Zoning Board of Appeal

The City of Boston Zoning Board of Appeal hearing for April 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. Members of the public will enter the virtual hearing as attendees, which means you will not see yourself on the screen and you will be muted throughout unless administratively unmuted when asked to comment.

Board members, applicants, and their attorneys or representatives will participate in the hearing as panelists, and they will appear alongside the presentation materials when speaking. Panels 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 our project. that is those individuals who live closest to the project if you wish to comment on an appeal please click the raise hand button along the bottom of your screen in the zoom webinar platform click it again and your hand should go down when the host sees your hand you will receive a request to unmute yourself Select yes and you should be able to talk.

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

Good morning, Madam Chair.

Good morning. Mr. Valencia.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Present.

Good morning. Ms. Tucker? Good morning, Madam Chair present. Good morning. Ms. Barraza? Good morning, Madam Chair present. Good morning. Ms. Pinado? Good morning, Madam Chair present. I'm working on video. Understood. Thank you. Good morning. Mr. Collins. Good morning, Madam Chair. Present. Good morning. Okay, I'll turn it back over to you, Mr. Stembridge.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning members of the board and public. We'll begin today's meeting, we'll begin today's hearing with Mayor The approval of the hearing minutes scheduled for 9 30 a.m. These hearing minutes are from April 7th, 2026 and I will make a motion on approval.

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 have the extensions scheduled for 9.30 a.m. This morning, we have two extensions before us. to request for extension of course works. I'll read both of them in and we can go from there. First, we have case BOA 1474749. with the address of 10 Belleville Avenue. Along with that, we have case BOA 768-729 with the adjunct. with the address of 79 to 89 West Broadway. Those are the two extensions in front of us. And if we have any questions, you can direct them to Madam Chair.

Any questions? If the proponent is here, I wanted to ask, what are the reasons for the extension? Because this is the fifth request for an extension. So just wondering if the project is feasible or not at this point after so many years. So if anybody is from this project, I would love to hear your reasons.

Is Mr. Attorney Small here?

Okay, let's move on, Madam Chair.

Okay. May I have a motion to grant the request as requested? The motion, yeah. Grant the extension as requested.

Both of you grant the extension as requested.

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 a court-per-man discussion. I'll read this in and then turn it over to Caroline to inform us what needs to be done. Remain in discussion, Superior Court Case Number 2384 CV 00459 with the address of 22 Hanover Street. This is also identified as case BOA 1359438. The applicants are Stefan and Jenny Valdolato. And I'll turn it over to Caroline.

So this project was originally approved by the Boston Board of Appeal on December 6, 2022. The proposal included the renovation of an existing single-family dwelling with a two-story partial addition The Board's decision was subsequently appealed, and the Massachusetts Superior Court has remanded the case to the Board in order to make specific findings of fact regarding the requested conditional use permit for the roof deck and head house. There will not be a vote today. And we're contemplating a June 2nd, 2026, date for the remand hearing. Do any of the board members have any questions? Okay, Mr. Stembridge, you may proceed with the next item on the agenda.

Thank you, Carolyn. Staff.

We will go on to the recommendation schedule from 9.30 a.m.

At this point, I would read into the record two cases which one of our members must recuse themselves from. Those two cases are case VOA 180-7677. with the address of 7R to 7 Monument Street. Along with that, we have case BOA-182-5198 with the address of 61 Rodney Abedin.

Is Mr. Collins refusing yourself from these two?

Yes. Okay, so we have a six member board. May I have a motion? Oh, sorry, Mr. Stembridge, I think usually you let the board know what the outcome was of those.

These were approved, Madam Chair. Okay.

So may I have a motion? Motion to approve. May I have a second? Second. Better Barraza second. Mr. Stembridge. Yeah? Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Barraza? Yes. Ms. Pinado? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

With that, we'll move on to the rest of the recommendation cases scheduled for April 16.

to let people know that at this point all of the cases were approved.

So with that, we'll go on to, we'll move on to case VOA 180.

6384 with the addresses 215 to 221 Hanover Street. Again was approved. Next we have case BOA 181 3278 with the address of 5 Colebrook Street.

Again, approved.

Next, we have AC DOA 1701102

with the address of 3141 Washington Street, which was approved.

Skipping over the next one and going to case BOA 1723161,

with the address of 37 Mather Street, which was approved.

Next, we have case BOA-180-0971.

with the address of 1 Parrot Street. Next, we have case BOA 1798927 with the address of 109 Bogle Street. Next, we have case BOA 1826464 with the address of 384 West Roxbury Parkway. Next, we have case BOA 171. 0494 with the address of 168 Dana Avenue.

Madam Chair, those are all of the cases from the subcommittee which were all approved.

Thank you.

Any questions from the board? May I have a motion? Motion to approve. May I have a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza? Yes. Ms. Pinado? Has she been elevated back to a panelist? Mr. Collins? Yes. Ms. Pinado. So then Madam Ambassador needs to elevate her back to a panelist?

