Zoning Board of Appeal

Governing Body: City of Boston Zoning Board of Appeal Meeting Type: Public Hearing Meeting Date: November 25, 2025 at 09:30 AM Attendees:

• Zoning Board of Appeal Members: Norm Stembridge, Giovanny Valencia, Shamaiah Turner, Hansy Better Barraza, David Collins, Jeanne Pinado, Katie Whewell (Chair)
• City Staff: Jeremy Benbury (Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services), Siggy Johnson (Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services), Emma Jones (Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services), Christian Simonali (Boston Groundwater Trust), Stefan (Councilor Coletta Zapata's Office), Melissa Lowe (Councilor Flynn's Office), Timothy Guimon (Councilor Worrell's Office), Liam Remus (Councilor Fitzgerald's Office), Lieutenant Steven Loy (Boston Police Department)
• Applicants/Representatives: Richard Lins, Meredith O'Brien (Great Day Improvements), Douglas Miller, Jose Gonzalez, Attorney Matt Echol (Fletcher Tilton), Steve D'Addario, Sarah Velarde, Eric Zacherson (Context), James Christopher (686 Architects), Gary Webster (Taj Development Company LLC), Daniel Fugere (Stack Architecture), Stephen Dubois, John Lyons, Jennifer Ha (HUE Architecture), Vernon Woodworth, Manny Baptista, Steve Bartlett (Foley Hill Ag LLP), Stacey Borden (New Beginnings Reentry Services), Attorney Anthony Musto, Attorney Derek Small, Jason Zuby (Boston Tattoo Company), Jackson Lee, Alice Lee, Alita Alba (Chewen Associates)
• Public Commenters: Barbara Keebler, David Stearns, Greg Buckland, Brian Price, Loree Radwin, Erin Mack, Arlene Simon, Mercedes Tompkins, Michael Kosu (Project Right), Yvonne Claire (Life Church)

• Case BOA 1247948: 80-104 West Broadway
• Case BOA 1538261: (Address not specified in transcript)
• Case BOA 1411397: 610 Chelsea Street
• Case BOA 1386283: 24 Geneva Street
• Case BOA 1261313: 154 Terence Street
• Board Discussion: No questions from the board.
• Motion: To grant the extensions as requested.
  • Moved by: Katie Whewell
  • Seconded by: Giovanny Valencia
  • Vote:
    • Norm Stembridge: Yes
    • Giovanny Valencia: Yes
    • Shamaiah Turner: Yes
    • Hansy Better Barraza: Yes
    • David Collins: Yes
    • Jeanne Pinado: Yes
    • Katie Whewell (Chair): Yes
  • Outcome: Motion carries (7-0).

• Case BOA 1617226: 53-55 Dustin Street
  • Applicant Presentation: The applicant explained that during mid-construction, it was discovered that the pre-existing cinder block foundation and footings of a rear structure were insufficient, necessitating a rebuild. The original plan to add a flat roof for a third-floor deck was modified due to the need to rebuild the entire rear structure and significant modifications to the roofline for dormers. The proposed change involves rebuilding the rear structure in a rectangular footprint and extending the roofline from front to rear.
  • Key Discussion Points:
    • The net gain in square footage is 180 square feet.
    • The proposed changes were deemed reasonable by board members.
  • Board Discussion:
    • Question from Board: Clarification on net gain of square footage.
    • Applicant Response: 180 square feet.
    • Comment from Board: "I see this as a very reasonable request."
  • Motion: To approve.
    • Moved by: Katie Whewell
    • Seconded by: Giovanny Valencia
    • Vote:
      • Norm Stembridge: Yes
      • Giovanny Valencia: Yes
      • Shamaiah Turner: Yes
      • Hansy Better Barraza: Yes
      • David Collins: Yes
      • Jeanne Pinado: Yes
      • Katie Whewell (Chair): Yes
    • Outcome: Motion carries (7-0).

