Zoning Board of Appeal

Thank you.

The City of Boston Zoning Board of Appeal hearing for January 27, 2026 is now in session. This hearing is being conducted in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Open Meeting Law, including the updated provisions enacted by the legislature this year. The new law allows the board to continue its practice of holding virtual hearings through June 2027. This hearing of the board is being held remotely via the Zoom webinar event platform and is also being live streamed. 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 while connecting to this hearing is listed on today's hearing agenda, which is posted on the public notices page of the city's website, Boston.gov. Members of the public will enter the virtual hearing as attendees, which means you will not see yourself on the screen and you'll be muted throughout unless administratively unmuted when asked to comment.

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

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

Good morning, Ms. Pinado.

Good morning, Madam Chair, present.

Good morning, Mr. Collins. Are you on mute Mr. Collins? Is Mr. Collins on? Jesus, do you see Mr. Collins?

I won't see. Let me see if I'm done.

Okay, well, can someone reach out to him? And in the interest of time, we will start as a six-member board. So with that, I'll turn it over to Mr. Stembridge.

Thank you Madam Chair. We'll begin today's meeting with the approval of hearing minutes scheduled for 9 30 a.m.

These hearings

These are the hearing minutes from January 13th of this year. I will make a motion of approval.

Is there a second?

Second.

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

Yes.

Ms. Parado?

Yes.

Chair votes yes, the motion carries.

Move on to the extensions. Next we'll move on to the extensions scheduled for 9.30 a.m. I'll read through all of the extensions. They all appear reasonable. After I finish reading them, I'll take a vote at that time. We begin with case BOA 1562160 with the address of 61 Lithgow Street. Next we have case BOA 12720. 0821 with the address of 123 Fisher Avenue. Next we have case BOA 1444961 with the address of 354 East.

E Street.

Next we have case BOA 1521747 with the address 5 to 7 Brown Terrace. Next we have case BOA 1521739 with the address of 7 Brown Terrace. Next we have case BOA 1521753. with the address 9 to 11 C. Burns Avenue. Next we have case BOA 1521740. with the address of 11 Seaford Avenue. And finally, for the extension, we have case BOA-119-3958 with the address of 1154 to 1156 Gloucester Avenue. I'd like to share those extensions that we have.

Thank you. Any questions from the board? May I have a motion to grant the extensions as requested? So moved. Second. Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza?

Yes.

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

Next, we have two Board Final Arbitrary Cases for Skipper for 9.30 a.m. The first is Case BOA-170-2915. The address is 27 Wendover Street. It's the applicant and or their representative present that they're pleased to play the case in the court.

Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. This is Mike Ross, law firm at Prince Lobel, and I'm here with the architect, Peter Rubenko. This project was approved by the board on October 7th, 2025. And at the time, it was a nine unit structure. with 13 parking spaces. The development team needed to modify the plans in order to make the project feasible. and to get it under construction, the new plan reduces the units to six and the parking spaces to nine. If you go to the zoning chart there, Mr. Ambassador, the zoning relief remains the same. FAR, use, stories, height, side and rear yard setbacks are the same. While the open space requirement is not triggered by this structure in a 3F5000, one of the comments made by the Board in October, I believe by Member Better Barraza,

related to this issue of open space due to the amount of parking coverage. And so a proviso was actually added to that decision to quote focus on the four parking spaces and Prioritize Open Space. This new project does just that. If you can get to slide four, hopefully my slides are the same as your slides, you can see a comparison of the October plan with the, I think it's earlier, Mr. Ambassador, should be slide four on this. Let me see. Yeah, this one right here. Thank you. You can see a comparison from the October plan on the left with now the current proposal on the right. The current proposal on the right has the four parking spaces removed and replaced with open space. You can also see here that the massing of the building is the same in both cases.

And then if you go to the slides, After this, Mr. Besser, they'll show the floor plans and the new layouts of the six units. Previously, there were nine units that had four one beds. 3 two beds and two three bedrooms. It's now comprised of just one two bedroom and the remaining five units are all three bedrooms. The new units are larger than previously obviously ranging from 1078 square feet to 1745 square feet. Slide 6 through 11 show the individual floor plans if you want to focus on them and then the last slide Mr. Ambassador just shows the elevations which are largely the same just some windows have been moved to allow for the new layouts. You can go to the last slide if you want. That just shows the elevations.

I'll pause there, Madam Chair, and see if there are any questions. Thank you. Are there questions from the board?

Yes, Mr. Ross, just to make sure I understand, you are not changing the footprint or the designs of the building, only interior renovations, right? Correct, correct, Mr. Valencia. And... If the case is about hardship, you are reducing from nine to six units, but you are making the units bigger. So these are going to be bigger and more expensive condos as well.

They will be bigger and potentially I guess they will be, you know, the cost of each unit will be spread into the six versus into the nine.

If I remember correctly, last time you proposed two affordable units. Is that correct? I believe so, yeah, I believe so. And what is the trade-off at this moment with the new project?

Well, that's a good question. So initially, this proposal was 11 units. And we went before the Wendover Street Neighborhood Association, who pushed for a reduction in the number of units. because it's in a 3F5000. So we reduced those from 11 to 9, and we did so at request of the neighborhood. and the nine units just the 11 units would have been feasible the nine units just wasn't feasible to to get them The Thing Finance, including with the IDP units. So their decision to reduce it to six made it feasible but also frankly reached what the Wendover Street Neighbors Association wanted in the first place which was even less units than nine to bring it closer to the three out of five thousand that

that we had in any case went over support of the nine unit scheme because we did reach a compromise but when we came to get this project funded it just wasn't possible.

Thank you. I'm asking because you presented this case about three months ago. And so I'm very curious to understand why in just three months you discovered that your project was not feasible enough, but you are keeping the same size, the same dimensions. Making the units bigger and eliminating the four double units because of the changes. So that's no more questions. I will just express my concerns. Understood.

Any other questions from the board? Is there a motion?

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

Second.

Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza?

Yes.

Ms. Pinado? Yes. Mr. Collins? Yes. Chair votes yes, the motion carries. Thank you. And so to confirm, we are now a seven member board.

Thank you. The next board final offering of case Case BOA-147-6876, the address of 28 to 30 Geneva Street. If the applicant and or their representative are proud, then please reply to the form.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Stembridge, and good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. Richard Lenz, the business advisor of 245 Sumner Street East Boston, on behalf of the petitioner, requesting that the board review this as final arbiter. Just by way of very brief background, This project was approved back in March of 2021. This was an Article 80 project that allowed for the renovation or I should say redevelopment Existing garage site into 26 residential units. I believe we have four IDP units as well. This was approved prior to the amendments to Article 53, which changed pretty much all the zoning for East Boston. As a result, a couple of things have occurred as part of those amendments. First, is that parking, the minimum parking requirements are no longer applicable to any Articulate A project in the East Boston District. That includes both small and large project. Previously, it was just large project.

where the parking was set by the planning department. That now is extended to small projects as well. So by way of the first item that we're requesting is a change in the parking ratio There was originally 19 spaces approved. We are proposing a total of 14 and that is largely in part to elimination of the stacker system that was being proposed originally when this project was approved. This site is located within close proximity to two public transit stations, both the airport station and Maverick T Station. We did review this with the planning department and they agreed that that is an appropriate reduction in parking, especially since it eliminates The second item, and we can jump to slide seven if the board just wants to see what the new parking layout looks like. with a total of 14 parking spaces at ground level.

Nothing else with respect to that ground level changes other than the elimination of the puzzled stacker system. We want to jump to slide 11. In addition, the amendments to Article 53 also allow by right The addition of roof decks that are accessed by head house. This being an EBR-4 district, we are within the height limit. Still, by adding the roof decks, these again, provided they meet all of the requirements of Section 5325 for setback. are permitted. And again, we reviewed this with the planning department who approved this change as well, as this was an Article 80 project. Both of these changes have also been vetted by ISD. No additional violations under Article 53 are cited. and therefore we believe it's appropriate as board final audit of the board review and hopefully approve these changes to the project.

Last point I'll make is this project is under construction currently so we are eager to move forward with these amendments as soon as possible. Happy to answer any questions of the board.

Thank you. Are there any questions from the board?

I do have a question and it's more to the Boston Planning Department, whoever is on call, whether it's Hampton or I see Patrick on as well. Is there a project manager for this project or someone that can speak on the project? From the BPD? Okay, Hampton, excellent, great.

So... Well, before, oh, Miss Better Barraza, before you go any further, we don't get notice of... Board final arbiters, they just appear on the agenda. So whomever Mr. Linz had been talking to at the planning department, I was never notified about it, so I can't really comment on this.

All right, so maybe Mr. Lin can speak on this. Was there ever a notice of project change since this was originally approved under Article 80?

Not that I'm aware of, I was not original counsel on this when it was approved. We did review this in the ordinary course as we do with planning. The scope of the change according to planning is this does not warrant an MPC. and therefore it was reviewed internally by design staff. Specifically, Alexa and I had reviewed this and confirmed that these changes were appropriate.

Okay, and so Alexa Pinar didn't feel that this needed to go under an MPC?

That's my understanding is that there was no requirement.

Because I think the removal of the stack and the reduction of parking, it does lay on the BPD's kind of design review. I think the thing that is new to me is programmatically the addition of the roof deck even though you are conforming within the height I find that to be a programmatic Change. And so typically that goes through a notice, a project change to just kind of get a sense of what the community impact might be on that change. So this is why I just wanted to understand from the BPD why they felt that it was not necessarily needed to have community feedback on just the addition that's a new program of roof decks.

That's my only comment and that's why I would have liked for, or we have BPD representation here if they just feel that additions of roof deck is not considered A change of program for a project that needs to go in front of the community. I don't have any further questions, but BPDs can provide some context. That would be super helpful for me. Thank you.

If I may, Madam Chair, just briefly, I agree with... There are instances in which we do take that back out to the community. When the addition of roof decks would trigger Conditional use, for example, or rooftop restrictions, then certainly that would be appropriate to the back of the community. This change is as a right. This is permitted under the amended code, I should say. I know in certain neighborhoods it's certainly a conditional use permit, but the changes to Article 53 do allow this change by right, so I think that probably weighed into whether or not NBC was appropriate.

Okay, thank you for that, Mr. Lin, for that context. Any other questions from the board?

May I have a motion?

Motion to approve. I have a second. Second.

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

Yes.

Ms. Pinado? Yes. Mr. Collins?

Yes.

There are votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck.

Thank you very much.

Next, we will move to the recommendations from the subcommittee. You can do two-word words first. Oh, sure. You can do two-word words first. We'll begin with . The recommendations from the subcommittee will begin with 2, case BOA 1798986 with the address of 2 Woodward Street.

This was...

was approved. We'll go back to the beginning of case BOA 1795810 with the address of 115 Baldwin Street. This was also approved. Next, we'll go to case BOA-180-6137 with the address of 57 Emerson Street, which was approved. Along with that, we have case BOA-180-6141 with the address of 59 Emerson Street. which was approved. Case BOA 1797623 with the address of 27 to 29 Myrtle Bank Avenue.

which was approved. Finally, we have case DOA.

Oh, sorry to interrupt. I believe the last two were reading in separately. Is that correct, Caroline?

