Zoning Board of Appeal

Good morning. The City of Boston Zoning Board of Appeal hearing for July 28, 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 for connecting to this hearing is listed on today's hearing agenda which is posted on the public notices page of the city's website boston.gov Numbers of the public will enter the virtual hearing as attendees, which means you will not see yourself on the screen and you will be muted throughout unless administratively unmuted when asked to comment.

Board members, applicants and their attorneys or representatives will participate in the hearing as panelists. And they will appear alongside the presentation materials when speaking. Panelists are strongly encouraged to keep video on while presenting to the board. As with our in-person meetings, comments and support will be followed by comments 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 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 hands should go down. When the host sees your hand, you will receive a request to unmute yourself. Select yes and you should be able to talk.

If you are connected to the hearing by telephone, please press star 9 to raise and lower your hand. You must press star 6 to unmute yourself after you receive the request from the host. Those called upon to comment will be asked to state their name and address first, and then can provide their comment. In the interest of time and to ensure that you have enough time to do so, please raise your hand as soon as Mr. Stembridge reads the address into the record. Do not raise your hands before the relevant address is called or the meeting host will not know to call on you at the appropriate time. We ask that you keep your comments brief and all public testimony will be limited to 90 seconds per speaker. All right, Mr. Stembridge?

Good morning Madam Chair, President.

Good morning. Mr. Valencia? Good morning, Madam Chair. Present. Good morning. Ms. Turner? Good morning Madam Chair, present. Good Morning, Ms. Better Barraza? Good Morning Madam Chair present. Good morning, Madam Chair and President. Good morning Mr. Collins.

Morning, Madam chair and president.

Good Morning. Grocers, 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 minutes, these are the minutes from July 14th of this year. I'll make a motion approval of these minutes.

Thank you is there a second?

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.

Next we have an extension scheduled for 9 30 a.m there are seven Cases this morning.

They all appear reasonable.

I'll read them in one behind the other and we can see if there are any questions, and then go from there.

We'll begin with case BOA 149-4349, with the address of 2 Dexter Rowe.

Next we have Case BOA 948

352 with the address of 11 Heron Street.

Next we have case VOA 948354

with the address of 26 Heron Street. Next, we have case BOA-1332592 with the addresses 19 Woodville Street. Next we have case BOA 163-2235 with the address of 250 Siebel Street.

Next, you have Case BOA 159

3053 with the address of 156 Wellington Street. and finally for the extensions we have case BOA 1593050 with the address of 88 Geneva Avenue. Those are the extensions before us today.

Thank you. Are there any questions from the board? Hearing none, may I have a motion to grant the extensions as requested? Motion to grant extensions as Requested. May I have second?

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.

Next we'll move on to the recommendations from the recent subcommittee meeting All of these were approved with the PD design review. I'll read through them and if there are any questions, When I finish, we'll take those up. Again with case BOA 185 1850866 with the address of 85 Everett Street, which was approved.

Next we have case BOA1819861

with the address of 203 Falkland Street. It was approved to be what any department designed it to be. Next we have case BOA-183, 9249 with the address of 59H to 59 Washington Street, which was approved. Next we have two companion cases Case BOA 1860034 with the address of 478-484 West Broadway along with case BOA 0029, which also has the address of 478-484 West Broadway. Both were approved with one department design review.

Next, we have case BOA 1857382 with the address of 394 Geneva Avenue which was approved. Next, we have case BOA 1715115 with the address of 655 William T. Morrissey Blvd., which was approved. Next we have case BOA 185-5992 with the address of 163 Beach Street, which was approved. and finally we have case BOA 185-1194 with the address of 16 High Rock Way. Madam Chair, those are all the recommendations .

Thank you. Any questions from the board? May I have a motion? Motion to approve subcommittee recommendations. May I have a second? 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

Next we'll move on to building code case scheduled for 9 30 a.m this is this was case voa 1 8 5 7 8 6 8 with the address of 46 Mystic Street. If the applicant and or their representative are present, will they please explain to the board?

Thank you, Mr. Stembridge. Good morning Madam Chair and members of the board for the record. Richard Lenz is the business address at 245 Summer Street on behalf of the petitioners. With me today are my clients Jamison Vasquez and Stephanie Crizzoli They are the owners of Unit 1 of the 46 Mystic Street Condominium. Mr. Ambassador, we can jump down to page 7. That's probably a good reference point to start. and I'll let the board know just by way of brief background, my client purchased this property as a condominium unit in 2023. They were the second owner of this unit in the condominum that was The other unit owners, also either the second or third owners of their units. None of these owners are the first unit owners of this condominium, nor were they involved in development of this property. As we can see here from the photo, the building at 46 Mystic is one of a series of row houses along Mystic Street. This building was constructed

sometime probably back in the early 1800s, certainly before 1900. The legal occupancy of this building as a three-unit dwelling was confirmed by ISD in 1990...in the 1990's and this property was converted into three condominium units over 20 years ago back in 2003. If we can jump down to page, let's go to page four So what I'm showing the board here, Madam Chair is the original master deed plan that was registered with the Suffolk Registry of Deeds. As we can see, Unit 1 actually occupies both the basement level and the main first level. So this is a bi-level unit. And within Unit 1, as we can see there's a portion located in the basement off to the right side that encompasses the utility room

The utility room was a condition that was included back when the property was converted in 2003. Again, a condition has existed for more than 23 years. One of the practical difficulties that we do see, and I'm sure as this board has seen many times before is that buildings of this age generally have very limited access to utilities. and in this particular case that would be not the exception for this building as well. We could jump down to page, I believe page eight might show or illustrate some of the practical issues that we're dealing with here So we've got a page eight. So what we're showing here, Venom Chair is the rear of the building as you can see this again it's a row house condition there are crossover balconies for units two and three Neither of those units have direct access to the rear of the building. The rear of a building is accessible through Unit 1 only.

Again, these are conditions that existed long before our clients purchased it and certainly were conditions that exist when the conversion occurred in 2003. Because there is limited access from Units 2 and 3 to the rear of the property, there really is no other way to access the utility room except through Unit 1. and certainly understanding that the building code requires independent access, this again being a condition as it existed for more than 23 years is something that is creating somewhat of a hardship at this point. Back in 2025, although this is something that I believe the city had dealt with more than a decade ago. Our clients were provided a notice of violation for the condition with the utility room located where it's at. That is a condition, again, that they did not create.

Not something that they were aware of and certainly when they purchased the property, was a surprise to them, certainly because the condominium documents for this building since it was created actually accounts for access to that utility room. All unit owners in the building have access to the utility room. They just have to pass through Unit 1, and all unit owners do have the ability to access it through the trustees which do have a key to that unit. This has not created an issue at all for any of you donors. I believe there is a letter that's been provided to the board that specifically outlines this condition and something All of the unit owners have no objection to and certainly have not experienced any issues in accessing it. If you look on the right side, we can see that lower portion of the first unit And as you can see, there is very limited area to access either door or some sort of bulkhead into that lower basement area.

And so therefore, based upon a strict reading of the building code this would be in violation of the code. However I would point out and remind the board that condition has existed since the inception of this condominium in 2003 In order to address this particular violation that's been cited by the city, there really are not a lot of alternatives. Access alone creates somewhat of a barrier, especially from the back of the building. There is no access from the front of the buildings except for unit one and therefore the only solutions would be as follows first to relocate all the utilities out of the basement into their respective units, which is at an exorbitant cost. We've had contractors review this based upon the age of the building and certainly how the utilities are currently run There would be a huge undertaking in order to make this comply.

The second is to request relief under the building code for this particular condition, and again, a longstanding condition. Now, I'm certainly familiar as a practitioner before this board that granting building code relief without some type of plan is never really the most optimal approach. and I would point out that we do think there's a practical solution for this. One is to allow for the status quo to remain as has existed for more than 23 years But with the caveat that in the event there is any rehabilitation or substantial renovation of a building, that compliance be achieved. And basically the point, Madam Chair is that to relocate these utilities by these particular unit owners none of which had any responsibility in creating the condition would put a huge burden financially on them. And we believe that if in fact there is a renovation or rehabilitation of the building in future,

that is a more appropriate time for the condition to be corrected. And once again, I would point out From a practical standpoint, it has worked. Any access that has been needed to get to the utilities is something that has not been an issue for unit owners and the board has evidence of that in writing. and we believe that this condition can continue and certainly it can be done in a way that is accessible by all unit owners. I would point out that as you can see this particular building is landlocked. While there may be emergency egress over other properties, there's not a particular means of ingress to the backyard anyhow. So even if we put a door into the back of the building, there would be no practical means to access it. You'd still have to go through minute one to get some utilities. So those are just some of the quick overview items for this particular request.

And again, I understand fully that the board is not are not necessarily inclined unless there's some alternative or plan that can be achieved. And all we're asking for is to allow for these units to remain marketable both from a finance standpoint, from a saleability standpoint, that the violation that has been issued by the city be addressed through relief with a caveat that in the event of substantial rehabilitation, that the condition would be corrected at that time certainly when the costs can be addressed. I'm happy to address any comments or questions from the Board of Madam Chair.

Thank you, are there questions from The Board?

Do we have a Commissioner or someone from ISD to speak on this issue?

Caroline, do you want to weigh in?

I don't believe so. I would just defer to the board's judgment on this one.

OK. Has there been conversations in regards to correcting the action? In regards to renovating a unit, you would have to remove some of the square footage of Unit 1. to remedy the situation?

That's a great question. Not only would there have to be a change to Unit 1, Units 2 and Unit 3 to receive the utilities, Ms. Better Barraza, will also have to be altered. There's not a real practical solution. We did have a contractor go through the entire building Thank you for watching. This building being old with utilities where they're at would almost require a pretty substantial change from the building itself, both the plumbing and the electrical. and in order to do that, that would come at great cost and expense to the entire building. As I mentioned, not a condition they created.

Right, there's only really two solutions because as you noted the law is landlocked. Because I was looking at potentially having a bulk access at the rear but that's not really possible because you can't really get vehicles I really see two solutions. One is for Unit 1 to reduce the square footage and leave the utility systems where it is but to provide public access. And then the other is as you mentioned, the other one I think is also significant which is to replace the HVAC units and put them directly in each of the unit. It's a very difficult ask to ask a zoning board to allow a building code violation.

Due to the developer or the person that sold a property that was already kind of in violation, it's a big ask. I'm inclined to I'm inclined to not support it and to potentially let you know that there is an appeals process that you can go through with the Building Code Appeals Board. But that's just, my colleagues here might have a different Different take on it, but that's I just wanted to give you my opinion.