• Applicant Presentation: Richard Lins, representing the applicant, proposed demolishing an existing structure and replacing it with two three-bedroom townhouse buildings. The design incorporates a "second front" facing Conway Street. Parking is located in garages beneath the building, with two spaces per unit.
  • Variances Requested:
    • Insufficient additional lot area (6,900 sq ft proposed vs. 8,000 sq ft required for two additional units).
    • Insufficient front yard setback (14 ft proposed vs. 20 ft required).
    • Insufficient rear yard setback (18 ft proposed vs. 22 ft required with shallow lot exception).
    • Insufficient off-street parking (2 spaces proposed vs. 4 required).
    • Excessive Floor Area Ratio (FAR) (89% proposed vs. 50% maximum permitted).
  • Community Process: The applicant engaged in an abutters meeting and presented to the Long Coral Area and Neighborhood Association, which took a stance of non-opposition.
• Public Testimony:
  • Jeremy Benbury (Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services): Noted community concerns regarding water runoff and a preference for open space. The Long Coral Area and Neighborhood Association expressed non-opposition.
  • Barbara Keebler (26 Conway Street, Abutter): Expressed concern about setbacks blocking sunlight and stated that she did not receive information about the community meeting.
  • David Stearns (26 Conway Street, Abutter): Supported Barbara Keebler's concerns.
  • Greg Buckland (14 Sims Street, Resident): Supported infill housing but expressed concern about parking garages, specifically the curb cut and steep driveways, which he believes will make it harder for pedestrians. He suggested eliminating parking requirements due to ample street parking.
• Applicant Response to Public Comments:
  • Setback: Attorney Lins clarified that the 18-foot rear setback, while less than the required 22 feet, is an improvement over the 10-foot setback that would have been if the building faced Conway Street. He argued that the setback meets the "spirit and intent of the code" for a corner lot.
  • Rodents: In response to a board member's question about rodent control, Attorney Lins stated that baiting and trapping would be required during demolition, and a licensed exterminator would be involved.
  • Parking/Curb Cut: Attorney Lins acknowledged the concern about the curb cut width (16 feet proposed) and noted that the Boston Planning & Development Agency (BPDA) typically recommends 12 feet for residential areas.
• Board Discussion:
  • Question from Board (Giovanny Valencia): Asked about a rodent problem at the property and if there's a pest control plan.
  • Question from Board (Hansy Better Barraza): Expressed concern about the width of the curb cut, noting BPDA's recommendation of 12 feet.
  • Comment from Board (Giovanny Valencia): Requested the applicant to follow up with neighbors regarding the project.
• Motion: To approve with a proviso that the project undergoes BPDA design review specifically for site planning as it relates to the width of the curb cut.
  • Moved by: Hansy Better Barraza
  • Seconded by: Giovanny Valencia
  • Vote:
    • Norm Stembridge: Yes
    • Giovanny Valencia: Yes (with request for applicant to follow up with neighbors)
    • Shamaiah Turner: Yes
    • Hansy Better Barraza: Yes
    • David Collins: Yes
    • Jeanne Pinado: Yes
    • Katie Whewell (Chair): Yes
  • Outcome: Motion carries (7-0).

• Applicant Presentation: Meredith O'Brien, representing the owner, proposed removing an existing shed and building a new structure on top of an existing deck. The project does not expand the existing footprint and aims to add value to the home.
• Public Testimony:
  • Jeremy Benbury (Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services): Noted an abutters meeting with two abutters in attendance, both supporting the proposal. The West Village Neighborhood Association expressed no opposition.
• Board Discussion: No questions from the board.
• Motion: To approve.
  • Moved by: Katie Whewell
  • Seconded by: Giovanny Valencia
  • Vote:
    • Norm Stembridge: Yes
    • Giovanny Valencia: Yes
    • Shamaiah Turner: Yes
    • Hansy Better Barraza: Yes
    • David Collins: Yes
    • Jeanne Pinado: Yes
    • Katie Whewell (Chair): Yes
  • Outcome: Motion carries (7-0).

• Applicant Presentation: Douglas Miller, the owner, proposed adding a second-floor addition on top of the existing first floor, without expanding the building's footprint. The project requires variances for side yard and height limitation.
  • Variances Requested:
    • Insufficient side yard (existing condition, 5 feet from fence line).
    • Height limitation (due to elevation pitch, though it's a second floor, not a third).
• Public Testimony:
  • Jeremy Benbury (Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services): Noted an abutters meeting with two abutters in attendance, raising no concerns. No further community process was required.
• Board Discussion: No questions from the board.
• Motion: To approve.
  • Moved by: Katie Whewell
  • Seconded by: Giovanny Valencia
  • Vote:
    • Norm Stembridge: Yes
    • Giovanny Valencia: Yes
    • Shamaiah Turner: Yes
    • Hansy Better Barraza: Yes
    • David Collins: Yes
    • Jeanne Pinado: Yes
    • Katie Whewell (Chair): Yes
  • Outcome: Motion carries (7-0).

