Zoning Board of Appeal

Good morning. The City of Boston Zoning Board of Appeal hearing for November 25, 2025 is now in session. This hearing is being conducted in accordance with the applicable provisions of the open meeting law, including the updated provisions enacted by the legislature this year. The new law allows the board to continue its practice of holding virtual hearings through June 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 notices page from the City's website, boston.gov. Members of the public will enter the virtual hearing as attendees which means you will not see yourself on the screen and you will be muted throughout unless administratively unmuted when asked to comment.

Board members, applicants, and their attorneys or representatives will participate in the hearing as panelists, and they will appear alongside the presentation materials when speaking. Panelists are strongly encouraged to keep video on while presenting to the board. As with our in-person meetings, comments and support will be followed by comments and opposition. The order of comments is as follows. Elected officials, representatives of elected officials, and members of the public. the chair may limit the number of people called upon to offer a comment and the time for commenting as time constraints require for that reason the board prefers to hear from members of the public who are most impacted by a project that is those individuals who live closest to the project & Company. If you wish to comment on an appeal, please click the raise hand button along the bottom of your screen in the Zoom webinar platform. Click it again and your hand should go down. When the host sees your hand, you will receive a request to unmute yourself.

Select Yes and you should be able to talk. If you are connected to the hearing by telephone, please press star 9 to raise and lower your hand. You must press star 6 to unmute yourself after you receive the request from the host. Those called upon to comment will be asked to state their name and address first and then provide their comment. In the interest of time and to ensure that you have enough time to do so, please raise your hand as soon as Mr. Stembridge reads the address into the record. Do not raise your hand before the relevant address is called upon or the meeting host will not know to call on you at the appropriate time. Mr. Stembridge.

Good morning, Madam Chair.

Present. 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 and President. Good morning. Mr. Collins. Good morning, Madam Chair and President. Good morning. Ms. Pinado. Good morning, Madam Chair and President. Good morning. The floor is yours, Mr. Stembridge.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We'll begin with the extension scheduled for 9.30 a.m. I'll read through all the extensions. They have been deemed appropriate in terms of what they're asking for.

After that, I want to reach the end.

If anyone has any questions, we'll direct them to Madam Chair and we'll go from there.

We'll begin with case BOA 1247948.

with the address of 80-104 West Broadway.

Next, we have case BOA 1538261.

Next we have case BOA 1411397 with the address of 610 Chelsea Street.

Next you have case BOA

1386283 with the address of 24 Geneva Street.

And finally, in the extension categories, we have case POA 126.

1313 with the address of 154 Terence Street.

Those are the extensions that we have before us this morning.

Thank you. Are there questions from the board? Hearing none, is there a motion to grant the extensions as requested?

Motion to grant the extensions as requested. Is there a second?

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

Yes.

Mr. Collins? Yes. Ms. Banaghi?

Yes.

Chair votes yes, the motion carries.

Next, we have our final opportunity case scheduled for 9.30 a.m.

This is case BOA1617226 with the address of 53 to 55 Dustin Street.

If the applicant and or their representative are present, would they please explain to the board?

Thank you, Mr. Stembridge, Madam Chair, members of the board. We were supposed to schedule for last week, and by omission, it was punted to this week. So thank you for your time. I can share my screen if it is relevant for you just to make sure we are fully aware of the proposed change that surfaced during mid-construction. The slide two below where you just were. One more right there to the rear. That is pre-existing structure. That structure only extended to surface internal living area for the first and second floor. It was cinder block foundation with, sorry, cinder block structure with improper footings. The plan was to take off the roof on the second floor, build a flat roof to basically provide rear decking area to service the third floor.

In the process of analyzing the structure and in demo, it was realized that the cinderblock foundation and footings were wholly insufficient, which would have meant effectively rebuilding the structure. Additionally, the third floor was expanded internal livable area by having significant modification to the existing roof line for dormers. The magnitude of the change for the dormers rendered the best means of reconstruction being the removal of the roof and the rebuilding of the roof. In the process of needing to rebuild the rear structure and in rebuilding the roof anew, if you're rebuilding structure from anew for the rear addition, it makes sense to have that be in line with the Thank you. Thank you.

and then also to have the roof line for weight purposes and then rebuilding the roof to have a completely The end result was to rebuild the rear structure in a rectangle with the Thank you for joining us. So, in realizing that the need to rebuild the rear structure and the proper way to rebuild it made the building effectively stronger by making it A large rectangle of a footprint and then having the roofline go from front of structure to rear of structure as indicated. So the net change was a slight expansion of the footprint of that rear structure.

and the additional livable internal square footage on the third floor above the existing prior just first and second floor addition. So I have the GC on the line to comment on construction and purposes, but that's what necessitated to this change and the resulting rebuild.

Thank you.

Are there questions from the board?

Can you just clarify what's the net gain of square footage?

Our calculation is 180 square feet.

That sounds good. I see this as a very reasonable request. No further questions. Any other questions from the board? Is there a motion? Madam Chair, I'd like to prefer a motion of approval. Is there a second?

Second. Thank you. Mr. Stembridge? Yep. Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza? Yes. Mr. Collins?

Yes.

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

Thank you kindly. Next, we have the hearing scheduled for 9 30 a.m. We'll ask at this time if there are any requests for withdrawals or deferrals from the 9 30 a.m. hearing.

Hearing none, we'll move on to, we'll begin with case BOA 1784510 with the address of 21 to 23 Fairview Street.

If the applicant and or the representative present, will they please explain to the board? Thank you, Mrs. Stembridge. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board, Richard Lins, the business address of 245 Summer Street. We sponsor on behalf of the applicant. Madam Ambassador, we can jump down to slide two, just to give a little bit of context here. Members of the board, this is a proposal that involves an existing structure that will be demolished. We are proposing to replace that With two three-bedroom townhouse buildings, we require a number of items or require relief from a number of items as cited in the public notice as well as the refusal letter issued by and Special Service. You can jump down perhaps maybe to slide five or six. Just give a street view of the existing building. Good place to stop here.

So on the left-hand side of the screen, we see the existing structure at the intersection of Fairview and Conway Streets. As I indicated, that would be demolished with a new structure in its place. We could go to maybe slide eight. with the renderings to show a little bit of what the proposed condition would be so here's one view looking at The two townhouses, they would be attached obviously at the center with the garages located beneath the building. Because we do front on two streets and through the community process, we did hear some requests to create almost a second front of the building facing Conway, as you can see here on the left-hand side of the screen. We think the architect did a great job of incorporating that. Next slide please. Just a different view to show as you're coming up Fairview, as you get to the intersection, how that would be oriented.

If we can go to the site plan, which is slide 11, talk a little bit about how the site is set up for this proposed structure. Slidell, Mellon.

Perfect.

So we can see here that we do set the building back from our, be our screen left, but the right-hand side is about almost 26 feet. We do set it back almost 20 feet on the Conway, up to 20 feet on the Conway Street side and about 14 feet in the front. I sat back in the rear as 18 feet. One of the things I will point out is that during the community process, we did show on the right-hand side of the building, screen left, Two additional parking spaces. We did hear from neighbors that there was a preference to ensure as much open space on site as possible. In doing so, we eliminated the parking that was in the exterior and include only parking at the garage level below the building. which requires relief as two parking spaces for unit are required. With respect to the items that were cited, Madam Chair, members of the board, the additional lot area was cited as insufficient. There's a minimum of 5,000 square feet

which is required although we do have 6,800 square feet. 3,000 square feet is required for any additional dwelling units. So 8,000 would be total. We're just under 6,900 square feet. In addition, the front yard being insufficient, 20 feet is a required setback here in this section of Roslindale. We do show it at 14 feet. We believe that we are. Thank you for joining us. We show a rear yard setback of 18 feet, as you can see here. However, we do require 22 feet with the shallow lot exception being applied. So we are slightly below the 22 feet minimum at 18 feet. We also are cited for, as I mentioned, the off-street parking requirement. There are four spaces that are required. We do include two, one per unit in the garage.

and the last is the Florida area ratio. A 50% maximum is permitted. We are at about almost 89%. So because we are in excess of the FAR max, we do require relief for that as well. Can we go to the next slide, please? So we just include the elevations here. This is consistent with the height requirements of two and a half stories for the sub-district. but we also illustrate the additional doorways and features that we've included on the sides of the building. So again, this was heard through the community process that they wanted to ensure that the building didn't have A stark wall that was facing a street so we did incorporate that entranceway actually on both sides of the building as well. Next slide please. I'm just looking at the opposite side of the building in the rear. Next slide.

I can jump down probably right to the ground level plan at slide 16. That's probably the most relevant one to discuss. So you have to incorporate some amenities for the building as well. We do have a mug room, laundry, et cetera, as well as the garages that you see here in the mechanical areas towards the front. Next slide, please. Main level includes just living area, kitchen, et cetera, and it's basically a mirror of each going both left to right. Next slide, please. Three bedrooms on the upper level with bathrooms. Next slide. and the half story just has some finished space and includes a playroom. I do believe that the board has reviewed the recommendation of the planning department who recommends approval of provisos. I will pause here and answer any questions before.

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'm the Roslindale Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process, which consisted of an abundance meeting facilitated on November We have many a Buddhist voice concerns for water runoff and the need for open space. The concern for water runoff was in reference to the proposed grading as the proposal sits lower in elevation than its neighboring properties and with slopes on both sides would create a water runoff issue. and above voiced support for the number of units and the proposal, stating how they liked the changes that were made from a previous meeting. Next, the proponent presented to Long Coral Area and Neighborhood Association, which completed the community process and took a stance of non-opposition. Today, our office has not received any further community feedback at this time. Thank you for your time, and the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services would like to defer to the board for their judgment.

Thank you.

Okay, next we have Barbara Keebler. You can unmute yourself. Name and address, please. We cannot hear you. You're on mute. You're on mute. Barbara, you're on mute. You're still on mute. Barbara, you're muted.

Mute button should be in the lower left-hand corner of your screen.

Well, are there any other raised hands while she's, while Barbara's figuring out how to unmute?

In the meantime, I have a question for Mr. Lins, Madam Chair. Thank you. One of the letters from above has mentioned that there is a problem with rodents at the property at this moment, and they are asking if you have a plan to Do pest control before you start any renovations?

Yes. So in connection with the demolition, Mr. Valencia, we would be required to have baiting and trapping in connection with any building permit that issues for the property. The City of Boston requires that we demonstrate that we have a licensed exterminator in connection with the project and they will certainly inspect if there's some issues with the property. During construction or during demolition to ensure that we're addressing any rodent concerns at the site.

Thank you. We just want to make sure that the rodents don't migrate to their property next door. Thank you.

Okay, I see Barbara looks like you unmuted yourself.

Yes, thank you. My name is Barbara Kibler and this is my husband, David Stearns. We are adjacent. to the proposed construction at 26 Conway Street. And we are very concerned about the setbacks. Thank you. Thank you. are going to block all the sun that comes in from that side of our house, which may not be possible. But the setback is a real problem. And we would like it to be the actual proposed setback. for Rossendale.

Thank you. Thank you.

And we did not receive any information about the community meeting or any of this. So we're very concerned about that.

We're catching up.

Okay, thank you, ma'am. May I respond, Madam Chair? If there are no other raised hands?

No, no other. Okay. Oh, I'm sorry. There is one more person that just raised a hand. Greg, you are allowed to unmute yourself now.

Hi there, can you hear me? Yes. This is Greg Buckland. I'm at 14 Sims Street. I'm just around the corner. I'm about four or five houses away. In general, I'm supportive of infill housing and multiple units. The thing that I'm concerned about is the parking garages. Also, I'll note, I'll second that this is the first opportunity I was aware of to I don't like the curb cut that's going to... make it much harder for people, specifically children, to walk along that sidewalk. The deep curb cut and the steep driveways. So I would be in favor. of just eliminating the parking requirements. There's plenty of street parking on Fairview and on Conway. Thank you.

Thank you. And I think there is one, another person, Arlene, I don't know if you were speaking for this project.

No, I'm sorry I'm not, but I'm okay now. Thank you so much, and I'm sorry for the interruption.

No problem. Okay. Thank you. Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. So just with respect to the comments that we heard from neighbors, I'll address the concern of the setback. So we did show an 18-foot setback to the rear, which I believe is the setback That was a concern to the neighbor who left on Conway. I would remind the board that this is a corner lot condition. We did have the option of facing the building onto Conway. If we did so, our setback on the side would only be 10 feet. We're actually eight feet more than that at 18 feet. We would likely comply with the setback for the rear if, again, we face this onto Conway Street. The fact that we're oriented in the building towards Fairview has triggered those violations, but again, as this board is well aware, we have a corner lot condition. Sometimes looking at the side yard is very telling when we look at what an appropriate setback is for the rear.