Yeah. If I may Madam Chair and I fully understand Ms. Better Barraza's point and we do respect the board's position on granting building code relief. may be asking here as sort of a hybrid. One is to recognize that this is a condition, and it's not just HVAC, it would be the water heaters, the heating system, plumbing, all plumbing, and electrical panels as well and there is no other option for access except through the unit whether it's through the back if you could get to the back or through the front which is the current arrangement now. and the access into that area has been a non-issue for the other unit owners at least as long as my clients have owned it, and certainly as long they've owned it as well. I believe what we're saying is in recognition

The board's, as you mentioned, an unusual if not rare instance is that the board conditioned any relief on the requirement that to the extent that any future, what I would define as any substantial renovation of the building itself at that time would be a more practical and cost-effective choice in order to address those conditions. but to simply require them to make this change now, again for a condition none of these people have created and something that they certainly weren't aware of at least until most recently in 2025 when the city issue of violation. We don't understand why that occurred, especially after as long as this has been in existence. This is something that I believe we're looking for a temporary bridge

until such time as a renovation of that extent can be undertaken in the building and not something that burdens the current owners with a building code violation hanging over their head, which certainly affects marketability, insurance, and financing.

Thank you. I don't have any further questions.

Where in Unit 1 is the access for everyone? Like how, I guess, how intrusive is it?

It's through the stairs. If you look at the... You can go to the plants.

We can go to the amended plan.

Can you zoom in? Yeah, so you have to go through the dining room to go down to the hall corridor.

Yeah, you would enter Unit 1 at the front. You'd walk down and downstairs into the utility area. All the trustees have a key to the unit. And again, Unit 1 owner understands that is an accessible issue. There's an arrangement that they're not even available at our home trustees can make entry into the unit, which is actually something that's pretty typical in all condos regardless of whether our utility room was located there. Generally in condo docs, we have the ability of trustees to make access into the unit. So whether it's for service or for replacement or just access for maintenance All of that is something, and again outlined specifically in the condominium documents as well, that allows for that access from other unit owners.

It's very rare they have to access another unit to get to their utility.

Yep.

Because that violates the code, but... Yeah.

I agree, and this is a condition once again that the original developer appears to have created more than 20 years ago. And as I said we have multiple unit owners now Not even first unit owners that are owning units in this building that have lived with this condition for as long as they've owned the units.

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

Madam Chair, I'm going to put a motion for denial. I think the project should go in front of the building co-appeals board because Otherwise, we would just be kicking it to future owners is the problem of this violation.

Madam Chair, if I may just briefly on that. If the Board would grant the relief with a caveat it technically wouldn't kick it to future owners. It would only in the event of there's rehabilitation of the building Result in the change. And again, that would be a more practical time to make those expenditures but the purpose would be that the violation would no longer exist pending any substantial renovation of the building.

Thank you. Is there a second? I'll second that. Mr. Stembridge

I'm going to vote no on the motion. I think there is a more practical way to approach it, so I'll vote no.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Miss Turner? No. Miss Better Barraza? Yes. Miss Pinado? Yes Mr Collins? No The Chair votes no, the motion does not carry. Is there another motion?

I'll make a motion to approve.

Is their second? Second Mr. Stembridge. What is the motion to approve with any kind of caveat around future renovations requiring them fixing this building code issue?

Well, yeah. I would say that a larger renovation would trigger that they have to fix it. Not sure how to word that, I guess? I can be creative Mr. Collins.

Any suggestions, Caroline?

I think you could just say what's substantial is renovation because substantial means that there's going to be a financial A large renovation. You can just say that we're substantial, right?

I would even go so far as to say substantial renovation on Unit 1 alone. If Unit 1 is substantially renovated then it has to be addressed not even the entire building.

I'll make a motion to approve with a substantial renovation. Does that makes sense? Unit 1, Unit 1.

Okay 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 Thank you very much

With that, we'll move on to the hearing scheduled for 9 30 a.m. There is one case that's been marked as to defer But at this time, we'll also ask if there are any other cases to be withdrawn for the group.

Yes, Mr. Stembridge, I believe Eastwood Circuit is mine as well. I know that's being moved to August 11th.

And with that we'll go there of course. That being for case BOA 1856474 with the address of 43 Eastwood Circuit.

I'm kidding, man. No, I'm sure they have to take you from this case.

Okay. So we're a six-member board?

Thank you, members. Madam Chair, members of the board, Richard Lenz, 245 Sumner Street East Boston on behalf of the petitioner. I believe we are moving this to August 11th. There was a notice requirement but we've already worked that out with Caroline and Stephanie.

Sorry, Madam Chair. I also need to recuse.

Okay. We are a five-member board. Any questions from the remaining board? Okay. Was that a question, Ms. Pinado? No, no, just I was going to make a motion to- Okay, let's go for it. Let's take the motion. Motion to defer to August 11th. Second. Thank you. Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes, Ms. Better Barraza? Yes Ms. Pinado? Yes Chair votes yes the motion carries see you then thank you

Next one, we have a 7-9 Murray Court. I want you to lose on for 930. So that

that this would be for case BOA 1844018 with the address of 7 to 9 Murray Court.

Yes, thank you again for the record. Richard Lenz, 245 Summer Street, East Boston on behalf of the petitioner. This one we're seeking a short referral as well. We reviewed the recommendation from the planning department and would like to go back and just see if there's anything and we could do to address some of the comments. And I believe we had asked for August 11th on this as well, if that's still available?

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

Motion to defer the case till August 11th.

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

And Madam Chair, there is one other case noted here, the 930. This being Case BOA-18265082. with the address of 401A to 401 Chelsea Street.

Attorney Wentz? Yes, thank you again Mr. Stembridge. Chairman of the Board Richard Lenz 245 Sumner Street in response on behalf of the petitioner I believe we are looking for a deferral to September 8th on this matter? That was noted here and

Can you elaborate?

Again, planning recommendation and we do believe there are some errors in the analysis. We'd like to review those with our architect and team and we believe we can address any departments concerns including on removal of some violations that have been cited by Act Steve.

Any questions from the board?

May I have a motion? Motion to defer this case until September 8th. Is there a second?

Madam Chair, before I second, I want to ask Caroline if September 8th the agenda is already packed or we have space for different cases for that date.

We have space for a few cases.

Okay, thank you. Hey was there a second? Second. Okay Mr. Stembridge? Yeah. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Miss Turner? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza? Yes, Miss Pinado? Yes Mr. Collins? Yes Chair votes yes the motion carries

Thank you very much.

Okay, is that another raised hand Mr. Tevnan? Yes.

For deferral? No, Madam Chair. I am here appearing on the next case.

Okay. Are there any other deferrals or withdrawals for 930? I saw Attorney Guerriere wanting a deferral.

Yeah, the attorney earlier he was looking to refer one case but I sent him a message in the chat as well. I don't see him anymore.

Okay. Well, if he appears we can do that. In the meantime, we have a trifecta of competing cases. First, we have case BOA 185-9998 with the address of 97 to 97 A Milton Street. Along with that, we 185-9995 with an address of 101A Milton Street. And along with both of those, we have case BOA 185 9988 with the address from 99 to 99A Milton Street.

If the applicants and their representative are present, they can point these cases to the court.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is Charlie Tettman. I'm an attorney at 15 Broad Street in Barton. I am appearing on behalf of petitioner Sean Jordan and developer Cedar Grove Seminary. This proposal seeks to construct three separate two-unit dwellings on a 15,876 square foot lot. Six units in total, each having two bedrooms and two baths The two and a half stories proposed height is 30.6 feet, the size of each unit at 97 and 99 Milton Street is approximately 1,200 square feet. The size of each unit at 101 Milton Street is approximately 1000 square feet The three separate dwellings are designed to appear more like single-family homes from the street, which ties well into the fabric and history of the Cedar Grove neighborhood.

By way of background In 2024, representatives of the Cedar Grove Cemetery brought a petition to the City of Boston Zoning Commission to rezone this 15,876 square foot Parcel, a land which is unsuitable for burials due to the prevalence of ledge. The zoning commission granted the petition and the land was re-zoned to 1F5000. I know believe this small portion of the cemetery has long been residential in nature. On St. Lot is an existing 100-year old single family residence For many years was set aside for the cemetery superintendent. However, the existing structure has been unoccupied for many years and is not habitable. The property is located approximately one half mile from the Ashpond MBTA station and approximately one quarter mile to the Neponset River bike paths.

and is located just off Granite Avenue close to the Galvin Boulevard thoroughfare. The proponent, the petitioner has completed the enabled process and the abutted process with support from a number of abutters. And we have submitted To the board, a letter of support from the Cedar Grove Civic Association which voted unanimously in support of the proposed project. We've also been in close communication with the Office of District Councilor John Fitzgerald regarding this project before, during and after the community process. Looking at the surrounding context, we feel that this project is appropriate. There are mostly single-family residences across the street as well as a number of two and three family residences We believe that the design respects the surrounding scale and character of the neighborhood and furthers city planning goals.

I understand that the Planning Department has recommended approval of this project with a design review. and that the recommendation concludes that the requested zoning relief for this project is appropriate. I do want to note, The board that the refusal letters contain an error that states there is a violation of insufficient frontage. But in fact, the frontage is 147 feet and minimum frontage would be 50 feet. So that is not a violation but just in conclusion The proponent, Sean George and Anthony Pachuli, the acting superintendent of the cemetery are also available. on this hearing to answer any questions regarding process or design related questions. Thank you.

Thank You.

Are there questions from the board?

Would you be open to a reduction of parking spaces as was what's recommended by the BPD?

Well, we were...

It recommended to go down to 8 versus 12.

I understand that is part of the recommendation and we would like to address it through design review. I do want to note that parking was a major issue with direct abutters, and that to accommodate their concerns the number of spaces at 12. And if there is a goal to have greater open space or permeability by reducing the The number of parking spaces. I do want to note that this parcel is surrounded by 39 acres of permeable open space and we think that we struck a balance

By accommodating and addressing the direct abutter concerns about parking, and all of these off-street parking will not impact the direct butters. But we would certainly address that to the board through the design review process.

Okay, thank you I just wanted to hear your thoughts on that I do think that the BPD has some good comments in regards to the reduction of parking. I'm thinking more from a site planning perspective If you were to reduce or remove the four parking space next to Unit 7A, 7B, you wouldn't necessarily have headlights into their bedroom units. So I do think that there could be a very good exercise on site planning to allow also for open space in the lot. So thank you, no further questions. Other questions from the board?