Yes, so we're going to be reading to Woodworth Street and 16 to 18 Bradfield Street separately.

Great, so can we have a motion on what has been read into the record? Are there any questions? If not, may I have a motion?

Motion to approve all the recommendations from the subcommittee.

Thank you. Is there a second? Mr. Stembridge?

Yeah.

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

Yes.

Ms. Pinado?

Yes.

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

There are two that we'll read separately now. First is case VOA 179-8986 with the address of 2 Woodworth Street.

I believe someone needed to recuse themselves from this one.

Mr. Collins, are you recusing yourself? You're on mute.

Sorry, Madam Chair, yes, I need to refuse.

Thank you. So we're a six-member board. Any questions from the board? Hearing none, may I have a motion?

Motion to approve.

May I have a second? Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr. Valencio?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Barabarrazzo?

Yes.

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

And finally, for the recommendations, we have case BOA-178, 3344 with the address of 16 to 18 Bradfield, Bradfield Avenue.

Madam Chair, I need to recuse myself.

Thank you. We are a six-member board. Any questions from the board? Hearing none, may I have a motion?

Motion to approve.

Second. Thank you. Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Pinado? Yes. Mr. Collins?

Yes.

Chair votes yes, the motion carries.

Next, we will go to the groundwater conservation overlay district case scheduled for 9 30 a.m. We have case BOA 1803649 with the address 181 Commonwealth Avenue. If the applicant and or their representative are present, that could explain to the board.

Anyone's? Jesus, are you on? I am. Okay.

Is this person... Mary Bonds, Mary Bonds, I think this is, no, Mary Bonds is for the next case, for 29 row. Okay.

So do we have someone who's speaking for 181 come out?

You didn't see anyone?

Okay, so let's move on for now then.

We'll go to the hearing schedule for 9.30 a.m.

To begin with, we'll ask if there are any request for withdrawals or deferrals from the 9.30 a.m. Bureau. Yes, Mr. Stembridge, 198 Marion Street.

That would be case BOA 178703 with the address of 198 Barron Street.

Go ahead, explain, Attorney Drago. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board, Attorney Jeff Drago with Drago and Toscano with the business address of 11 Beacon Street. Here on behalf of the applicant of 198 Marion Street and Ward 1 East Boston, seeking a deferral, it came to our attention that the plans that were submitted The elevation needs to be shown accurately on the plan. It is not depicted and this isn't a sea fraud district. So we would ask for deferral to make that adjustment to the plans.

How much time do you need?

Probably about four to five weeks or a March date if possible.

March 10th or March 24th?

I think the tenth would work fine, Caroline, if that works for you.

Thank you. May I have a motion?

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

Second.

Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

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

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Thank you very much.

Any further requests for withdrawals or deferrals from the 930 here?

Mr. Stembridge, I have two of them. 18 to 22 Reed Street is the first one.

We will begin with case BOA 178-8402, the address of 18-22 Green Street.

Go ahead, John. Thank you. For the record, Richard Linds, business address of 245 Sunridge Street East Boston on behalf of the petitioner. Requesting a deferral, we've seen A lot of communication on this matter from the district councilor planning and I've heard from the mayor's office on this as well. We'd like to go back and take a look at the project to see if there's any changes we could do to address some of the concerns. So we're requesting a deferral. March date would be appropriate.

We could do March 10th or March 24th.

Let's do the 24th, please.

With that, may I have a motion?

make a motion to prepare that till March 24th.

Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencio?

Yes.

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

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries. See you then.

Thank you. The other one is 128 Pennington Street, Mr. Stembridge. And that is for a new notice, so relatively quicker date.

So this would be for case BOA 1787097 with the address of 128 Bennington Street.

And the earliest would be March 10th.

Yeah, so for the record, Richard Lenz, 245 Summer Street, East Boston, on behalf of the petitioner, we see that the notice has cited the rear yard setback. I believe that because this is a teardown of the existing building, The side year and setback should also be cited. I believe we've already indicated that to Inspectional Services to go ahead and update the refusal. And then we're hoping for a new notice in advance of March 10th, assuming that's enough time.

Okay, with that, may I have a motion?

Motion to defer this case until March 10th. May I have a second? I say so. Mr. Stembridge. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza?

Yes.

Ms. Pinado? Yes. Mr. Collins?

Yes.

Chair votes yes, the motion carries.

Thank you. Mr. Sandbridge, 49 to 51 Callender Street, please.

So this would be for case BOA 1766723 with the address of 49 to 51 Calvin Street. Go ahead and turn around.

Thank you, Mr. Stembridge. Madam Chair, members of the board, Attorney Ryan Spitz with Adams & Maranci, business address of 168 8th Street, 1st Floor. This proposal will need to be re-advertised as there was a sister application that was inadvertently left off at 53 Callender Street. So, again, just will need to be re-advertised.

Okay. Caroline? That release we could do is March 10th.

That will work. Thank you.

Okay.

With that, may I have a motion? Motion to defer this case until March 10th. Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza?

Yes.

Ms. Pinado?

Yes.

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

Thank you. There are no more requests for withdrawals and deferrals from the 9.30 a.m. hearings. We will begin with case DOA-180-3497. with the address of 29 Willow Street. The applicant and those that represent are present. Madam Chair, I need to recuse.

Okay, so this is, we are a six-member board.

Thank you, Mr. Stembridge, and again, good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. Richard Lins, 245 Sumner Street, East Boston, on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. Ambassador, if you can jump down to slide four, just to give us all a little bit I'll explain the proposal to the board. This is an existing approximately 4,100 square foot separately assessed vacant parcel of land in Rossendale. Our proposal would be to construct a two-unit residential structure with parking at grade. Two units per lot are allowed in the sub-district. This is a 2F5000 district. and a lot is similar in size and shape as many of its adjoining lots in the neighborhood. Dimensional relief is required for this proposal. based upon what the current dimensional regulations are for this particular 2F5000 district.

If we can get on a slide, maybe slide six, yeah, that's a good place to stop. So with respect to the relief that would be necessary, there are a number of items that have been cited and I'd just like to walk through those. We probably can go to the architectural site plan at slide 10. That's probably the best place to stop so we can explain the dimension of relief that would be required. So in this particular neighborhood, the minimum lot area for a single dwelling is 5,000 square feet. This lot would not even be sufficient for that. So relief would be necessary regardless of what is being proposed. In addition, the minimum lot width is 50 feet. We're at 42 and a half feet. But once again, I would point out that the lot itself is typical for this area and the proposed use is consistent and the surrounding context in the immediate vicinity.

With respect to the setbacks we see here that the rear We'll see in a moment that this site is and many more. Thank you. from the building to the real property line. As a result of the community process, this setback originally was closer to the real lot line. We have proposed to move the building forward based upon comments that we heard from Rear Butters. That has resulted in the reduction of our front yard setback down to about nine feet total. I know the planning department's comments concerning front yard parking were raised.

I think by moving the building forward, we're only proposing to have the single parking space per unit in the garage, and we'll see those new elevations in a moment. For side yard setbacks, we're able to meet the setback on the left side. We do have a 10 foot minimum. We are proposing a three foot on the right side But I will point out that the owner of the property also owns the adjoining lot to the right, so the impact should be minimal on the existing structure that's there. With respect to the foot air ratio, the maximum is 0.5. We are proposing 0.9. So we do require relief from that as well. And while this building is designed to be two and a half stories of habitable space, so there's a main level for unit one, and then unit two is bi-level with a half story up top, We are cited for height and stories as well.

And again, when we see the elevations, you will see the dramatic change in slope from the rear of the property to the front. With respect to usable open space, the Sun District requires about 40, a little between 40 and 45% total open space. We are proposing a total of 52% usable open space, but because the lot size is deficient, we would not meet the physical requirement of open space, which is about $3,100. We're about 2200 square feet for the open space that's proposed. And then we are proposing two option parking spaces. The code does require two per unit in this sub-district. and therefore we require relief for the additional space that would not be provided. If we can jump down to I think the elevations at slide 14, that will illustrate certainly how we're laying the building up.

As you can see in the upper left corner, that is the front elevation and we do again have a significant slope back to front. So that garage level is subterranean for most of the site, with the two and a half stories being built above the grade line, as you can see in the side elevation on the right. When looking at it from the rear, the only exposed portion would be the two and a half stories of habitable space. Again, the garage level would be completely below grade if looking at the property from the rear. One of the things I will point out is that during the community process we did hear from direct abutters to the rear. We've agreed to work with them not only with slope stabilization ensuring that retaining walls will not cause any impact on their properties but we've agreed to incorporate a significant amount of landscaping to the rear to create privacy as well as incorporate a fence of their choice

I will pause there. I know that the planning department has recommended approval with a number of items that they've raised as concern. I believe we can work through most of those items that have been raised. So I'll pause there and answer any questions of the board. Thank you.

Questions from the board?

Yeah, can you just clarify that the property right now, there's nothing on the property, correct? I'm just looking on Google existing conditions. Is it just big three trees, correct?

It's a vacant lot, no structures existing. I do have an existing condition site plan at Slide 9, if the ambassador wants to go back to that. But yeah, there are no structures.

You're proposing a new curb cut that's 14 feet?

That is correct. Yes.

Okay. All right. So what I find interesting is you're right that the BPD did Thank you, Mr. Chair. I can see that it's not like if we were to pass this, it's not that this is setting precedent. There's already a condition next to you. The only concern would be that if you have two wide curb cuts next to each other, You're really not making it very pedestrian friendly. So I would imagine that would have been more of the concern, but I don't have any questions. Thank you.

Through the Chair, I can... I think we can agree that the curb cut showing at 14 could be reduced. I think there's, especially since we've I think 12 feet could work, but certainly able to work through that as the board is inclined to approve it with design.

And I'm just going to ask if someone can clear the Screen with the red marks. It's a little hard to see sometimes the details. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions from the board?

Yes, just to confirm, this site plan that we are looking at at this moment, already reflects the building shifting from the back to the front. I read in one of the comments from the about us that you offered to move the building 10 feet. Is this the revised setback?

That is correct, Mr. Valencia. The original setback We're now at 38, a little over 38 feet, so it's about a 10-foot shift, the building forward, and that was in direct response to the butters to the rear.

And do you have to remove all the trees that are existing on the property at this moment?

I believe there's some trees that will be removed or additional trees to be removed. I know some have already been removed. and the trees to the rear I believe there's some additional trees but we are replacing a number of trees on site as well. Okay thank you.

Just to help my colleague Johnny like you need trucks I'm sure those three trees are going to be removed. There's no way of saving them.

Yeah, I'm asking because I saw that in one of the comments from the voters.

Yeah, and I think we committed in the community process, Mr. Valencia and Ms. Barraza, is that we are committed to planting a number of trees on site. We think it'll help certainly with slope stabilization to the weir, but that will be incorporated as part of the landscape plan. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other 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 Rosalind Dale Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the committee process, which consisted of an abutters meeting facilitated on September 16th. where Bud has voiced a few concerns. A concern for the impact on an adjacent property due to the adjusting of the grade and retaining wall. From the rear immediate abutter to the property a concern for the rear setback which abuts the rear of the property and suggested the proponent move the proposed building closer to the street by about 10 feet to provide more rear space for children to play. A concern for the height of the proposal and blocking sunlight was mentioned and a request for a structural management plan that all the voters can review, again referring to the digging and change of grade. Neighbors voice concerns for trees on the property, requesting that many or most remain. Butters voice concerns for stormwater runoff and if a stormwater management plan has been created, as the neighbor pointed out, that the patios are handscaped and will increase water Runoff.