So in this case, I believe that the setback meets the spirit and intent of the code. Thank you. Thank you. In the neighborhood, but we also did hear that there was concern about lack of off-street parking for this particular site. So the compromise that we had come up with was to incorporate the garage Thank you. Are there other questions from the board?

The only The only concern I have is in relation to the width of the curb cut. Can you just clarify what's the width of the curb cut? Because it's not listed on your drawings.

Yeah, I believe it's at 16 feet as Better Barraza. I'm sure that we will have to address that with Public Works because I do believe that the limit is 12, but that would require two courtyards.

Right, BPD typically BPD typically recommends a 12-foot Curb Cut in residential areas. So that would be my only concern, but it seems like BPD picked up on that concern as well. I don't have further questions.

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 undergoes BPD design review specifically for site planning as it relates to the width of the curb cut.

Is there a second?

Big Planky, Boston.

Mr. Stembridge.

Yeah.

Mr. Valencia.

Yes, and I would like to ask Mr. Lins and the proponent to follow up with the neighbors because it seems that they don't have that interest about the project. So I would like to invite you to organize a follow-up meeting with the boarders and let them know about everything that is going to happen there.

Yeah, Bonnie. Ms. Turner? Thank you. Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza? Yes. Mr. Collins?

Yes.

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

Thank you very much. Next, we have case VOA 175-5449 with the address of 82 Sycamore Street. If the applicant here are going to represent the president, would they please explain the case to the board?

Thank you Mr. Stembridge and all the members of the board. My name is Meredith O'Brien and I work with Great Day Improvements. I represent your neighbor on 82 Sycamore. I'm not sure If I could share my screen at all to show a picture or anything.

We don't share screens, but you should have submitted Well, I did.

At the community hearing, I was able to share, so I'm sorry. This is a first time for me. But, you know, just to explain the situation. She already has an existing deck and also a shed past that deck. There we're going to be removing the shed that is past the deck and just building right on top of the existing There are pictures that I had sent before. I'm not sure if they're here. But there is a shed that comes past what you're seeing here already existing. If you want to stop right there, it would come out probably another eight feet. We're going to be removing that. So I believe there was an issue with it being too close. We're actually going to give more space. We're not expanding any footprint that she already has.

In fact, the city of Boston built her deck. So, you know, she was a little confused why she was not approved for this, but it's going to add value to the home, add value to, you know, This street and we hope that you guys will approve this. It's been going on for quite a while for her.

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 Rosalind Dale Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process which consisted of an abutters meeting held on October 7th with two abutters in attendance who both voiced support for the proposal. Next, we're going to present the West Village Neighborhood Association, and with no opposition, completed the community process. To date, our office has not received any further community feedback at this time. Thank you for your time, and the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services will continue to work with you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, there are no additional comments.

Okay, with that, may I have a motion? Motion to approve. Second. Thank you. Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

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

Yes.

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

Thank you. On behalf of Mrs. Tebow, she greatly thanks you all.

Next, we have case BOA-175-4871. with the address of 198 Metropolitan Avenue. If the applicant and or their representative are present, would they please explain the case?

Hello, I am Douglas Miller. Thank you for showing the slides. And again, my apologies for not changing the title to today's meeting. So if you can go to the next slide. And then the next slide. That was just us. We have been in Roslindale now for going on five years. So we're educators in Boston and been in Boston, both of us, for the last 30 years. Can you go to the next slide, please? And next slide, sorry. It was similar to the last person I was used to presenting. We got this... We needed to get a variance for the side jar and for the two and a half height limitation, but I was gonna show you that, we were gonna show you that in the slides, why we do need that. So if you look at the first slide, No matter what we do, our house is only five feet from the fence line right there.

And even though it says building accessified, if you look at where... We are planning to add an addition. It is actually on top of the first floor, so it's technically a second floor, but I think because of the elevation pitch, it goes down at I'm not sure if that makes it or requires a variance there. Can you go to the next slide, please? So again, just explaining side yard inefficient. This is just highlighting the picture here. Shows that we have ACs on that side, but definitely, Nothing we could change unless we moved the house at that point. If you go to the next slide, please. Again, it's highlighting where the second floor would be. It's not a third floor. It is actually a second floor. The bottom part is the basement. That's the walkout from the basement. Can you go to, and also we're not expanding the footprint of the building, we're just adding on to the first floor.

And, yep. And these are just some site plans here showing what the architect had done. It basically shows everything you have there just in drawings. If you go to the next slide. Again, showing where everything is right now. It's going to be on top of the blank space. The one on the left is the basement. The one next to it moving from the right is the first floor. Then you have the second and the attic space. So we're only going to be in the third one from the left is adding the second floor addition for you. Master Bedroom, which there is not one right now. It's a one and a half bath currently. Can you go to the next slide, please? Yep, and this is just highlighting where it would be with more schematics being shown here.

So just showing you where it would be from going from the first floor and then where nothing is to what it would be on the right. and if you can go to the next slide these are just the elevation um drawings here that actually sort of fit that actually fits in with the building to add a second floor above the current first floor right now Okay, can you go to the next slide please? And I don't know if you have any questions. Yes, next steps was this meeting here. We did do the meet with the civic association, did our brothers meeting already, and we did our notifications.

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

Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Bembry. I am the Rosalind Dale Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process, which consisted of an abutters meeting facilitated on August 18th, With two boarders in attendance, no concerns were raised, and following their boarders meeting, no further community process was required. To date, our office has not received any further community feedback to my knowledge. 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. Thank you, Madam Chair. There are no additional comments at the moment.

With that, may I have a motion?

Madam Chair, I make a motion of approval.

Is there a second?

Second.

Mr. Stembridge.

Yes.

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

Yes.

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

Thank you. Next we have case BOA 1747236.

with the address of 5 Prospect Strip.

If the applicants and or their representative of president would they put one case to the board?

Thank you, sir. Thank you everyone for joining here today. My name is Jose Gonzalez and I wanted to walk you guys through the project here. So the two variances we're asking request a relief from. would be the off-street parking and loading requirement. And it would be the front yard and sufficient. And you can see right here the grayed out portion on the right. is the existing home. And what we're proposing is to finish the garage that you see there in the left, darker. On the first floor and then extend the second floor. We won't be raising the ridge so we're going to keep the ridge at the same height and we're going to meet the front facades. If you can scroll down a little bit please, just one slide. Yep. And so you can see here for the parking right now, currently the owner doesn't use the garage for any type of parking. He uses it for storage.

And so our thought is that the condition outside is not going to change. And you can see here on the right image, currently most of the neighbors actually use the Prospect Circle as parking. And so you can see all the vehicles there of the neighbors. Often the neighbors actually put it on the street. You can see our site there. The owner actually is parked right there in this image. And so our thought is that the conditions on the street won't really change in the neighborhood. And besides Prospect Circle, Prospect Street also has a lot of parking. So that's sort of our thought process for the parking issue. If you can scroll down a little bit more, Right here is fine. So we can see we're lining up the faces of the building from the existing for the new proposed section. That's the bottom half. What we're asking for relief here is on the magnitude of inches.

We're really close to the existing front setback, but plus or minus a couple inches is what we're asking relief for. Our thought process on this is we could meet the zoning requirements by pushing back the front facade of the new proposed, but I think architecturally speaking, it's just going to look very terrible if you see a tiny little We're going to bring forward in line with the existing Foundation in the front. Can you scroll down a little more? Yeah, keep on going. So you can see that's the garage that they're going to start occupying. We're going to get rid of that roof. Keep on going, please. Keep on going. Yeah, right here. So you can see the new wall right here. That's where it says office. That's the garage. We're bringing that wall in front to be flush, just to

Maximize the space, for sure, but also, architecturally speaking, I think it's what works best. Can you scroll down a little more? Yep, keep on going. And right here, again, we're going to line up the front facade with the existing. You can see there on the right, the right side is the street side. And you can scroll down a little bit more. Yep, keep on going. Okay, you can stop right there just so you can see the overall. So you can see here the overall. Can you scroll up just a little bit one sheet before? So you can see right here, this is the existing. If you see the elevation on the top left, that's the existing garage. We're basically going to just extrude that over. And if you can go scroll down, you can see what the proposed is. Yeah, I'm right here. You can see we're proposing right down the top left at the same elevation. We're extruding that over. and I think that concludes more or less the work. It's the two violations that we're asking for relief. We've done the neighborhood associations. We've met in person. We presented in front of

The neighborhood at the police department as well. The meetings took back in July 30th and the other one was August, no sorry, September 24th. And so it's been a long process. We've set up the flyers and everything as you know, make sure everyone's aware. There was a couple of neighbors that were asking a bunch of questions and we did have a lot of communication with I believe the neighbor in the front that was concerned about parking. and we exchanged quite a few emails regarding the the process you know the hours of working during construction and making sure that there is parking The only, you know, we are going to have deliveries of equipment, you know, or material, but nothing that's going to be over the top will have a lumber delivery. But, you know, that will be an hour at most, and it'll happen likely just once. And we also submitted to the board two letters of support. It's the neighbor on either side, both of the abutters.

One, this is the neighbor to the left and the one is the neighbor to the right. And open up to any questions if you guys have any questions or want to discuss anything in more detail.

Any questions from the board? Hearing none, let's take public testimony.

Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Benbury. I'm the High Park Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process, which consisted of an abutters meeting facilitated on July 30th, With two abutters in attendance, one abutter did voice their opposition to the proposal. Our office has also received one email voicing concerns regarding construction centered around the vehicles. The number and type of vehicles, their location during construction, and how it will affect parking. Next, the proposal was presented to Fairmont Hill Civic Association on September 24th, who voted to support the proposal. To date, our office has received two letters of support supporting the proposal. are currently as it stands. Thank you for your time. And the Mayor's Office of Liquid Services would like to defer to the Board for their job.

Thank you. Madam Chair, next we have Brian Price. If you can unmute yourself.

Hi, good morning, Board, Madam Chairperson. I am directly across the street from the proposed construction site. And while I do not oppose the final result, I do want there to be some concern expressed concerning the process itself and the vehicles on the street. My driveway is directly across from the site and backing out of my driveway is difficult now as it is. And if there are vehicles to the right of my driveway, it will be virtually impossible to get out of my driveway. Right now, the owner of the property does have a big pickup truck that's immediately in front of my driveway. So getting out of the driveway is a concern. Another concern that I have is because there's a narrow passageway.

On Prospect Circle before you get to the circle part of the cul-de-sac. My concern is that ingress and egress area not be impeded in any way. For package deliveries, for emergency vehicles, for just residents or visitors passing through that area. And so those are my primary concerns, the process itself. And one other concern that we have is the proposed time for construction would be between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. 6 days of the week. So there can be some sort of plan made in place so that that is not as large as a time frame as that. Again, this is a small area. And so it's really just my process in that there'd be some conditions that the board puts in place for this process to take place. And those are my primary concerns. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other raised hands? Could the applicant address those concerns?

Yes, for sure. So as I said earlier, there's plenty of parking also on Prospect Street. I think in terms of parking, I just called the project manager earlier this morning to kind of review everything of what the construction process was going to be like. and the project manager assured me that what we can do if it's a large issue we can park or we can drop off materials and we could just have you know whoever is doing the work that particular day they can actually park on Prospect Street and versus right on the circle. That'll keep the street fairly open. It's a small project. There's not going to be a ton of vehicles coming in and out. It's not a major project. I know there's not going to be that much traffic. It's not going to be any congestion in the area just because of the small project. Thank you.

And what about the concerns about construction? Schedule? The time, so the timing, you know, they won't be going there six times a week. It'll be Monday through Friday, sometimes Saturday if allowed, but it'll be Monday through Friday. Some of the crews do like to work at 7, but if it's an issue with the neighborhood, we can adjust that time frame and just move it later in the day so we can do from 8 to 5 versus 7 to 4. When we were originally speaking, it was a larger time frame because we wanted to cover all the aspects, but we can narrow that and define that more so to what's appropriate for the neighborhood. But it's just... as need be.

We have a construction manager that's going to be there full-time onsite, so any concerns, they'll be able to handle them immediately.

Thank you. Other questions from the board? Hearing none, is there a motion? Motion to approve. Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge?

Yeah.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza? Yes. Mr. Collins?

Yes.

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

Thank you very much everyone.

Next we have two companion cases.

These are case BOA 1747995.

with the address of 128 to 128B Kittredge Street.