Yes, I want to just follow up on Ms. Better Barraza's comment I'm looking at the map and Mr. Tiffman, during your presentation you mentioned that the red line is very close to properties probably 0.3 miles So that is walking distance right to the red line or public transit. And just thinking about what this board has been approving over the last three or four years, We have been promoting environmentally friendly developments. And I see the recommendation from the planning department I was thinking about two parking spaces per unit is fair. More than that, I think that's for my colleagues to make a recommendation but for me at this moment it's hard to support the amount of parking that you are proposing so i just wanted to make that comment for the record.

Yeah, projections since they're small units and what about the tree canopy on the existing site? Can you talk a little bit about that Did you bear cut the whole site to accomplish this development?

Not at all. The cemetery's goal is to preserve and protect the trees, the cemetery is really a community resource Like I've ever beat them. And... So, we will take every effort to protect the existing mature trees that are on this site. I did note that most of this site is ledge so The number of mature trees is surrounded by numerous mature vegetation, but not on the particular lot.

Okay, thank you. Any other questions from the board? May I have public testimony?

Hello, Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is Eva Jones representing the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services. Regarding 97-100 Milton Street, our office defers to the Board's judgment A community process was conducted including an abutters meeting held on Wednesday, November 19th 2025 that was very well attended by the Dorchester Community. Feedback from this meeting was that while the community wanted to support the Cedar Grove cemetery, there were significant concerns regarding density in the neighborhood and the amount of parking possibly causing the residents of the proposed establishment to take up More street parking, which is already under stress in the neighborhood with residents requesting more parking spots. Additionally we received one letter in opposition expressing many of the same concerns that were India Butters' meeting The proposal was also reviewed with the Cedar Grove Civic Association at their meeting on April 8th, 2026. The association expressed support where all members voted to support the proposal and also provided a formal letter of support submitted to the board.

At this time, the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services defers to the board's judgment on this matter. Thank you everyone for your time and consideration.

Next we have Leon Rimas from Councilor Fitzgerald

Hello Madam Chair, members of the board. Liam Remus from Councilor Fitzgerald's office. The council would like to go on record and support the proposal due to the work they did in the community process to get support as I already mentioned that the parking issue is a big concern for the community Street, Parkinside. So thank you.

Madam Chair there are no additional comments.

Okay any other comments or questions from the board? Mr. Tubman

No comments or questions from the proponent, Madam Chair.

Okay. Would that man have a motion?

Madam Chair, I'll put forward a motion of approval with the proviso that the project undergoes site planning design review with BPD to reduce the amount of parking and to increase the amount open space. Is there a second?

Second. Mr Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr Valencia?

Yes, especially considering the reduction of parking as the planning department recommended.

Ms. Better Barraza? Yes. Ms Pernado? Yes Mr Collins? Yes Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Chair, you forgot to call on me. Oh. Ms. Turner? Yes. Now the motion carries. Thank you.

Thank Madam Chair and members of the board, and thank you Mr. Ambassador.

Next, we have case BOA-1827377 with the address of 516 Harvard Street. If the applicant and or their representative are present, will the police respond to case number one?

Yes, thank you Mr. Stembridge and good morning Madam Chair members of the board for the record attorney Matt Eccle with Fletcher Tilton on behalf of the applicant joining me today is Eric Zacherson from Context the project architect The proposal that we're putting forward this morning and seeking relief for is to renovate the existing building located at 516 Harvard Street and change the occupancy from a three-family dwelling to a four-family The subject property is located on Harvard Street in Mattapan across from the Olmstead Green development and is a close proximity just up the street from Morton Street. The property is located in our two zoning sub-district and we're seeking relief of proposed use as well as the location of the main entrance to the proposed fourth unit. We're seeking to convert the existing lower-level living space into a fourth standalone residential unit.

This space already has its own dedicated entrances and the project would include renovating that living space as well as installing window wells for the bedrooms. No changes are proposed to the existing upper level units, and we believe this is a good example of how you can take existing underutilized space within an existing structure to create housing which is in line with Plan Matapan. Overall, the proposed new unit would contain three bedrooms and one bathroom as well as a somewhat open concept living room dining room and kitchen. The applicant did attend in a butters meeting with the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services as well as meeting with Wellington Hill Neighborhood Association who ultimately voted to approve the project. With that, I'll pause and take any questions the board may have.

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

Madam Chair and members of the group, good morning.

My name is Jeremy Belgarique.

I'm Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services.

It has completed the community process since it set up a photos meeting facilitated on April 15th with no

Yeah, well very easy.

Next, the proposal was presented to Wellington-Hill Neighborhood Association.

To date our office has not received any further community feedback at this time to my knowledge.

Thank you for your time and then Ransom Neighborhood Services would like to defer to the board.

Madam Chair, there are no additional comments.

Okay, does that man have a motion?

Motion of approval.

Is there a second?

Second.

Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes Ms. Turner? Yes Mrs. Better Barraza? Yes Miss Pinado? Yes Mr. Collins? Yes Chair votes yes, the motion carries Thank you very much

Next, we have case BOA 1855366 with the address of 32 Fisher Ave. If the applicants and or their representative are present, would they please explain the case to the court?

Good morning Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Luis Santana with HS Construction Consulting Services. I'm here on behalf of the owner This existing three-family dwelling that we are converting into a four-goaling unit. We will be seeking relief from five violations, One of them is office street parking. The use itself is not permitted and the cliff farming is on. We have a slight increase in the floor area ratio, usable open spaces existing non-conforming and insufficient and we have insufficient additional load area. This is a large existing three-family occupying the first, second and third story.

It's an unusual building because this one includes a very large roof configuration instead of a typical three-acre flat roof. and he's sitting on a 3,101 approximately square feet lot size undersized slot. The attic area we talked about He has been occupied and was purchased as a finished space. When the owner acquired this property many years ago, it appears that he was constructed also many years As part of the scope, since this is a finished already space we are proposing to slightly modify it as you can see from this plan.

The secondary means of eagerness from the attic space by enlarging the landing of the stairs and also increasing the headroom. For the stairs, which is just slightly under 6'8", and that small shop dormer as you can see from this section will accomplish the required building code ceiling height for that stair. We are also adding a small rear deck to the property. Very straightforward, these are the only renovations As a two-bedroom unit with the kitchen, is owner occupied. They will be occupied by the owner of the building. and the relief is minimal. We are increasing the FAR by a fraction of 0.01, and that is the result of increasing the headroom for the stairs to make it compliant

The open space also, although sited we are not altering that. It's almost compliant deficient by about 100 square feet and the lot size which is and existing non-conforming narrow or small lot for the area is the other deficiency. And obviously, there is not all street parking. This is consistent with the character of the neighborhood. There are several multifamily At this point I would be happy to answer any questions from the board or members of public. Thank you. Thank You.

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

Madam Chair and Board Members, Siggy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This petitioner completed the community process. Our office hosted an abutters meeting on May 11th at which no concerns were raised The Community Alliance of Mission Hill is supporting this application. With that background, ONS defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Madam Chair, there are no additional comments.

That may have a motion. I'll make a motion for approval. There is second. Better Barraza? 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 thank you Madam chair members of the board

Next, we have case VOA-1848595 with the address of 320 Summer Street. This is an Article 80 case And if the applicant and or their representative would please explain to the board? Yes, sir.

Good morning, Mr. Secretary, Madam Chair, Members of the Board, Attorney Joe Hanley, 28 State Street in Boston here on behalf of the petitioner to take you through this presentation in front of you very quickly. Next page our development team Hanning Capital is the new owner and proponent of this office to residential conversion project. Willie Gao, who was The principal is with us. We're also here with Stantec Architects, Aaron Hodges. Next slide just to give you a quick project overview here this is A fairly significant scale and contributing office to residential conversion project. It's an adaptive reuse of the existing We went through the city of Boston's office to residential

pilot program and tax abatement, and it was noticed by the secretary were approved under Article 80 large project review. This is a simple use conversion. You'll see in the plan right, these are two combined buildings that were built around 1900. and they were former Boston Wharf industrial buildings most recently utilized by Log Me In as office, and they've been vacant since the pandemic. So key metrics, the building is approximately 130,907 gross square feet within The combined structure, we're proposing 145 new residential units. I think this is the second largest of its type under the pilot program and about...

2398 square feet of amenity space. There's also an existing roof deck on the top of the building that served the office but wasn't fully accessible. We're making that accessible and including it into the program for residents. Parking and storage is accommodated Because of limitations of the building and not being able to get into it, we're unable Parking, and the building does occupy most of a lot. However we had worked with the BPA in the neighborhood knowing we're going to watch at of South Station, and in the area to include long-term bicycle storage and a transit management plan. The units break down 46 studios 76 one bedrooms

and 23 two bedrooms, very much driven by the challenges of the adaptive reuse within the historic structure. Next. Slide just quickly. Obviously key benefits here is taking an asset that is non-productive and has been vacant since the pandemic, creating much needed housing in a walk shed We are proud that 25 of these units will be income restricted for affordable housing. which is a pretty strong contribution. Obviously we'll be complying with pilot program sustainability and green design measures, new job creation for construction and transit management plan Next slide shows you the existing conditions.

As I said, the total area of the building is a little under 18,000 square feet just to footprint The lot is $18,820 so basically it covers most of the lot. There are some unique conditions here If you look at this plan up as north, there is a drop in grade. The main entrance of the building is on Summer Street to the south It's five and six stories, and then as it goes back along A Street in the back is what is called Sleeper Street Extension. It goes to seven and eight stories. And so along that A street elevation, that is lower We're also introducing 7,500 square feet of retail to activate that street front and contribute to the vibrancy of the area. The next slide shows you the zoning.

The change of use, which again is supported by the pilot and the process to residential in this zone requires a conditional use permit. The FAR, the existing building is non-conforming. Four is what's required. You will see in the plans that in order to accommodate a good residential conversion we're including about 8,000 square feet of mezzanine area for the loft units within the existing building and that does increase its FAR but it's not beyond the building. Footprint, open space is also an existing nonconformity as I mentioned we have an existing roof deck that we are now making accessible and obviously we don't have any other really ground level space to create Any significant amount of open space other than some street side cafe area for the retail along A Street.