• Applicant Presentation: Jose Gonzalez proposed finishing an existing garage on the first floor and extending the second floor, without raising the ridge height. The project aims to align the new front facade with the existing one.
  • Variances Requested:
    • Off-street parking and loading requirement.
    • Insufficient front yard (magnitude of inches, to align with existing facade).
  • Community Process: The applicant met with neighborhood associations and abutters, addressing concerns about parking and construction. Two letters of support were submitted from direct abutters.
• Public Testimony:
  • Jeremy Benbury (Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services): Noted an abutters meeting where one abutter voiced opposition. One email expressed concerns about construction vehicles and parking. The Fairmont Hill Civic Association voted to support the proposal. Two letters of support were received.
  • Brian Price (Directly across the street): Expressed concerns about construction process and vehicles, specifically:
    • Difficulty backing out of his driveway due to vehicles.
    • Impediment to ingress/egress on Prospect Circle for deliveries and emergency vehicles.
    • Proposed construction hours (7 AM - 6 PM, 6 days/week) are too long for the small area.
• Applicant Response to Public Comments:
  • Parking: The project manager assured that materials could be dropped off, and workers could park on Prospect Street to keep Prospect Circle open. The project is small and will not generate significant traffic.
  • Construction Schedule: The applicant clarified that work would be Monday through Friday, with occasional Saturdays if allowed. They are willing to adjust hours (e.g., 8 AM - 5 PM) to accommodate the neighborhood. A full-time construction manager will be on-site to address concerns.
• Board Discussion: No further questions from the board.
• Motion: To approve.
  • Moved by: Katie Whewell
  • Seconded by: Giovanny Valencia
  • Vote:
    • Norm Stembridge: Yes
    • Giovanny Valencia: Yes
    • Shamaiah Turner: Yes
    • Hansy Better Barraza: Yes
    • David Collins: Yes
    • Jeanne Pinado: Yes
    • Katie Whewell (Chair): Yes
  • Outcome: Motion carries (7-0).

• Applicant Presentation: Attorney Matt Echol, representing Steve D'Addario and Sarah Velarde, proposed raising existing structures and erecting two townhouse buildings for a total of four residential homeownership units. Each unit will have two interior parking spaces. The project is on a double lot (over 13,000 sq ft). The design was updated to include a pitched roof with dormers.
  • Variances Requested:
    • Townhouse use.
    • Excessive FAR (0.83 proposed vs. 0.5 allowed).
    • Excessive stories (3 stories proposed vs. 2.5 allowed, but within 35 ft height limit).
    • Insufficient front yard setback (15 ft proposed vs. 25 ft required, but in line with abutters).
    • Multiple dwellings on one lot (due to two separate buildings).
  • Community Process: Extensive community process, including multiple abutters meetings and meetings with the West Village Neighborhood Association. Changes were made based on feedback, including redesigning the building, removing roof decks, reducing units from six to four, eliminating exterior parking, and preserving trees.
• Public Testimony:
  • Jeremy Benbury (Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services): Noted two well-attended abutters meetings where abutters appreciated the changes made. A further discussion on trees was agreed upon. The West Village Neighborhood Association expressed no opposition. Eight letters of support were received.
  • Loree Radwin (49 Augustus Avenue, Abutter & Roslindale Coalition Coordinator): Expressed "full-throated support" for the project, commending the development team and abutters for a "nearly perfect community process." She noted that the project adds housing without tearing down trees and maintains quality of life.
  • Erin Mack (Resident across the street): Supported the development, stating it's a good fit for the neighborhood and the owners/designers were receptive to feedback.
• Board Discussion:
  • Question from Board: Asked if there was a landscaping plan.
  • Question from Board (Hansy Better Barraza): Asked for an arborist's assessment of a front tree noted as being in "poor condition."
  • Applicant Response: The arborist noted significant decay and structural deficiencies, suggesting it "probably should be removed in the near future."
  • Comment from Board (Hansy Better Barraza): Commended the architect's effort in designing for increased density and suggested BPDA work with the architect to relocate the building to preserve the mature front tree.
• Motion: To approve with a proviso that the project undergoes BPDA design review to specifically look at the location of the building and its site plan to preserve the mature tree.
  • Moved by: Hansy Better Barraza
  • Seconded by: Giovanny Valencia
  • Vote:
    • Norm Stembridge: Yes
    • Giovanny Valencia: Yes
    • Shamaiah Turner: Yes
    • Hansy Better Barraza: Yes
    • David Collins: Yes
    • Jeanne Pinado: Yes
    • Katie Whewell (Chair): Yes
  • Outcome: Motion carries (7-0).

• Recusal: Giovanny Valencia recused himself from this case.
• Applicant Presentation: James Christopher, representing Bonnie Alves, proposed constructing a three-story, three-unit residential building on a paved vacant lot (2,708 sq ft).
  • Variances Requested:
    • Off-street parking, screening, and buffering.
    • Insufficient lot area (2,780 sq ft proposed vs. 6,000 sq ft required).
    • Lot width and frontage (cited as a violation, but applicant believes it meets the 40 ft requirement with 48 ft proposed frontage).
    • Excessive FAR (1.29 proposed vs. 0.4 allowed).
    • Excessive stories (3 stories proposed vs. 2.5 allowed).
    • Insufficient front yard setback (6.5 ft to bows, 9 ft to main building vs. 15 ft required).
    • Insufficient side yard setback (3.7 ft on right, 12.8-6.3 ft on left vs. 10 ft required).
  • Community Process: The applicant met with abutters and the Civic Association, and the project was "fairly well received."
• Public Testimony:
  • Jeremy Benbury (Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services): Noted an abutters meeting with no guests in attendance and no concerns raised. The Talbot, Milford, Triangle group remained neutral.
  • Timothy Guimon (Councilor Worrell's Office): Supported the project.
• Board Discussion: No questions from the board.
• Motion: To approve.
  • Moved by: Katie Whewell
  • Seconded by: Jeanne Pinado
  • Vote:
    • Norm Stembridge: Yes
    • Shamaiah Turner: Yes
    • Hansy Better Barraza: Yes
    • David Collins: Yes
    • Jeanne Pinado: Yes
    • Katie Whewell (Chair): Yes
  • Outcome: Motion carries (6-0).