Along with that, we have case VOA 1747994

with the address of 130 to 130 B Kittredge Street.

It's the applicant and or their representative present that please explain the cases to the board.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Secretary, and good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. For the record, Attorney Matt Echol with Fletcher Tilton. On behalf of the applicants, Steve D'Addario and Sarah Velarde, who are also with us today. I also have Eric Zacherson, the project architect from Context on the call. We're proposing to raise the existing structure and erect two townhouse buildings for a total of four residential homeownership units. Each unit is proposed to contain two interior parking spaces. I would note this does look to be the old renderings. We have redesigned the buildings to have a pitched roof with dormers rather than the mansard. So I'm not sure if we have the more recently submitted plans that were reviewed by ISD and actually issued a new refusal letter. If those could be shared, that'd be great. Thank you. Just to give a little background, this is essentially a double lot.

It contains over 13,000 square feet, so it's between two and three times the size of most of the surrounding lots. We are proposing a single curb cut, as you can see there on the site plan, kind of right there in the middle of the property with a 12-foot wide driveway. That's going to provide access for all the units for their vehicles. We're proposing to have that traditional driveway which is going to provide access, as I mentioned, to the parking which is now all located within the buildings. We previously did have some overflow parking in the rear. We still meet code at two parking spaces per unit. and they're all located within the building and we've maximized green space towards the rear. Going through the floor plans, we're proposing main entries for both units. At the ground level, one door facing the street and one interior, so you'll have your own private entryway.

As mentioned, we have a two-car garage for each unit, which is accessed through that 12-foot common driveway. The lower level will also have an office and a storage mechanical room. Moving up to the second floor, if we can scroll through the plans a little bit, we are proposing a O'Neill. Rear Deck. So each unit will have some private dedicated open space in the form of a deck on the second level. Then moving up to the third floor, we are proposing three-bedroom units. So each unit will have three bedrooms and two bathrooms. In terms of zoning relief, we do need relief for the townhouse use. We're also proposing an FAR of approximately 0.83 where 0.5 is allowed. We're proposing a three-story building where two and a half is allowed, but I would point out we are within the 35 foot height requirement.

We also are seeking relief for front yard. We have a 15 foot setback where 25 is required, but we are in line. With the abutting properties on both sides, and as you go down Kittredge Street, you'll see a dichotomy of kind of front yard setbacks with some being even smaller. So we feel 15 is in line with both our direct abutters on either side. and finally multiple dwellings on one lot was cited because these are two separate buildings. The applicant did go through an extensive community process. We attended multiple abutter meetings and we also met with the West Village Neighborhood Association. We've had several conversations with members of the Roslindale Coalition and direct abutters. Based on all these conversations, as mentioned, we have made several changes to the project. Some of that included redesigning the building, as I noted already, to better fit within the streetscape. We removed previously proposed roof decks. We did reduce two units. This originally started out as a six-unit project. We're now at four total.

As mentioned, we eliminated the previously proposed exterior parking and that allowed us to increase the open space and we've also worked with neighbors and an arborist on tree preservation and we'll be maintaining the majority of the trees around the side yard. and Rear Yard, wherever possible, wherever the trees are healthy. Just to conclude, we did submit a few letters of support through the board. And with that, I'll pause and take any questions the board may have.

Thank you. Are there questions from the board? I do. I was just going to ask, is there a landscaping plan on the set?

I believe if we scroll up, there is on the architectural site plan, we do have some landscaping called out, I believe, which also highlights many of the trees which are being maintained.

Thank you. Ms. Better Barraza?

Yes, I wanted to get an assessment from the arborist on the front tree. And the plant is noted that it's poor condition, but the arborist actually... Say it was poor condition that it should be removed or poor condition that it should be maintained and trimmed.

So the arborist support, as mentioned, did look at all the significant trees and noted that front tree as in poor condition. It noted significant decay, insects burrowing into it, and structural deficiencies. It was actually one of the worst trees on the site plan, the arborist report. They didn't specifically recommend immediate removal, but certainly recommended that there's structural issues and it's probably should be removed in the near future.

Any other questions from the board? Let's open it up to public testimony.

Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Bembry. I am the Roslindale Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Naval Services. The applicant has completed the community process, which consisted of two of his meetings facilitated on August 5th. of 2024 and September 4th, 2025, the most recent of which was well attended and very well received by Abutters. Abutters voiced their appreciation to the proponent for implementing changes to the proposal according to the feedback from the first Abutters meeting. A further discussion regarding the trees on the property was also agreed upon for a later date as a concern for trees was raised during the meeting. Next, a proposal was presented to West Village Neighborhood Association and with no opposition completed the community process. To date, our office has received eight levels of support from the proposals with its changes. Thank you for your time, and the Mayor's Office of Benefits Services would like to defer to the board for their judgment.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, next we have Loree.

Good morning. Thank you for taking my testimony. I'm Lori Radwin. I live at 49 Augustus Avenue in Roslindale. I am a director of butter. I share a lot line. Although I am the Coalition Coordinator in Roslindale, I am here as an individual and I want to voice my full-throated support The development team and the abettors are to be commended in my opinion. This has been a nearly perfect community process. Thanks to Jeremy, by the way, on this. No person got everything they wanted, but everybody got something. And the project will add housing to our neighborhood without tearing down trees and while maintaining the quality of life that the abettors expressed their preferences for. The developers redrew and redrafted their plan based on the community process, incurring this expense without complaint. And I urge the board to support the proposal as written. Thank you. Thank you.

And next we have Erin Mack.

Erin. Hi. Yes, can you guys hear me? Yes, ma'am. Okay. Yeah, my name is Ari McDonald. I live across the street. As a longtime resident in a butter who was, you know, born on the street and I've lived here the past decade. I believe that the new rebuild is a good fit for the neighborhood. During the whole process, the owner and the designers have been really wonderful and receptive to our feedback. I think they took the time to really hear us out and make those changes. And yeah, I just support this development and I think it's going to positively impact our area and give us much needed housing. So, I am in support as well.

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

All right. With that, may I have a motion?

Madam Chair, I'd like to also just commend the architect's effort in the way that they propose increased density in the way in which they designed the massing and just not allowing for Thank you. Thank you. I did notice that the front yard setback of requirement is 25 feet. I think BPD can work with the architect to relocate the building in such a way that We preserve the mature tree that is in front. So that's basically just my recommendation and comment. I would like to put forward a motion of approval with a provisal that the project undergoes BPD design review.

to specifically look at the location of the building and its site plan. Is there a second? To preserve the mature tree. Second.

Second. Mr. Stembridge. Yes. Mr. Valencia. Yes. Ms. Turner. Yes. Ms. Barraza. Yes. Mr. Collins.

Yes.

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

Next, we have case BOA 177.

1652 with the address of 148 Millard Street.

The applicant and or their representative, President, would they please respond in case of the board?

Yes, Mr. Secretary. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is James Christopher of 686 Architects with the business address of 10 Forge Road in Braintree. Excuse me. I'm here today on behalf of...

Sorry, I need to recuse.

Okay. So we are now a six-member board.

Thank you. Here today on behalf of Bonnie Alves, and she's the owner of 148 Millard Street, which is currently a paved vacant lot. 2,708 square feet. We are proposing to construct a three story, three unit residential building. Next slide, please. As a part of this project, we are seeking some relief from the zoning code, which includes off-street parking, screening, and buffering. Lot area, the required lot area is 6,000 square feet. Again, we are at 2,780. Lot width and frontage, which is required to be, actually, I think we meet that at 48. I think that violation is an error, but we were cited for it at 40 feet, and we have 48 feet of proposed frontage. FAR which is allowed to be 0.4 and we are at 1.29 with 3,492 square feet.

Building height is excessive in stories, which is allowed to be two and a half stories. We are proposing three. And then the front and side yard setbacks. The front yard setback is 15 feet. We are at... 6'5 to the bows and 9 feet to the main building which is consistent with the modal and our butters and then the side yard is insufficient at 10 feet and we are at 3.7 on the right at the smallest point at the narrowest and 12.8 to 6.3 on the left. Next slide, please. This is our site use plan. We have 1,400 square feet of open space. So the violation for screening and buffering, we can certainly include Robust planting and fences along the property line, which we can work with the BPDA and design review on that should the project be approved. Next slide, please.

As we get into the floor plans, we are only proposing a partial basement which will house the mechanical, electric room and sprinkler room at the front of the building which will be accessed by a common stair. And then on the first level, each unit is typical. It's a 959 square foot unit, three bedrooms, two baths with the living on the right side and the bedrooms wrap around toward the rear. Next slide, please. This is the second and third floor. Next slide. Roof plan, no roof deck on this building. And this is the building in elevation. Again, it's a pretty traditional double boat, three-decker. There's a lot of examples in the area. The building next door is very comparable to this. We met with the Butters and the Civic Association. The project was fairly well received. But with that, I'll turn it over to any questions.

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

Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Bembry. I'm the Dorchester Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the committee process, which consisted of an abutters meeting held on May 6th with no guests in attendance. There were no concerns raised. Next, the proponent presented to Talbot, Milford, Triangle, where the vote will remain neutral and the proposal is allowed to move forward. Thank you for your time, and the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services would like to defer to the Board of the Judge.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we have Timothy.

You are on mute, Timothy.

Sorry, good afternoon Madam Chair, members of the board. Timothy Guimon from Councilor Worrell's office. We would like to go on record in support of this project. Thank you very much.

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

Okay, with that, may I have a motion?

Motion for approval. Is there a second? Mr. Stembridge. Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza?

Yes.

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

Thank you very much.

Next, we have case BOA 175-9646.

with the address of 49 Alpha Broad.

If the applicant and or their representative are present, will they please explain the case to the board? Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Gary Webster. I am the president of Taj Development Company LLC with an address of 49 Mather Street in Dorchester. Just a short walk from the project site. I'm also joined by Daniel Fugere, Senior Associate at Stack Architecture. Before you today, we'll be presenting a classic Dorchester triple-decker, ADA compliant, with a fourth dwelling unit proposed in the finished basement. The newly constructed building would replace a long-standing vacant lot at the top of Alpha Road, completing a role of existing triple-deckers and serving as the type of infill development we believe the Dorchester Zoning Code Dorchester section of the Boston Zoning Code ceased to promote.

Alpha Roll begins along Waldeck Street as single-family Victorian homes built in the 1890s, and according to city records, around 1910, the street began to transition to The triple-decker three-family homes we're more accustomed to seeing in Dorchester today. This was presumably to offer housing for working-class families. The Lucy Stone School right nearby was built in 1899 and the three families that were built after that tract, which are a lot different than the Victorian homes that were built previously to that in the Melville Park neighborhood. The proposed project aims to fill in this remaining vacant lot where a structure once sat. According to public records and available maps, there was a structure here that was demolished sometime around 1968 or 1969. We're seeking to replace that demolished building with a new building consistent in scale and form with the existing neighborhood.

With an understanding that safer building codes and modern utility systems allow for greater use of below-grade areas for living space. But I'll now turn it over to Dan Figueri, who will go through the design presentation.

Yeah, we can go to the next slide. This is just showing the kind of access to public transit, which is also the Four Corners and Shawnee. Red line stops are within a 10 to 15 minute walk, as well as the Main Bus 23. As you can see, we're kind of trying to fill in the missing tooth of the street with Triple Decker Kind of matching consistency of height and front yard setback to its neighbors on the left and right. As Kerry had mentioned, we're proposing a four-unit structure. Units 1 through 3 are similar in kind in layout and the basement unit has access via the central stair.

Yeah, so level one, we have the main living room off the front porch, the ground floor unit. has access from that common portion and there's a dedicated stair to the central stair to bring you either down to the basement or to the UMS above. These are the similar floor plans, all two bedroom units, two bathroom. These are the elevations. We're proposing 35 feet. The building is raised 38 inches above the grade. This is kind of in kind to the other Projects on the street with the sideways entry off the porch so the stairs have a greater landing space for pedestrians to access the covered porch.

These are the side elevations. This east elevation is showing the size of windows in that basement unit, so we're still allowing for A decent amount of natural light to that basement unit so it won't feel like a basement while you're within that space. And then these are just the typical sections cutting through that space, giving a generous eight foot five interior height for each unit. And that concludes the project.

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'm the Dorchester Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the committee process, which consisted of an headquarters meeting held on September 11th. With one guest present, no concerns were raised. Next, the proposal was presented to Millville Park Service Association. which completed the community process. To date our office has not received any further community feedback at this time to my knowledge. Thank you for your time and the Mayor's Office of Infant Services would like to defer to the Board for their judgment.