Finally, in the next slide you will see the zoning code refusal letter. I'll also note that we're in a groundwater conservation overlay district. We have submitted the approved Groundwater Plans, and Boston Water & Sewer sign off for that. Next slide. Just have Erin quickly walk you through how these units come together, and then we'll hand it back to you Madam Chair. Erin?

Thanks Joe. Good overview. The existing facade of the building we are not touching for the most part, there's a few cases at the alley side of the facade that does have historic, indication of historical opening that we will be restoring. The main facade on Summer Street and A street will remain intact The condition of the existing facade is very well maintained since it was recently occupied by the LogMe office user. And the footprint of this building is quite ideal for A residential conversion project since the dimension of the building widths falls within the ideal width for a double-loaded residential corridor layout.

And in this elevation along Summer Street, you can clearly see now the two building partition with the left and the right division in the middle. The accessibility of the existing office use does not conform with a few accessibility requirements, and we are going back and fixing all of those for the new residential use. Next page please? This is a sectional diagram reiterating the programmatic uses and the access locations for the building in the long section along Summer Street. In the middle where you see the lobby amenity colored in yellow, that is going to be the main entrance that is consistent with the previous office use.

That's where the residents are going to come in, have their lobby amenity mail package and direct accessibility to elevators that will take you to all the floors. and right below this lobby amenity box you will see the loft units that Joe had mentioned where we're creating the mezzanine levels. Next to those are going to be additional amenity space including some fitness and cup rooms. And the lowest floor where we had labeled a peach color retail, that will have direct access to A Street and that will be the frontage for the retail as well to activate that piece of the sidewalk frontage right under the Summer Street Bridge. For those of you who's familiar with that site, That area needs quite a bit more activation in comparison to current condition. I think that retail will benefit that neighborhood quite a

Then at the very top of this section diagram, you see the roof deck. As of now no accessibility and we're adding a lift for all the residents to be able to access that roof deck Next page This is an overview diagram showing you a typical floor layout. So double-loaded corridor with a few jogs, maintaining two existing stairs and two existing elevators and the rest of the floor plate efficiently gets laid out with units ranging from small studios all the way to two bedrooms. I believe that's the extent of our presentation.

Thank you Madam Chair.

All right, thank you. Any questions from the board?

Yes, Mr. Hanley, I was looking at the memo and your file, the letter of intent in April You find the layer of intent for this project in April. So I'm just looking at the process, and I think this was a very fast process Yeah, yeah. I mean that's uh just want to give kudos to the city for moving this fast.

Yeah, I mean, that's the idea of the pilot program right here in a housing crisis and the administration is It's been a huge success pro rata if you look across the board, not just downtown but in points four point and the like. You know, I think speaking for this project in particular it's such a beautiful building and to sit vacant is really a shame. Especially being at the foot of South Station and in such an area with You know, vibrant neighborhoods serving retail and jobs and the like. So yeah it moved very quickly That is the dividend of the pilot program through Article 80 and really appreciate the BPDA and the Mayor's Office for their leadership and guidance as well as the South Boston elected officials and neighborhood activists.

Thank you. And for the Article 79, Inclusionary Development, you have 20%, including 3% vouchers. Yeah, 17%. And then we have a portion of

of HUD voucher programs. So yeah, the way that breaks down into 25 units with an AMI of approximately 60% of AMIs. and obviously a blend of ones, two bedrooms studios commensurate with that. So a pretty big impact I think the The largest one is on Washington Street that they've done, and this would be the second biggest with respect to the number of units. So it could help a lot of people that need affordable housing. All right. Thank you for the information. Thank You

Any other questions or comments from the board? Do you have a sense of what the units will go for that are, I think the majority are your one bedrooms at 520 average.

You mean from the affordability standpoint or just market rate?

Market rate.

I think it will be commensurate with where the market is now, right? But with respect to the affordables for example You know, in accordance with 60% AMI and one pet room would be about $1,300 a month which is a good opportunity right? And then We do not have parking. This isn't a full luxury, full service building and because of the sizes of the units which is really dictated by the uniqueness We do think this is going to serve the workforce really well and is a great location for that. So, that pricing without giving you actual numbers I would say it's not comping with the super luxury places in the area, so from a market rate standpoint, I think it will be more accessible as well.

Okay, I just you know it have over 130 units going out to the market. The crisis is on affordability and You know, the small square footage allows for a quantity and hopefully a reduction of price. And so I'm sure you did the market analysis and it would have been nice. I understand the affordable part which is the 29 units you're offering But I wanted to also get a sense of the market units. What are they going for in this area?

Yeah, I mean, I would suggest we don't just have an affordability crisis. We have a housing crisis across the board and if we're not creating market rate units Thank you for joining us. There is a huge percentage of younger workers and empty nesters that are over-housed that are looking for this type of housing. And the bigger the units are, the more you're going to spend in rent or the money you're spending at work.

It's a very simple question. You must have done the markability, I'm just asking what the range is.

Yeah, I mean it's competitive with base ranges now right? So I don't know what that is because I'm not the broker. Okay. But as far as demand goes, I don't think you're going to see a situation where these are going to be vacant and we have built a lot of luxury housing on the waterfront. We haven't built a Baseline, really good attainable and reasonably sized market rate housing for rent at a transit node like this. So I think it's a superior product that is going to You know, be snapped up pretty quickly.

Okay thank you. Was that Mayor's public testimony?

Yes, Madam Chair, members of the board, Connor Newman from Mayor's Office and Ombudsman Service At this time, the Mayor is off to a third conference from this board. I'm sorry, are you guys getting an echo?

Yes, I do. We sure do. All right. Okay, maybe we should go with Councilor Flynn's office first and we can come back to you Connor.

Hi, my name is Ashley from Councillor Flynn's office. Councillor Flynn would like to go on record in support due to a good community process. At the same time he will continue to work closely with the planning department staff on a home rule petition that would allow for Boston to join other Municipalities in Massachusetts on affordable housing, preferences for veterans and military families. Moreover while the proponent and planning department included language to restrict resident parking and participation in the city's RPP program, it is critical that the Boston Transportation Department and Office of Parking Clerk enforce that policy inclusion on an existing list of Article 80 projects currently maintained by the parking clerk. Flynn respectfully request that proponent continue to work closely with neighbors on any quality of life issues during the construction phase. Thank you. Thank You.

Next we have Dylan Norris from the Planning Department

Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is Dylan Norris. I am a project manager with the Development Review Division in the Planning Department and the Project Manager for the Article ADB large project before you today The 320 Summer Street development team filed their project notification form on April 7th, 2026 which was distributed through the South Boston Distribution Lit. The Planning Department also sponsored a virtual public meeting on the 29th of April, 2026. posted on the Planning Department calendar and email notifications were sent to all subscribers of the South Boston Waterfront Neighborhood email update list. Local elected officials and their staff are also notified at the meetings The comment period associated with the project notification form closed on May 7th. The project was then brought before and approved by the BPDA Board on May 14, 2026 I'm happy to answer any questions members of the board may have related to the Article 80 review process and associated community process. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Chair, members of the board, Connor Newman with the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services. It's time to confer the judgment this board as you heard from the Boston Planning Department This went through their office residential conversion process, a small project review involving the public meeting on April 29th. The applicant engaged with the Four Point Neighborhood Association. They had some concerns related to the interior configuration of the building. They were, they had a positive reaction to the The outer facade of the building being preserved and they appreciated the commitment to affordable units there, although they highly encouraged the applicant to make those units be affordable to artists honoring the historic tradition of an artist community in the Four Point neighborhood since the 1970s. With that information, we'll defer to the board. Thank you.

Next we have Christian Simonelli. Good morning Madam Chair, members of the board, Christian Simonello, Executive Director of Boston Groundwater Trust and we have both G-Cod letters from the applicant. Thank you.

We have Mark Delazio Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is Mark D'Alasio. I'm a business representative for the North Atlantic States Regional Council of Carpenters. We just want to be on record as being in full support of this project. Thank you.

Madam Chair, we don't have additional comments.

Thank you. Any other comments from the applicant? Any other questions or comments from The Board? May I have a motion? I'll make a motion of approval. Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge? Yeah. Mr Valencia? Yes. Ms Turner? Yes Is Better Barraza? Yes. Ms. Pinado? Yes Mr. Collins? Yes Chair votes yes, the motion carries Thank you Madam chair

Next, we have case BOA 1834698 with the address of 47 to 49 Gray Street. If the applicant endure their representative present, will they please explain to the board?

Good morning, my name is Julian Miller. I am the general contractor representing 47 Gray Street LLC. We are currently renovating this single family home and we've submitted an amendment to our ALT to add a rear deck off the first floor of the existing structure. This rear deck is very much in kinds with many of the other decks throughout the neighborhood. And importantly, it's only on the first floor. It is not multiple levels. If you scroll down to page six, you can see some of the elevations building on the bottom right. You can see the rear deck off that first floor and then the elevation that's directly above it is the elevation facing the rear.

We have many letters of support for this rear deck. We also reached out to the Ellis Neighborhood Association who opted not to review the scope as it's in keeping with the many other decks currently installed in the neighborhood. We also complied with the GCOD requirement and executed a full proper drainage plan which was approved by BWIC as part of our projects. And the deck is elevated, it's not on the ground. It's not a patio. Therefore, is not impacted as noted by the refusal letter for a flood hazard district.

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

Hello Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Emma Jones representing the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services. Regarding 47 Gray Street our office differs to support this judgment A community process was conducted including an abutters meeting held on Wednesday, May 13th, 2026 that was well attended by Southend community members but not much feedback was shared. Additionally, we did receive 16 letters in support and one letter in opposition from a direct abutter of the applicant expressing concerns for privacy, the scale of the deck, and the ongoing construction that impacted their daily lives. The proposal was also connected with the Ellis Neighborhood Association that declined to meet with the proposal and does not provide feedback for residential projects. At this time, the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services defers to the Board's judgment on this matter. Thank you everyone for your time and consideration.

Next we have Ashley from City Councilor Flynn.

Thank you, Councillor Flynn would like to go on record in support based on a good community process and no concerns reported by neighbors or the Ellis Neighborhood Association. Thank You

Next we have Christian Simonelli. Good morning Madam Chair, members of the board, Christian Simonalli, Executive Director Boston Groundwater Trust and we have both G-card letters from the applicant. Thank you.

And Madam Chair, I just put a comment from who was here earlier in the morning. I think she was concerned about the size of the decks.

Thank you, does the applicant want to just comment on that before we proceed?