• Applicant Presentation: Gary Webster (Taj Development Company LLC) and Daniel Fugere (Stack Architecture) proposed a four-unit triple-decker (ADA compliant) with a finished basement unit, replacing a long-standing vacant lot. The project aims to fill a "missing tooth" on the street, consistent with the existing neighborhood scale.
  • Variances Requested: Not explicitly stated, but implied due to the nature of the project on a vacant lot and community opposition.
  • Community Process: An abutters meeting was held with one guest present and no concerns raised. The Millville Park Service Association completed the community process with no further feedback.
• Public Testimony:
  • Jeremy Benbury (Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services): Noted an abutters meeting with one guest, raising no concerns. The Millville Park Service Association completed the community process.
  • Timothy Guimon (Councilor Worrell's Office): Deferred to the board's judgment.
  • Arlene Simon (25 Alpha Road, Abutter): Opposed the project, citing:
    • Violations of "every single code available."
    • Previous rejection by the board.
    • Minimum 5-foot setback around, impacting privacy.
    • Dangerous location due to a "dog leg turn" on Alpha Road.
    • Too narrow for construction vehicles and existing parking issues.
    • No storage for future tenants.
  • Mercedes Tompkins (Abutter, downhill): Reinforced Arlene Simon's concerns, adding:
    • Parking issues have worsened due to other developments.
    • Lack of proper notification for some abutters.
    • Quality of life issues, including traffic and speeding.
• Applicant Response to Public Comments:
  • Notification: The applicant stated they fliered and submitted photographs to the Mayor's Office. A follow-up meeting was held at Ms. Simon's house for those who claimed non-notification.
  • Concerns: Many concerns raised (quality of life, parking, traffic) were deemed general Dorchester issues not directly addressable by the project.
  • Lot Size: The lot size is consistent with other three-family lots on Alpha Road.
  • Support: Letters of support were received from direct abutters at 47 and 51 Alpha Road.
  • Violations: The volume of violations reflects the restrictive zoning code, not that the building is out of context.
  • Logistics: Scheduling will be key to limit impacts, potentially using modular construction.
  • Context: The project is consistent with three-families on Alpha Road, and the finished basement unit is due to topography. The location is walkable to public transit and neighborhoods.
• Board Discussion: No further questions from the board.
• Motion: To approve.
  • Moved by: Katie Whewell
  • Seconded by: Giovanny Valencia
  • Vote:
    • Norm Stembridge: Yes
    • Giovanny Valencia: Yes
    • Shamaiah Turner: Yes
    • Hansy Better Barraza: Yes
    • David Collins: Yes
    • Jeanne Pinado: Yes
    • Katie Whewell (Chair): Yes
  • Outcome: Motion carries (7-0).

• Applicant Presentation: Stephen Dubois, a contractor, proposed adding a dormer to an existing storage room due to a leaking roof and insufficient head height. The project aims to make the space more usable.
  • Variances Requested: Relief for insufficient side yard, which is a pre-existing condition and not exacerbated by the project.
• Public Testimony:
  • Jeremy Benbury (Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services): Noted an abutters meeting with no guests present and no concerns raised. The office deemed the proposal non-controversial.
  • Liam Remus (Councilor Fitzgerald's Office): Supported the proposal.
• Board Discussion: No questions from the board.
• Motion: To approve.
  • Moved by: Katie Whewell
  • Seconded by: Giovanny Valencia
  • Vote:
    • Norm Stembridge: Yes
    • Giovanny Valencia: Yes
    • Shamaiah Turner: Yes
    • Hansy Better Barraza: Yes
    • David Collins: Yes
    • Jeanne Pinado: Yes
    • Katie Whewell (Chair): Yes
  • Outcome: Motion carries (7-0).