Thank you. Thank you. Next we have Timothy.

Thank you again, Madam Chair, members of the board, Timothy Guimon from Councilor Brian Worrell's office. We would like to defer to the board's judgment on this matter. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next, we have Arlene.

Hi, good morning, board members and Madam Chair. Can you hear me?

Yes, ma'am.

OK, thank you. My name is Arlene Simon. I live at 25 Alpha Road. I've been living on this street for 39 years. The lot has been vacant for... 60 or 70 or 80 years because it's actually too narrow to build on. We sent, we and I mean my neighbors, 25 of my neighbors and I, we sent a letter of opposition to the board last week were opposed to this Project for a variety of reasons. Number one, it violates every single code available. And the board itself has denied this through a rejection letter back in August. As it's designed, there's going to be a minimum five foot setback all around, including the front and back, which greatly imposes on the neighboring residents' privacy.

The location itself is in a very dangerous location. Alpha Road has a dog leg turned to the left and this Lot is on the left right at that dog leg turn and so when you turn on the street you have no idea what you're coming up to and there's no way there can be any construction vehicles on the street because it's too narrow. with parking on both sides. Thank you. Can you please just? Yeah. So anyway, it's just a dangerous location. The lot is too narrow. It imposes on everybody's privacy. and parking on the street as it stands is impossible. We have cars parked in front of the fire hydrants all the time because there is no parking on this street. There's no place for construction vehicles or any new vehicles. And there's no storage for future tenants.

Okay, next we have another person from the attendance section is with the iPhone 22.

Yes, my name is Mercedes Tompkins. I am in a butter down at the bottom of the hill. I would like to reinforce what Arlene has said that It's, I don't know, there's development on Park Street. We go around the street from Park Street and the parking has been, It's grown and it's really bad. We also, I want to add, we had another community meeting that of the abutters on the street and actually our lead hosted that meeting and there were about 10 Ten butters that were at that meeting. Some who lived directly across the street that didn't get the notice to the original meeting. So the process for us was, you know, I understand it can be sticky, but not everybody got notified.

The people next door, the people behind did not get notified. I am opposed to this because of quality of life issues. A number of our butters have sold their houses because they can't really have kids on the street. Traffic, parking, we're downhill. and people speed down the hill, especially now because we don't have bumps on our hill and we won't have them for another two years. And that is the extent of what I want to go into. I just think for quality of life, it's just not okay.

Thank you, ma'am.

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

Can the applicant address these concerns?

Thank you, Madam Chair. So I believe, you know, we did flyer We took photographs and submitted them to the mayor's office, which allowed us to move forward with this process. On Alpha Road, on that stretch of Alpha Road, the majority of the lots were about 37 and so on. 300 foot radius that expressed concerns that they were not notified. We then held a follow-up meeting with those abutters at Mr. Simon's house, where we proposed the project. And a lot of the concerns that were raised could not be could not be addressed by the project.

They were mentioning quality of life or parking or traffic, things that we're experiencing in Dorchester in general could not be directly addressed by the project itself. The lot size is the same as all of the three family lots on that end of Alpha Road. We did receive support letters from our direct abutters to our left and our right. at 47 Alpha Road and 51 Alpha Road, which were submitted for the record prior to the hearing. And the volume of the violations In my opinion is more just an example the zoning code is restrictive as opposed to this building being out of context with the surrounding neighborhood. Logistically Logistically, scheduling will be a major part of this project to limit the impacts, limit truck deliveries and parking, potentially going with modular to

to lessen the framing and construction process. But the gist of the project we do believe is entirely consistent with the three families and that end of Alfa Road. But due to the topography of the site, it somewhat slopes down. We were able to capture some height, building code height for a finished basement. So we proposed a fourth unit. Also, the site is within walking distance of Melville Park, Four Corners, Fields Corner, and Codman Square neighborhoods. And we believe that those who may not rely on a car for their property The transportation would find this location desirable and we're very happy with the scale and form of the project.

Thank you.

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

Motion of approval.

Is there a second?

Second.

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

Yes.

Mr. Collins?

Yes.

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

Next, we have case VOA. 171-1024 with the address of 9 Longfellow Street. If the applicant and or the representative of the president would please explain the case to the board. Is there anyone present for 9 Longfellow Street?

I think there is. Steve, one second. Steve is in the attendance section. Steve, please accept the request.

Good morning Madam Chair and the Board. Can you hear me now? Yes. Okay. Good morning Madam Chair and the Board. This is Stephen Dubois. I'm a contractor speaking on behalf of the family Nguyen family at 9 Longfellow Street. If you could scroll to the second slide. We're just proposing a dormer for their existing storage room because the roof was leaking and it's a confined space and they just wanted to add more adequate height in this space. So if you scroll to the next slide, this is the proposal on the next slide of what it would actually look like from the street view, a slight rendering of the addition, just to give adequate head height in the in the storage room. And if you scroll to the next slide, that is currently the existing, go back one slide, please.

That is currently the existing storage room and there's not enough adequate head height for To walk through it and store anything properly or efficiently and the owners would like to add a dormer so that it can be a more usable space. If you scroll to the next slide, this is currently the existing condition and the reason for our refusal letter. The side yard is insufficient and we're asking for some relief so that this donor can be raised and then The livable space would actually be more usable for the family to store their stuff.

And just to be clear, that side yard institution is pre-existing. You're not exacerbating that with this project?

No, we're just going straight up. It's existing there. We're not, there's no overhang. There's no... Great, thank you. Thank you.

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

Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Bembry. I'm the Dorchester Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process, which consisted of an abutters meeting facilitated on October 1st, with no guests present. No concerns were raised. The following day of barbers meeting no further committee process was required and our office is confident the proposal is non-controversial and is approved to go before the zoning board. To date, our office has not received any further community feedback. Thank you for your time and the Mayor's Office of Hayward Services would like to confer to the court for their judgment.

Thank you. Thank you. Madam Chair, members of the Board, I'm Liam Remus from Councilor Fitzgerald's office. Our offices have gone on record to support this proposal. Thank you.

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

Okay, would that man have a motion? Motion to approve. Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza? Yes. Mr. Collins?

Yes.

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

Next, we have case BOA 1724120 with the address of 157 to 157A Howard Avenue. If the applicant and or their representative are present, will they please explain the case report?

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is John Lyons. I'm an attorney with an office Can you speak closer to the mic?

I don't know if anyone else is having trouble hearing you. Can you hear me now? Not that much better.

How about now? Okay, thank you. Sorry about that. My name is John Lyons. I'm an attorney with an office at 80 Copeland Street in Quincy, Massachusetts. I'm here this morning with the proponents, Lisa and Al Beasley. who are lifelong Boston residents and 30-year residents immediately adjacent to this project. Also with me is Jennifer Ha, the architect, at Hugh Architecture located in Dorchester. This property is located in Dorchester. It is within the Roxbury zoning district in a 3,000 or 4,000 district. The proposal is for five units. Jennifer will get more into the detail about the dimensional requirements and violations and the specific

I would just briefly outline the fact that this is creating five units of housing in a neighborhood on a lot which has been vacant for probably 50 or 60 years. It is on a corner, a curved corner, and I think when you see the design that Jennifer presented, It fits perfectly not only with the streetscape and the context of the neighborhood respecting the existing architecture, But the way the building is scaled down on the corner, it almost appears to be two attached dwellings. It fits well. There are violations, but they're fairly typical within this neighborhood, which is fairly dense. The lot is trapezoidal in shape so it tapers on the front of the proposed building and is located on a corner lot. I think that creates the difficulty and the hardship which justifies granting

In addition, the cost of construction now almost dictates building a few more units than the code would permit to justify doing the project economically. Again, the violations in this instance are common among the existing dwellings in the immediate area. It's a mixture of two, three, and multi-family dwellings all within the 300-foot radius. There are some newer structures in this neighborhood. But the majority of the existing structures are early 20th century construction. Parking requirement is five spaces. Opposed rear yard parking will provide three, which again is comparable to other properties in the immediate area. A lot has frontage on Howard Avenue and Dahlkeith Street, and there is parking along the street. And I think that the presentation by Jennifer will include some photographs that show how much

The curb there actually is in this neighborhood. When you hear Dorchester or Roxborough you think it's so dense that you'll never find a parking space, but this particular location does have. And the reduced parking is also in conformity with the current planning initiative of the city to reduce parking when it's possible. Again, the design complements the existing character of the neighborhood. I believe the proposed relief is minimal. in harmony with the spirit and intent of the code. Now I will hand off to Jennifer to explain the actual proposed design. Thank you.

Hello Madam Chair and the Board. I apologize for a little tardiness. I turned on my video and my Zoom crashed. So I will introduce myself. My name is Jennifer Ha, the Principal Architect at HUE Architecture. My office is located at 53H Harvard Street in Thorchester. and I will be presenting the proposed five-unit residential project at 157 Howard. If we can go to the first page, that would be helpful. Thank you. The site is 4,330 square feet. It's a vacant corner lot abutting Howard Ave and Dahlkeith Street. It is in the 3F4000 zone. The proposal is to build a new five-unit dwelling facing Howard Ave. with three on-grade parking spaces facing Dahlkeith Street. The Locust site map, you can see the proposed building massing. We feel the scale fits in context compared to its neighboring buildings. The houses on this block are comprised mostly of three families that sit on a parcel averaging 3,000 square feet.

We feel the proposed five family dwelling on the 4,330 square feet fits well in this context. Next page is the zoning refusal letter and you can skip that and you can skip the next page as well. This is the proposed site plan and we can go to the next page actually for the plans. So from these Sorry, next page with the next plans, the first floor plans, please. So from these plans, you will see the project comprises of five peanuts, one on the first floor, two on the second floor, and two on the third floor. Three of the units are three bedroom units and two of the units are one bedroom units. The owners, Lisa and Al, live in the brick building next door 159 Howard Ave for 29 years. They are retired and they plan to reside in the first floor ADA accessible unit during their golden age. So you see on the first floor plan that is meant for Lisa and Al to live with their family.

The second and third floor is two units on each floor, three bedrooms, one bath, and one bedrooms, one bath, and they're identical to each other. There is a small basement to host mechanical mutually use only. and we can go to, yes, the next, thank you. The design is a traditional three-story flat roof facade and it resembles the neighboring three-story If you go to the next slide, we designed a two-toned building to reflect the two units of two halves of the floor plan. The design includes front porches, balconies, front yard landscaping towards Howard and Dahlkeith, and we think that the design supports an attractive and desirable neighborhood appeal. That's the end of the presentation. Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there questions from the board? Hearing none, may I have public testimony? No, I have a question. Sorry. Go ahead. Have you looked at an alternative parking design which pays over less of that site and maybe Increases the usable open space.

The parking is, can we go to the site plan if possible so we can walk through that. Yes, so because of, if you zoom in quickly, the backup space, So the backup space right now, we're allowing a little bit over 20 feet. And so we basically are limited by just the backup distance of the cars. It's possible to have the cars Thank you for watching. for the cars. So it is possible to gain a little bit more green space and we're happy to review that.

And is that curb cut, how many spaces are you taking from the street with that curb cut?

The curb cut is only, I think it is 12 feet. So there isn't too much, it's actually not too much that's being taken care of. Let me check on how many spaces are allowed on that street. It looks like it's maybe taking away one parking spot.

Do you plan to enclose the parking the way that it's showing the enclosure right now on Google Earth?

The enclosure right now is done from the owners to protect the site from people loitering, but there will be new fencing that will be for the site. I think the actual Her cut will actually remain open and then the fence can be removed so that there is actually people living. They will be living in there so security will be put up for the property and that type of fencing is no longer needed.

Okay, thank you. I don't have any further questions.

With that, 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 Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process, which consists of an abutters meeting held on June 10th. But for a guest president, all inquiries were addressed during the meeting with no opposition voiced. Next, the proponent moved forward to present to Face 10 Street Residents Association Lawrence Ave Group, and Blue Hill Avenue, Quincy Street, Magnolia Street, and Howard Ave Neighborhood Association, and they have approved the proposal. To date, our office has not received any further community feedback at this time. Thank you for your time in the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services. I'd like to defer to the board for the...

Thank you. Thank you.

Next, we have a Michael Kosu. My name is Michael Kosu with Project Right. I hosted the neighborhood association meeting that Jeremy Reference the neighborhood recognizes that these are longstanding residents who've been positive for the community and are supporting this project.

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

Does that have a motion? Madam Chair.

Go ahead.

Yes, I'll make a motion approval 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 that off-street parking and rear yard. Is there a second? Second. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza?