Yeah, I would just say the deck only protrudes the facade of the building by eight feet and it does span full length of a building. Again this is in kind with many of the adjacent decks and it is only on the first floor. It is not multiple layers, levels excuse me like many of the other decks in the surrounding neighborhood.

Any other questions from the board? May I have a motion? Motion to approve.

Is there a second? Better Barraza, second.

Mr. Stembridge? Yeah. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes, Ms. Barraza? Yes Ms. Pinado? Yes Mr. Collins?

Yes Chair votes yes the motion carries Thank you Madam Chair and members of the board.

Next we have HBOA 181-4627

with the address of 97th Salem Street.

If the applicant and other representatives are present, would they please explain the case to the court?

Yes, Mr. Stembridge. Good morning Madam Chair, members of the board, attorney Derek Small. I have a business address of 51 Dobson Road. With me today is Mr. Eric Luciano who's the architect for the property and we have the owners of the property online as well, Mr. Peter Alfay and Mr. Robert Bernardo. Madam Chair, we're here today seeking to change the legal occupancy of the building from retail store and offices. Two retail stores and five residential units. The zoning sub-district here is the Salem Street Neighborhood Shopping District, which allows for retail on ground level and residential units above. The violations, I'll start with building height. We are proposing a building height of 55 feet. The building code required as an elevator

Access and rooftop access by way of a head house, which obviously conflicts with the zoning code, which requires by a hatch. So we are in line with the mass and scale of other buildings on site or in the neighborhood along Salem Street. FAR. The required FAR is 3, we are proposing 5.2 which is very common in the North End due to the density in the neighborhood Open Space. We are providing a roof deck with 200 square feet of open space We're at 250 feet are required, so we're approximately 50 square feet short on open space. Parking, with the five units we are required for five off-street parking spaces.

We are providing zero however we are running with transit oriented parking or Development as the site sits approximately a two-minute walk to Haymarket T Station and approximately a five minute walk to North Station. We redesigned the building and we removed the rear yard setback, which was an original violation by moving the building in 10 feet to satisfy that violation. I'll turn it over now to Mr. Eric Luciano, who is the architect for the project and he can go through the plans.

Hello, so we have a building with a first floor retail component proposed as a bakery. That includes basement storage space as well. Above that we have Thank you. We have two one bedroom, one bath units On the level above that, which would be the third floor. We have a floor through three bedroom one and a half bath unit And then on the preceding fourth, fifth and sixth floors we have back to front units where Unit 4 and Unit 5 are triplexes. There are approximately 1,600 square foot four-bedroom two and a half baths. And as Derek mentioned those have their usable open space on the roof this

includes a deck for each unit. We have an elevator head house and then two stair head houses that get to the decks. We are proposing that those would not be included in the building height due to their being under the 330 square foot allowable. So the proposed height of the building should be listed as under 55 feet which is allowable in the neighborhood, in the area. The Structure in the front, that is the bay starts at approximately 17 and a half feet above the sidewalk. So this should allow for no issues with Fire Access, etc.

And that protrudes out three feet which also is allowed by the balcony Requirement, not requirement, allowable as three and one third feet for balconies. So that would all be within that same code compliance.

We are at 55 feet with regard to the height. Again, the building code requires us to have the head houses on top for rooftop access for the elevator and for access to the roof. We'll stop there. We can answer any questions that the board may have. Thank you.

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

Hello, Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is Eva Jones representing the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services. Regarding 97 Salem Street our office defers to the Board's judgment a community process was conducted including an abutters meeting held on 3-26-25 and at 9-29-25 that was well attended by North End community members. The feedback from this meeting was concerns about the size and scale of the project impacting neighboring buildings, light, and how the development of this product would already affect a small street. Overall, the community was opposed to the proposal. Additionally we received two letters in support letting me know that they support the proposal and would be happy to see new neighbors and new businesses on the first floor and one letter in opposition who expressed the ongoing issues that neighbors have had with the different proposals that have been brought before them, which the community has been opposed every time. The proposal was also reviewed by the North End Waterfront Residents Association at their meeting on 12-11-25 and the association expressed opposition and has provided a formal letter in opposition to submitted to the board.

Additionally, the proposal was also reviewed by the North End Waterfront Neighborhood Council at their meeting on November 10th and at their other meeting on December 8, 2025. And the association has expressed support and has also provided a formal letter in support. At this time, the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services defers to the Board's judgment on this matter. Thank you everyone for your time and consideration.

If I may, Madam Chair. May I walk and see if there's any other comment?

Okay. Thank you. I'll get back to that. Okay. Next we have a Peter Alf.

Yes. So I'm one of the owners. We've been trying to permit this building for 26 years, we've owned it since 1995 We've had a business next door in the North End since 1990. My partner was born in the north end. We've redrawn this building where we started with 10 units. The latest redraw, The new rep wanted a 10-foot setback. We redrew it, and we present it as we are today. We have planning on reopening our bakery that was put out of business by the big dig. It was Biscotti's. My mother Ann Roberts' mother used to work there. And we're planning on living on the top two units, two floors. We own a restaurant there. You know our kids are working at businesses So this is more than just an investment for us.

It's a place to, for our families to grow our business and live where we grew up and where my partner's family has been there for 100 years. We've backed over backwards so many times, redesigned it. I mean we are the only people in the North Bend that for 26 years since 2000 have been trying to put up a building on our property that was our business We had an art, import and specialty food business that was also put out of business from the Big Dig. And here we are today. Thank you.

Any other public comments? Yes, we have a couple people. Then we have Darlene's. Yes, can you hear me? Yeah, do you have 90 seconds please?

My name is Darlene Romano, I'm in Arbutta. I live at 90 Salem Street. My issue is we haven't seen these plans that they proposed Every time they come before us, they tell us they're not sure of what they're gonna do but they show us similar of what the want to do. Also, they are going so far back that they are blocking About four buildings, all their windows are gonna be maybe six feet away from the buildings. So I am opposed to them building this until we can straighten this whole what the building looks like and come to some type of agreement.

Thank you. Thank you, next we have David Ubiak.

Yes can you hear me? Yes we can. My name is David Kubiak and I am testifying in behalf of the North End Waterfront Residents Association and its opposition to this appeal. The Residents Association had four times with the proponent regarding... Wait, what? What is that? I'm sorry. What? Please proceed. Someone was talking over you. Okay, thank you. The Residents Association met four times with the proponent regarding redevelopment at 97 Salem Street twice on the original hotel proposal and twice on the current housing proposal. The presentation and discussion was held on December 11th, 2025 for residents Association members and other North End Waterfront residents. At that meeting, association members present voted to oppose the project as proposed. We planned then to send a letter to the Board of Appeal

but learned that no appeal had yet been filed. Instead, the association sent its reasons for opposition to the Planning Department's Design Review Unit by letter dated January 6, 2026. Why? Because we had learned from the proponent at the December 11 meeting that the Proponent was working with the planning department on design review. We understand that the proponent then filed an appeal on January 27, 2026. Five months later on June 17, 2026 we met with the planning department's design review unit and learned that the planning Department had no knowledge of of the project, despite the issuance of a refusal letter and filing an appeal many months earlier. We understand that the Planning Department initiated a review of the appeal only after our meeting with them on June 27, a month ago.

The Residence Association sent a letter this morning informing the Board of Appeal of its opposition and attaching reasons as we stated in our letter of January 6th to the Planning Department. While Neura recognizes the potential benefits of improving the existing one-story structure, including additional residential housing units, a more attractive building and enhancement of the Salem Street corridor Our opposition is grounded in substantive zoning, urban design and neighborhood impact concerns that remain unresolved Fundamental elements of the current proposal. The reasons include excessive building mass and density, failure to present massing alternatives impacts on narrow historic and heavily trafficked Salem Street, shadow sunlight and ambient light impacts, and construction impacts.

The project is unjustifiably and unreasonably too large, causing greater construction and long term impacts to historic Salem Street and our residents. I thank the board for this opportunity to testify.

Thank you. or the person with an iPhone. And now there is one more person, if you... My name is Ken Rothman.

I'm a direct abutter to the property. I own the property at 85 to 95 Salem Street. I want to testify as to support of the project at 97 Salem Street The owners have been working with me over the past year to mitigate some issues alongside of the building where they had windows originally and they have removed those. I believe housing is a very strong need in every community in Boston, especially in the North End. This would add five more units. The property has sat on our street, unused and unrented for many years. It does not help the community or Salem Street's merchants or the residents for business development. The first floor will bring new business to Salem Street as first class retail and other shopping options for North End residents.

The Salem Street Streetscape will also be improved by filling in the open space between 77 and 99 Salem Street. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have Lisa Tamaro

Yes, hi. My name is Patrick Tomorrow. I am a owner and occupier of a building on Henchman Street. I have known Robert Urnietta and Peter Alfie for over 30 years. Strong businessmen who have been an asset to the neighborhood of the North End for many, many years. I don't understand why the project has been hitting roadblocks all along the way because of the need for more housing and apartments in the north end with a lack of The opportunities for people to move in and it's a great neighborhood. They've been part of the neighborhood as business owners for many years, definitely in full support of this project. and still don't understand what the roadblocks have been for 20 something years. I just wanted to go on record in saying that we've owned the building on Henchman Street for almost 75 years.

My grandparents owned it, and it's definitely a bit of... Occupy Urban for over 30 years, and we definitely need more housing in the North End. Thank you.

Thank You. Madam Chair there is one more person. Okay last one please. If the person with an iPhone, now you can unmute yourself.

Hi my name is Liza Garcia-Regnetta I'm one of the owners, wife to Robert Regnetta I just wanted to say we have made many amendments to our project to appease the neighbors and to develop the area. And we just don't understand why we keep getting the opposition that we are getting. We've done shadow studies, that does not interfere with any lighting to any other properties We've cut back the rear and there's no windows that will be blocked. So I just wanted to put that on record. Thank you.

Okay, any other feedback from attorney's call?

Yes, Madam Chair. I'd just like to say with regard to the Office of Neighborhood Services and Support. Mr. Stembridge, you should have approximately 30 letters of support in the file as well as a letter from the neighborhood council supporting The project, I don't know if that was read into the record or if you have those available. But Madam Chair development project at this site has been in the works for 15 to 20 years. It's taken on many different forms. We're from 18 units, to 10, to 8, to a boutique hotel to now where we are today, which is retail space on the ground level and five residential units. This probably is the least intrusive development project at this site as proposed. While keeping in step and aligned with Boston 2030,

With residential goals, we're proposing a modest five units at the site. And in concluding I just want to say that we are aware of the BPD's recommendation and we will work with them on their provisos to rearrange the head houses. And again, the height of the building is at 55 feet We are required to do the head houses as under the building code for rooftop access. Thank you very much.