Yes.

Yes. Thank you. Chair votes yes, the motion carries.

With that, we'll move on to the hearing scheduled for 9.30 a.m. At this time, we'll ask if there are any requests for withdrawals or deferrals from the 9.30 a.m. hearing.

Yes, good morning, Mr. Secretary. 34 Spring Garden Street, please.

So this request is for case VOA 179.

4725 with the address of 34 Spring Garden Street.

Would you go ahead and explain, please?

Yes, good morning Madam Chair, members of the board, for the record, Attorney Matt Echol with Fletcher Tilton on behalf of the applicant. We have made some changes to the plans that need to be resubmitted through inspectional services and re-reviewed by our plans examiner, so at this time we are seeking a short deferral.

Fairline. We can do June 16. Matt, have they been submitted to plans yet or no?

They have not yet been submitted. We expect a quick turnaround though. So June 16th would certainly work or something's probably not sooner, but June 16th would be fine.

Okay.

Okay. May I have a motion? Motion to defer this case until June 16th. May I have a second? 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. See you then.

Thank you. Any further requests for withdrawals or deferrals on the 930 here? Hearing none, we will go to the first case, which is case BOA. 181-1706 with the address of 360 Princeton Street. If the applicant and or their representative are present, would they please place space on the board?

Is this, do we have anyone?

I'm checking. Laura Acosta. Laura. I don't see anybody. Laura Acosta.

No, I don't see anybody. The Madam Chair will wait and return to that. Would we have to read the others in? Yep, thank you. So we'll move on to case BOA 173. 0471 with the address of 1098 to 10973. It's the applicants and their representative present. Will they please explain? and Madam Chair will bear with me, but this will be one of two companion cases. The other one with that will be case BOA 1730467. with the address of 111A to 111C.

Hello?

Are you here to speak to the 109 Salem? Thank you. Yes, yes. Good morning Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Joseph Bono, the owner and manager of 109 and 111 Salem Street. Our request is to have an outdoor patio for 14 seats at each restaurant that we have operated for the last six years under the Boston Outdoor Dining Program. and both locations are on private property. So we want to alleviate having to do this annual request each year. So we respectfully request your approval to this.

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

Yes, Madam Chair, members of the board, Connor Newman with the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services. At this time, the Mayor is object to defer to the judgment of this board. Some background information. Our office did not require community processes. We normally do not hold a public process for outdoor dining proposals on private property. The applicant has worked with the outdoor dining team. They have been operational for a number of years in the north end. Our office is unaware of any concerns from Director Butters. With that information, we'll defer to the board. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have Stephen from the Councilor Coletta's office.

Hi, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name's Stefan from Councilor Coletta Zapata's office, and at this time, we'd like to go in support of this case.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, there are no additional comments.

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

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

Sorry, yes.

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

Thank you very much.

Next, we have case BOA-180-6142 with the address of 7th Smith Court. If the applicant and or their representative are present, would they please explain to the board?

Yes, thank you, Mr. Stembridge. My name is Timothy Burke. I'm the architect for the project. I have a business address of 142 Berkeley Street in Boston. And thank you for the opportunity to present this project. I've been working This is a single family owner occupied house on Beacon Hill. It's a beautiful house and has a roof deck. but the existing access to the deck is very poor and borders on dangerous you have to kind of crawl on your knees to get up to the deck so We are asking permission to install a head house that would increase the FAR by 43.5 square feet. And this is already a very small lot at 545 square feet. and the penthouse has been designed to be similar to many on Beacon Hill.

It will be covered in copper and we've designed it to be as small as possible to still get a decent and safe access to the roof deck. and the owner is also with us here, Michael Robertson, and be happy to answer any questions that you may have.

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

Good morning Madam Chair and members. Siggy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This applicant has completed the community process. Our office hosted in a Barraza meeting on January 29th at which there were questions and concerns about the dimensions of the deck and the appearance of the head of house as well as opposition from a director to rebuilding the deck in this location. The applicant met with the Beacon Hill Civic Association which agreed to provide their non-opposition subject to a good neighbor agreement. of opposition from a direct abutter that has been forwarded to the board. That background ONS defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Madam Chair, I don't see any additional hands raised at the moment.

Any other comments from Mr. Burke?

No, thank you.

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

Second.

Mr. Valencia? Yes. Mr. Stembridge?

Yeah.

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

No.

Yes, Mr. Collins. Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Thank you very much.

Next, we have case BOA 17998. 7-8 with the address of 61 Farragut Road. If the applicant and or their representative are present, will they please explain to the board?

Yes, thank you, Mr. Stembridge. Madam Chair, members of the board, Attorney Ryan Spitz with Adam Cimaransi, business address of 168 8th Street, 1st Floor, South Boston. Joining me today are the owners, Molly and Mike Shaw. as well as the project architect Nick Landry. This is a modest owner-occupant project. The Shaws live in this building and intend to raise their young family here. The proposal converts an underutilized three-family building into a larger two-family home and converts an existing but unimproved roof deck and head house into functional living space with two outdoor decks. The conversion of the roof deck and head house will be approximately 391 square feet of livable space serving Unit 2 with a front-facing deck and a rear-facing flanking with the new head house addition. We are here seeking two forms of relief, a conditional use permit under Article 68, Section 29 to alter the profile of the roof line within the South Boston Restricted Roof District.

