landmarks Commission, we've simplified and constrained both of the new buildings' footprints to a fairly simple rectangle at 100 Smith on the left, and then Amy Smith there on the right. And that's done a lot to preserve some of the existing sight lines and visibility corridors that exist from the public ways back to the church, basilica and the existing campus. That's also allowed us to provide approximately a third of an acre of publicly accessible landscaped open space at grade. Those are those two meandering paths between the buildings. and it's constrained all of the vehicular sort of access down to St. Alphonsus Street. You can see on the left side of the slide showing some of the programmatic mix. 218 units comprised of a mix of studios, heavily one beds and one plus beds, and two bedroom units of those, as Joe mentioned, 33 are portable.

Vehicular Parking, we're providing 40 spaces that satisfy the office use for 90 Smith. Those are the 19 spaces which you can see at Green Service Lot. and then an additional 21 below grade in a parking garage which is sort of a U shape that ties between 100 Smith below the open air parking and then under 80 Smith. Next slide please. We've also made changes from the design as was approved in 2005 to create more active uses at the ground plane. So we're lining the streets of Smith Street and San Alphonsus with amenity spaces and building lobbies and a couple of at-grade units you can see on the plan right that are open out to terraces that front onto the baseball fields. This has also allowed us to consolidate all of the previous firm cuts down to a single clerk cut You see at the bottom left hand side of the screen off of San Alfonso Street, that gives vehicular and truck loading access to the surface lot and to the below grade parking garage.

Our complete streets sidewalk design include a number of expanded sidewalks with curb bump-outs, four improved sidewalks including One new mid-block connection at the bottom left side of the screen there. That's part of our conversations with the grammar school where we've been really working to make sure that our sites Increase to vehicular access is mitigated in terms of the schools drop-off and pick-off operations. Next slide, please. So how do we take these building scale and this mass and this height and how do we start to use materiality? and massive choices to thread that into the existing neighborhood. The top image is street elevation of Smith Street. So seeing the existing 75 of St. Alphonsus to the right. We transition down in height. to our 100 Smith Street and then 80 Smith at eight stories abutting onto the baseball fields using material masonry pieces at the street state to tie in and use some