Next, the proposal was presented to Prospect Hill Neighborhood Association, but no opposition completed the community process. To date our office has not received any further community feedback, though it does seem that Mr. Linz and their team has reached out to the community and continued that community engagement and there has been some changes made. 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. All right, next we have Susan Schiffler.

Hi. Can everyone hear me? Yeah? Okay. So my name is Susan Scheffler. I live at 127 Brown, which is the rear of Butter to 29 Row. I also submitted written comments and I requested those be part of the record as well. So I want to start by saying that I do not oppose development of 29 Row. Oh, also the trees are gone. I'm looking at the lot right now and the trees left in April. So there's no trees left. Just to answer Board Member's question on that. So first, I don't oppose development of this site, but that said, this is a very challenging site. It's on a steep hillside. It's very close to existing homes, and it really needs stable, long-lasting retaining walls and other core safety features. Because of the conditions of the site, details like building placement, height, safety measures, and landscaping are not minor issues. They are essential to whether this project could be completed safely and responsibly. During our November meeting with Mr. Lins, he agreed to incorporate our concerns into updated plans.

These included moving the building forward to increase the rear setback, which has been done. Limiting the total height of the building so that it does not exceed the height of 27 row, its neighbor. And installing safety and privacy fencing at dangerous elevation points, particularly along the rear property line. We also discussed the need for a landscaping plan to address tree loss, erosion, and slope stability, as well as clear construction mitigation measures to protect neighboring properties during what's going to be a quite lengthy and disruptive excavation and construction process. At this time the rear setback is addressed, but the total height, safety fencing, slope stabilization, and landscaping have not been addressed in these plans. We've received vague assurances that these will be handled at a later date, but that is not sufficient. So I respectfully request the board approval be conditioned on the submission and board acceptance of revised plans that clearly document the total building height and height.

I appreciate the board's time and careful consideration and look forward to seeing this project move forward in a way that balances the need for housing with safety, environmental responsibility, and respect for the surrounding neighbors. Thank you. Thank you.

And I think next we have another person. She sent me a message. Mary Bone.

Yes, I'm here. Thank you. I support what Susan just said, which is our community came together. The initial meeting was with the Prospect Hill Neighborhood Association. As an organization, we choose not to take positions on development. projects but to allow the abutters to refacilitate their comments. So supporting what Susan said, I want to bring two things to light. One is that two of the trees on the property were large, old-growth trees. These were taken down by the owner. Last year, before any proposal was ever presented to anybody, I'm also curious of the three-foot setback side on the side of the property. It's a comment to the ZBA. So if the person next door who owns this property leaves, Then the new owner is confronted with a house next to them that's only three feet away. I find it curious that that's acceptable.

My main comment is part of what Susan said. Richard Lenz has been very cooperative with us and we appreciate that but we still don't know who the developer is we don't really know the owner what is the recourse if the Promises that Richard has made, the attorney has made to us, are not being met if the developer won't meet with us. If we see something That's not what was agreed upon here. One big issue was about construction management plans. There's only parking on one side of the street here and it's usually full. There are going to be trucks. There are going to be employees with their cars. So we're mostly concerned with what's the process if this doesn't go the way we've been promised. Thank you. Thank you.

Madam Chair, I'm happy to address that. I've expressed in the public process for this project that We would continue to keep the civic group in the Butters apprised of construction management plans as they develop. We typically don't do that until an approval is complete and we know what the final plan will look like. It's difficult to tell what the extent of the construction management would be until we know all of the details of the construction. I have no reason to believe that my client will not do that. I think there's ample time to get those conversations continued and we have have been fully committed to working with the neighbors on addressing those concerns that we heard here from the Director Butter as well.

Thank you. Are there other questions from the board?

I have a question regarding One of the committee members just mentioned regards to

Are you frozen? I think you might be frozen, Ms. Better Barraza.

Oh, can you hear me now? Yes, you might want to... I was just saying, typically, you know, in regards to impact and... Regards to being in a new construction neighborhood typically one does know whether this is going to be for sale whether the Owner tends to live here. Can you just provide some feedback in regards to what is the future use of this new construction?

Yes. These are intended for home ownership. These would be individual condominium units sold off as home ownership.

Okay, thanks.

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

Madam Chair, I make a motion of approval with Planning Department review. Special attention for parking configuration to ensure that there is no front yard parking.

Is there a second?

Sir.

Mr. Stembridge?

Yeah.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza?

Yes.

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

Thank you very much for your time.

Next, we have case BOA 178. 9141 with the address of 27 Milton Street. Is the applicant and or their representative present? Will the police explain the case to the court?

Thank you, Ms. Stembridge, and I apologize, my camera's not working today. Attorney Jeff Drago with Drago and Toscano with a business address of 11 Beacon Street. Here on behalf of the owner-developers of 27 Millett Street. So they dealt with everything we've asked for. You guys are, yeah, thank you. Caleb and Yasmin Hassan were also on the call as well. And Context Design is the architect. and what you're looking at in this rendering is a rendering of the proposed condo four unit condominium building that now is comprised of an empty parcel. I think you go to the next slide, please.

And just again, the proposal itself is to erect a new three-story residential building that would house four residential condominium units on site and with two exterior parking spaces and many more. We have a site overview in this area. We've designed the building to match the style of many of the buildings around us. Three family to the left and multi-family residential, mostly three and two within that immediate area. The particular lot area, you can go to the next slide please, is 3,580 square feet. As I had mentioned, you can see here sort of what the lot is comprised of.

There's actually two lots where one in from the corner. and there's been a lot of other developments proposed in this particular area to create new housing. The lot is 3,580 square feet. This particular sub-district is a 3F6000. If we go to the next slide, please. If we go to the next slide, Mr. Ambassador, thank you. One back, please. Thank you. So you can see the the apostle had some overgrown brush, a few smaller dead trees, That's been cleaned up. You can see it's been an open parcel for years. This was actually part of the yard sale program with the city, helped by the Mayor's Office of Housing. And as part of our proposal with the Mayor's Office of Housing, We agreed to an affordable unit on site and I'll go over that once we get into the plans. Next slide please.

Next slide, please, Mr. Ambassador. Thank you. You can just see either side of the development as it stands now. As we worked with the community, with our direct neighbors, and the West of Washington Civic Association actually made a number of changes to the project and also kept our affordable unit. One was to reduce the number of stories from four stories down to three. We reduced the building height from 43 feet to 34 feet 6 inches. We shifted the driveway and parking spaces away from our neighbor. and we moved the decks from the side of the building to the front of the building which many of the properties if you look down These were all recommendations made by neighbors and the WOW group west of Washington. Next slide, please. We start to get into this is the site plan.

So you can just see the curb cut proposed, two spaces in the rear of the property. There would be rare decks, front decks, and then obviously the roof deck that I had mentioned. We also have an area carved out for green space in the back of the property. These would be condo units, so home ownership units. Just to get into the plans, if you go to the next slide, by way of unit breakdown, unit one is a 1,200 square foot, three bedroom unit. Unit 2 is a one-bedroom unit, 690 square feet. And Unit 3 is a 620-square-foot one-bedroom unit. Both of those have decks. And then Unit 4 is the largest unit. That's 1370 square foot, three bedroom unit with a deck and a roof deck as well. So front deck and then roof deck on the property as well.

Just to point out the affordable unit that I had mentioned would be one of the one bedroom units in the back. So the second floor and we agreed to an 80% AMI and that would be a 30-year restriction and that I believe The board should have a letter from MOH supporting this proposal. We also had a letter sent from the West of Washington Association in support. and as I had mentioned, we worked with all of our neighbors on this project as we went forward. With that, I can pause and answer any questions that the board may have.

Thank you. Are there questions from the board? Hearing none, we 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 two of his meetings, facilitated on April 22nd and November 13th of 2025. During the first Abudas meeting, Abudas voiced concerns for the height of the proposal, roof decks, parking, and the number of units filling four is excessive and three would be more acceptable. The proponent made changes to the proposal to address some of those concerns. The second meeting facilitates on November 13th. Less attended than the first, and a part of voice their appreciation for the changes and inquired if the condos were rentals or for sale, preferring ownership over rentals. Next, the proposal is presented twice. To West of Washington Neighborhood Association, which completed the community process. To date, our office has received one letter of support from West of Washington Neighborhood Association, very excited to support the development. Thank you for your time and the Mayor's Office of Network Services would like to defer to the board for their judgment.

Thank you. Thank you. Next we have Brian.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Timothy Guimond. I'm here on behalf of City Councilor Brian Worrell. We'd like to go on record in support of this project. We're particularly excited about the homeownership opportunity in the neighborhood. and appreciate the applicant and their team on the robust civic process. So with that, we'd love to support the project. Thank you very much.

Chair, we have no additional comments.

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

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza?

Yes.

Ms. Pinado? Ms. Pinado? Yes. Sorry, I didn't hear you. I'm sorry. Okay. Mr. Collins? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Thank you very much.

Next we have case BOA 1767611 with the address of 11 Inwood Street. If the applicants and or their representative are present, would they please explain the case to the board?

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Abraham Alvarez. I am in a licensed contract For 11 in Wood Street, I am on behalf of the owner of the property owner. This property has been approved. We have an active building permit for a three-family residential building. This site is a construction site and worked is already on the way. Today's request is not a new project. The owner requesting an amendment for an existing approval permit.

The amendment will change the project from a three-family to a four-residential building. The amendments include Adding one additional apartment, extending the first floor unit into a basement. Interior layout stair reconfiguration. Changing the roof from a flat roof to a gable roof with a Adama. The fire sprinkler is already

If the amendment is approved, the 30-hour sprinkler system will be adjusted to serve the There is no reduction in life safety protection. The property provides Three of street parking spaces. The zoning is requesting The signing is requested because the amendments do not comply with the signing regulation related to use to the fourth dwelling. Lot size and lot weight.

Lower area ratio. Building height. Useable open space, front, side and rear yard setback. The zoning condition already existing. and no has been created by the owner of the contract. This amendment improves the property by creating one additional Legal Housing Unit. Maintaining the adjusting approval life safety system. Keeping the same building footprint. Remain residential use. Matching the character of the nearby home.

There is no

There is no expansion of the building footprint and any height changes is minimal and consistent. Without signing relief, this reasonable amendment cannot move forward.

We respectfully request

The board grant the request for some relief. Approve this amendment for three families to four units. Thank you for your time and consideration.

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

Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Benbury. 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 My apologies. With one guest present, they immediately brought a voice support for the proposal as they made changes to the roof per their feedback. Next, the proponent presented to grade a vote in Geneva Neighborhood Association where they voted in support of the proposal. To date, our office has not received any further community feedback at this time. Thank you for your time, and the MES Office Neighborhood Services would like to defer to the board for their judgment.

Thank you. Next we have City Councilor Bryan.