We're also seeking a variance for the 40-foot maximum building height under Article 68, Section 8 to allow the proposed structure an overall height of approximately 46 feet 9 inches. The underlying main roof remains at 36 feet 5 inches, well within the 40 feet limit. Critically, the proposed head house and decks are substantially set back from the front and the rear property lines, limiting street-level visibility. The release sought will not substantially derogate from the purpose of the restricted roof district. The district restrictions are principally aimed at preserving the visual character of the streetscape. As the street elevation drawing demonstrates, the proposed addition is invisible from the Farragut Road. The head house is set back well behind the main parapet, and the solar study confirms that the new shadow impact on the abutters is minimal. Significantly, 35 Farragut Road, a neighboring building visible in the submitted street elevation, reaches 50 feet, well above the Shah's proposed 46.

The proposal does not set a precedent that would undermine the district's purpose and is consistent with the actual built form of this block. We are aware the planning department has recommended consolidating the two proposed decks into a single location. We respectfully request that the board decline to impose that condition or in the alternative that any provisos be framed to allow the additional living space to be pushed back further while retaining an enlarged front deck in the proposed location. The rationale for the two decks is practical and family-oriented, not cosmetic. The shawls have young children. The rear deck provides shaded outdoor space suitable for children. Critical in a city where private outdoor space at the upper level of a narrow building is limited. The front deck in turn captures the elevated views toward the ocean that make this level of the building distinctive. These are not interchangeable functions. A single consolidated deck cannot simultaneously provide both shade and ocean views. At this point, Madam Chair, I'm going to turn it over to you and the Board for any questions or comments.

Are you aware, thank you, Attorney Spitz, are you aware of feedback from the city's parks and recreation department with concerns

No, as this is located, we will have to go, if approved by the planning department, we'll have a, most likely, if there is a proviso of design review, we'll also have to go through the... I am not aware of any sort of concerns that have been mentioned to this point as of right now because we have not formally submitted for that review.

Other questions from the board? Are there any very similar decks that overlook the waterfront as well?

Yes, so as I mentioned, there is 35. So if you pull up the Nick Landry's here, he could probably defer the exact page, but one of the roof decks here, just on this block here is the ones that I wanted to mention. As you can see, it has the same, it's an even higher, again, that's at 50 feet total as well. And again, if we go further outside the scope of the block, I try to keep it just within that one block. There are other precedent-setting roof deck structures on those buildings as well.

So currently the roof deck is not accessed by Head House, is that correct?

Correct, yeah. There's a rear staircase in the existing photo. So as you're proposing two, why is that? So again, yeah, so the reasoning behind that is more of the rationale is practical and family-oriented. They have young children. They're going to continue to raise their children. The preference is to have some shade, and you're going to get mostly the shade in the rear of that deck versus the front side. But again, the views from the front are very distinctive to this property.

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

Madam Chair and Board Member, Diggie Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This applicant completed community process. Our office hosted in a Butters meeting on January 8th, which Director Butterhead... had a concern about the impact of construction. The applicant met with B Point Neighborhood Association, which opposes this application due to the building height, roof decks, and pergola. With that background, our office defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Next, we have Ashley from Consulate Flynn office.

Hi, my name is Ashley from Councilor Flynn's office. Councilor Flynn would like to go on record and support based on a good community process. While Councilor Flynn acknowledges concerns from neighbors and civic groups and maintains a policy against new He has supported proposals with existing roof decks that gain the approval of neighbors and abutters. as this one has done. He respectfully asks the proponent to continue to work closely with the neighbors on any quality of life issues that arise during the construction phase. Thank you.

Madam Chair, there are no additional comments. No, we have another person, I think. Luan, if you can unmute yourself.

Yes, good morning, board and members. Lou Anne O'Connor, president of the City Pump Association. The proponent did come in, I believe it was March 10th, to present to the neighborhood association. And a quorum was present, a vote was taken, and the vote came back to oppose. Based on the height, the BPDA recommendation for East Broadway is 45 feet. and this is on Farragut Road going above that 45 feet. They are directly across the street from Green Space. It's a park and a little bit further is the beach itself. So the coverage of the roof is way beyond the percentage that BPDA usually likes to see. And they have agreed to move the pergola to the back. But again, front and back roof decks I think is just a little absurd.

and based on 35 Farragut which keeps coming up as an example, that roof deck itself has been grandfathered in years and years ago. So with that, we stand in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Chair, I see another person. Betty, if you can unmute yourself.

Yes, I'm Betty Daly and I live next door. I'm in a butter and I think it's wonderful that I'm in full support and the shahs are an asset to the community and I think on Farragut Road it just beautifies the neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you.