• Applicant Presentation: John Lyons and Jennifer Ha (HUE Architecture) proposed a five-unit residential building on a vacant corner lot (4,330 sq ft) in a 3F4000 zone. The design aims to fit the streetscape and respect existing architecture. The owners, Lisa and Al Beasley, plan to reside in the first-floor ADA accessible unit.
  • Variances Requested: Not explicitly detailed, but implied due to the five-unit proposal in a 3F4000 zone and dimensional requirements.
  • Key Discussion Points:
    • The lot has been vacant for 50-60 years.
    • The design scales down on the corner, appearing as two attached dwellings.
    • Violations are common in the dense neighborhood.
    • Reduced parking (3 spaces proposed vs. 5 required) is consistent with city planning initiatives.
• Public Testimony:
  • Jeremy Benbury (Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services): Noted an abutters meeting with four guests, where inquiries were addressed with no opposition. The Face 10 Street Residents Association, Lawrence Ave Group, and Blue Hill Avenue, Quincy Street, Magnolia Street, and Howard Ave Neighborhood Association approved the proposal.
  • Michael Kosu (Project Right): Stated that the neighborhood recognizes the applicants as long-standing positive residents and supports the project.
• Board Discussion:
  • Question from Board (Hansy Better Barraza): Asked about alternative parking designs to increase usable open space and the width of the curb cut.
  • Applicant Response: The current parking design is limited by backup space (over 20 feet). The curb cut is 12 feet, potentially taking one parking spot from the street. The existing enclosure is for site protection and will be replaced with new fencing. The applicant is open to reviewing gaining more green space.
• Motion: To approve with provisos that the plans be submitted to the planning department for design review with attention to the landscaped area, permeability, and potential redesign of the off-street parking and rear yard.
  • Moved by: Hansy Better Barraza
  • Seconded by: Giovanny Valencia
  • Vote:
    • Norm Stembridge: Yes
    • Giovanny Valencia: Yes
    • Shamaiah Turner: Yes
    • Hansy Better Barraza: Yes
    • David Collins: Yes
    • Jeanne Pinado: Yes
    • Katie Whewell (Chair): Yes
  • Outcome: Motion carries (7-0).

• Recusal: Shamaiah Turner recused herself from this case.
• Applicant Presentation: Vernon Woodworth, representing Manny Baptista, proposed constructing a new three-family building on a narrow, undersized lot (less than 3,000 sq ft) in a 3F5000 zone. The design includes a cantilever to allow for two off-street parking spaces.
  • Variances Requested:
    • Minimum lot area (less than 3,000 sq ft proposed vs. 5,000 sq ft required).
    • Additional lot area.
    • Lot width and frontage.
    • Excessive FAR (0.9 proposed vs. 0.8 allowed).
    • Insufficient usable open space (528 sq ft proposed vs. 650 sq ft required).
    • Insufficient rear yard (a few inches short of 30 ft required).
    • Insufficient parking (2 spaces proposed vs. 3 required).
  • Community Process: Successful abutters meeting and meeting with the Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative.
• Public Testimony:
  • Jeremy Benbury (Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services): Noted an abutters meeting that was well-attended and received "overwhelming support." The Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative approved the proposal. Two letters of support were received from Senator Liz Miranda's office and State Representative Worrell's office, addressing the housing crisis.
  • Carrie Kim (Alpha and Omega, New Beginning Re-Entry Services): Submitted a comment in support of the project, highlighting the need for re-entry day programs in Roxbury.
• Board Discussion: No questions from the board.
• Motion: To approve with a proviso that they coordinate with the planning department for design review.
  • Moved by: Katie Whewell
  • Seconded by: Giovanny Valencia
  • Vote:
    • Norm Stembridge: Yes
    • Giovanny Valencia: Yes
    • Hansy Better Barraza: Yes
    • David Collins: Yes
    • Jeanne Pinado: Yes
    • Katie Whewell (Chair): Yes
  • Outcome: Motion carries (6-0).

• Recusal: Jeanne Pinado recused herself from this case.
• Applicant Presentation: Steve Bartlett (Foley Hill Ag LLP) and Stacey Borden (Executive Director, New Beginnings Reentry Services) requested a conditional use permit for a community center use. New Beginnings previously operated transitional housing at this single-family home, approved by the Board in 2021 and extended in 2022. Due to changes in laws and Department of Corrections policy, they are shifting to a day program format. No construction or physical changes are proposed; only a change in occupancy from transitional housing to community center. The program provides re-entry and wraparound services to formerly incarcerated individuals, with a 99% recidivism rate over nine years. Services include substance abuse counseling, financial literacy, anger management, and communication skills.
• Public Testimony:
  • Jeremy Benbury (Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services): Noted an abutters meeting that was well-attended and received support from the majority. One civic member expressed concern about a commercial property (community center) between residential properties. The Harborne Garnett, Gaston, Otisville Betterment Association reached a non-opposition vote with a request for a provisional deed restriction to remain residential. Two letters of support were received.
  • Michael Kosu (Project Right, Abutter): Requested a proviso that the conditional use approval be for the current applicant only, and any future changes or new ownership require a new community process. He emphasized that the site is in a block of two-family houses.
  • Yvonne Claire (Life Church): Expressed "enthusiastic support" for the proposal.
• Board Discussion:
  • Comment from Board (Katie Whewell): Noted that the board cannot impose a sunset provision or condition of use setting a duration. The focus is on land use impact, not gambling regulation.
• Motion: To approve.
  • Moved by: Katie Whewell
  • Seconded by: Giovanny Valencia
  • Vote:
    • Norm Stembridge: Yes
    • Giovanny Valencia: Yes
    • Shamaiah Turner: Yes
    • Hansy Better Barraza: Yes
    • David Collins: Yes
    • Katie Whewell (Chair): Yes
  • Outcome: Motion carries (6-0).