Thank you very much Madam Chair, members of the board, Timothy from Councilor Bryan-Worrell's office. We'd like to go on record in support of this project and wanted to confirm all the civic engagement that was completed up to this point. So with that, we'd like to go and support. Thank you very much. Thank you.

There are no additional comments. May I have a motion?

Can I make a motion for approval? Second. Second?

Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza?

Yes.

Ms. Pinado?

Yes.

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

Thank you very much. The next case has been deferred. So that takes us to case BOA 1802569.

with the address of 9 Hamlet Street.

If the applicants and or their representative are 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. Here representing the owner of the property, Mr. Lucindo Garvat-Candavas. We're here today, Madam Chair, seeking relief to change the legal occupancy of the building from a three-family dwelling to a four-family dwelling, legalizing the existing basement unit. has been there for 20, 25 years. It's been there for a very long time. So we're here seeking to correct the violation at ISD as such. The violations with regard to this are the FAR. The FAR requirement is 0.5. We are seeking one. All Street Parking. We would need to add an additional parking space, but there is no room on the site. The site is a triple decker.

and amongst other triple-deckers, many of which are three and four family dwellings. So this is not out of the character of what is existing already in the neighborhood. That basement unit is approximately 1,000 square feet and consists of two beds and one bath. I can stop there, Madam Chair, and answer any questions that the board members may have. All right, thank you.

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

Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy 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 abuttors meeting, held on November 13th with one guest in attendance who saw no issue with the proposal, stating it is pretty straightforward. Following the abutters meeting, Thank you for your time and the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services would like to defer to the Board for their judgment.

Thank you. Madam Chair, there should be some letters from neighbors in support of the application. And I also know that the BPD's recommendation was for approval as well. Thank you.

Okay. Any other raised hands? Madam Chair, we don't have additional hands raised at the moment. Okay, with that, may I have a motion?

Madam Chair, I like so. Go ahead. You go ahead. You go ahead.

I was going to make a motion of approval with no building code relief because it seems some questions around ceiling heights and such.

Yeah, I think it's more the bedroom doesn't have access to late in air, but I would have done the same thing, Jean. Is there a second?

Is there a second? Thank you. Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

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

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. Have a good day.

Thank you.

With that, the next three cases have been deferred, which takes us to the 11 o'clock hour.

So we'll take a break and come back at 11.

Okay, see you guys then.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Bridge. Present, Madam Chair.

Mr. Valencia.

Present.

Ms. Turner. Present. Ms. Better Barraza.

Present.

Ms. Pinado.

Present.

Mr. Collins. Present. The floor is yours, Mr. Stembridge.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

We'll begin by returning to the

Groundwater Conservation Overlay District Case scheduled for 9 30 a.m. This is case BOA 180-3649. with the address of 181 Commonwealth Avenue. If the applicants as well as their representatives are present, would they please turn the case to the board?

Good morning, members of the board. My name is Matthew Marshall. I'm the owner of 181 Commonwealth Avenue and we are before you today seek your relief to receive a conditional use permit under the Groundwater Conservation Overlay District. All required prerequisites for this permit have been completed. The project has received approval from the Boston Water and Sewer Commission for the proposed groundwater recharge system. and we have submitted a certification at no harm prepared by our engineer and with those requirements satisfied we are requesting the board's approval of the conditional use permit. Thank you. Okay.

Is Mr. Simonelli on budgets?

Yes, Madam Chair. Good morning. Christian Simonelli, Executive Director of the Boston Groundwater Trust. I have both G-card letters from the applicant. Great. Any questions from the Board?

Hearing none, is there a motion?

Motion to approve. Barraza, second.

Mr. Stembridge? Yeah. Mr. Valencia? Yes.

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

So with that done, with that, we'll go through the hearing scheduled for 11 a.m. To begin with, we'll ask if there are any requests for withdrawals or deferrals from the 11 a.m. time frame. Hearing none. We'll go to the first case, which is case VOA 1789969 with the address of 7 Browning Avenue. If the applicants and or their representative are present, would they please explain to the board?

Good morning, member of the board. Isn't my name Shaivo? I live in 1065 Washington Street in Dorchester. I'm the owner in 7 Brown and F. Also, I'm a contractor, too. I got to build that house. So we propose three family houses, one and a half bathrooms with three bedrooms for each floor and three space parking in the back. And I get the driveway on the right side. On the left side, I keep like four feet. So this is just normal. A pre-family house for the tenant. I got to build a house and rent it out for the tenant.

Do you want to walk us through any of these plans? Are there questions from the board?

No? All the members of the board, they have this plan, right? Yeah, one and a half bathrooms, the kitchen, living room, and three bedrooms on one side. And also I own the house number 11 Brown and F, so this is number seven, so side by side. For both houses, the other house has a driveway, this one has a driveway too. So my neighbor over there, they love what I'm doing, so they support me to put the three families on there.

Thank you. Questions from the board? They have public testimony?

I'm not sure if someone from ONS is speaking.

I do apologize. 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 November 20th with no guests in attendance which completed the community process. To date our office has received one letter in support of the proposal. Thank you for your time, and the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services would like to defer to the Board for their judgment.

Thank you. Next, we have City Councilor Bryan.

Hi. Thank you again, Madam Chair, members of the board. Timothy from Councilor Brian Worrell's office. We'd like to go on record in support of this project. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Madam Chair, there are no additional comments.

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

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

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

Yes.

Chair votes yes, the motion carries. Good luck, sir.

Thank you very much, member of the board.

Next, we have case BOA1803623. with the address of 181 West 1st Street. This is an Article 80 case. And if the applicant and or their representative present would they please explain the case to the board.

Good morning, Madam Chair. This is Attorney Nick Sizzula, McDermott, Quilty, Miller, and Hanley. Attorney Hanley is supposed to be handling this case. He just let me know that he was having... Subtract the difficulties. I don't know if we could possibly ask for just a deferral to the end of the 11 o'clock. It looks like there's only one more matter on. Exactly. Would it be possible to go after that one? I don't see him jumping back on yet.

I'm fine with that. If we can do that and then circle back.

Yeah, if they're available. If not, we can proceed. I'm sorry, Madam Chair.

Then with that, we'll go to the next scheduled case for 11 a.m., which is case BOA 1775791. with the address of 748 to 750 East Broadway. If the applicant canceled their representation as president, will their police explain to the board?

Yes, thank you, Mr. Stembridge. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is George Maranci. I'm an attorney with the business address of 350 West Broadway in South Boston, representing Joe Arcari, the owner of the property. As much as I wish I could help Nick Sizzula out by prolonging this hearing until he's ready, this is a fairly simple matter. The building in question is a four-story building containing nine dwelling units and ground floor and basement commercial space. It was approved by this board in 2023. Construction of the building is now essentially complete. When it was originally approved, no commercial tenants had been identified for the commercial space on the ground floor and basement.

My client has since identified a gym, fitness studio, actually I believe a Pilates studio, who would like to go into the basement portion. And he would also like to change the allowed occupancy of the first floor to a bank. The zoning district here is MFRLS, Multifamily Residential Local Service under Article 68. Article 68 in South Boston is I think unique in the city in that it does not contain any neighborhood business zoning sub-districts. It is MFR, MFRLS, and local industrial Hence, almost any commercial use along East Broadway or West Broadway requires zoning relief.

The bank here is a conditional use. Even though East and West Broadway are populated by many banks and the Pilates studio or fitness studio is a forbidden use. There may be some testimony on this matter. Folks in the community would have liked to have seen a more active use on the first floor than a bank. My client has been trying to find Some sort of local retail use, preferably one that serves food, quick to go items. He's going to continue to do that. He does not have a bank client identified but there have been some inquiries and would like to have it essentially bank ready. But he is going to continue to work with the community to find a use that is something that People in the neighborhood would like to see there more than a bank.

But for today's purpose, we are seeking the variance for the fitness center, gym, Pilates studio in the basement portion of the building. and conditional use permit for First Floor Bank. I did read the planning recommendation. of the Planning Department. And the only thing I would note with respect to that is there is a proviso here for design review. But all exterior construction on this building is complete. Any signage would have to abide by the sign code and be approved by the planning department anyway. So I'm not sure that that is actually a necessary or desirable proviso should the board elect to grant the requested relief. With that, I'll pause and take any questions that members may have.

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

Yes, Ziggy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This applicant completed the community process. Our office hosted an abutters meeting on October 23rd where community members were not very receptive to the idea of a bank. expressed interest in having basically anything other than a bank at this location. Gate of Heaven and Neighborhood Association is in non-opposition to this application. That background or office defers judgment to the board. Thank you. Thank you.

Thanks. Next we have Ashley from Consular Plane.

Hi, my name is Ashley from Councilor Flynn's office. Councilor Flynn would like to go on record in support. He would like to acknowledge the applicant's continued work in good faith with neighbors in the City Point and Gate of Heaven neighborhood associations on retail and storefront amenities for the community. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have Marco de Barros. If not, we can go with Maynor Perez.

Thank you, Mr. Ambassador, Madam Chair, members of the board. This is Mayna Perez representing the Carpenters Union. On behalf of hundreds of union carpenters, I want to go and recognize the support of this project.

Thank you. Next, we have City Point, neighborhood office issue.

Hi, can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay, good morning. City Point Neighborhood Association will go on record. and non-opposition as well. And I just do want to make a correction to the record. We are not looking for anything to go in there that is alcohol related. So not only a bank, but non-alcohol related, and that was agreed to. The zoning, as Attorney Maranci explained, is in fact conditional. Some of it is forbidden use. But in this particular location, we're hoping that we can get an amenity in there, such as a butcher shop, something similar to Lambert's. And that's what we're looking for. So with that, we will stand in on our position. Thank you. Thank you.

Next we have Marco de Barros. Now you can... Yes. Okay.

Can you state your name and address for the record and whether you're in support or opposition of this project? Hello? Mr. DeBarros, are you speaking in support or opposition for 748?

I'm a penalist.

I'm doing a... Are you doing a future case? Yes. Okay, so we're not up to you then. Please be patient. Any other comments for 748 Broadway?

Madam Chair, I don't see any additional comments.

Okay. Does the applicant wish to address any of the feedback?

I don't think that's necessary, Madam Chair. I don't think anything contradicts any of my testimony.

All right, thank you. Madam Chair, can I just ask one question for clarification regarding to the potential lease of the commercial space? Please. Do you have a sense of how long your lease would be for the bank use?

George Maranci for the owner. I don't have any knowledge of any. There is no current lease or even target bank. So again, there are a limited number of allowed In an MFR-LS subdistrict under Article 68, when I say limited, I mean there's local retail, there's a barber shop, There's not much else. So my client has the capacity to put a local retail establishment in here because it's in allowed use. He would like to add to his options a bank. As an allowed use with the conditional use permit so that he at least has it ready. If a bank were to express interest, he would not want to say to the potential bank tenant, I should have the certificate of occupancy in place in nine months.

That might not work, but as Louane O'Connor from City Point Neighborhood Association pointed out, he has committed to working cooperatively with the neighborhood, hopefully to find a local retail tenant that is going to activate the space. Short answer to the question, Member Better Barraza, is that there is no bank lease, so there is no term.

I'd just like to make a recommendation that when lease terms are pulled together, if there was to be a bank tenant, that you would consider Other options, and so not a very long, long-term lease, but thank you so much for that clarification.