Any other questions from the board? Madam Chair, before you turn on the board, if I can just have two seconds. I'd just like to notate what wasn't stated by the mayor's office is that we submitted 14 letters in support of this project from all the immediate direct abutters. There was one abutter who originally just had concerns of the shadow, but when the shahs had a further discussion with them, they did submit a letter of support. Again, there was no opposition that we were aware of. The only opposition came in from the actual civic group. But again, I'd like to highlight the fact that 14 letters were submitted to this board in support from all the immediate direct advisors.

Thank you. Is Mr. Hampton on? I just want to confirm that design review would include a review from Parks and Rec, or is that a...

That's a separate proviso. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board, Jeff Hampton, City of Boston Planning Department. The Parks and Rec review was a completely separate process from ours.

Okay, thank you. So that would require a separate proviso. Any other questions from the board?

Can you just clarify, I'm looking at on Google Image and I see on 61 Farragut Road that there is already a front deck. So I'm a little bit, now I'm a little bit unclear.

Yeah, so there is an existing deck, again, that is unapproved, and it's in pretty tough shape, so that deck is actually... You said that it has been approved, that it has been... Yeah, that's already, yes, yeah, so that's... Yeah, so exactly. So it's going to be actually renovated, and the size of that deck in the front will be shrunken down a bit.

Okay, so it's already kind of existing. Correct, yeah. Okay, great. I don't need any further clarification. Thank you. Okay, with that, may I have a motion? Madam Chair, I would like to put forward a motion. Given that the deck is already existing, I'm going to put forward a motion of approval. Are you including design review? No, because I think that a proposal of a rear deck and the size of the size of it is it's Thank you for joining us. and the one that is being proposed in the front, it's already kind of existing. It's just going to be decreased. So I don't see for any design review.

So I'm going to request the proviso with Parks and Rec Reviews, given they submitted a letter and this falls within their purview.

Any concerns with that? Sure we can add that but typically that would be earmarked in the ISD permitting process but I can include that so I will I can revise The motion to approve with a proviso that it's being reviewed by Boston Parks and Recreation Department. Is there a second?

Second.

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

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have case BOA 1774632. with the address of 744 East 4th Street. If the applicant and or their representative are present, will they please explain to the board?

Yes, thank you, Mr. Stembridge. Madam Chair, members of the board, Attorney Ryan Spitz, with that as a Meranti business address of 168 8th Street, 1st floor, South Boston. Joining me today from the development team is Andrew Schenna, John Collins, and Darren Swain. Also joining us is the project architect, Eric Zachrisson. This is a proposal to raise the existing structure which has been filed on a separate permit and to erect a new four-story, six-unit residential building with nine vehicular parking spaces along with a dedicated bicycle parking room. Ambassador, if I could direct your attention to page A-102. A-102, the level one plan consists of the mechanicals, trash room, lobby, storage in the front, In the rear, as the elevation drops, will contain the garage for nine parking spaces. Level two will contain units one and two, which both will be three bedrooms. Level 3 will contain units 3 and 4, which will also be 3 bedrooms.

Level 4 will contain units 5 and 6, which will also be 3 bedrooms. All units will have balconies in the front, 8 feet deep, 16 feet wide, that will be flushed with the building. We only have two violations. We have an FAR violation. 2.0 is supplying in this sub-district and the proposal calls for a slight increase at a 2.03, which is also very similar with other FARs within this neighborhood. We have an additional lot insufficiency. The proposal of this scope would require 7,000 square feet of lot size, and our lot size is just shy at 6,416 square feet. The typical lot in this area is approximately 750 square feet for an average of three units on a lot, which is also non-compliant. One thing that I'd like to, I think it's worth mentioning to the board is that if we just reduce the unit count, keeping the floor layouts and slightly reduce that FAR, we could have a zoning compliant project here.

But again, we put a lot of work together with the immediate direct abiders. We've come to grips with some neighborly agreements, hence the reason why you're seeing us go forward with the proposal of this today. We are also aware of the recommendation of the Planning Department for a deferral based upon the Article 85 process where the Landmarks Commission has made a preliminary determination of significance which may impose a delay. The Board should reject the Planning Department's recommendation to defer this matter pending resolution of the Article 85 Landmarks Review Process. A deferral is neither legally required nor appropriate at this stage. Article 85 of the Boston Zoning Code and the ZVA's variance relief jurisdiction operate entirely separate and on statutory tracks. The Board of Appeals derives its authority from Chapter 665, the Land Rights Commission's Article 85, Preliminary Determination of Significance, Triggers the design review process.

It does not confer upon the Landmarks Commission any authority to veto, state, or condition a zoning determination by this board. There is no provision in Article 85, the Enabling Act, or any applicable authority that requires this board to hold its zoning determination in abeyance while a separate administrative review proceeds before a separate body. The proper legal sequence is well understood. Zoning relief is obtained from this board and then the issuance of a building permit is conditioned upon the satisfaction of any applicable Article 85 review. That is exactly how the process should work. Today, the applicant is not asking for a building permit. The applicant is simply asking for zoning relief. The landmark's jurisdiction attaches at the permitting stage. Not at the zoning stage. Deferring the zoning determination accomplishes nothing substantively and simply prolongs the applicant's inability to move forward through the regulatory process in this correct order. The Board grants relief.