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

Madam Chair, I'd like to put forward a motion of approval with the proviso that the project undergoes BPD design review. To review the exterior elevation of the building and to also review the penthouse and the locations of the deck, given that it's on a prominent street on Salem Street. It does need some design review on the exterior to kind of work with the character of the street.

Okay, is there a second? Second Mr Stembridge Yeah. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes, Better Barraza? Yes Miss Pinado? Yes Mr. Collins?

Yes.

Chair votes yes, the motion carries.

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

Thank You and with that I think We are done with the 9.30s and I'll see you at 11.30. Yes.

Thank you, guys! All right.

Recording Stop.

Present, Madam Chair. Thank you. Mr. Valencia? Present, Madame Chair. Ms. Turner?

Yes.

I'm present, Madam chair. Thank You. Miss Barraza? Yes, present. Ms. Pinado? Present, Madam Chair. Mr. Collins? Present Madam Chair Excellent thank you. Back to you Mr. Stembridge

Yes, Madam Chair. We'll move on to the rediscussion cases scheduled for 1130. At this time we're also asked if there are any requests for withdrawals or deferrals from the 1130 timeframe?

Mr. Stembridge, Attorney Guerrier appearing before you on behalf of the owners of 26 Birch Street We've had substantial discussion with the neighborhood and I would like to ask for a brief deferment if possible.

With that, I'll read it in-I'll read the case in verse which is Case VOA 174 9423 with the address of 26 Birch Street. Anything else you'd like to say about it, Attorney Guerrero?

Yes, I would just briefly like to greet Madam Chair and thank you for allowing me the last time. We've met with the civic association. I've written to them, and I just believe that further discussion would benefit both my client and the board. With that, I'd leave it to the board to make the decision.

Thank you. Caroline, do we have... September 8th or September 22nd?

Would one of those give you enough time? Yes, September 8 would be perfect Madam Chair. Okay with that may I have a motion?

Motion to defer this case to September 8th.

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 see you then Thank You Madam chair thank you Mr. Stenbridge

and with that we'll ask again if there are any requests for further withdrawals or deferrals from this time frame.

Thank you.

Hearing done, then we will move on to case VOA 1794725 with the address of 34 Spring Garden Street. If the applicant and other representative are present, will they please explain to the board?

Yes, thank you Mr. Stembridge and good morning once again Madam Chair, members of the board for the record Attorney Matt Eckel from Fletcher Tilton on behalf of the applicant We are before you this morning seeking to change the occupancy of the existing structure at 34 Spring Garden Street to a three-family dwelling and to renovate the building including a rear addition. The project also includes raising the existing garage, which shifts on the back right of the property and to create two parking spaces at grade beneath the proposed addition. Just by way of brief background, 34 Spring Garden Street is a 3230 square foot parcel which is located near the end of the street where it intersects with Harborview Street in Dorchester. Spring Garden Street and the surrounding areas contain mostly residential housing, a mixture between everything from single families all the way up to multi-family residential, and is located less than a quarter of mile from the JFK UMass MBTA station.

The project as proposed would create three new residential units which will be offered for home ownership. Just to briefly walk through the floor plans, the lower level would contain individual storage units one for each of the three units It would also include living space for Unit 1, which would have two bedrooms and a bathroom as well as a family room with rear egress and egress windows. The first floor would contain the upper level of Unit 1, which would have living room, dining room, kitchen as well as an additional bedroom and bath. The first four would also have the sprinkler room as well The second floor would contain Unit 2, which would be a 1,360 square foot unit with two plus bedrooms and two-and-a-half bathrooms. and finally the third floor will contain unit three which will be approximately 872 square feet with a living room, dining room, kitchen two baths and two bedrooms as well as a rear deck above the addition below.

Just to give a little further background, this project went through extensive design review with the abutters. It was carefully designed to largely align with the recently approved project which is completed directly to the right. and we worked diligently with these abutters on the final design which led to the kind of extended one-story addition at the second level as opposed to a full three-story edition to preserve a lot of the light and air, as well as views. We did meet with both the Columbia-Salvin Hill Civic Association Planning Committee as well as their full membership, both of which voted to support the project. So at this time I'll happily pause and take any questions the board may have.

Thank you. Are there questions from the board? Hearing none, may I have public testimony? Can you just show the parking? The site plan with parking?

Uh, if you scroll up Mr.

Ambassador the first of the eight pages and that right there too that elevation from the side that shows you the two spaces underneath the building I know it's not the aerial view but it shows you oh they're under the building correct yes

Any other comments or questions from the board? We have public testimony.

Madam Chair and Board Members, Siggy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This petitioner has completed the community process. Our office hosted an abutters meeting on December 10th which was well attended. The feedback from this meeting was concerns City Council, and City of Toronto. has mailed a letter of support to the board to be added to the file. With that background, ONS defers judgment to the Board. Thank you.

Next we have Leandre Mas from Consular Fitzgerald

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

Thank You. And there was one remote person. David Freer I'm not sure if you're looking to speak on this case. If no, there's no additional comments Madam Chair.

Okay any other questions from the board?

May have a motion? Madam Chair, I'd like to put forward a motion of approval with the proviso that the project undergoes BPD design review paying special attention to the maneuverability and access to the rear parking spaces. May I have a second?

Second. Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr Valencia? Yes, Ms. Turner? Yes Ms. Pinado? Yes. Mr. Collins?

Sorry, I'm unmuted, yes.

Chair votes yes, the motion carries.

Thank you very much. Next, we have case BOA-181-4618 with the address of 163 to 165 Hillside Street. If the applicants and or their representatives present, will they please respond?

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 Chris McHugh and Chris Pearl from the development team and the project architect who is Eric Zachrisson. The proposal here seeks to convert an existing two-family dwelling into a three-family by maintaining the footprint of the building and providing interior layout changes that converts the basement into a unit. The proposal is closely aligned with the city's buy-write conversion of internal spaces to accessory dwelling units, except it is not owner occupied. Parcel falls within a 2F3000 sub-district, which requires the relief for the proposed forbidden use. Unit 3 approximately 1,150 square feet will be located in the basement consisting of a three-bedroom, one-bath kitchen, dining and living room. Not to mention that the basement will be a full walkout in the rear yard

Unit 1, approximately 1175 square feet located on the first floor consisting of a three bedroom one bath kitchen dining and living room Unit 2 will be a bi-level unit approximately 1,900 square feet located on the second and the third floor consisting of four bedrooms two bathrooms dining kitchen in living room. The proposal will also contain parking for two vehicles in the rear We have additional violations for FAR. A 0.9 is required by the code, and this proposal calls for a 1.3 which is much consistent within this neighborhood for lot size of this size. The proposal is compliant as to the feet, but needs relief as to stories due to their creation of livable space in the basement. Along with the drop and the elevation in the rear yard, the proposal is considered a three-story building. Open Space, their code requires 600 square feet per unit and the proposal calls for 396 square feet.

This type of small lot makes it challenging for any 2-3 family structure to meet those requirements. and lastly we have an off-street parking for design access of the two proposed parking spaces in The Rare. At this point Madam Chair I'm going to turn it over to the board for any questions.

Thank you are there any questions from the board? Hearing none, may I forward the testimony?

Madam Chair and Board Members, Siggy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This petitioner completed the community process. Our office hosted an abutter's meeting on February 19th where one abutter expressed support for the application Other abutters expressed concerns about abandoned vehicles on the property that they felt were not being addressed, an additional concern about an increase in density as they felt the neighborhood had already undergone an increase The applicant indicated they would work with the abutters to provide them updates on the abandoned vehicle issue. The applicant met with the Community Alliance of Mission Hill, which is supporting this application. With that background, ONS defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Next we have Tony Baez from Consular Durkan. Good morning Madam Chair, members of the board. Here on behalf of Councilor Durkan who represents Mission Hill she'd just like to go on record in support obviously you heard that KMH is also in support thank you

Next, we have Eric Sacrosan.

I believe Eric is the architect over here.

Just in case there are questions. Thank you. Right, so Madam Chair, there are no additional comments.

Okay, may I have a motion?

I'll make a motion of approval.

Is there a second? Steffen? So. Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr Valencia? Yes Miss Turner? Yes Ms. Better Barraza? Yes Ms. Pinado? Yes. Mr. Collins?

Yes Chair votes yes, the motion carries Thank you Next we have case BOA 157 5425 with the address of 62 L Street.

If the applicant and or their representative present would they please expand case to report?

Yes, good afternoon Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is David Luciano I'm an applicant and one of the homeowners of 62 L Street which is a three-family home in South Boston The plan we're seeking approval for today is to remove an exterior wooden staircase spanning from the top floor, which was our unit three down to the backyard and replacing this with a eight foot by 13 foot rear porch. off the second level of the rear of your building. We're seeking a variance cited as insufficient rear yard setback down to First page of the drawings, then next page there. On this page of a drawing on the left hand side of the screen is a straight-on view of the rear of the building

The proposed deck is off the second floor with access from the rear interior staircase of the building. The remaining plan drawings are different vantage points including side views and aerial views of the new and existing structure. So this is an aerial view here of the existing structure that will be removed That's the extent of our plans. It's just a removal of the Baxter case and I'll stop there for any questions from the board.

Thank you. Are there any questions May I have public testimony?

Madam Chair and Board Members, Ziggy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This petitioner completed the community process. Our office hosted an initial abutters meeting on April 30th 2024 A subsequent meeting was held on July 1st, 2024. A third abutters meeting was called on June 24th of 2025. Following this the proposal was reworked to move from a deck to a balcony and our office hosted an abutter's meeting on the most updated application on June 15th The City Point Neighborhood Association took no formal position on this iteration of the proposal. And with that background, ONS defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

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

Thank you. Councilor Flynn would like to go on record in support based on a good community process and good faith compromises with neighbors and the City Point Neighborhood Association to remove the roof deck. We respectfully request that the proponent continue to work closely with neighbors during the construction phase. Thank you

Thank you. Next, we have Luanne.

Yes good afternoon can you hear me? Yes ma'am. Okay, Luanne O'Connor president of the City Point Neighborhood Association. The community process has been fantastic and giving credit to both the homeowner and the direct abutters. They were able to work together to remove the roof deck, turn it into a The porch off of the second floor. So everything worked out well, we are taking no official position because the dates of the deferrals always did not coincide with our official meetings but the community process was satisfied. Both homeowner and abutters are satisfied, so good to go. Thank you.