You're welcome.

With that, I'd like to put a motion forward if you're ready, Madam Chair. If there are no other questions from the board, please. Madam Chair, I would like to put forward a motion of approval. Is there a second?

Second. Mr. Stembridge?

Yeah.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Is Ms. Turner on? Sorry, I just had a problem unmuting myself. Yes, please. No worries. Ms. Better Barraza? Yes. Ms. Pinado? Yes. Mr. Collins? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Thank you. Madam Chair, we'll return to and ask about case VOA. 180-3623 with the address of 181 West 1st Street, which is an Article 80 case. If the applicant didn't know their representative are with us, They want to respond.

Good morning, Ms. Secretary, Madam Chair, members of the Board, Attorney Joe Hanley representing Triad Alpha Partners, the owner-developer, Peter Zagorianakis, who is with me. Just making sure everyone can hear me okay.

You sure can.

All right. So I'm going to run you through this quickly. As the Secretary said, this is an Article 80 large project that was approved by the BPDA for its residential use. This slide here on the site locus, if you can stay here for just a second, shows you the location. We are in a watch head of the MBTA's Broadway station, also within a walk shed of Four Point and the former Gillette headquarters and the Convention Center and all of South Boston's amenities and the like. Our site is shown in the red hash building. Next slide, please. So just to walk you really quick around plan upper left, you will see this is the existing, it's an existing outdated industrial use. Building's approximately 28 feet in height.

and is obviously distressed and unutilized. So you'll see in this too that there is a grade that goes up towards the hill, again, The plan upper left shows you that, and that is the view looking south into the neighborhood from First Street, and then looking down, looking up First Street, excuse me, towards B Street, you'll see the corner of the building, and then down First Street towards C, in the lower left and then the right is up on Second Street and you will see the site obviously to its immediate left. Next slide please. So what is being proposed here is the project site's a little over an acre, almost 50,000 square feet. The building that is being proposed varies in height and Massing has been real carefully designed.

It's a little less than 150,000 gross square feet. It would deliver 144 new residential units. with 13% affordable, as well as activate First Street, the West First Street corridor with neighborhood serving retail. Proposed FAR is just a little under three, 2.9. This is a full-sized, these units are all full-sized, family-sized accommodations. As you'll see, we have 18 three bedrooms, 74 two bedrooms, and 51 one bedrooms. We also have bike parking, 170 interior spaces, 26. as well as Blue Bike Station and 101 total parking spaces, which is under the maximum limit of 0.7, we think is appropriate considering the size of these units. The lot coverage, a little less than 60%, 59.

And the building height varies between four to six stories at 46 and 63 feet in elevation, and that is utilizing that grade change. that I showed you in the photos. The project timeline, this is a notice of project change that was approved by the BPDA under Article 80. 2011, Article 68, which the South Boston Zoning was adopted. This originally, the project was originally contemplated as an asset right development. with no affordable back in 2014. It was approved as such. It was stalled and not built, and we returned the BPA for a notice of project change in 2024. in September, and we've spent the last year extensive outreach with the neighborhood, the public review process, as well as the BCDC. which voted to support this and we were approved by the BPDA board and here we are today.

In support of the zoning we would suggest and you'll see that certainly we have a unusual Shaked Lot. It also happens to be abutted on three sides by public ways, Second Street, C Street, and First Street. And on the other side, it's abutted by what is now known as The Mahoney Park used to be a DPW lot, and since the approval in 2011, it was turned into a community garden and a public park. That's a huge driver with how we shaped our massing and responsive height and the like. And then of course, the great change between its lower elevation down on 1st Street up to 2nd Street and carving that building in there and responding to that as a way to mitigate any potential impacts. Next slide, please, shows you how the zoning comes together. and you can see the relief that is necessary.

We in MFR district, the MFR does not, I think you heard this from Rancy on another project, but in South Boston, Article 68 doesn't allow retail. Through the BPDA process, we were asked to activate First Street as part of the retail. That does need a variance under the MFR. of which we're located. We also need relief for lot area for additional dwelling units, as you'll see. And again, I spoke about the FAR, too, was allowed. We're at 2.9. And for the building height, with its variation, and many more. We will continue to work with you as we move forward.

Oops, I can't hear him.

I know. I think we just lost Joe.

Did we lose Mr. Hanley?

If you go back a slide, I can go through. I'm Peter Sigourinakis. I'm the owner. Okay, sure. This is the zoning code refusal letter from ISD which matches the zoning that Joe just described above. Next slide, please. Next slide.

Next slide.

This is our garage retail level. So we're on grade, all frontage on West 1st Street. And as you come around C to 2nd Street, Because of the grade change, we have a different elevation on Second Street. So we're at grade on Second Street would be the first floor. would be the second floor and that grade on first street would be the retail level in the parking garage and we have 101 parking spaces and of course our bike parking here which is direct access outside the building. Next slide please. Next. As Joe mentioned, we tend to develop a little bigger units than most people, so we don't have a lot of studios in our buildings. We have a good mix of one, twos, and threes with the majority of them.

We have a nice open area here with setback, 60, actually 80 feet from 1st Street on this side of the building. with an amenity for the residents of the building, and we have a courtyard in the middle of the building. Next slide, please. Again, good mix of units on the second, next, and the third, fourth, and fifth. Next slide, please. You can notice we have lots of balconies around the building on different floors, again giving the residents some nice outdoor space. Next slide, please. Fourth floor the same.

Now on the fourth floor, we've actually set the fourth and fifth floor back on the building here so that we've limited the community garden shadow lines from the building. So we're not encroaching the shadow lines more than we were with the original design that was approved in 2014 by setting that side of the building is set back. Next slide please. And same thing on the fifth floor. We've eliminated most of the fifth floor on this side of the building. Next slide please. We have a solar array on our roof and per the request of the local council people and Electeds, we've eliminated the roof deck. I guess some of the buildings in South Boston, the roof decks have caused too much noise, so we've eliminated the roof deck on the roof. Next slide please. Here's some renderings of the building from different. This is the West 2nd and C Street rendering.

We've actually designed the building to fit right in with the streetscape going along 2nd Street. Next slide, please. This is the corner of C and First Street, which is a little larger because you have the elevation change that goes down about eight feet from Second Street to First Street and the retail level on the first floor. Next slide, please. This is looking the other way on First Street where you have the community garden and park, Mahoney Park here. Next slide, please. This is our landscape area that's on Second Street that's tying into the Mahoney Park. It's not part of the park, but it ties into the park and gives you a nice visual landscape effect, which is used by our residents.

This is set back 80 feet from our property line, so this building is opening up the air to this building in the middle, so this side of their building is completely exposed to light. Next slide, please. Thank you. I'll be happy to answer any questions that you might have.

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 a Boston Planning Department-led Article 80 process. A joint impact three-group public meeting was held on September 11th, 2025. The written public comment period solicited 24 written comments in opposition and six in support. Our office has received 19 letters of support, one letter of opposition, main points of concern during the community meetings, height, Abutters would like to see the height reduced, noting that the proponent did work with the community on height setbacks. Transportation impacts of greater density around this corridor. Community would like a more comprehensive transportation approach given the amount of Article 80 projects coming to First Street. Proponent worked with members of the IAG to mitigate any impacts to the abutting garden space and better blend landscaping between parcels. And with that background, our office defers judgment to the board. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have Andrew Galvin.

Hello Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Andrew Galvin. I'm representing Councilor Aaron Murphy's office. The councilor would like to go on record in support of this project. Thank you. Thank you.

Next we have Ashley from City Councilor Fleming.

Hi, my name's Ashley from Councilor Flynn's office. Councilor Flynn would like to go on record in support based on good faith compromises in the community process that included removing roof decks and removing the fifth floor story along Mahoney Park. The proponent has also worked to conduct site remediation and agreed to improvements for accessibility for persons with disabilities Urban Tree, Canopy, and Sidewalk, and Public Realm Improvements. Most notably, the proponent has worked with the community to maintain over 100 parking spaces in recognition of South Boston's existing parking crisis. the reality that new residents and visitors will invariably bring cars to this site. Councilor Flynn respectfully asks that the board please provide every consideration and the proponent to continue working closely with the community during the construction phase. Thank you. Thank you.

Thanks. Next we have Stephen Harvey.

Hello Madam Chair, members of the Board. My name is Stephen Harvey. I am the Senior Project Manager who represented this project for the Planning Department. This project was originally approved in April 17, 2014, and it filed the NPC on September 19, 2024. It had two public meetings and one IAG meeting and had a substantial amount of meetings with the Boston and Civic Design Commission. The project was approved by the Planning Department Board on September 18, 2025. and it was an increase from 97 units to 144 units and the planning department approved the project based on the article 80 review process.

Thanks. Next we have Marco de Barros.

Hello, good morning. Are you here to speak on this project? No. Okay, I think he's waiting for his own project, so can you please continue?

Okay, next we have Maynard Perez.

Thank you, Mr. Ambassador, Madam Chair, members of the board. This is Mayna Perez representing the Carpenters Union. On behalf of hundreds of union carpenters that live and work for the city of Boston, I want 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?

I'll make a motion of approval. Is there a second?

Second. Mr. Stembridge? Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza?

Yes.

Ms. Pinado?

Yes.

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

Thank you. Thank you. Good luck.

With that, I'll move on to the rediscussions scheduled for 1130 a.m. First we have case BOA 177. 4198 with the addresses 2 to 4 in Dannyville. If the applicant and other representative are present, will they please explain the case to the board?

Mr. Secretary, I'm sorry, I just was asking, were deferrals already called for 1130?

No, Mr. Stembridge missed that, but let's do Danny Road. I just was like, sorry, thank you. You're good, you're good. Anyone here for Danny Road?

Madam Chair, I don't see anyone.

Okay, so let's keep moving forward and Mr. Stembridge can ask about deferrals.

Which we will do. So at this point, are there any requests for withdrawals or deferrals from the 1138 apartment? Yes, 100 Huntington Ave. So that would be for case VOA. 170-3445 with the address of 100 Huntington Ave.

Go ahead, Attorney Drago. Thank you, Ms. Stembridge. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board, Attorney Jeff Drago with the business address of 11 Beacon Street here on behalf of the applicant and working with the Back Bay Business Association, we are seeking one additional deferral We've been working with them on some changes, mitigation for the advertisement, and we should have this all complete within the time period if we can get one more deferral.

Okay, what are we looking at Caroline? We could do March 24th or April 7th.

April 7th would be great, Caroline. Excuse me, Madam Chair.

How many deferrals have you requested so far?

So I believe there were three. One was because of a board. The board composition was understood. It wasn't a full board. And then two to continue working with A different association and the city councilor had asked us to defer once to meet with him. But this is our final. We'll have everything wrapped up, if granted. Okay, so today is number four.

It's the third. Well, you said one was an administrative deferral. Correct, yes. Today is the third. Okay, so is there a motion?

Make a motion to defer. Sorry, what was the date again?

March 24th? April 7th.

Oh, April 7th. Okay, is there a second? Second. Okay, Mr. Stembridge.

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

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

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon. I have a deferral as well. OK. Could you speak? 87, Morris.

Okay.

So this would be for two cases. Hello. Case BOA 148-2368. with the address of 87 Barra Street. Along with that, we have case BOA 1482374 also with the address of 87 Barra Street. Please go ahead and explain.