The permit does not issue until Article 85 is resolved. That is the appropriate mechanism, not a deferral of this hearing. Secondly, we'd also like to notate that the Landmarks has only made a preliminary determination of significance under Article 85, Section 4. That is the threshold screening step. It does not mean the property will be designated, that a certificate of appropriateness will be denied, or that the proposed design is incompatible with any applicable standards. A preliminary determination simply opens the review process. to defer a zoning matter every time the Landmarks Commission issues a preliminary determination would effectively give the body a de facto veto over ZBA proceedings. A result that finds no support in the text of either Article 85 or Chapter 665. The applicant filed this application in August 2025. The matter has already been before the neighborhood and updated.

An open-ended deferral tied to an Article 85 review would impose a serious and continuing hardship on the applicant without any corresponding benefit to the public interest. The zoning violations at issue are narrow, a minor FAR, overage of .03, above the 2.0 standard, and an insufficient additional lot area per unit. both of which this board has ample authority to address under the variance and relief standards applicable in the NFR sub-district. At this point, Madam Chair, I am going to pause, turn it over to the board for any questions or comments. I also do have Attorney Richie Lins who is present here today if there are any specific questions relating to the article 85 process and application as he is the attorney on record handling that for the proponents. So again, thank you Madam Chair and I'll turn it over to you and the board for any questions or comments.

Thank you. Are there questions from the board?

Yes. So just so I can understand, you are planning to demolish The existing building to just currently four unit and propose a new structure to add two additional units, which is six units, correct?

Yes.

And Can you tell me what is your hardship? Because what is not allowing you to build two units within the existing structure? So can you just claim to let us know what is your hardship because that's why you're in front of us requesting a variance.

Yeah, yeah. So, I mean, the hardship here, again, is the best and reasonable use. And most likely, as you're seeing with the lot size there, if we were to able... to erect five units, we could do that zoning compliant. Just a slight decrease in the 2.03 FAR and just reducing that unit count from six to five would make it a zoning compliant project. The building is in a pretty bad condition and some disrepair. Hence the reasoning why that the article 85 application was submitted rather than preserving the existing structure and building out. It wouldn't be feasible to add the parking where we again we don't take that parking is one of the biggest critical issues in South Boston, hence the reasoning why that a whole new project starting from scratch would be a bigger benefit than trying to preserve it and adding on additional units.

Okay, and just one... One additional question. Do you have a structural report stating that it's in poor condition and it's not salvageable?

I would have to go back and see if the proponents do actually have one themselves.

Okay, I just wanted to know if you've done a structured report. Yeah, I don't think they have at this point in time. Okay, if you don't, that's no further questions. Thank you so much. Yeah, thank you. Any other questions from the board?

May we have public testimony?

Madam Chair and Board Members, Siggy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This applicant completed the community process. Our office hosted an abutters meeting October 27, 2025, at which a previous iteration of this proposal was presented, a large number of voters were opposed to the height, demolition of the building, and parking ratio. The applicants made changes in direct response to this feedback, which reduced the violations, although the proposal still calls for demolition of the building. Our office received three letters of opposition from abutters. Our office is also aware that the applicant and some direct abutters have engaged in a dialogue and attempt to mitigate some of the concerns raised. The applicants have also presented to the City Point Neighborhood Association, which is opposed to this application. With that background, our office defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Next we have Ashley from Councilor Flynn's office.

Hi, my name is Ashley from Councilor Flynn's office. Councilor Flynn would like to go on record in opposition based on feedback from neighbors and abutters during the community process. Several neighbors and abutters highlighted The exactivation and concerns on the potential for damages to their property. Others pointed to the size, density, and South Boston's existing parking crisis. Some neighbors mentioned the design not fitting with the character of the surrounding buildings, while others noted removal of established trees and water drainage. At this time, Councilor Flynn remains opposed due to these outstanding quality of life concerns from his neighbors. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, next we have Kelly DeAngelo.

Good morning. My name is Kelly D'Angelo. I'm the owner of 767 East Broadway, so I'm a direct abutter of this project, and I wanted to voice my support for this project.

Thank you. Thanks. Next, we have Todd D'Angelo.

I'm also an owner at 767 East Broadway, a direct abutter in the rear of the project, and I would like to voice my support for the project as well.

And next we got Matt Giuseppe.

I met you at 142 P Street. As a member of the City Point Neighborhood Association, I was denied the ability to learn about the project and vote by Luann O'Connor. After reviewing the project, I want to make sure that my voice and opinion was heard in support of this project moving forward. Thank you.

Thanks. And we have Lou Anne.