Yes.

Mr. Collins? Sorry, yeah. Thank you. Ms. Pinado? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Happy Thanksgiving.

Next, we have case VOA.

1734300 with the address of 36 Julian Street.

If the applicant and or the representative present, will they please explain to the board?

Thank you, Mr. Stembridge, Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is Vernon Woodworth with the business address of 11 Elizabeth Street in Mattapan. I'm here with the owner and applicants. Manny Baptista to describe the construction of a new three-family at 36 Julian Street. I believe you'll be hearing confirmation of our successful neighborhood I'm both in a Butters meeting and a successful meeting with the Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative. This is a 3D version of the proposed project showing a cantilever to allow parking, off-street parking of two spaces, two out of the three required. Next slide, please. And the plot plan shows this is a narrow lot. It's undersized, which is why we are cited for minimum lot area.

The parking is behind the building with access along the side, making the first floor Specifically, very narrow, but the second and third cantilevering partially over that parking access. Next slide please. Okay, we have the violations cited here, which I'll go through one by one. I mentioned minimum lot area. This is an allowed use of three dwelling units in this 3F5000 zone. The actual lot area is only It's less than 3,000 square feet. And so we require variance for lot area and additional lot area.

Lot width and frontage are cited as well, but for the FAR, the maximum allowed is 0.8 in this zone, and we are only at 0.9, so that's not a major increase. Height is compliant, usable open space somewhat below the required 650 with 528 square feet. The front yard is six feet, but it's not specifically sited because of the street line alignment provision. The side yard is compliant on the parking side but tapers down to five feet on the other side. And the rear yard is four feet and a few inches short of the required 30 feet. And parking, as I mentioned, requires three spaces. We're providing only two.

So that more or less sums up our presentation. Happy to take any questions.

Thank you. Are there questions from the board? hearing none to have public testimony.

Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Bembry. I am the Dorchester Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process, which consisted of an avoidance meeting facilitated on September 18th that was well attended and received overwhelming support from all. Next, the proposal was presented to Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative, where they approved the proposal to move forward in the process. To date, our office has received two letters of support supporting the proposal addressing the housing crisis from Senator Liz Miranda's office and State Representative Worrell's office. 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.

Thank you. Madame Chair, I'm sorry, I think there is one person who wants me to read the support that is in the chat. Do you want me to read it or is enough? If you want. Okay, this is from a new beginning re-entry services, 36 Castle Street, Asadulo Square, Merchant, Daughter, Carrie Kim from Alpha and Omega We have been an advocate for re-entry in the community since 1980s. We have also been a board member and advisor for many of the re-entry nonprofits including the Haley House since 1988. Reentry Day programs have been overdue to our Roxbury community for decades. We support MBRS.

As a proud neighbor of the amazing ongoing realm to work especially with our senior neighbors coming home. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Okay, thank you.

Any other raised hands?

There are no additional comments.

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

make a motion of approval so that they coordinate with the planning department for design review. Thank you. Is there a second? Second.

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

Yes.

Mr. Collins?

Yes.

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

Thank you very much.

Next we have case VOA 1730941 with the address of 36 Gaston Street, If the applicant and or their representative present, will the police explain the case to the board?

Madam Chair, I need to recuse myself.

Yes, thank you. We are now a six-member board.

Good morning Madam Chair and members of the board. I'm Steve Bartlett from Foley Hill Ag LLP in Boston. On behalf of our client New Beginnings Reentry Services Inc., which is the applicant in this appeal, we're here today to request a conditional use permit for a community center use at 36 Gaston Street in Dorchester. A community center use would allow New Beginnings to continue to provide reentry and other critical services to formerly incarcerated individuals who are in the process of rebuilding their lives outside of correctional institutions. I'm here today with Stacey Borden, who is the Executive Director of New Beginnings. In a minute, Stacey can speak in more detail about the proposed day program that is at the heart of this appeal. Before that, I'll just briefly explain the procedural history of this request and the property at 36 Gaston Street.

For several years now, New Beginnings has been providing reentry and wraparound services to formerly incarcerated individuals at 36 Gaston Street as part of a transitional housing program. The Board of Appeals first approved the transitional housing use in 2021 along with certain revisions to the building, which is a single family home in Dorchester. That initial board approval had a one-year sunset. Then in 2022, the board extended the approval for the transitional housing use For an additional three years and the construction activities that were approved by the board were completed in 2023 and a final certificate of occupancy was issued on October 18th of 2023. As Stacy will explain in just a moment, New Beginnings has made the decision to pivot away from a transitional housing model to providing services through a day program format.

This programmatic shift is for a number of reasons, including the fact that changes to applicable laws and Department of Corrections policy have led to a decrease in the number of formerly incarcerated individuals who are seeking transitional housing services. However, there remain many formerly incarcerated individuals who would stand to benefit from the variety of in-person and virtual services that New Beginnings provides. Therefore, consistent with its mission, New Beginnings is modifying its program structure and applying for this new conditional use, which again is for a community center. In an effort to meet those individuals where they are. And finally, before I turn it over to Stacy, I just want to confirm to the board that the present appeal does not propose any construction activities or physical changes. to the building at 36 Gaston Street.

The only relief being requested at this time is a change in occupancy of the premises from transitional housing to community center. and I'll now turn it over to Stacey so she can speak about the details of the day program but I'm also available to answer any questions that the board may have.

Thank you so much, Attorney Bartlett. Good morning, Madam Chair and Board. My name is Stacey Borden. I am the founder and executive director of New Beginners Rancho Services. I hold a master's degree in mental health. I'm a licensed substance abuse counselor and I'm trauma-informed certified. As Steve, Attorney Bartlett explained, we are a day center now and we serve a number of genders, all genders actually, and we've cut down

Right from one day to the end, you are freezing on and off.

Sorry, something with my computer keeps shifting. You can try to... Is my voice cutting off?

Yeah, maybe just go off camera. It's probably just bandwidth. Okay. A little better? Yes, ma'am.

So we have an amazing team here at New Beginners Renting Services. I want to say that all the programs that we provide to focus on our population that are coming out of prison environments to help them really be successful in their reentry. We've had 99% We've had a recidivism rate since the past nine years and we continue to keep our policies basically the same as when we were residential. Our policies is the same. Our population comes out. We have good neighbor policies. We feed the community. We have a pantry on a lawn. We have a book pantry. We have a knock-hand kiosk.

We provide substance abuse counseling to financial literacy to anger management and healing. We have amazing culinary artists in partnership with Berklee School of Music and Emerson Prison Project. We do a lot of communication skills with the Bridge Project through Everyday Boston and really just trying to provide holistic care to our population that comes out of these prison environments. So our mission again is really to empower and uplift our individuals that are impacted. and coming back to community and families. And so I know that I keep going in and out. I think I can stop here. I'm really grateful for this presentation and grateful for our Foley Hoag team that has really been guiding us these past almost four or five years.

So Attorney Bartlett explained.

That's good Madam Chair? You're great. Are there questions from the board? Thank you. Hearing no questions from the board, we'll take public testimony.

Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Benberry. I'm the Dorchester Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process which consisted of an abodes meeting facilitated on August 11th that was well attended and received support from majority of attendees. Supporters were outside of their voting radius with one civic member voicing concerns for how a community center, a commercial property, being placed between residential properties can be justified as a necessity. Next, a proposal is presented to Harborne Garnett. Gaston, Otisville Betterment Association on October 27th where a vote from non-opposition was reached with the request of our provisional deed restriction to remain residential. Again, so their vote was the non-opposition with the request for a provisional deed restriction to have the place remain residential. To date, our office has received two letters of support supporting the change from transitional residential housing to an adult reentry day center. Thank you for your time, and the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services is elected to present the board with the agenda.

Thank you. Thank you. Madam Chair, we have two people in the attendee section, but the person, Michael Kozu, I'm not sure if you're speaking again.

Yes, my name is Michael Kozu. I'm with Project Rye Inc. We're at 320, the letter A, Blue Hill Avenue. We're etching a butter to the property as well. We actually hosted the Hope Organic Arts in Oldsville Betterment Association meeting. They do want to ask that a proviso be submitted as part of this process that this Conversion of this decision would be made to this applicant only. And any future development or changes to the property with a new property owner be brought back through a community process. This site is in a block of two family houses and the association wants to make sure that once New Beginnings

goes on to another adventure that this property comes back to community process. Thank you so much. Thank you.

Next, we have Yvonne Claire.

Yes, good morning, Madam Chair and Zoning Board members. I'm Eva Clark for Austin Street in Dorchester, Executive Pastor of Life Church. Just wanted to express my enthusiastic support for this proposal. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. And the last comment is that the person, the comment that I read previously, he was in support for this project from Carrie Kim.

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

I think this is a really good project and important to support the community. We also received several layers of support, so I make a motion of approval.

May I have a second?

Second.

Second. Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza. Oh, she confused herself, sorry. Mr. Collins.

Yes.

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

Thank you so much. Happy holidays, everyone.

You two. Thank you.

Next, we have Casey.

Do you want to ask about withdrawals?

Thank you for the reminder, Madam Chair.

Since we passed the 11 o'clock hour,

We'll ask if there are any requests for withdrawals or deferrals from the 11 o'clock hour. Hearing done, return to case BOA. 174-4076 with the address of 32 Hanson Street. If the applicant and or their representative are present, will they please explain the case to the board?

Yes, Madam Chair, John Moran, Alpine Advisory Services with the mailing address of 130 Beach Road, Orleans, Mass. This is a project in the South End. in a multi-residential row house district and subject to Landmarks Review. The scope of the project is to change the occupancy from three dwelling units to two dwelling units Extension exterior facade renovations, including new windows, interior alterations to accommodate the change of occupancy. to extend living space into the basement for the use of Unit 1, to legalize an existing roof deck for the exclusive use of Unit 2, to install two roof condensers, rear facade renovations and openings including two

Rear decks above the street level, which will project six feet into the rear yard and be supported by brackets. The scope of the work and the cost triggers groundwater applicability. The approved Boston Water and Sewer Commission site plan plus its compliance letter has been filed with ISD and the whole harmless letter has been filed with the Groundwater Trust. Madam Chair, do you wish? A separate vote on this and have Kristen confirm conformity with these filings or should I proceed? You should proceed. We'll do this together. Okay, the first violation cited is the proposed townhouse extension in the rear yard. If we could screen to A202 for reference.

This is it. It shows the proposed two rear decks, which would be supported by brackets and extending into the rear yard. It also shows the existing roof deck. which is screened from the Hanson Street by existing architectural features. If we could screen down to 201. This shows the view of the front facade. Landmarks has approved all the proposed facade restorations and renovations. Again, the architectural feature of the roof screens the existing roof deck. To seeking legalizing the roof deck, it triggers restrictive roof structure regulations which are intended to preserve the uniformity of the streetscape.

and respectfully suggest that legalizing this existing deck will not alter the viewscape of Hanson Street. The last violation is citing for a rear yard insufficiency. This is a technical question and I respectfully suggest that this is not a violation pursuant to Section 37 of the Code. If we look at the initial diagram of the project, we'll note that the rear wall is not parallel with the lot line and at one corner of the of the right on the diagram the extension is 18 and a half feet rather than the required 20 feet however the average

of the extension is 22 and a half feet. And pursuant to section five, this is deemed compliant. So I would leave it to the board to determine If any relief as to this cited violation is necessary. With that, I am open to questions.

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

Hello, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Emma Jones, representing the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services. Regarding 32 Hanson Street, our office defers to the board's judgment on this matter. A community process was conducted including an abutters meeting held on 9-16-25 that was likely attended by about two community members. The feedback from this meeting was concerned with the scale of the project and the historical nature of the neighborhood. Due to the description on the refusal letter not aligning with the proposed work on the first butters meeting, my office requested a The second upvoters meeting to ensure that the community was appropriately notified and was hosted on 10-625. That was not attended by any community members. The proposal was also reviewed by the Eight Streets Neighborhood Association and did not require the applicant to meet with them. 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.

Good morning. Sorry? Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is Melissa Lowe and I would be speaking on behalf of Councilor Flynn's office. Flynn would like to go on record in support based on a good community process and no concerns raised by neighbors and the Atlas Neighborhood Association. He respectfully asked the team to continue to work closely with the community on any quality of life issues during the construction phase. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next we have Christian Simonali. Good morning Madam Chair, Members of the Board, Christian Simonali, Boston Groundwater Trust, and we have both G-card letters from the applicant. And Happy Thanksgiving to everybody. Thank you.

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

Okay, well that may have a motion. A motion of approval. Second. Second. Mr. Stembridge. Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza?