Yes, Attorney Laureen Scatino with a business address of 245 Sumner Street in East Boston requesting a deferral because we are still seeking GCOD compliance and waiting for Boston Water and Sewer approval. as well as we had an update in the plans and the plans examiner that was on this is no longer an employee at the city so we need to get another examiner assigned to re-review this case as well. Okay, how much time do you need? I would say April. Okay, Carolyn? April 7th or April 28th? Let's do the 28th.

Okay, may I have a motion? Motion to defer until April 28th. Is there a second? Second.

Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

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

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Thanks.

Next, we'll go to case BOA-170-7353 with the address of 18 Intervale Street. If the applicant can do it, their representative or president, would they please explain the case to the court?

Yes, thank you, Mr. Stembridge. Madam Chair, members of the board, Attorney Ryan Spitz with Adams & Maranci with the business address of 168 8th Street, 1st Floor, South Boston. Joining me today is the owner, Heron Carbonara. This proposal seeks to raise an existing garage structure to erect a new single-family dwelling with garage parking on a lot consisting of approximately 1,800 square feet, which creates the need for insufficient lot area as the code requires. 4,000 square feet within this 3F4,000 subdistrict. Further, the pre-existing conditions of the lot also create the need for relief as to lot width and frontage. This three-story structure, Mr. Ambassador, if I can just trouble you to scroll through the drawings. Thank you. This three-story structure will consist of a first-floor garage parking in the front and a kitchen located in the rear. Second floor, there will be a living one-bedroom and one-bathroom. Third floor will consist of two bedrooms and two baths.

We have additional violations for side yard. This lot is considered a narrow lot per Article 50, which requires a side yard to be 5 feet. Our proposed side yard in this revised set of plans is 5.1 feet, which is compliant. Therefore, this violation was stated on the refusal and error. The final violation that we do have is open space violation. Code requirement is 650 square feet per dwelling. Proposal calls for 460 square feet. As this lot is a narrow and shallow lot that complies with the dimensional requirements for setbacks, the proposal does increase its available open space on the site by adding decks and impervious pavers around the home. Prior to concluding, Madam Chair, I'd just like to notate that this proposal has had a few deferrals based upon

neighborhood concerns and feedback as well as the planning department's previous recommendation of denial addressing those concerns to a reasonable proposal here that you're seeing a single family rather than the three family that was originally proposed. to meet all the concerns and again is now consistent with the planning department's recommendation for approval for this single family structure. So at this point Madam Chair I'm going to turn it over to you for any questions or comments.

Thank you. Are there questions from the board?

Hearing none, may I have public testimony?

Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Venberry. I am the Roxbury Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process, which consisted of a very lightly attended about his meeting facilitated on April 28th with two guests in attendance. Next, the proponent presented to Intervale, Normandy Resident Association, Devon, Normandy Brunswick Streets Residents Association, Columbia Road Neighborhood Association. where they voted in opposition to the proposal saying the proposed building is too large for the size of the lot and the lot is too narrow. There are substantial parking and traffic issues at that street and this project will add to those problems. The proposed tandem basement parking is not workable and cars trying to leave that garage will create traffic gridlock on the street. The rear balconies will be a fire safety issue.

To date, our office has received two letters of support as well as 11 letters of opposition maintained in the previously mentioned opposed theme. 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. Next, we have Andrew Galvin.

Hello, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Andrew Galvin. I'm representing Councilor Aaron Murphy's office. The council would like to go on record in support of this project. Thank you.

Thank you. Ma'am Chair, there are no additional comments.

Any further comment from the applicant?

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. As we heard from Mr. Biambre, a lot of those comments in opposition were due to the previous rendering, which again, that we substantially changed those plans and now we're presenting here what you saw in front of you. As a single family, most recently we did provide two additional letters of support that were received this morning. We did forward those to the board. Hopefully everyone is in receipt of those. were based upon the previous rendering at a three-family. We've made those substantial changes and revised the dimensions of the building as well as the use.

Thank you.

With that, may I have a motion?

Madam Chair, before we do that, could we hear from Jeff Hampton?

Sure, Mr. Hampton.

Are you with us? I'm with you, Madam Chair. I'm having trouble with the camera. Oh, there we go. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board, Jeff Hampton, City of Boston Planning Department. Mr. Stembridge, we did change our recommendation based on the new plan submitted by the appellant. We originally recommended a project of denial but due to the fact that the Appellants had changed the plans and were more in line with the concerns that we had. We changed our recommendation to approval.

Okay. Any other questions, Mr. Stembridge? Okay.

May I have a motion?

Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

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

Yes.

Ms. Pinado?

Yes.

Mr. Collins?

Yes.

There are votes yes, the motion carries.

Thank you. Good luck.

Next we have, excuse me, next we have case BOA 16703 49 with the address of 501 Boylston Street. If the applicant and or their representative present, would they please explain to the board?

The applicant for 501, Boylston on.

Yeah, I see Johnny Sanchez.

Hi, thank you very much and apologies that I'm not on camera. I don't appear to have the option to turn on my camera. Good morning Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is Jadia Sanchez from Goulston & Storrs. I'm here on behalf of the appellant TC 501 Boylston Street, LLC. I'm joined today by Kevin Curley, Dana Griffin, and Dustin Lord on behalf of ownership. Next slide please. I'm sorry to interrupt.

Can I just ask a quick question before you proceed? So you've Deferred a few times because of APCC issue.

Is that still an issue? It's not. We did receive our approval earlier this month on January 14th. Great, thank you. Please proceed. Thank you. The site that is the subject of this appeal is located at 501 Boylston Street in Back Bay, bounded by Newberry Street to the north, Boylston Street to the south, Clarendon Street to the west and a retail building to the east. The site contains an existing one level valet only garage. Next slide, please. And this is the plot plan for the site. Next slide, please. The applet appeared before the board on July 8, 2025 for rooftop and garage modifications. At the time, the board voted to approve the rooftop modifications, including a restaurant conditional use, but deferred on the garage modifications pending APCC approval which the applicant did receive earlier this month. The board's consideration today is only for the garage proposal. Next slide, please. Next slide, please.

The applicant is proposing to add 32 net new parking spaces from 114 spaces to 146 spaces. This is a slight downward adjustment from what we proposed in July, which was for a total of 167 spaces with 53 net new spaces. The applicant is also proposing to add public parking to the garage. Next slide, please. The proposal requires the board's approval of two conditional use permits given the building's location in a restricted parking overlay district. Next slide, please. For background, the building is a pre-code structure dating to the 1940s, last extensively altered in 1961. It contains approximately 600,000 square feet of office and retail uses. For a building of this size, it has a relatively small garage containing 114 spaces. and for context based on current BTD guidelines, the building is permitted to have up to 212 spaces.

This fact has made it very difficult to attract and retain tenants at the site. The applicant is therefore looking to modestly increase the parking space count by 32 net new spaces. What you see here is a ground level site plan of the site. Any changes that we discuss today will not require any physical modifications to the building whatsoever. No additional curb cuts. Access and egress will remain off of Newberry Street as shown on this site. Next slide please. The applet is also requesting to add public parking to the site to alleviate parking demand in the neighborhood given Given the building's location along two of the largest commercial quarters in the city, Newberry and Boylston streets, existing data shows that the parking needs are underserved at and around the site, with no available public parking facility within a 300 foot radius of the site.

Additionally, there have been ongoing public parking reductions in the vicinity of the site, resulting in very limited, often elusive on-street parking availability. The garage's location near the entrance to Newberry Street with quick access to Sturrow Drive, the Mass Pike, and I-93 will help parkers enter and exit the neighborhood easily and reduce local traffic. And on this slide, you can see where the 32 net new spaces will be added. It'll be added in combination with some new strike spaces, as well as some additional stackers. Next slide please. And as you can see here, this is a study of the public parking facilities in the vicinity of the site, none within 300 feet of the site, which is what the APCC uses as as the local surrounding area. Next slide, please.

Now as mentioned none of these changes would require any physical modifications to the building and it's worth mentioning again that these requests have all been approved by the APCC. With that we conclude our presentation and we'd be happy to answer any questions that the board may have. Thank you. Thank you. Questions from the board?

Hearing none, may I have public testimony?

Madam Chair and members, CEO, Office of Neighborhood Services, this applicant completed the community process. Our office hosted an abutters meeting on May 6, 2025, at which no concerns were raised. The Neighborhood Association of the Back Bay is in non-opposition. With that background, our office defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have Maynor Perez.

Thank you, Mr. Ambassador. Madam Chair, members of the board, this is Mayna Perez representing the Carpenters Union. On behalf of hundreds of union carpenters that live and work across the city of Boston, I want to go and recognize the support of this project.

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. Ms. Pinado? Yes. Mr. Collins?

Yes.

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

Next, we have case BOA 1776341. with the address of 19 Bodwell Street. If the applicant and or their representative present would they please explain the case to the board.

One second.

Hello?

Hello? Marco de Barros, this is your case? Yes.

Yes, it is my case. Okay, so please state your name and address for the record and proceed.

Yes, I don't know what to say.

So can you explain what you're proposing and what zoning relief you need?

Yes, even the thing on the side of the house exists from basement. and the deck on the top of the garage used to legalize. It's been there for so long, but I never think it's supposed to be legalized. And I don't have any space to... I don't have any space to... I think I'll just ask and help to see if I can. Legalizing.

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 Engaged Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process, which consisted of an abutters meeting, facilitated on December 1st, with new abutters present. Following the abutters meeting, no further community process was required, and to date, our office has not received any further community feedback. Thank you for your time, and the MS Office of Paperboard Services would like to defer to the board for their judgment.

Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have Katherine Walker. Catherine.

Yes, hello. My name is Catherine Walker and Madam Chair and members of the board and I live on Glendale Street. The edge of my property is about 10 feet from Mr. DeBarraza's home. I did write a letter and that letter was submitted to the Office of Neighborhood Services as well. I'm sorry if Mr. Bemer didn't get it. My concern is, as I said in the letter, I believe the neighborhood appreciated the work that Mr. DeBarraza has done on the inside of his house because the house was in terrible shape when he bought it in. I think 2009 and but then did substantial building on the back of the house added a third floor porch and the

Structure on the top of the garage and along the side of the house. And those structures are virtually on the property line I was not aware of a meeting. I didn't hear about a community meeting until after the date had passed, so I apologize that I wasn't present for that. The entire structure of the back porches and the garage topping are virtually on the property line and no variances were sought. for those and I'm not even sure there was a building permit for those. I know that I submitted to 311 a concern because I thought the third floor porch was Tremendously unsafe and children playing upstairs there without any railings.

So I am very much opposed and my neighbors close to me who are not here today because they're working are also concerned about trying to legalize the fact. Thank you so much.

Okay, Mr. Devaros, can you address your abutter's concern?

Mr. DeMarros? Yes.

He was not there when the flood hit. The prevailing, just use it as a deck, but I close it. Here's just the top roof. It's just the exit from the attic.

Any other questions from the board? Can we, from the planning department on this, I'm just a little confused about potential variances that weren't sought.

Especially since I was not able to I agree, Jeanine. I was not able to see the recommendation either.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board, Jeff Hampton, City of Boston Planning Department. I don't have anything. I don't have a refusal letter. I don't have any plans. So we don't have anything for you, unfortunately.