Good morning, Board, Madam Chair. There were two direct abutters that expressed extreme concern. One of them was the D'Angelo family, so the property backs up to their backyard, and their concern was soil displacement during excavation. The other director is Elizabeth Rhodes, who is actually moving her daughter from Arizona to Washington today. So she could not be here. She did submit a lot of historical information. Working with Edmarks and her major concern again is excavation. Her house was built, I believe, in 1860. Any type of damage to that home cannot be replaced. The brick is special. So she is still in opposition to this until there is an agreement worked out. with the proponent.

So it appears they've worked out an agreement with the D'Angelo family, but have not worked out an agreement with Elizabeth Rhodes. So at this point, I do suggest strongly that the BPDA recommendation is taken into consideration. I think it's a bit premature for this project to move anywhere until the I's are dotted and the T's across. Thank you.

Thank you. Madame Chair, there's one more person on the attendee section. Okay. The person with the phone number 305-6282, I'm sorry. Can you unmute yourself now? Once again, the person with the number 30582 Do you have the hands raised?

Okay.

Yes, if you can unmute yourself with the number. With that three numbers, five, eight, two at the end, you are allowed to unmute yourself now.

Okay, well, maybe you want to put your comment in the chat if you're raising your hand for this proposal. Any other feedback from attorney Spitz?

Yes, just one thing I want to do add is after we heard the statements from the City Point Neighborhood Association, I want to let you all know that we still are In working dialogue with Elizabeth Rhodes, neither was any support or opposition ever voiced to us from her concerns. With her traveling, we will continue again to come to an agreement. There's been an agreement, and again, it's just upon final review. So again, first of all, I acknowledge that she was actually opposing it. I haven't seen anything written or any confirmation from her. to my clients or myself, stating such. So at this point, I'm going to turn it back over to you, Madam Chair. Thank you.

Any other questions from the board? Madam Chair, I'd like to note How long the process would be expected to take to the end? And if Mr. Hampton has any comments on this?

Mr. Stembridge, are you referring to the Article 85 process? Yes, I am. Attorney Richie Lenz is here, who is handling the application or the opposition. So, Richie, I'm going to let you handle that question.

So has the process started? Has it not? What are we looking at?

Sure, if I may, I thank you, Madam Chair, and through the members of the board, Richard Lentz, 245 Sumner Street, on behalf of the petitioner with respect to the article 85. A couple of things, I think just contextually. First of all, I did read the recommendation from planning, and I'm not sure where it came from, but that there was a suggestion that because there's potential for alternatives to be required by the Landmarks Commission, that that should invite this board to delay action on the zoning matter. I want to be very clear for the board. There is no requirement under Article 85 that alternatives to demolition be provided. Essentially, an applicant can submit a request for demolition delay review. and the commission has really only two options. First option is to invoke delay or the second option is to not invoke delay. The issue of alternatives gets a bit confusing, I think, for a lot of applicants that go before the Landmarks Commission Article 85.

And it's clear and it's been verified with the commission that there is absolutely no requirement that any alternatives be provided. So again, the narrowness of the commission's jurisdiction in these matters is that they can invoke delay or not invoke delay. I think it's important for this board to understand, you may be hearing this again, that in this particular case, for this particular project, we've filed an objection with the commission on timeliness This board may be aware that Article E5 has very strict timelines, the first of which is that the determination that needs to be made by the Landmark Commission has to be done within 10 days of an application filing date. Our position on this, and not to get too far in the weeds of the board, but our position is the 10 days had come and passed with the timeframe for when this application was filed. and the determination that was required under article 85 was never even made. It was made after the 10 days and then a public hearing was noticed for May 12th in this matter.

On May 12th, the commission at that time was required under article 85 to make Thank you for watching. That was not done in this case. May 12th will be beyond the application filing date. We've raised this objection with the Landmarks Commission that they will have no jurisdiction to even hear the matter for Article 85 demolition delay. and we've requested that the hearing be withdrawn. If in fact the commission decides to go forward, in spite of the fact that we've raised a very valid objection to their jurisdiction, The most they could do is impose a delay on demolition of the building for 90 days. We intend to contest that vigorously. We believe they don't have the power to do that. But even if they were, it would be 90 days from May 12th.

For demolition delay, that doesn't necessarily mean that there is any other special protection that's afforded to this property. This is not a landmark designation. just because it's administered by the Landmarks Commission does not give the Commission the power to invoke protections other than a 90-day delay instructed to the Special Service Department to not issue a dental requirement. In practical reality, Mr. Stembridge, we wouldn't probably be ready to demolish the building in 90 days anyhow. That is a process as well that would have to go through a short form permit with demolition requirements. including submittal of materials that would be necessary for ISD addition to the demo permit. Between the design review that would go on that's likely to happen with this project if the board is to grant relief, the 90 days would long expire regardless.