• Applicant Presentation: Attorney Anthony Musto, representing Alessandro Musto, sought a variance for a two-family dwelling on a lot (0 Danny Road) adjoining a three-family residence at 6 Danny Road. The lot has a separate tax bill. The petitioner is an experienced builder.
  • Variances Requested:
    • Insufficient off-street parking.
    • Insufficient lot area.
    • Excessive Floor Area Ratio (FAR).
    • Insufficient usable open space.
    • Insufficient front yard setback.
    • Insufficient side yard setback.
  • Community Process: The neighborhood was previously opposed to building anything on the lot.
• Board Discussion:
  • Question from Board (Hansy Better Barraza): Requested clarification on dimensional violations, particularly side yards, and noted the absence of a survey plot plan.
  • Applicant Response: The applicant acknowledged the missing plot plan and offered to email it or defer the case.
• Motion: To defer the case to January 22nd, with the condition that the applicant submits the survey plot plan to the ambassador immediately after the meeting.
  • Moved by: Hansy Better Barraza
  • Seconded by: Giovanny Valencia
  • Vote:
    • Norm Stembridge: Yes
    • Giovanny Valencia: Yes
    • Shamaiah Turner: Yes
    • Hansy Better Barraza: Yes
    • David Collins: Yes
    • Jeanne Pinado: Yes
    • Katie Whewell (Chair): Yes
  • Outcome: Motion carries (7-0).

• Applicant Presentation: Attorney Derek Small sought relief to replace an existing head house and erect a roof deck. The head house and deck already exist, but renovations triggered a zoning code citation for roof structure restriction. The building code requires a head house for a five-story building. The project was approved by the Bay Village Historical Society. The roof deck is exclusive to Unit 9.
  • Variances Requested: Roof structure restriction (due to conflict between zoning code requiring a hatch and building code requiring a head house).
• Public Testimony:
  • Emma Jones (Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services): Noted an abutters meeting with two community members, with overall no issues but some concerns about construction vehicles. One letter of opposition was received regarding the head house. The Bay Village Neighborhood Association Planning Committee and Executive Board expressed no formal opposition or support.
  • Melissa Lowe (Councilor Flynn's Office): Councilor Flynn went on record in opposition, citing concerns about construction vehicles.
  • Christian Simonali (Boston Groundwater Trust): Confirmed receipt of G-card letters from the applicant.
• Board Discussion: No questions from the board.
• Motion: To approve.
  • Moved by: Katie Whewell
  • Seconded by: Giovanny Valencia
  • Vote:
    • Norm Stembridge: Yes
    • Giovanny Valencia: Yes
    • Shamaiah Turner: Yes
    • Hansy Better Barraza: Yes
    • David Collins: Yes
    • Jeanne Pinado: Yes
    • Katie Whewell (Chair): Yes
  • Outcome: Motion carries (7-0).

• Applicant Request: Richard Lins requested a deferral due to outstanding building code and groundwater items.
• Deferral Date: January 27th.
• Motion: To defer this case until January 27th.
  • Moved by: Katie Whewell
  • Seconded by: Giovanny Valencia
  • Vote:
    • Norm Stembridge: Yes
    • Giovanny Valencia: Yes
    • Shamaiah Turner: Yes
    • Hansy Better Barraza: Yes
    • David Collins: Yes
    • Jeanne Pinado: Yes
    • Katie Whewell (Chair): Yes
  • Outcome: Motion carries (7-0).

• Applicant Request: Attorney Jeff Drago requested a deferral to meet with neighborhood associations and the city councilor for updates and changes.
• Deferral Date: January 27th.
• Motion: To defer this case to January 27th.
  • Moved by: Katie Whewell
  • Seconded by: Giovanny Valencia
  • Vote:
    • Norm Stembridge: Yes
    • Giovanny Valencia: Yes
    • Shamaiah Turner: Yes
    • Hansy Better Barraza: Yes
    • David Collins: Yes
    • Jeanne Pinado: Yes
    • Katie Whewell (Chair): Yes
  • Outcome: Motion carries (7-0).

• Applicant Request: Attorney Ryan Spitz requested a deferral to allow for substantial changes to the plans and updated architectural drawings to be resubmitted.
• Deferral Date: January 27th.
• Motion: To defer this case to January 27th.
  • Moved by: Katie Whewell
  • Seconded by: Giovanny Valencia
  • Vote:
    • Norm Stembridge: Yes
    • Giovanny Valencia: Yes
    • Shamaiah Turner: Yes
    • Hansy Better Barraza: Yes
    • David Collins: Yes
    • Jeanne Pinado: Yes
    • Katie Whewell (Chair): Yes
  • Outcome: Motion carries (7-0).