So I think with that, because I think what's critical is a survey plot plan, and that's what's missing. And I think what makes the most sense will be to provide a deferral so that adequate drawings be submitted to BPD. That's my feedback.

With that, may I have a motion? Sure. Is that a motion?

Yes, okay. If you allow me, I would like to go forward. A motion of deferral so the applicant can provide A certified plot plan by a licensed surveyor to be submitted and adequate drawings to be submitted to BPD for our review as well. Is there a second? Second. Second.

Second. Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

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

Yes.

The chair votes yes. The motion carries. Mr. DeBarros, how much time do you think you would need to do this? And Caroline, what's available?

Yeah, and Caroline, I would say that this is a small project. It could go in front of the subcommittee.

It was in front of the subcommittee. What do I have to do now?

So you should probably check in directly with the ZBA staff. We need a certified plot plan. and adequate drawings. So you should check back with ZBA staff. And Caroline, if you wanted to have someone call him offline for a date for a new hearing, that would be appreciated.

Madam Chair, can I just get another clarification? Do you have a sense of why the subcommittee put it forward to the full board committee?

He just wasn't there. There was no content discussed.

Okay, so it could go back to subcommittee.

Yeah, it was at subcommittee and same as the next one, the person just wasn't at the subcommittee.

Perfect, okay. Thanks for the clarification.

We could just schedule it for So the next subcommittee is February 12th and then March 19th. The next full board we have is February 24th, March 10th, or March 24th.

So Mr. DeBarros, how much time do you think you'll need to provide the mentioned items, the plot plan and the drawings?

I don't know nothing about Rabbit. I don't know.

Okay, so Caroline, I think it would make sense to have staff call him directly.

Okay, I just worry with like notice requirements. Can we just- Understood, but I think he needs the support. Yeah, for sure. But can we temporarily schedule it for March 24th?

Sure. That sounds good. Thank you. I just want them to have adequate time.

Yes, of course.

All right. Thank you. I'll make a motion to defer to March 24th.

Second.

Okay. Mr. Stembridge? Yeah. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Turner?

Yes.

Ms. Better Barraza?

Yes.

Ms. Pinado?

Yes.

Mr. Collins? Yes. Okay. Chair votes yes. Motion carries.

Next, we have case BOA 1762034 with the address of 774 East Broadway. If the applicant and or their representative present, then please explain the case to the board.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Stembridge. Madam Chair, members of the board, Attorney Ryan Spitz with Adams & Maranci. Business address of 168 8th Street, 1st Floor. South Boston. Joining me today is one of the owners, Jim O'Donovan, as well as the project architect, Anthony Pisani. This proposal is for a conversion of a single family dwelling to a two family dwelling at 774 East Broadway. by way of interior renovation in the addition of a small egress platforms. The use is allowed as we are located within an MFR sub-district. Also, this type of use is consistent with the fabric of the neighborhood as there are many other two and three family structures located in a very close proximity to this proposal and as stated within the planning department's recommendation of approval. Unit 1 will be a three-bed located on the first floor and basement. Unit 2 will be a three-bed located on the second and third floor. The proposed project requires relief for insufficient off-street parking and insufficient additional lot area.

The proposed project demonstrates substantial compliance with most of the dimensional requirements. However, with a lot size of 2,190 square feet, the property is conforming to the minimum lot size requirement at 2,000 square feet, but requires relief of the additional lot area with the additional thousand square feet of lot size requirement for the new unit. Again, this type of lot size is contextual to the scale of the site with several other similar lots on this block already housing two and three unit uses. The code requires 1.5 parking spaces for a new unit of housing, but this proposal is physically impossible to provide any parking. The property is located in a highly walkable neighborhood with excellent access to public transportation. Included in its proximity to multiple MBTA bus routes along Broadway. Further, it is aligned with the Mayor's initiative of reducing dependency on private vehicles along with the transportation's parking guidelines for this neighborhood.

The proposed project presents thoughtful, adaptive reuse of an existing structure, creating housing in a manner that respects the South Boston neighborhood's character while meeting contemporary housing needs. In concluding, this type of proposal is aligned with the Mayor's ADU policy, except that it is investor-owned rather than owner-occupied, and is also consistent with the Planning Department's recommendation of approval. At this point, Madam Chair, I'm going to pause for any questions or comments from the Board.

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

Yes, Madam Chair. Members, Siggy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This applicant has completed the community process. Assisted in a Butters meeting on October 15, 2025, at which Butters were opposed to the application. Butters were concerned about the placement of the decks, concerned about the increase of density on parking in the area, and the aesthetic of the structure. Our office has received a petition in opposition to this application with 87 signatures. 39 signatures are in the 300 foot above radius. 48 signatures signed an address outside the radius listed no address or listed an illegible address. Our office has also separately received 15 letters of opposition and with that background, the City Point Neighborhood Association is opposed to this application and with that background, our office defers judgment to the board. Thank you. Thank you.

Next we have Ashley from City Councilor Flynn.

Hi, Councilor Flynn would like to go on record in opposition due to feedback from neighbors, abutters, and the City Point Neighborhood Association on privacy concerns with the location of the proposed decks related to neighboring properties, as well as public safety concerns with the potential for grills on the decks and quality of life issues with the potential for noise. Moreover, Councilor Flynn heard from neighbors on lack of parking and negative impacts of South Boston's existing parking crisis. The lack of good faith compromise with neighbors on the deck location in a staircase, as well as the ability for neighbors to make repairs to their side walls and property if approved. For these reasons, Councilor Flynn remains opposed at this time. Thank you.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Next we have Robert Hopkins.

Good afternoon. My name is Robert Hopkins. I'm an attorney with Phillips and Angley with a business address of 1 Washington Mall, Boston. I represent Diane and Eileen Smith, who own and reside at 776 East Broadway and are direct abutters to the project. On behalf of the Smiths, I am here to oppose the project. First, I will note that not only do the Smiths oppose the project, but as you've heard, 88 members of the immediately surrounding neighborhood oppose it, and so does the City Point Neighborhood Association. The Smiths oppose the project because the proposed three rear decks will be located directly next to the Smiths' three bathroom windows. Three feet away, providing anyone on those decks with direct views therein and eliminating the Smiths' privacy in the most private room of their house. The DEX now technically compliant with the required three-foot setback does not alleviate this privacy problem. If anything, it solved the applicant's problem of needing an additional variance for side yard setback.

Further, the close proximity of the decks and the associated stairwell will eliminate the existing light and air coming into the bathroom windows. and will impair the Smiths' ability to access portions of the site of their dwelling for maintenance and repairs. Lastly, I know that this board has a difficult job to do. However, this project There are absolutely no special conditions relating to the property of the dwelling that are unique from those in your neighborhood, and there is no hardship that the applicant Thank you. Thank you. or at the very least, we ask that the project be conditioned to eliminate all rear decking. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. Next, we have Moritz. If you can unmute yourself, please. You have 90 seconds. You're mute, sir.

Maurice, you are mute. We can't hear you, sir.

You look like you're still on mute.

So let's go on to the next person and hopefully Mr. Morrison will resolve that issue by then.

Okay, now?

Oh, we can hear you now.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chairperson. My name is Dr. Robert E. Morris with my wife Angela D. Morissette from 811 East Broadway, South Boston. We oppose This project based on the decking situation, which has been well discussed by the lawyer just now. It's important to note that the developer's egress requirements can be readily met via a standard staircase or a sprinkler system, making these intrusive, undefined decks unnecessary. We strongly advocate the denial of these disruptive decking components by the zoning board. Personally, we had the

The exact same situation happened to us at 811 East Broadway where decks were placed at 809 East Broadway with direct vision into our tenants' bathrooms and we find that Totally unacceptable. So we oppose this project as is. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next, I think we have somebody from Senator Cohen's, Hayley Walsh. If you can unmute yourself now.

Hello, can you hear me? Yes. Yes, ma'am. Hi, Madam Chair, members of the board. Sorry, I don't know how to put my video on. Senator Haley from Senator Collins' office. Senator Collins acknowledges that the proponent has gone through the community process and made efforts to mitigate the concerns of the direct abutters relative to Article 68, but at this time at an impasse. We would like to see the abutters issues resolved before the commencement of this project at this location. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have Peter Helsinis.

Hi. Can the board hear me? Yes, sir. My name is Peter Galzenis. I live at 770 East Broadway. I'm two doors down. I've been on this street since 1988. I had an opportunity to move back to the city in 2023, bought the house that I grew up in. I lived there with my wife and my two boys who are five and eight. We would echo the concerns about the increased density at this property and the issues with the back decks and parking are all and many more.

I just want to zero in on the comments that were made by counsel for the Smiths for a moment. Just on the merits of this application, The applicant does not meet the requirements for a variance. I've heard the cases all morning and some folks are in quite a jam. and Zoning Relief certainly seems appropriate. There's nothing at this property that merits The variances, this is not an odd lot. There's no financial hardship with keeping this property as a single family. This property is assessed and well over a million dollars as a single family. I do think that this is an effort to sort of increase the return on investment, but that is not a valid reason

for zoning relief. And so for those reasons, I hope this developer does a great job with this property. It's a beautiful, beautiful home. I just don't think that the proposal right now is appropriate. So thank you very much. Thank you.

City Point Neighborhood Association, if you can

Yes, good morning, Madam Chair, Board, Lou Anne O'Connor, President, City Point Neighborhood Association. The proponent and his attorney came in on November 18, 2025. A quorum was present, the vote was taken, motion made, seconded vote was taken, and it was overwhelmingly in opposition. So with that, several conversations were happening within that meeting. Insofar as those rare decks and they are not really a necessity. These are two Women that are seniors, that is their family home where they grew up in. And for any developer to come in and to really upset their quality of life, particularly where they are requiring zoning variances. We ask that you deny this with prejudice. Thank you. Thank you.

The person with the Zoom user You have 90 seconds.

Yes, my name is Robert McDonald, and I speak in support of this project. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Madam Chair, we have no additional comments.

Can the applicant address those concerns, especially the necessity of those debts? It sounds like both.

Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, so I just want to remind everybody these are not decks or balconies. In the original proposal, they were decks and balconies. We substantially reduced them due to the concerns of the neighborhood, limiting the setback violations. These are merely simple egress platforms. that consists of approximately 52 square feet just to allow reasonable and safe egress in case of an actual accident. Given the fact that the Director Butters do actually have rail decks in the back of their rear yard that are actually non-conforming right up to the property line of this property, We don't express an issue with that, but we did provide some sort of reasonable accommodation considering the concerns of privacy matters in there, which are non-zoning related, that we did decide that we can put up these screening Flynn.

It's not even a space that you'll be able to even put a chair or even a table up. Again, simply egress platforms for safe means of egress. Again, I'd like to remind the board there are no dimensional setbacks, whether it was in the rear yard or the side yard pertaining to these egress platforms. We can definitely understand the parking component of this, but simply given the location that we're on East Broadway, directly in the middle of major bus routes that travel to Andrew Station, Broadway Station, South Station, and even downtown area. Makes it a much great proposal of increasing the housing count on a property like this without touching the exterior. And lastly, I'm going to end it, Madam Chair. If this was owner occupied under the ADU policy, this would be having a conversation with the zoning board as it would be a compliant project under that policy. So again, given because it's investor-owned, we're here today seeking the relief. Thank you.