But from a principal standpoint, we don't even believe the commission has jurisdiction in this instance because of their failure to render its decision within the 10-day mandatory requirement of Article 85. and to hold its public hearing within 40 days. So I just want to make sure that that is clear for the board that we may be in the red herring area here where the imposition or the suggestion that a demo delay may be imminent somehow affects this board's ability to grant zoning relief. They are completely independent of each other, and one has nothing to do with the other. Happy to answer any questions on that.

Mr. Stembridge, did that answer your first question? And more, yes. Okay. Did you still want to hear from Mr. Hampton?

At this point, not necessary. Thank you, Mr. Hampton.

Thank you. I would like to hear from Hampton. Okay, Mr. Hampton. Just in terms of his recommendation.

What would you like to hear? It's not to sound very blunt, but our recommendation is very, you know, simple. We're asking for a deferral.

How long would that deferral? Yes, it's simple, but how long?

Your guess is Better Barraza. I just don't know what this time frame would look like.

Okay, that's what I was going to ask. Yeah, I mean... There's a deferral, you know, it's very difficult to...

But this isn't the first time we've made a deferral like this on any sort of recommendation, whether it be demolition delay or anything like that. We can ask for a deferral for anything that we feel is important to this case. and we've never been asked to come up with well what's a good time frame right that's how the processes play out in this city so it's very a very simple recommendation to the board. And that's all it is, is a recommendation.

No, I understand it. And I think this case is different in terms of the deferral. Typically, deferrals are to allow for more community process. I think this comes back to Norm, Stembridge original question in regards to timeline, but I think the legal representation explained already that the timeline has been also expanded. So thanks again. I don't have any further questions.

Okay, we have a motion.

I would like to put forward a motion of approval with the same review with the planning department. I think that if the planning department Thank you very much.

Mr. Stembridge?

Yep.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. 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 1805937. with the address of 30 to 32 H Street. If the applicant and or the representative are present, would they please explain to the board?

Yes, thank you, Mr. Stembridge, Madam Chair, members of the board, Attorney Ryan Spitz, with Adams & Maranci, business address of 168 8th Street, 1st floor, South Boston. Joining me today from the development team is Tim Wilson and Luke Fallon, as well as the project architect, Katrial Tulian. This is a proposal to raise the existing commercial structure and erect a new four-story, six-unit residential building with a six-car parking garage. The lot size is approximately 4,271 square feet, which resulted in a zoning violation for insufficient lot area as a project of this scope would require a 7,000 square foot lot. But this proposal is in line with the neighboring properties and will allow for a better utilization of the land. Further, there is a roof structure restriction violation which resulted from the existing commercial structure being raised. The proposal is located within an MFR zoning sub-district. All units will be two bedrooms. The ground floor plan will consist of the garage,

Parking for six vehicles, lobby, trash area, mechanicals, and elevator access. First floor plan will contain units one and two. Second floor plan will contain units three and four. Third floor plan will contain units five and six. We have additional violations. We have a side yard setback violation. Minimum of three feet is required as this proposal is located on a corner lot. This applies to both the south and east lot lines. where they are adjacent to multifamily buildings. The east lot line is approximately 1.5 feet at the garage level and three feet for all upper stories. The south lot line is two inches from the lot line. The adjacent building is set back approximately six feet from the common lot line and the separation between the two is common in this area. Further, we believe the rear yard setback violation was an error due to the fact of being a corner lot with two front yard and two side yards. FAR violation code requires a 2.0. The proposal calls for a 2.6.

But again, it's consistent and appropriate for this area of 2nd Street. Height violation, 40 feet is required by code, and this proposal calls for 41.42 feet, but the increase is not unreasonable in this area. Due to the slope of the site, the building height will be reduced by three feet at the south end of the site. We have an open space violation 200 square feet per unit is required and the proposal calls for 78 square feet per unit in the form of balconies which again is consistent in this area. Parking violation 1.5 parking spaces per new unit of housing and the proposal has seven total parking spaces. However, this proposal is aligned with the transportation guidelines for reducing dependency on private vehicles. Lastly, we have a violation for traffic visibility across a corner lot. Despite being a corner lot and the building being constructed to the property line, Article 68-34 Section 2 and Article 18 Section 3 clearly states that whenever a front yard

is required and the lot is a corner lot. In this instance there is no front yard required on both sides. Therefore this should be inapplicable to this proposal. The building design maintains appropriate sight lines at the intersection while maximizing the building envelope. The garage access has been carefully designed to ensure safe ingress and egress. and lastly typically a violation like this is just automatically cited if an analysis is not provided such as a modal setback again so One wasn't provided for here, so we will automatically cite it. So at this point, Madam Chair, I'm going to turn it over to the Board for any questions or comments. Thank you. Are there questions from the Board?

May I have public testimony?

Madam Chair and Board Members, Siggy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This applicant completed the community process. Our office hosted a letters meeting on February 3rd. Three abutters supported the application. Our office received 10 letters of support, all of which signed addresses in the 300-foot abutter's radius. The Gate of Heaven Neighborhood Association is in non-opposition to this application. We're not aware of any other concerns of that background. Our office defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Next, we have Ashley from Councilor Flynn.