Any other questions from the board? May I have a motion? May we have a second? Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes Miss Turner? Yes Ms. Better Barraza? Yes Mr. Collins? Are you on mute, Mr. Collin?

I am sorry about that, yes.

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

Next, we have case BOA 174-1777 with the address of 183 St. Pataw Street. The applicant and or their representative present. Will they please explain the case to the board?

Thank you, Mr. Stembridge. Good morning Madam Chair, members of the board, Attorney John Polgeni here on behalf of the applicant for 183 Saint Patal Street. Joining us today is David Freed, the project architect. 183 St. Battelle Street. The lot size is 1,997 square feet. Zoning at the St. Batalle Street protection area. 183 Saint-Bertolf is an existing three story, four unit residential building. There's actually kind of two proposals before you but the proposal before you seeks to change the occupancy of the building from four to five units by the construction of a fourth floor addition to accommodate that new unit. There'll also be an addition on the existing third floor, which will enclose a rear deck and convert it into living space. As part of the new work, a new egress stairway will be constructed on all floors in the rear of the building which removes a fire escape that is coming down the front of the

The new unit on the fourth floor would be 909 square feet. It's a two bed, one and half bath. and they would have access to a roof deck that will be on the front of the building. At this point, I'm going to turn it over to David Freese who just walked through the plans and happy to answer any questions once he completes his presentation. Thank you.

Great. Thank you very much, John. We can start on this sheet. Thank You. Basically there is presently a small deck on the back of this extension here which we are proposing a two-story addition So that would increase this from a two bedroom to a three-bedroom unit and increase the unit size from 805 square feet to 909 square feet. Next slide, please. And then finally, we would add a unit on the fourth floor that would be a two-bedroom unit about 900 square feet. and then that would have access to a new egress stair in the back so the building would go from a single means of egress building to two means of and provide code compliant egress for this top floor unit. Next slide, please.

As this is in a landmark district, we looked at sight lines from across the street and sculpted the front of the addition so that it would be out-of-view from the street. Next slide please. The left drawing is the existing elevation, the right drawing is our proposed elevation And you can see, aside from this turret that the rest of this edition would be out of view. Next slide please. The left drive is our existing elevation and the right as are proposed, which shows our addition in the back. The two-story addition plus our new egress stair. Next slide please. Existing side elevation And then the next slide please would be proposed.

So, the addition would be clad in copper, standing seam clad with copper to be consistent with the other rooftop additions in the neighborhood. Next slide please. The existing other site elevation. Next slide, please. And then the proposed... We can't because these are party walls we can have openings in these walls and so that's why the elevations are just blank. Next side, please and then we just have some 3D renderings here of the proposal. And you can see aside from that turret, the rest of the addition would be out-of-view from the street. Next slide please. So that's it. Okay, and that wraps up my presentation, thank you.

Thank you. Are there questions from the board? So has this gone to the St. Petalf Architectural Conservation District.

Very good question, Ms. Pinado. It actually, David Freed is working with them currently and we have to get our zoning in order before they'll take a deep dive into it. So we have been working with them with different markups of setting the bullet story back so it's not visible from the street, but that's an ongoing process. As I stated when I first started the presentation, there are really two parts to this. One being, you know, the simple rehab of the existing building and the enclosure of the rear porch for the third floor unit that abuts the rear alleyway. and then the other would be the fourth floor addition which has to go through that. So even if it were approved today, I would suggest a proviso that will be subject to approval by the Landmarks Commission to answer your question.

Okay, thank you.

Appreciate it. Thank you.

Other questions from the board? Hearing none we have public testimony.

Madam Chair and Board Members, Siggy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This petitioner completed the community process. Our office hosted an abutters meeting on July 28th of 2025 where there is a question about the adherence of the proposal with landmarks district regulations concerned about where the trash is stored. The St. Patel's Neighborhood Association is aware of this application and took no formal position. With that background, ONS defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have Christian Simonelli. Good morning Madam Chair and members of the board. Christian Simonelly, Executive Director of the Boston Groundwater Trust. And we have both G-card letters from the applicant. Madam Chair, there are no additional comments.

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

Madam Chair, I'll put forward a motion of approval with a proviso that the project undergoes review by the St. Bolton Area Architectural Conservation District Commission. Is there a second?

Second.

Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes Ms. Turner? Yes Mrs. Better Barraza? Yes Ms. Pinado? Yes. Mr. Collins? Yes Chair votes yes, the motion carries Thank you everybody enjoy your day

Next, we have case BOA-1817120 with the address of 78 Bunker Hill Street. If the applicant and or the representative present They please explain to the board.

Hello, my name is Tim Sheehan I'm an architect here on Charlestown at 9 Wall Street My clients purchased 70 Bunker Hill Street. It's officially a single family, but it was at the time when they bought it and I mean, I don't know how long. It has been an illegal three-family with an illegal basement apartment in three kitchens so Our plan is to convert, you know we're coming into zoning here and convert it to a two-family because it's officially a single. If you look at the existing conditions there are three kitchens there and I don't know four or five bedrooms kind of a mess in there but Our plan is I convert it to a duplex. So take that basement ground floor and the existing first floor, make one three-bedroom unit And then the top two floors, the second and third floor would be another three-bedroom unit. The lower duplex would be about 1150 net square feet, and the upper unit would be 1280 net square

We deferred actually because last time we had put new drawings in from working with the neighbors just to get rid of a roof deck and a small balcony at the second floor level, you know, at the L. and there was confusion at ISD. They had said we had another violation, turns out we have fewer violations but regardless we're here asking for Relief. If you look at the existing proposed elevations, A2, That's what's there now. There is a dormer front back and that back aisle has sort of a steep slope roof. What we'd like to do is add on to that L, put another floor there for another bedroom basically match up to what they did next door at number 80 and then You know, we would be asking for a 10-foot rear deck with a spiral staircase for our egress from the second unit. And that's basically it.

I'd leave it to your questions at this point.

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

Madam Chair and Board Members, Siggy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This petitioner completed the community process our office hosted in a butters meeting on March 10th at which three direct abutters were opposed to the application with concerns about poor conditions of the property The applicants later worked with the direct abutters to make revisions, and our office received a letter from the most direct abutter that their opposition to the proposal had been withdrawn. With that background, ONS defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

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

Okay, does that man have a motion?

Motion to approve with the proviso that plans are reviewed by the planning department. Special attention to size, scales and contextual nature of the design and to the proposed dormant.

Thank you. Do I have a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr Valencia? Yes Ms Turner? Yes Just Better Barraza? Yes. Ms. Pinado? Yes Mr. Collins? Yes Chair votes yes, the motion carries Thank you everybody

Next, we have case BOA-1837592 with the address of 3 Moore Street if the applicant and all their representative present. Would they please explain?

Yes, Mr. Stembridge thank you. Good afternoon Madam Chairman to the board Richard Lins on behalf of the petitioner, business address 245 Summer Street and Spots. I believe James Christopher is here with us for 686 Architects as well. If we could jump down to maybe slide three. Madam Chair, I'm going to have the recuse.

Okay, thank you. We're a six-member board now.

Thank you. So just a quick overview, this property is located in the Harborview-Warren Heights section of East Boston. It's an existing single family dwelling on a 5,000 square foot lot located adjacent to McCollum Highway. Directly across the street from the Shutter School Apartments that converted old school building now multi-family housing. Go to the next slide, please. Just a bird's eye view to give an idea of what the surrounding context looks like. We have Byron Street screen right, McCollum Highways towards the screen top. Next slide, I see the existing building here. Typical lot size for this neighborhood is anywhere from 2500 to 5000 square feet, It is located in the EBR3 Zoning Subdistrict, which is the relatively newer subdistrict for East Boston. Next slide please. It's the street view. Again, you can see the multifamily across-the-street service school apartments. Next slide.

and again, not a view of the street. Next slide please. So indicating that again this is an EBR3 district and I'll run through what the zoning issues are that are involved with respect to this particular site but I'd like to jump Slide 10 please, if we can go to that. So I do include this typically Madam Chair when we have a 5,000 square foot lot in an EBR 3 district With the amendments to Article 53, there is no longer minimum lot size and minimum lot width requirement. This property can be divided into two independent lots each able to accommodate A three-family dwelling with no parking. So the total number of units at the end of the day can be a total of six, which just requires subdivision. The distinction here is that we're proposing a single six unit building which I would point out of the board isn't allowed use in EBR3 district.

The only limitation is the lot width would have to be an excess of 55 feet. Again, having participated in the Plenty's Boston discussions we still don't understand the rationale behind a 55-foot wide lot. We think the single six-unit building is a much more efficient design for the site. It certainly allows amount of square footage allows us to incorporate a mix of two and three better mutants. And so we do require relief for two items, and I'll review that in a moment. If we could jump down to the proposed plan at slide 13, please. As you can see here, we do meet all the other setback requirements in the zoning sub-district.

The minimum of three feet is required one third a lot depth as well as some of the other regulations include maximum lock coverage We need all of the dimensional requirements regardless, and as I showed you in the previous slide We could do the same by simply slicing a lot in half and creating two separate three families on each plot independently. Next slide, please. Just showing our architectural site plan, which does incorporate some of the screening and buffering that we would put in the front of the building as well as an illustration of the amount of permeable open space that we have on this site as well. Next slide please Quick layout for our floor plans. You can see that on the ground level, we just have a mirrored unit. I believe these are two bed and two bath. We go to the next slide please. A mix of the two and three bedroom units here as we move up the building to the second and the third level.

So this would also be within the height limit that's permitted under Article 53, we don't exceed the 35 foot. Total, and this is considered zoning-wise a three story build. Next slide please. showing the private roof decks for the upper two levels, or the upper units located at the third level. And again also permitted under Article 53 of the Mended Zoning Code. Next slide please. Building Section Plan, we don't incorporate any out of the space in the lowest level. Because this site does slope significantly, we do actually step up our foundation as you get towards the back of the property. Next slide please. Elevations, again illustrating the slope of the site and you can see from the front elevation as well. The main entrance to that buffering landscape would be proposed and if we jump to slide 21, we have some renderings just to illustrate how it will look in context. And again this

This would otherwise be permitted as a right design if there were 60 more inches of frontage. I would point out to the board, and I have raised this previously and certainly recognize that you know the code is the code. However it's very uncommon especially in neighborhoods like this to have a lot 55 feet or more than 50 feet i should say Typical lot layout is 25 or 50. 55 is almost non-existent in many of the neighborhoods where this PDR3 distinction applies, I would submit to the board that the difference of whether a lot is 50 feet wide or 55 feet wide really has no practical impact on abutters. Most abutters or most people in the neighborhood wouldn't know the difference between 50 and 55 feet unless you actually measured it. In this particular case, we believe that the impact was negligible

and again because the code would allow six units total on site especially with no parking we believe that this design, this proposal is a far better Layout of the building, much more efficient in build and certainly for the cost and would make it relatively more inexpensive for the actual overall sale of the units. So I'll pause there and answer any questions of the board, but we believe that this is a product that certainly fits with the spirit intent of the code for this neighborhood. Thank you.