Thank you. And can I ask a quick question? You mentioned 52 square feet egress platforms. So what are the Length and width dimensions. How much is it jutting out? Mr. Pisani, are you logged in specifically?

I know in the drawings. I have the width.

Oh, okay. Thank you.

It's about four feet and then... I don't necessarily know.

If you could go to your number five.

But there are. I'm sorry, Ms. Barraza, what did you say? It is minimum. It's just a landing. I can confirm that. I do have a question regarding the window. Is the one window that was noted, is that on the 776 East Broadway property?

Yes.

That window that I see getting out? Okay.

Yes, in that window, just to remind you all too, that comes right up to the actual property line itself, which is pre-existing non-conforming.

Right. And the deck doesn't even touch that.

Yes, correct.

Yeah. Okay. It clears that. So, okay. No problem.

And so from the four feet, so maybe Ms. Better Barraza, you can answer this too. From the four feet jutting out, how much space is to the end of the back of their property then? Like the space between.

I don't have that in front of me. I think Mr. Pisani can tell you. Can you answer that question, Mr. Pisani?

Yes. The site itself is 125 feet deep. There's in excess of 70 feet from the back of the house to the end of the property. The purpose of the decks is really to allow for egress from the fourth and third floor. And also, it's the stair provides the stair, the egress stair provides access to the backyard.

I think Madam Chair was asking once the deck is built, from the edge of the deck, How far, how much, what's the distance to the adjacent property, which is 776 East Broadway? Yes. Which is the concern, I think.

Yeah. Three feet to the property line, Ms. Better Barraza and Ms. Dong.

And then so the deck itself though is not like at that line is the question. Like how much space is there? Because there's concern about privacy.

Yes, yes, so it's three feet off of the actual property line itself, so it's compliant as far as the dimensional side yard is required, and again, just an egress platform.

And can I ask just what alternatives there are? Well, I think to answer your question, Madam Dong, and I'm just projecting from an estimate, I would think that there would be Maybe like six feet to the edge of where the window is in terms of clearance.

That also could be... You can correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm sorry, may I interject?

So this is not the time for that.

So if there are still issues surrounding the board regarding the size of the actual deck, I think, you know, to comply with the building code as far as second means of egress, that can be further discussed during design review if in fact it is approved.

Well that's my question because the people have suggested that there are alternatives to this for the egress purpose so I don't know if you've explored those already or

We try to explore everything, and we've made accommodations based on the original proposal. Again, I know we keep hair in deck, but it's more or less a landing. It's an egress platform. I have no other way that I can technically describe it.

Actually, the survey plot plan shows a really good description of the clearance of the adjacent property. So that would be page three of nine. And you can see there's enough Clearance. I don't really see any issues, especially if they're going to create privacy screens. Right there. So you can see how much clearance to the adjacent property there is.

Other questions from the board?

Yes, do we have any opinion from the planning department? Mr. Hampton here.

Yes, thank you Madam Chair, members of the board, Jeff Hampton, City of Boston Planning Department. We reviewed this case based on the rejection letter that ISD proposed and since the landing was not an issue, Our recommendation was for approval of the change of occupancy based on the land size and how they cannot physically get any cars into their property. So we recommended approval. Thank you.

Any other questions from the board? Is there a motion?

Madam Chair, I'm going to put forward a motion of approval with a proviso that the structure at the rear has privacy screens to allow some privacy. That's the motion.

Is there a second?

Second.

Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza?

Yes.

Ms. Pinado?

Yes.

Mr. Collins.

Yes.

Chair votes yes, the motion carries.

Thank you. Thank you. Return to the first case of the discussion scheduled for 11.30 a.m. for case DOA. 177-4198 with the address of 2-4 Danny Road. Mr. Applicant and or the Representative-President will they please explain to the Board.

Hello? Yes. Can you hear me?

Are you here for Danny Road?

Yes, ma'am. Yes.

Great. Can you state your name and address for the record and please proceed?

Yes, I am Alex Musto, 167 Needham Street, Denham, Massachusetts, 02026. and good morning members of the board. I am here today in regard to BOA 177419824 DNE Road Board 18, Reedville. I seek relief and conditional use to build a two-family dwelling at 214 Danny Road, which will require variances from the zoning board due to several violations. To begin, I want to create much needed housing within the City of Boston in hopes to work with the BPDA in the neighborhood.

to create and erect the two-family dwelling on an empty pre-existing lot that complements and blends in with the neighborhood. I am an experienced builder and have a history and reputation of creating housing I am proud of, previously created housing in this neighborhood that required zoning relief. I am in the business of construction, but I like to consider myself as someone who is in the business of working together with others to make neighborhoods stronger, vibrant, and peaceful. The two-family structure I seek to build the two to four D&E Royal Reed Villas in the section of Boston that consists of commercial, residential, single, and multi-family houses on 46,000 square feet or less. 24 D&E Road is located in the 2F 5000 District of Ward 18.

Previously, we did meet with the residents in the neighborhood and spoke to the mayor's office about these plans and meeting held within the neighborhood back in September, I believe. met with some opposition to the lot size, concern about ruins, noise, and general concerns about the structures and violations before you today. While I wish I could report to you that the meeting was a success and everyone approved On this proposal, I can only tell you I tried my best to address the concerns of the neighborhood, including agreeing to set up pest control measures to address the insistent rodent issues in the neighborhood, and restricting construction to hours that will not affect the quality of life of residents. There were several thoughts expressed about the proposal. I additionally intend to honor should the board approve this request, including color, landscape, and overall design.

Two to four Danny Roll is shown as a 4,000-square-foot lot, number 34 on the plan created, Norfolk County of D, prior to 1918 according to zoning intentions and practices of the time. The plot plan is provided to board for reference. Lot 34 adjoins Lot 33 and other lots that were created and approved prior to the common zone code, but would need to seek relief from the common code. To give you an idea of the fabric of housing in the neighborhood, On one side, Lot 35 is a single-family structure, and Lot 33 is a three-family structure, settled on the 4,000... Square Foot Lot, which is emblematic of housing in scattered structures throughout the neighborhood, including another nearby tree family. They're situated in a lot of those approximately 3,700 square feet.

The structure we are proposing is a 2F split that addresses in their suitable need for today's family as well as off-street parking for each unit. Article 69-section 29-5, off-street parking design. I will claim provided to the board, which was off-street parking for each unit on the property. Article 9, lot area insufficient. The cove requires the property of 5,000 square feet, but the lot is only 4,000. We have designed the house in such a way that it does not encompass the entire lot in the structure and by itself are consistent with other lots in the area including lots on the street. Article 69, Section 9, additional lot area insufficient. Again, due to the lot size, we need now a request of relief from the board. The lot is 50 feet by 80 feet. But the common code is 50 by 100.

The lot area for an additional unit requires 3,000 square feet. We are seeking relief from this condition because this lot is only 4,000 square feet. Where the lot was created prior to the zoning code, currently and formally adopted, the lot, like others in the neighborhood, triggered an automatic violation due to the evolving zoning code changes. We are seeking same or similar relief that would have to be granted in all lots on the street needed to perform with the current zoning code. Article 69, section 9, floor area ratio excessive. The current The code currently calls for .5 FAR in this district. Our plans call for 1,500 square feet per unit, which triggered the FAR violation. But these units have first and second floor that do not violate any height requirements strictly tactfully and tastefully designed.

As I will mention at the end of my presentation, we are willing to work with design review We are seeking relief from the provision. Article 69, Section 9, Usable Open Space Insufficient. The code calls for 1,750 feet per unit. Due to the FAR design of the building to accommodate use, we are seeking relief from the code along with any design review condition that the board would deem advisable. Article 69, Section 9, front yard insufficient. The code currently calls for 20 feet front yard from the sidewalk. We have approximately 10 feet, which is under the requirement. We are secretly from the requirement as the structure itself makes minimal intrusion on the sidewalk and is conforming with the average Front yard setbacks of other structures in the neighborhood, some of which are abutting the sidewalk.

Article 69, Section 9, Raid Yard Insufficient. The code calls for... 40 feet setback. The structure is approximately 20 feet from the rear yard boundary. This is in due in part because of the large size as well as the footprint of the structure. We are again asking for the fraudulent requirement because of the hardship the lot size and zoning code have restricted and conditions needed to meet the current zoning code. In closing, I would like again to reiterate that we are seeking relief from the zoning code, but are willing to work with the BPDA to satisfy conditions and concerns of this proposal. This law was created in an acceptable time and has now triggered violations because the zoning code has changed since then. We recognize that these changes are for the better, but they are causing undue hardship that we seek relief from.

There is a need for housing in the City of Boston and may never be met if there is not some relief given to lots created before the zoning code. We want to work with the city and the neighborhood to address the residents' concerns, as well as give us the relief that we are seeking. With that, I am willing to answer any questions you may have.

Any questions from the board?

Can you come out to us? Can you go look at a site plan and can you address whether there's an ability to do one curb cut to provide that parking? Can you just tell us which one is the site plan that shows parking?

Oh, there is, yeah, there was one, no, there it is, right. There is one curb cut per unit, one on the left side, one on the right side.

And is there an ability to do one curb cut and still have the parking? Where's the parking layout? Is there a plan that shows the parking layout?

We can work with the design review on that, right. Yes, we're capable of doing that when curb cut.

Thank you. Any other questions?

Will these be rental units or condos?

Yes, they'll be condominiums, you know, for new homeowners. So, homeownership. Yes, yes. Thank you.

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

Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Benbury. I'm the Hyde Park Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process, which consisted of a lightly intended abutters meeting facilitated on October 2nd. Up there but as present both voiced their opposition to the proposal voicing a concern for the three family located at 6 Denny Road who currently uses the lot for parking. Residents were concerned about the loss of parking that the neighborhood could use to relieve the stress of parking in the area. A previous owner of the property voiced their concerns that if they were advised by the city that the lot could not be sold or built upon. A previous community meeting was held by the proponent where residents opposed the proposal again referencing the loss of parking space in the area. Lastly, a concern for the size of the proposal stating that they feel the lot is too small for a two-family and would be more supportive of one family as 6th Danny Road would lose its green space. Next, the proponent presented to Greenville Watch Neighborhood Association on September 18th. where they voted to oppose the proposal as well.

The neighborhood association expressed concerns regarding the road and control, little to no parking provided and did not see a need for additional housing. To date, our office has received two letters in opposition to the proposal and a 32 signature petition of opposition. 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. and I'm chair, there are no additional comments.

Okay, 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 site plan review to So that's one. Actually, it's with two provisos. One is the BPD provides site plan and review to locate The second proviso is that the project only has one curb cut versus two for the project. Is there a second?

Second.

Mr. Stembridge. Are you on mute, Mr. Stembridge? Yes, you are. Mr. Stembridge, you need to unmute yourself.

Sorry, technical difficulties, Madam Chair. Yeah.

Thank you. Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza?

Yes.

Ms. Pinado?

Yes.

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

Thank you very much. That's all we have, Madam Chair.

All right. Thank you, everyone, for your time and attention. Have a good day.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you.