• Applicant Presentation: Jason Zuby, owner of Boston Tattoo Company, sought to add the use of 242 Newbury Street as a lobby area for their existing business at 244 Newbury Street, for possible future expansion.
• Public Testimony:
  • Siggy Johnson (Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services): Noted that an informational flyer was distributed to abutters, soliciting no responses. The applicant met with the Neighborhood Association of the Back Bay, which expressed non-opposition.
• Board Discussion: No questions from the board.
• Motion: To approve.
  • Moved by: Katie Whewell
  • Seconded by: Giovanny Valencia
  • Vote:
    • Norm Stembridge: Yes
    • Giovanny Valencia: Yes
    • Shamaiah Turner: Yes
    • Hansy Better Barraza: Yes
    • David Collins: Yes
    • Jeanne Pinado: Yes
    • Katie Whewell (Chair): Yes
  • Outcome: Motion carries (7-0).

• Applicant Presentation: Jason Zuby sought to change the use of the third floor to a body art studio. The space was previously used for a temporary pop-up event and had already been inspected by the City Health Department.
• Public Testimony:
  • Siggy Johnson (Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services): Noted that flyers were distributed, and no feedback was received. The Warp District Neighborhood Association reviewed and supported the proposal.
• Board Discussion: No questions from the board.
• Motion: To approve.
  • Moved by: Katie Whewell
  • Seconded by: Giovanny Valencia
  • Vote:
    • Norm Stembridge: Yes
    • Giovanny Valencia: Yes
    • Shamaiah Turner: Yes
    • Hansy Better Barraza: Yes
    • David Collins: Yes
    • Jeanne Pinado: Yes
    • Katie Whewell (Chair): Yes
  • Outcome: Motion carries (7-0).

• Applicant Presentation: Richard Lins proposed combining three separate lots into a single lot (over 2,000 sq ft) and introducing a new three-story, four-unit residential dwelling. The lots were historically deed-restricted through the city's Butters Lots program and have been vacant since the late 1980s. The combined lot would have almost 60 feet of frontage, qualifying for an exception in EBR3 zoning for up to six units.
  • Variances Requested:
    • Insufficient front yard (1 ft proposed vs. 3 ft required, but modal alignment may apply).
    • Insufficient rear setback (10 ft proposed vs. one-third of lot depth required, but shallow lot exception allows 10 ft).
    • Off-street parking (no on-site parking proposed vs. one per unit required for four units).
  • Key Discussion Points:
    • The project is located in the Eagle Hill section of East Boston.
    • The three-foot setback on the right is compliant with EBR3.
    • The applicant opted for a variance for parking rather than on-site parking due to limited space.
• Public Testimony:
  • Emma Jones (Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services): Noted an abutters meeting with one community member who was not opposed. The Eagle Hill Civic Association reviewed and supported the proposal (12 yes, 8 no).
  • Stefan (Councilor Coletta Zapata's Office): Supported the project.
• Board Discussion:
  • Comment from Board (Hansy Better Barraza): Agreed with the modal alignment on Brook Street and the BPDA's recommendation for a three-foot setback on Utah Street.
• Motion: To approve with a proviso that the project undergoes BPDA design review, specifically paying attention to the front yard setback.
  • Moved by: Hansy Better Barraza
  • Seconded by: Giovanny Valencia
  • Vote:
    • Norm Stembridge: Yes
    • Giovanny Valencia: Yes
    • Shamaiah Turner: Yes
    • Hansy Better Barraza: Yes
    • David Collins: Yes
    • Jeanne Pinado: Yes
    • Katie Whewell (Chair): Yes
  • Outcome: Motion carries (7-0).

• Applicant Presentation: Edwin Lorenzana, the homeowner, sought to finish an unfinished basement to add a bedroom and bathroom for his mother-in-law, who had a double lung transplant. No structural changes are proposed. The project was cited for excessive Floor Area Ratio (FAR).
• Public Testimony:
  • Siggy Johnson (Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services): Noted that an informational flyer was distributed to abutters, soliciting no comments. The West Roxbury Neighborhood Council voted to support the application. The office expressed support for this "medically necessary renovation."
• Board Discussion: No questions from the board.
• Motion: To approve.
  • Moved by: Katie Whewell
  • Seconded by: Giovanny Valencia
  • Vote:
    • Norm Stembridge: Yes
    • Giovanny Valencia: Yes
    • Shamaiah Turner: Yes
    • Hansy Better Barraza: Yes
    • David Collins: Yes
    • Jeanne Pinado: Yes
    • Katie Whewell (Chair): Yes
  • Outcome: Motion carries (7-0).