Yes.

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

Thank you very much. I wish you all a peaceful and happy Thanksgiving. Thank you. You too.

Next, we'll move on to the hearings. Schedule for 11 a.m. Can I quickly ask if there are any requests for withdrawals or deferrals from this time frame? and if not then we'll go on to case BOA 177-4198 with the address of 2-4 Danny Road If the applicant and or their representative are present, would they please explain the case to the board?

Good morning. My name is Attorney Anthony Musto. I represent the applicant Alessandro Musto of 167 Needham Street. Denham, Massachusetts. And this proposal is to seek a variance on parcel 181278 0010. It's the address. It's currently listed as 0 Danny Road in the Hyde Park, neighborhood of Boston in the rebuild section. The denial letter, which I can share on my screen, or the refusal letter, Let me show it. Okay, I'm unable to, believe I'm unable to share on my screen right now.

Please let us know, let the ambassador know where you want to go.

Okay. Okay, this would be the refusal letter. I don't know if it's showing up on my screen right now.

We don't see your screen. You can only refer to what is displayed from the Ambassador. Oh, okay.

All right. Okay. Okay. I apologize. Okay, so right now what's being shown on the screen looks like the floor plans. The project essentially received a denial for insufficient...

Um...

insufficient off-street parking, insufficient lot area, excessive floor area ratio, insufficient usable open space, Insufficient front yard setback and insufficient side yard setback. So the history of the law here is that It's two lots. It essentially is adjoining to a three-family residence in that area. The address is 6 Danny Road. This is 2 to 4 Danny Road. The address at 6 Danny Road. The three-family lot was built back in 1910 prior to the zoning code within the city of Boston. It was actually under the Norfolk County's jurisdiction at that time.

Subsequent to that in 19, I believe it's 1947 the owner of The 6th Danny Road purchased, became the owner of both this lot in question and that specific three-family property. The property remained there adjoining to 2-4, rather 6 Danny Road up until now. Both of the properties are next to each other. They have separate tax bills. Alex Musto or Alessandro Musto, the petitioner, has a bona fide purchase and sale agreement for the lot itself. and not the three-family residence that has a separate tax bill. This has been presented to the Neighborhood Committee and the Mayor's Office.

In the past, I wasn't present at the original neighborhood meeting. However, from what I heard, The neighborhood was opposed to building anything on the lot, notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner, Alex Musto, is seeking to erect a two-family dwelling. I believe there was a previous buyer who backed out or did not proceed with purchasing the property. He was seeking a three-family residence. Mr. Musto thought a two-family residence Thank you for watching. It will still lead to prospective buyers to homeownership within the city of Boston. Mr. Musto has been a builder, a very experienced builder for 30 years, and he's, you know,

He's done similar projects within the High Park neighborhood in the past. He's even built a residence on the other street for his own son on Como Road in High Park. and so this particular project you know he'll be addressing any sort of issues he's he's not he's not a factory by any means or he's not a large large company he's a sole proprietor so he'll be He would be, if this variance were allowed, he would be able to, you know, essentially he's there on a day-to-day basis. Micromanaging the project. He's had nothing but great things said about him in the past for previous home sales.

Mr. Muslin, why don't we pause here and let folks ask questions. Sure. Can you just go through the dimensional violations, particularly the side yards?

Yes, it's just, I guess I'm a little... Like what's required and what are you proposing?

Right.

What's missing is a site plot plan. Usually we see a survey plot plan and it's not included in the plans.

I do have it right here. Let me see here.

And you can't share screen, so we don't have it.

OK. I do. Is there any way I could email this over if we get a second call to try to share it?

Well, I don't know if it's just the deferral or what are you... Yeah, can I make a recommendation?

I'm not sure which one's sooner, a full board Tuesday meeting or a subcommittee, but I can see this being brought in front of the subcommittee if that is sooner. Caroline.

Looking at dates, the next opportunity this could be on would be January 27th, the next Subcommittee would be January 22nd.

Okay, so we're talking about the difference of five days. So any preference?

January 22nd, that's a good day.

Okay, so may I have a motion? Madam Chair, I'd like to put forward a motion of deferral for January 22nd. And please, if the applicant can ensure that you submit your survey plot plan to the ambassador to be included in the submission right after this meeting would be helpful. We can't review the project without a certified plot plan, so we need to see that.

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

Yes.

Mr. Collins? Yes. Ms. Pinado? Yes. Chair votes yes. Motion carries. See you then.

Thank you.

Next, we have case BOA 175-4250.

with the address of 18 Winchester Street.

Is the applicant and or their representative present? Will they please explain to the board?

Yes, Mr. Stembridge. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board, attorney Derek Small of a business address of 51 Dobson Road. and we're here today seeking relief to replace the existing head house and erect the roof deck at 18 Winchester Street. The zoning sub-district here is a row house sub-district and we have one violation and that's roof structure restriction. Madam Chair, members of the board, the deck and the head house already exist. But because we had some renovations within the property, we were cited by the zoning code for the roof structure restriction, which the zoning code requires a hatch, and the building code requires the head house. Because we are nine stories, no, because we are five stories, excuse me, the building code requires us to have a head house.

On top for access to the roof and that is our sole violation. You guys probably saw in the file this did go through Bay Village Historical Society and was approved as well. So we're just replacing what was there and we were cited on the conflict of the hatch versus the head house, which exists in a lot of areas in the city of Boston. Thank you. And the roof deck is exclusive for Unit 9 on the top floor.

OK. Are there questions from the board? Hearing none, may I put my testimony?

Hello Madam Chair and Providers of the Board, my name is Eva Jones representing the Mayor's Office of the Neighborhood Services. Regarding 18 Winchester Street, our Office of the Board's A community process was conducted, including on a Butters meeting held on 9-15-25 that was attended by two community members. The feedback from the meeting was overall no issues with the project, but some expressed some concerns about the construction vehicles in the neighborhood. My office did receive one letter in opposition expressing concerns over the head house. The proposal was also reviewed by both the Bay Village Neighborhood Association Planning Committee and the BB&A Executive Board at their meeting, and no formal opposition or support was expressed regarding the proposal. At this time, the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services defers to the Board's judgment on this matter. Thank you, everyone, for your time and consideration.

Good morning, Honorable Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is Melissa Lo, and I'm speaking on behalf of Councillor Flynn's office. And Councillor Flynn would like to go on record in opposition. Thank you.

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

Okay. With that, may I have a motion? I'll make a motion of approval. Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza? Yes. Mr. Collins? Yes. Ms. Pinado? Yes.

If you have votes yes, the motion carries. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. Have a good day and happy Thanksgiving to all. Jerry, did you call?

Did you say Turner? Oh, I'm sorry. I don't know. I'm in Turner. Yes.

I don't think you did. Thank you. It's okay. Thank you. Okay. Now the chair votes yes to the motion.

Thank you again.

Next, we have case VOA-175-5712. I'm sorry to interrupt.

Do you want to ask about 1130 referrals or withdrawals?

Thank you, Governor Pence. If we have any requests for withdrawals or deferrals from the 1130 time frame.

Yes, Mr. Stembridge, 87 Morris Street.

So those would be the containing cases at VOA 148-2368 at the address of 87 Mar Street. and also case of BOA 1482378, also with the address of 87 Morrow Street.

If you would go ahead and turn left. Yes, thank you, Mrs. Stembridge. Members of the board, Richard Lentz, 245 Sunder Street on behalf of the petitioner. Requesting a deferral, we've got a few items to still deal with on the building code matter, and I believe there's a groundwater item that's still being addressed. So we're blessing the girl.

Okay, dates? We can do January 27th, February 3rd, February 24th, March 10th. March 24th, April 7th.

And the January's fine, please. Okay, so January 27th.

Okay, with that, may I have a motion?

Motion to defer this case until January 27th. Is there a second? Second.

Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza? Yes. Mr. Collins? Yes. Ms. Pinado? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Thank you. 100 Huntington Ave. Please, Mr. Stembridge.

This request is for case VOA. 1-7-0-3-4-4-5 with the address of 100 Hunting Avenue.

Would you go ahead, Attorney Drago? Thank you, Ms. Stembridge. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the Board, Attorney Jeff Drago, and Drago and Toscano at the business address. of 11 Beacon Street. We are asking for a deferral on the matter. We need to go back before the neighborhood associations. for updates to both. We were asked by some of the elected officials as well as the group to appear and we do have to meet with the city councilor again to go over some changes and updates to this matter. So we are seeking deferral.

Thank you. Did any of those dates mentioned?

The 27th would be perfect if that's available.

Is that still available? Okay, so January 27th. May I have a motion?

Motion to defer this case to January 27th.

Is there a second? Second. Was that a second? Second. Okay, Mr. Stembridge. Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza?

Yes.

Mr. Collins? Yes. Ms. Pinado? Yes. Chair votes yes, the motion carries. See you then.

Thank you all. Have a wonderful Thanksgiving.

Mr. Stembridge, 18 Integral Street, please.

B.O.A. 170-7353 with the address of 18 Intervale Street.

Go ahead, Attorney Spence. Great. Thank you, Mr. Stembridge. Madam Chair, members of the Board, Attorney Ryan Spitz with Adams & Maranci, business address of 168 8th Street, 1st Floor. I'm here requesting another deferral on this matter. In full disclosure, Madam Chair, members of the board, I was retained by the applicant to represent them just at the hearing. With my advice, the applicant is making substantial changes in the plans, but there's been some lag time of getting an updated site plan as well as updated architectural drawings. So I'm here today, again, requesting that deferral. in order to allow for these substantial changes to be resubmitted to the board.

Okay, and what timeframe of the dates that was mentioned?

If anything later would be possible, so I would say late January if that's available or beginning of February just to allow them enough time considering that there's been some lag time between the two.

Caroline. We could do January 27th, February 3rd, February 24th.

January 27th should be perfect, please. Thank you.

Okay, last one, Caroline. May I have a motion?

Motion to defer this case to January 27th.

May I have a second? Second. Second. Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza? Yes. Mr. Collins? Yes. Ms. Pinado? Yes. Chair votes yes. Motion carries.

Thank you. If there are no further requests for withdrawing from the 11.30 timeframe, we'll return to the 11 o'clock hearings and go to case BOA-175.

5712 with the address of 242 Newbury Street.

If the applicant and or their representative are present, would they please explain to the board?

Hi, my name is Jason Zuby. I'm the owner of the Boston Tattoo Company. Currently, we are licensed to operate at 244 Newbury Street. We've been using 242. as our lobby area, which we were able to acquire after opening 244. So we are looking to add that use to that parcel for possible future expansion. I also have another Address next coming up, so I decided to do both at the same time. The 150 State Street address was a temporary, we were licensed here temporarily.

I'm sorry, were these supposed to be read as companion cases? Because we're on New Gray Street and you just mentioned State Street.

I'm sorry, yes, I think the next case will also...

Okay, so let's focus on this case and then we'll get to the next case.

Sure, so... That's the end of it. We'll just look at that.

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

Madam Chair and members, Siggy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This applicant completed the community process. Our office oversaw distribution of an informational flyer soliciting comments to all occupied parcels in a 300-foot radius. that solicited no responses. The applicant met with the neighborhood association of the Back Bay and has secured their non-opposition. That background, our office defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Madam Chair, there are no additional comments at the moment. Thank you. With that, may I have a motion?

Motion for approval. Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Barraza?

Yes.

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

Thank you.

Next, we have case BOA 175, 5641 with the address of 150 to 152 State Street. I believe this is Zuby? Yes.

Okay, please proceed.

Sure, so at this particular address earlier this year we did a pop-up event and we were licensed as a temporary body art studio through the City of Boston. and we are looking to change the use of the third floor to a body art studio. which really won't require much work at all since they had already been inspected by the City Health Department. It really doesn't require much work other than the equipment needed to run a tattoo studio.

Okay, thank you. Any questions from the board? Hearing none, may I have public testimony?

team, the mayor's office, neighborhood services. Regarding 150 to 152 State Street, our office differs to the board's judgment. A community process was conducted, including a distribution of subcoding flyers on 8-11-25. During the community comment period, I did not receive any feedback regarding the proposal. The Warp District Neighborhood Association reviewed the proposal and has expressed support. At this time, the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services defers to the Board's judgment on this matter. Thank you, everyone, for your consideration.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, there are no additional comments.

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

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza?

Yes.

Mr. Collins? Are you on mute, Mr. Collins? Okay. Ms. Pinado? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next, we have case VOA 1783949 with the address of 100 Utah Street.