Are there questions from the board? Can you talk about the tree canopy on this site? What kind of goes away with this new development?

There's a relatively wide tree towards the rear of the immediate building. We will do what we can to immediate existing building. We will do what we can to preserve any tree that can be on, especially in the rear portion of the site. Any tree that would be removed, Ms. Pinado, we certainly incorporate into the site, Thank you for joining us. adding tree canopy to the East Boston community and a lot of our projects find that making that contribution is a worthwhile effort for tree canopy expansion.

Other questions?

I think, I just wanted to compliment the deck. You guys did a really good job comparing the new zoning and what would be allowed under that zoning, and the slight variances you're requesting. I just think you made a very good case why we should provide your relief. My only comment would be that you have two interesting buildings abutting the building and I would just recommend that BPD worked with you a little bit on the kind of exterior massing so that is complementary to your abutting typologies. That's all, but that was the only comment that I had.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments from the board?

Yes, could you please show page number eight. Is that eight? You mean ten or do you mean eight? I mean the side plan, keep going down to this side plan that is all green. That one. Yeah, so those two boxes to the left and right it says airway or area way. What is that?

It looks like a window well, right?

Yeah I believe so because there was a slope towards the rear Mr. Valencia and I believe James Christopher is on he can explain that probably in more detail but I believe at lower level based upon the way the design of the foundation works that creates the window well.

Yeah, that's correct, Richie. If you scroll, I believe we have a building section that shows the elevation grade change. The grade rises fairly dramatically so as we get to the rear of the building, the grade comes up by those first floor windows So we would install those areaways to allow access. There you go. So you can see that dotted line which continues the grade at the first floor. So those areaway is just to create egress and light from those rear bedrooms.

Okay, so about the asset back from the properties to the left and right. Are those structures going to prevent people from walking and going through the backyard? because you only have three feet setback from both properties. So is that a structure that I just mentioned Are you going to prevent people from going to a backyard walking or how that works? I don't understand this section.

Pedestrian footpath around the building. We've done it in the past where we've incorporated grates into those areaways so that a pedestrian access could be incorporated around the

So right there, that is not set back technically. I mean one foot or something?

Yes.

Yeah and I believe this was reviewed for building code compliance and no citations for any of the issues.

Okay, I'm not sure if my colleagues can provide more ideas about if this is allowed having just one foot sit back from the left and right.

The area would not be considered a structure, so it would not trigger any setback violation. It would just simply be considered an open area, just a great separation, great difference.

So the only way to go to the backyard is through the wind, through the building. You cannot go around.

I believe that's correct unless grates are incorporated into the area where...

Okay, thank you.

Thank you. May I have public comment?

Madam Chair and Board Members, Siggy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This petitioner completed the community process. Our office hosted an abutter's meeting on April 1st which I'm told was not attended by any abutters This proposal was reviewed by the Harbor View Neighborhood Association. That group has voted 3 to 11 to oppose this application. With that background, ONS defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

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

Okay any other questions or comments from the board? The nature of the opposition is there any more detail on that? Spiggy, are you able to address them?

Yes, Ms. Pinado, you're talking about... I'm told the upvoters meeting did not have any public comments made at it.

Oh, okay. I thought there was a second...

Oh, yeah. No, my apologies. The civic association has voted three in favor and 11 opposed. No unfortunately I don't have additional context as to what their concerns were.

Through the Chair, I can add some on Columbus-Pinato. During the civic process generally this has become an issue pretty much throughout East Boston anytime it's even projects don't require relief Off-street parking seems to always be a concern, even though under amended zoning off street parking for three units. If we propose the three separate units would not, we would not require an off street and could accommodate six units under an as of right scenario. Because the building is being proposed as a single six unit building, the parking requirement does get triggered over three units and that seemed to be one of the key issues. This particular neighborhood doesn't have a substantial, I guess dense parking demand. There is adequate on-street parking we would be closing up an existing curb cut on the site as well

Okay, thank you. Off of that, I do have a question. Do you know where the nearest bus or train station is?

So the closest, Ms. Turner, the closest bus line is less than two blocks away at Pennington Street The intersection of Bennington and Moore Street that is less than two blocks away. Within a four block, four to five block walk is Wood Island T Station so relatively close to public transit in two particular nodes

Thank you. Thank you any other questions or comments from the board? May I have a motion?

Madam Chair, I'd like to put forward a motion of approval with two provisos. One being that the project undergoes BPD Design Review, paying special attention to the exterior. in regards to design. And then the second proviso is to have BPD provide input to the architect and the interior layout so that The window well is potentially positioned at the rear because I do think, given Giovanni's observations, I do you can actually Locate a little bit, move things in regards to the bathrooms and the kitchen in such a way where the two bedrooms can take advantage of Potentially the rear window well.

So I just would like for BPD to take a look at that with the architect so it benefits both the potential unit owners and abutting properties. Thank you.

Okay, if there are seconds- We can certainly accommodate that.

Yeah, I think so too.

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

Yeah.

Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes Ms. Better Barraza? Yes Mrs. Pinado? Yes Chair votes yes, the motion carries. Thank you.

And next we have two companion cases. The first is case BOA 148 2368 with the address of 87 Morris Street. Along with that, we have case BOA 148-2374, also with the address of 87 Mark Street. If the applicant and or their representative present will they please explain to the board?

Yes, thank you again Mr. Stembridge and Madam Chairmembers of the Board Richard Lins Business Address at 245 Summer Street on behalf of Petitioner Carolina Linares This involves the renovation of an existing two-family dwelling on Morris Street. If we can jump down perhaps to slide 2 or 3? So we see an existing condition of two-story building. We are proposing to change the occupancy from 2 to 3 units and the change would involve extending living space into the lowest level basement. This is not located in a flood zone, and sea fraud is not applicable in this particular case based upon its location and the timing of when the application for permit was filed.

This is subject to GPOD, we do have the no harm letter in the BWSC letter and I'm sure Mr. Simonelli will confirm that when given the opportunity. If we could jump down to perhaps slide nine, to look at the floor plan and section plan. So a couple of things I will point out. This sort of and many more. Thank you. Exterior of the building, so the entire building would have access to it. I do note that we have some building code matters in the compendium case. We are not seeking building code relief A number of reasons why we have taken some time to get this before the board was to address a number of building code items. So, we are no longer interested in seeking any building code relief for the project

We believe this can be accomplished entirely without that relief that was originally being cited by the examiner. Our ceiling height is seven and a half feet, which is compliant under the code for purposes of establishing appropriate ceiling height for three-headed buildings. We certainly will comply with any other requirements, including to the extent a sprinkler needs to be added to this level for purposes of compliance Life Safety Requirements. Because this was filed prior to the implementation, I thought we had all of these cases behind us but this seems to be a last legacy item that was filed under prior zoning Most of the violations, if not all the violations that have been cited by ISD are no longer applicable. And I can run through those briefly for the board. So first is the off-street parking. The change from a two to three

Result in this being a three-unit building that is exempt from the parking requirements under Article 53, amended zoning. Ipon is no longer applicable as the amended zoning has been adopted. There is no long a minimum block area and therefore any citation for lot area minimum The same applies for the four-year ratio under amended Article 53. There is no longer a maximum FAR limit, and then the open space requirement that was required in the prior version of Article 53 Thank you very much. City, Permeable Area, lot coverage and building floor plate would not be triggered even under current zoning because this is a pre-existing structure.

In essence, Madam Chair, members of the board, this is a jihad-only case. We submitted this simply because Thank you, Mr. Chair. Remaining items that have been cited are no longer violations on the current amended zoning, so relatively straightforward proposal. Happy to answer any questions of your board.

Thank you. Is Mr. Hampton here to weigh in?

Thank you Madam Chair, members of the board, Jeff Hampton, City of Boston Planning Department. Would have been better to weigh in back in 2025 when this first came before the Board and all this stuff was applicable I don't know what to really say to any of this. Council's right, most of this doesn't even apply anymore but this board had deferred them eight times Thank you for your time. Yes, it did predate the new zoning but that's what our recommendation was based on and that recommendation hasn't changed in the past nine months. Thank you.

What about this notion that the living space is below the sea level rise design flood elevation? It seems to be unclear about that.

So I looked at our survey indicates we are not in a designated flood zone. And if to the extent, and certainly the difference between sea fraud and flood zone There is a distinction. Not all properties that are outside the flood zone are exempt from CFRAD. Find its way into areas that are not necessarily in Flood A or Flood AE. Flood X definitely has sea fraud involved. However, the important distinction is CFROG applicability of Article 25A was only applicable to projects subject to Article 80. Prior to amended zoning in East Boston, the amended zoning of East Boston triggered a An applicability for all projects within CFRA.

So this would still remain exempt because it was filed prior to the implementation of new zoning for East Boston and therefore is not required to comply with CFRA unless it was an article 80 size project.

Other questions from the board or comments? Hearing none, I'll take public testimony.

Madam Chair and Board Members, Ziggy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This petitioner completed the community process. Our office hosted an abutters meeting on August 22nd of 2023 at which I am told no public comments were made. This proposal met with the Maverick Central Neighborhood Association and that group is supporting this application. With that background, ONS defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Next we have Kristen Simonelli Madam Chair, members of the board. Christian Simonelli, Executive Director of the Boston Groundwater Trust and we have both key card letters from the applicant. Madam Chair there are no additional comments.

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

Madam Chair, I feel like we should be supporting additional units and basement areas for increasing the housing supply. For these reasons, I'm going to put forward a motion of approval.

Is there a second? A second. Mr. Stembridge. Yeah. Okay, thank you. Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

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

Yes.

Chair votes yes, the motion carries.

Thank you very much have a great day.

Okay. Ms. Somerson anything? Thank you all.

Have a good day.