• Recusal: David Collins recused himself from this case.
• Applicant Presentation: James Christopher, representing Van Hong, presented a redesigned project after a previous denial. The proposal is for a three-family unit, with a small two-foot bump-out on the second and third floors to the right and slightly to the rear. The basement will be extended on a slab on grade. Balconies were moved from the driveway side to the left rear at the request of an abutter.
  • Variances Requested:
    • Use (three-family unit).
    • Excessive FAR (0.95 proposed vs. 0.5 required).
    • Maximum allowable building height and stories.
  • Community Process: The applicant met with abutters and the Civic Association.
• Public Testimony:
  • Emma Jones (Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services): Noted a lightly attended community process meeting where concerns about size and density were raised, but also support for changes to deck plans and inclusion of parking. The Columbia Savin Hill Civic Association voted to support the proposal.
  • Liam Remus (Councilor Fitzgerald's Office): Supported the proposal.
  • Steven George (16 Maryland Street, Direct Abutter): Opposed the project as presented, stating that his concerns from previous meetings were not addressed. He specifically objected to:
    • Elimination of green space in the rear yard for a parking lot.
    • The narrow strip of grass adjacent to a 7-foot wide parking space, fearing encroachment onto his property.
    • Suggested keeping the existing driveway, eliminating rear yard parking, and showing landscape/fence solutions.
• Applicant Response to Public Comments:
  • The applicant acknowledged Mr. George's concerns and noted significant building reduction. They emphasized the benefit of parking and that two parking lots are directly behind Mr. George's property.
• Board Discussion: No further questions from the board.
• Motion: To approve.
  • Moved by: Katie Whewell
  • Seconded by: Giovanny Valencia
  • Vote:
    • Norm Stembridge: Yes
    • Giovanny Valencia: Yes
    • Shamaiah Turner: Yes
    • Hansy Better Barraza: Yes
    • Jeanne Pinado: Yes
    • Katie Whewell (Chair): Yes
  • Outcome: Motion carries (6-0).

• Applicant Presentation: Attorney Ryan Spitz, representing Jackson and Alice Lee, proposed a change of occupancy for an existing five-story commercial building.
  • Proposed Uses:
    • Office/professional use on the fourth and fifth floors.
    • Pool hall on the third floor.
    • Office/professional use on the second floor.
    • Community and retail use on the first floor.
    • Social club (Mahjong tables) in the basement.
  • Variances Requested: Conditional Use Permits for the pool hall and social club.
  • Key Discussion Points:
    • The building is in the historic Chinatown protection area.
    • No gambling is proposed; the social club and pool hall are for social aspects and cultural tradition.
    • Hours of operation: Social club 11 AM - 7 PM; Pool hall 3 PM - 12 AM.
    • Membership-only club.
    • The applicant stated that previous operations were shut down when it was discovered they were not allowed uses.
• Public Testimony:
  • Emma Jones (Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services): Noted an abutters meeting with significant concerns about trash, loitering, and potential gambling. Letters of opposition were received from the Chinatown Main Streets Association, Chinatown Neighborhood Council, and Chinatown Residents Association, citing concerns about gambling, 2 AM closing time (though amended), and impact on residential areas.
  • Melissa Lowe (Councilor Flynn's Office): Councilor Flynn went on record in "strong opposition" due to feedback from community groups, citing concerns about gambling addiction, public safety, and noise disturbances from late-night operations.
  • Lieutenant Steven Loy (Boston Police Department): Provided factual information about a 911 call on November 29, 2024, regarding a person with a firearm at the location. Officers observed a pool hall and "some other gambling going on." An investigation on July 30, 2025, included an admission of gambling. He expressed concerns about future operations and suggested "better and more productive ways to engage our seniors."
• Applicant Response to Public Comments:
  • Attorney Spitz stated he was unaware of illegal gambling occurring previously. He reiterated that gambling is not part of the current proposal and that the businesses were shut down when their uses were found to be illegal.
  • Alice Lee (Owner) confirmed that no gambling would be allowed and that previous patrons were primarily seniors socializing.
• Board Discussion:
  • Question from Board (Giovanny Valencia): Asked about age restrictions and security plans to prevent gambling.
  • Applicant Response: No current age restrictions, but the applicant is open to considering them. Security would involve managers overseeing the premises.
  • Comment from Board (Katie Whewell): Reiterated that the board's role is to decide on land use, not to regulate gambling, which falls under a different commission.
• Motion: To deny due to strong community opposition and historical issues with the property.
  • Moved by: Katie Whewell
  • Seconded by: Giovanny Valencia
  • Vote:
    • Norm Stembridge: Yes
    • Giovanny Valencia: Yes
    • Shamaiah Turner: Yes
    • Hansy Better Barraza: Yes
    • David Collins: Yes
    • Jeanne Pinado: Yes
    • Katie Whewell (Chair): Yes
  • Outcome: Motion carries (7-0).