If the applicant and or their representative are present, will they please explain the case to the board? Yes, thank you, Mr. Stembridge. And again, Madam Chair, members of the board, Richard Lins, 245 Sumner Street, East Boston. On behalf of the applicant, if we could just jump down maybe to slide three to give us a little bit of perspective here for what we're looking at. Next. Yeah, perfect. So, Madam Chair, members of the board, this is a proposal that we combine three separate lots into a single lot. The lot would then be a little over 2,000 square feet. Historically, these lots have been deed restricted through the city's Butters Lots program and have remained vacant probably since the late 1980s. I believe there was structure on this site Previously, it had burned down and the site had been cleared and remained vacant after a tax foreclosure.

So we are proposing to introduce a new three-story, four-unit residential dwelling on the site after we combine the lots. And although this is in the EBR3 zoning district, which typically allows three family or three units on a single lot, There's an exception in the ER3 that if your lot is more than 55 feet in width, then you are eligible to go up to a total of six units on a single lot. This lot, once combined, would have almost 60 feet of frontage along brook street which is the longer side of the lot and therefore it does qualify for the exception in EBR 3 zoning sub-district If we jump down to the next slide, I think we can probably go to slide 10 just to give a better perspective here of what we're looking at. Okay, so yeah, so we have the site plan here showing me three lots that are involved. Three particular lots are at the corner of Utah and Brook Street.

This is located in the Eagle Hill section of East Boston. We go to the next slide, please. We show the combined condition and the next slide will show the proposed condition. We can talk a little bit about the relief that's necessary from the dimensional violations that were cited. Next slide, please. So our structure would be located closer to the corner at Utah Street. We do have a setback, which would be the rear of the property at 10 feet. We also have a setback on the right side at three feet. The three-foot setback on the right is compliant with EBR 3. Because it's a corner lot fronting on a street, we would have to address setbacks both along Utah and Burke Street, which is one of the items that the Planning Department has cited in its recommendation to approve the project subject to design review.

With respect to the 10-foot setback, similar to the previous project I presented today, when we're dealing with a corner lot, the condition for the rear yard is really dictated by where the front door is located. or where the front door can be located. We, as I said, we would be allowed to be within three feet of the side yard If this were considered a side yard, but because it's considered a rear yard, we'd be required to have one third of the lot depth. I would remind the board that there is an exception in the code, although this doesn't specifically qualify for it. but we do have a shallow lot exception in East Boston that would permit a minimum of 10 feet where a calculation will be applied to show that this does not need the full depth of the rear lot setback that Thank you.

Thank you. We can probably go down to 17, which is the elevations of the building. So we show this is a three-story building. There is an overhang. That is consistent with the de minimis projection policy of the City of Boston applies for overhangs on the public way. We do not particularly require vertical discontinuance as long as we keep them at 36 inches. And that is something that will be permitted and certainly addressed as part of the design review. We have slide 19 if we go to the perspectives. Just to give you an idea from a three-dimensional standpoint as to how this would set up on the site. Again, you see that walkway down the right side, the big three-foot setback, and then how it would sit on the lot in relationship to the street in the corner.

We keep that setback in the rear, as I said, at about 10 feet. With respect to the relief that would be necessary, which was cited in the public notice and refusal letter, The front yard, a minimum of three feet is required. We are proposing one foot. However, we would suggest that the modal alignment may come into play, especially on the Brook Street side, to allow for this to be a closer setback than the three foot that's required. As I mentioned, the rear setback would be one-third of the lot depth because by combining the lots, we no longer qualify for the exception for the shallow lot. However, the code does permit a 10-foot setback in those instances. And with respect to off-street parking, we opted for, rather than having curb cut and parking at the ground level, there's really limited space for off-street parking on site. Instead, we're opting for a variance. I would point out to the board that while we are able to address the fourth unit or allow for the fourth unit,

based upon the lot width. We would not require any off-street parking at three units. It's the trigger up to the fourth unit that is Result of the violation of the Office Department requirements where it says one per unit is required. So I will pause there and take any questions from the board.

Thank you. Are there questions from the board?

No, I do agree in regards to the modal alignment. Sorry, I just lost my... on Brook Street, the motor alignment does make sense. And the three-foot setback as recommended by BPD on Utah Street makes sense given the adjacent property. No further questions. Thanks.

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

Hello, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Eva Jones, representing the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services. Regarding 100 Utah Street, our office defers the board's judgment on this matter. A community process was conducted, including an abutters meeting held on 8-20-25, which was attended by one community member who was not opposed to the proposal. The proposal was also reviewed by the Eagle Hill Civic Association at their meeting on 9-24-25 and they expressed support regarding the proposal and have voted 12 yes and 8 no regarding the proposal. At this time, the Mayor's Office and Urban Services is the first of the Board's judgment. Thank you everyone for your time and consideration.

Thanks, and we have somebody from the Councilor Coletta, Stephen, Steve.

Yes, hi, my name is Stefan, I'm from Councilor Coletta Zapata's office, and we would like to go on record in support of this project.

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

With that, may I have a motion? Madam Chair, I'd like to put forward a motion of approval with a provisal that the project undergoes BPD design review, specifically paying attention to Is there a second?

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

Yes.

Mr. Collins? Yes. Ms. Pinado? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck. Thank you very much. Have a great Thanksgiving. Thank you. With that, can we take a 15-minute break? Thank you.

Thank you. Recording stopped.

Let's do roll call. Mr. Stembridge. Are you back, Mr. Stembridge? Okay, we'll keep going. Mr. Valencia?

Here.

Ms. Turner? Here. Ms. Better Barraza?

Here, present.

Mr. Collins? Present. Ms. Pinado? Present. Mr. Stembridge.

Bear with me, Madam Chair. Can you hear me or not?

We sure can.

I'll hold off on the camera for right now, please.

Okay, no worries. What is yours, Mr. Stembridge? I think you skipped Ms. Turner.

I did? Again? Did I skip you, Ms. Turner? No, you didn't. No, I'm here, though.

Thanks. Okay, guys.

Listen, I know I'm having a hard time.

I'm sorry.

Okay, all right. Well, the floor is yours, Mr. Stembridge.

Thank you, Madam Chair. With that, we'll go to the rediscussions scheduled for 11.30 a.m. and we'll ask again if there are any withdrawals or deferrals requested from this time frame. In that case, we'll move on to case B. BOA-175-0079 with the address of 2 Bonad Road.

If the applicant and or their representative are present, will they please explain the case to the court? Hi, good morning. My name is Edwin Lorenzana. I'm the homeowner. Can you guys hear me okay? Can I make sure?

Yes, sir.

Okay, ma'am, the changes that we're making is just to the home that we live in. We've had a family member, my mother-in-law, who had a double lung transplant, so she's gonna be living with us. The unit, the part of the basement was unfinished. I just used it as a home office before. All we're doing is adding a bedroom and a bathroom. There's no structural changes. There's really no other changes. We had something that it said was a FRA. I guess that's what we didn't qualify, too much square footage. So we're just looking to be allowed to finish the project here. Basically, this is what was originally there. I should go to the next one. That's what we're looking to do. We just want my mother-in-law to have an additional set of room for herself, just a room and a bathroom in the closet. Sorry, I don't have all that.

I feel a little bit overwhelmed because the other people you have presented definitely had a little bit more scares than I do. We're just trying to, I'm not quite sure how we got here, but we're definitely trying to just follow the rules.

You're fine, thank you. Any questions from the board? Hearing none, may I have public testimony?

Madam Chair and members, Siggy Johnson with the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services. This applicant has completed the community process. Our office oversaw distribution of an informational flatter to abutters which solicited no comments to our office. The West Roxbury Neighborhood Council voted to support this application. Our office would also like to express support for this medically necessary renovation. We urge the board to approve the relief. Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, there are no additional comments.

Okay. 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.

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

Thank you. Have a good day, guys. Have a Merry Thanksgiving. You too, sir.

Next, we have case VOA 1760292 with the address of 19 Menzel Street. If the applicant and or their representative are present, would they please explain to the board?

Yes, Mr. Secretary, thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is James Christopher of 686 Architects. with the business address of 10 Forbes Road in Braintree. Okay, so we are a six-member board. Thank you. With the business address of 10 Fuller's Road and Braintree, I'm here today on behalf of Van Hong, the owner of 19 Midland Street. This project was before the board. I guess it was earlier this year with a larger rear addition and was denied without prejudice. As such, we went back and redesigned the project. We are still seeking relief from the use itself. This is a Proposed three-family unit. We need relief on the FAR, which is required to be 0.5. We will be at 0.95. The maximum allowable building height and feet and stories and and the use itself. Next slide, please.

This is our existing site plan and the addition will happen on the right and slightly to the rear, just a two foot bump out on the second and third floors. Next slide, please. This shows our proposed site plan. Again, you can see that small bump out to the rear, accurate parking. Previously, the addition went all the way back and cantilevered over the parking. Since this process, we've removed that portion of the addition. We'll be adding on to the right side of the building. You can see in that rectangular shape there, and then the driveway is to the right of that. Next slide, please. If you could skip down to the age lines, these are the existing plans. It's an existing single-family, two-story. Right there is good, thank you. So again, the proposal is to create a three-unit building. The first floor consists of a three-bed, two-bath unit of 1,335 square feet.

We are now proposing to extend the basement so the new addition will be on a slab on grade with minimal excavation on the site. Next slide please. The second and third floor, again, three bed, two bath units, unit two being 1,442 square feet, and unit three being 1,505 square feet. We conducted the community process. We met with the abutters on the Civic Association. We did remove some balconies from the right side of the building, the driveway side here. at the request of one of the abutters and those balconies have now been added to the left rear of the building so that each unit gets a little bit of outdoor space. It's a small balcony large enough for like a chair or something along those lines. Next slide please. This is our roof plan. Again, you can see the small bump out to the parking in the rear. Next slide, please.

And then in elevation, we are proposing a mansat roof with a small rear extension and the third floor addition. Next slide. And I believe that's it. This project has been through a lot of community process. The Midland Street consists of a lot of housing stock that is very similar to this directly across the street at 18 and a project was recently constructed like this. and next to that building. So I feel the use and the design are very appropriate. But with that, I'll answer any questions that I can.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Emma Jones, and I will be representing the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services regarding 19 Midland Street. Our office will defer to the board's judgment on this matter. Another community process for this proposal was conducted on 4-15-25, which was lightly attended by the community. The feedback was some concerns about the size and the density as they had expressed previously. But there was some support regarding the proposal because of the change of the deck plans, as well as some community members also expressed support, citing that it was a good project and they were happy that it included parking. Additionally, the proposal was reviewed by the Columbia Savin Hill Civic Association in July, and they did vote to support the proposal. At this time, the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services defers to the Board's judgment in this matter. Thank you, everyone, for your time and consideration.

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

Thank you. Madam Chair, we have Steven George. Steve. Steven, George, Fred, You are in the attendee section. You can unmute yourself.

Okay. My name is David George. I am a direct abider on 16 Maryland Street, right behind to the rear of 19 Midland Street. They also own 14 Merlin Street, which is also a direct abutter to 19 Midland Street. I am opposed to the project as presented. I would not be opposed if the concerns that I brought up in both abundance meetings and also the last CBA hearing in November were addressed. Chair, in the last meeting, the CBA meeting and the abundance meeting, Some members of the board expressed concern on the excessive square footage of the building and also eliminating green space by turning the rear yard into a parking lot. Progress has been made on reducing the size of the building.

but the rear yard is still being eliminated or the green space being eliminated and the parking lot installed. The rear yard of 16 Maryland and 14 Maryland Street that are actively used by families that reside there as it is the only usable green space. There is a narrow strip of grass shown adjacent to a seven foot wide parking space on the Maryland Street, 16 Maryland Street lot line. The fact that the parking space is about seven feet, I envision parking and roaching onto the grass strip and also right onto my lot line at 16 Maryland Street. I don't think seven feet is sufficient. For an SUV or both cars. One option could be to keep the existing driveway as is, eliminate the rear yard parking, and show landscape and fence solutions on the design drawings.

to lessen the impact of turning a single family house into a three family which more than doubles the FAR square footage. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you.

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

Does the applicant want to briefly address the comments?

We certainly understand Mr. George's concerns. We did try to address them. We did reduce the building significantly. But the parking we felt was something that was beneficial and some of the neighbors liked it. We understand that we can't win on all fronts, but we tried to maintain as much open space on the site while making the building function. FBS mentioning that directly next to Mr. George's property into the rear of ours is two parking lots for the record. But thank you very much.

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

I make a motion for approval. Is there a second?

Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza?

Yes.

Mr. Collins? Get into recuse, Madam Chair. Sorry. Ms. Pinado? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Thank you very much.

The next two cases have been deferred, so that takes us to case BOA 1718356.

with the address of 25 to 27 Edinburgh Street.

If the applicant and or their representative present, would they please explain to the board?

Yes, thank you, Mr. Stembridge. Madam Chair, members of the board, Attorney Ryan Spitz with Adams & Maranci, business address of 168 8th Street, 1st floor, South Boston. Joining me today are the owners Jackson and Alice Lee, as well as the project architect Alita Alba from Chewen Associates. The proposal in front of us today is for a change of occupancy on an existing five-story commercial building from a showroom retail store and Restaurant with unfinished space in the basement to office, professional use on the fourth and fifth floor, a pool hall on the third floor, office professional use on the second floor, community and retail use on the first floor, and a social club within the basement. Currently, the first floor larger space is occupied by Best Printing. There is also a smaller space that is vacant on the first floor. Second floor is occupied by a spa in a prayer room and also has an additional vacant space. The fourth and fifth floor are both currently vacant.

The social club in the basement and the pool hall on the third floor both require conditional use permits. The proposed project is located within the historic Chinatown protection area. There are many different uses within this area such as small restaurants, cafes, spas, and even other social clubs that contain Mahjong tables just as this proposal does specifically at 11 Edinburgh Street which is a building that contains five floors of these tables. I'd like to stress the fact that there is no gambling being proposed with either of these two uses. I understand the stigma surrounding the two uses in gambling, but the landlord and the tenants both agree that there will be no tolerance for any gambling within these locations. Both uses, particularly the Mahjong tables, are a big part of Chinese culture relating to the social aspect. Again, these locations will be made available for social aspects and fun, not gambling, just like chess and bridge.

I'd like to draw your attention to a recent Globe article on September 6, 2025, talking about the uptick in these type of social clubs, mentioning that it's really a game and it's really a social club and a place to unplug from phones while connected to their Chinese culture. Again, this is exactly the scope of business being proposed here. I would ask the board not to be tainted by many of these underground locations that exist in the Chinatown neighborhood. that give a social club like this one a bad rap without even an opportunity. I've read the planning department recommendation and I respectfully disagree. It appears that recommendation is based upon a concern that these uses could lead into gambling. Well, if that's the case, then many uses being approved by this board could be looked at as potentially leading to gambling, which I personally believe that should not be the basis of their recommendation. This is a conditional use where the code has already determined that this use is appropriate here. We need only demonstrate that the specific conditions are met.

Neighbourhood Impact, this type of use is already operating at many locations in this neighbourhood, specifically again at 11 Edinburgh Street. These uses here are appropriate for this location and will not adversely affect the neighborhood. Traffic and safety. There will be no hazards to vehicles or pedestrians as the majority of the participants will walk to the location. It will be in harmony with the zoning intent by allowing the community to socialize within their culture. There will be regulated hours and this will be membership only club. In fact, this is aligned with the Imagine Boston 2030 by activating spaces with community-oriented uses. No nuisance will be created by such a use that is common in this area. The applicant will continue to work closely with the community and are committed to ensuring that there will be no gambling associated with these uses. These uses will serve as a genuine neighborhood need while respecting the character of the neighborhood. The Social Club will serve as a vital cultural function in Chinatown.

Mahjong is not merely a game but an integral part of the Chinese social tradition, spanning for centuries bringing together multiple generations for social connection, mental stimulation, and building communities. At this point, I'm going to turn it back over to you Madam Chair for any questions or comments from the board.

Thank you. Are there questions from the board? Yes, I have a question. So it's a private membership. How does one gain membership? What is the process like?

So the membership here would be typical is just you would apply for a membership and there will be a fee to become a member itself.

Okay, thank you.

I would just figure I didn't add in the hours of operation for the club would be from 11 a.m. to 7 p.m. and then for the pool hall from 3 p.m. to 12 a.m.

And can you talk about how they will ensure that there's no gambling going on during these Mahjong games?

So that would have to deal for the tenant itself. So the landlord is here bringing this application on behalf of the two tenants there. So between the lease agreements that they do have in place, specifically not allowing any sort of gambling. So That would be respectfully out of the tenant's obligations to ensure that no gambling is being conducted on these properties.

Other questions from the board? Have there been issues about gambling at this property in the past? Is there anything there that could construe one to think there might be gambling?

Yeah, I mean, so Ms. Powell, that's a great question. So a couple of things in here. So as we know, there are some of these organizations that are underground in Chinatown, which give bad raps for social clubs like this. Yeah, so back, I believe it was prior to the pandemic is when this work took place. So the landlords and the tenants. Pulled permits, had a contractor. It was brought to their attention after these uses were put into play that these uses were not allowed uses within the zoning code. So at that point in time when it was first discovered that they put a stop. I'm not aware of any sort of gambling that was being associated with the proposal during that time period, but what I am disclosing is that they were currently operating. and under that current operation once it was discovered they weren't allowed to operate those uses they shut those uses down and closed them down and hence here trying to legalize the uses in front of the board today.

Okay, thank you.

Are there other questions from the board? Are there any age restrictions for this proposed project? And also, what is the security plan from the side? So I didn't hear your second part, Mr. Valencia, of the question. Yes, the first one is about age restriction. Is that for 21 and older? And the second one, to ensure that there is no gambling, are you, is the project going to have private security or what is the plan for security?

So I definitely think they could consider some type of security. The security would be with the managers who are used to dealing in this type of business itself to kind of oversee it. As of right now, there is no age restrictions on there. Primarily, what it does consist of the senior citizens in the neighborhood who actually Thank you for watching. and age restriction on there of joining as far as the membership, I'm sure the applicant would be happy to do so. Thank you.

Can you guys from the city on this at some point? Let's go through the member questions and we can receive them there.

I understand that what you're saying, Attorney Spitz, are the owners present to speak to this also?

Yes, I believe, so Alice is, I don't think she is, I think Alice and Jack both logged in under Alice. I think they are, I don't think they are, are able to speak. I think they're just under the participant list. Let me just, I think they're under attendees. Yes, Alice is here under an attendee. And just, I mean, I can probably try to answer your questions, Mr. Stembridge, as best as possible. I'd just like to hear from them.

No offense to you, for sure.

So, Alice, and just to remind you, so Alice and Jack are the landlords here and, you know, they're taking the goodwill of trying to bring the tenants, you know, forward for these uses as many of these I mean, as you can see, this building is being vacant, right, at this point, and just trying to bring something that would be beneficial to the neighborhood. But Alice, I think if we can elevate her to a panelist, that would be great.

And while she's being elevated, you're requesting of relief for a conditional use, and can you specify specifically what that use is?

So there's two uses here. One is for a social club.

Social club, okay. And the other?

That's the one in the basement and then for a pool hall.

Perfect. Okay, so you're asking for relief for the pool hall and the social club. Thank you. Thanks for that clarification.

Thank you. Has your owner been elevated?

Is Elise? Alice. Can you hear me?

No, we can hear you. There she is.

Can you hear me now?

Yes, Mr. Stembridge, you had a specific question for the owners? My question is, again, I'm not doubting what Attorney Spitz is saying, but Alice, in terms of, you heard You've heard most of the questioning towards, obviously people aren't comfortable that gambling may not occur. And we understand it's up to the tenant that you would sign. But is that your intention that there will be no gambling allowed?

Yes, that is my intention. And also, you know, while it was operating, before we shut it down because we knew that it wasn't allowed while it was operating, My husband and I were very careful. We visited the site of business often during operating hours and we did witness that All the people who went down there, they were seniors. We're not talking about 18-year-olds or younger people, but these are all seniors. Most of them, you know, they may be home watching grandchildren, so they may be down there just socializing for a couple of hours when the kids are in school, you know, that sort of situation.

Thank you. Any other questions?

I can just make a comment to my colleagues, which is the board can't impose a sunset provision. and you know in regards to the condition of use setting a duration just to you know I think the most important thing is to see if the use is going to impact The community. And so... You know, whether one is gambling or not, that's being regulated by a different commission. That's really not in front of the, for us to decide. You know, we decide on land use. So that's my only comment.

Thank you. So let's go to public testimony.

Hello Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Eva Jones, representing the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services. Regarding 25-27 Edinburgh Street, our office defers to the board's judgment. A community process was conducted including an up-unders meeting held on 7-7-25 that was well attended by community members. The feedback from this meeting was significant concern about trash, loitering, and significant opposition to possible gambling concerns that could arise. Additionally, we received a letter in opposition from the Chinatown Main Streets Association expressing many of the same concerns with the focus on trash disposal and the 2 a.m. closing time and the type of proposal in the residential area, although Attorney Spitz did outline that the closing hours were amended. The proposal was also reviewed by the Chinatown Neighborhood Council on 7-21-25 and the Chinatown Residents Association on 8-6-25.

Both of the associations expressed opposition to the proposal and have submitted letters in opposition, citing many of the same concerns, including the ongoing issues with gambling in the neighbourhood and the 2 a.m. closing disturbing the residents of an already busy Edinburgh Street. At this time, the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services differs with the Board's judgment on this matter. Thank you everyone for your time and consideration.

Thank you. Thank you. Next we have Melissa.

Thank you so much. Good afternoon, honorable Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is Melissa Lowe and I will be speaking on behalf of Councilor Flynn Flynn would like to go on record in strong opposition due to feedback from the Chinatown Residents Association, Chinatown Neighborhood Council, as well as Chinatown Main Street who have submitted letters of opposition regarding this proposal based on persistent concerns regarding the potential for gambling issues and activities in Chinatown. Gambling addiction has been a disorder that has long plagued our immigrant communities. While there has been harm reduction efforts in recent years to address this long-standing concern, residents believe that opening up yet a similar establishment would further bring harm to those struggling.

Concerns on city resources and public safety were also highlighted when it comes to issues surrounding late night hours of operation. Such as violence and noise disturbances impacting the quality of life for the Chinatown community. On account of these reasons and others, Councillor Flynn remains strongly opposed at this time. Thank you so much. Thank you.

Thank you. We have another person, Steve.

Hi, good afternoon, everyone. Can everyone hear me OK? Yes, sir. So my name is Steven Loy. I'm a lieutenant with Boston Police Department based on headquarters. Prior to that, I spent 10 years of my supervisory experience in downtown under District A1. I'm not here to support or oppose, but I am here to give the facts as I know of this So back on, I'm not sure if people are aware, that back on November 29th of 2024, we did receive a 911 call regarding a person with a firearm. When officers arrived on scene, they talked to the victim who said that they were inside the pool hall at that time and an altercation ensued where one of the persons displayed a firearm and left.

Prior to police arrival, officers did enter the location and did observe what they believed to be the pool hall and some other gambling going on. and they wrote a report and they forwarded that to our licensing division. And then on July... Oh, go ahead. Is someone talking? Sorry, so then fast forward to July 30th of this year, Sergeant Detective William Gallagher from our Licensing Division did They did an investigation and I also had a chance to talk to him as well as instructional services where they, based on their observations, they did I believe an officer did talk to, I forget which of the leads that they talked to, but there was an admission that there was some gambling going on

So based on that, I do have concerns about how things will proceed moving forward at this location if they were allowed to I strongly believe based on experience and The 10 years I spent down in Chinatown as a police officer that there are better and more productive ways to engage our seniors. as opposed to a mahjong, social club, or a pool hall. So based on those facts, the reports, and talking to the investigators involved, I'm just going to present that information to the board. Thank you.

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

Okay. Does the applicant want to respond to the concerns that were expressed?

Yes, great. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I'm not aware, this is the first time I'm aware of any sort of illegal gambling that was occurring. Again, what the officer spoke about is that's when it first became aware that these uses weren't legal. In fact, allowed uses on the property itself, hence those businesses were shut down at that point in time. And the reason why we're here today is we're seeking those To legalize those existing uses now for the conditional use permits and again a lot of the stuff is implying that gambling could be associated with it again that gambling is not a part of this Other questions from the board?

Hearing none is there a motion? I'll put for a motion of denial due to strong community opposition and some of the historical issues with this property. Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge.

Yes.

Mr. Valencia.

Yes.

Ms. Turner. Yes. Ms. Better Barraza.

Are you going to vote yes due to, again, the concerns of community opposition for this project?

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

Thank you.

Thank you. Happy Thanksgiving to everyone.

Happy Thanksgiving to everyone as well. Happy Thanksgiving. Happy Thanksgiving.

Happy Thanksgiving folks. Happy Thanksgiving. Bye bye.

Recording stopped.