Flynn would like to go on record in support based on a good community process. We respectfully request that the proponent work closely with neighbors on any of quality of life issues during the construction phase. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have Joseph Provenzano.

Hi, Don. I'd like to speak in support of this project. I think it fits well with the neighborhood. and the design of the building is nice. The sufficient parking, the large units will provide an opportunity for families like mine to remain in South Boston. I ask that you please approve the project. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Madam Chair, any additional comments?

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

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

Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

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

Yes.

Chair votes yes, the motion carries.

Thank you.

Next, we have case BOA 1809792 with the address of 36-42 Old Street. If the applicant and or their representative present, will they please explain to the board?

Yes, thank you, Mr. Stembridge. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is George Maranci. I'm an attorney with the business address of 350 West Broadway in South Boston. I represent Greg Donovan in this matter. This property is an existing two-story, four-unit residential building located at 36-42 O Street within an MFR multifamily residential zoning subdistrict under Article 68. This proposal is rather straightforward, consisting of a two-story vertical addition, including two areas in the rear of the building currently occupied by porch structures. Bringing the building to four stories and 40 feet, which is fully compliant with height regulations in this zoning sub-district. The rear additions convert the porches in the back into living area with no further encroachment into the rear yard.

The expansion from four units to six units total would bring with it full life safety upgrades, including a complete NFPA 13-hour sprinkler system. The architectural drawings reflect a contextual design consistent with surrounding row house structures maintaining the rhythm and scale along O Street. The refusal letter cites several violations, but when viewed in context, this is At Heart, a typical South Boston infill rehabilitation. With respect to the violations, there's a rear yard setback violation. The existing non-conformity on the right side of the lot continues, I'm sorry, in the rear of the lot continues under The applicability of Section 6834.10, the shallow lot exception, meaning that the minimum setback distance here is 15 feet. The existing condition is 10.3 feet to the rearmost portion of the building.

Where there are, as I mentioned, two rear porch structures. The areas of the rear porches will be used to create additional living space in the building without further encroaching into that rear setback area. There's thus no increase in nonconformity. In fact, the enclosed portions at the rear of the building will actually be set back slightly farther from the rear lot line than the existing porch structures. So while it is present on the refusal letter, I actually question whether the rear setback violation cited here is actually valid. The existing rear yard will be fully upgraded with new landscaping and enclosed trash storage area. and no trees importantly will be removed from the site. There is a side yard setback violation pertaining to the right side of the lot only, but it is important to note that there will be no change to the buildings Sideset backs, either right or left.

The violation is triggered solely by the vertical addition of the building. There's an FAR violation. The FAR increase here is driven by a vertical addition, not a lot over coverage. And approximately 3.3 of the proposed FAR is as the Planning recommendation notes consistent with nearby three and four-story residential buildings. There's a usable open space violation that provided usable open space which is essentially not changing enclosed porches with The roofs don't really count as usable open space. So the amount of usable open space in the rear yard, as I mentioned, is not being decreased. It will remain at approximately 470 square feet. So while relief is technically required, this open space is actually typical for this block pattern, as the planning recommendation notes.

Additionally, I'd like to point out that the site is located one block from the open space of Middle Bonner Park, which is just over a block from us. excuse me, from the site as well as Thomas Butler Memorial Park and Marine Park, which is approximately two blocks from the site. It's a violation cited for insufficient off-street parking. No on-site parking currently exists and none is proposed owing to the size and configuration of the lot. It's impossible to introduce a curb cut. That being said, this is a transit served location within two minutes walking distance from MBTA bus routes 7, 9, 10, and Levin, and the project is thus consistent with city policy favoring reduced parking in dense neighborhoods. Additionally, there are 57 Private off-street rental parking spaces located nearly next door at 32-34 O Street. In conclusion, and as the Planning Department recommendation,

confirms this area is predominantly residential. It is characterized by two to three and some four-story buildings with moderate to high density. with a consistent rowhouse streetscape pattern. This is a relatively small lot at approximately 2,521 square feet, although the building is a typical South Boston rowhouse condition with limited side yards and shallow depth. The height is code compliant, the massing is consistent with neighborhood scale, the rare setback is not being reduced, and the building would be brought into full code compliance with modern life safety systems. There is incremental density with an addition of two units, but with no adverse shadow scale of privacy impacts beyond existing urban conditions. The proposal aligns directly with city housing planning goals by supporting modest infill housing production, preserving

upgrading existing housing stock, avoiding demolition, advancing sustainability through reuse, and reflecting transit-oriented development policies. Finally, and just to address a comment in the planning recommendation, the bottom of the building's proposed projection beginning at the second story is 11 feet above sidewalk grade, which exceeds the Public Improvement Commission's 10-foot minimum clearance requirement. The fourth floor apparent balconies are purely decorative and not functional. But that being said, my client would be happy to work through design review with the planning department to either modify or eliminate the overhang should the board grant the requested relief. With that, Madam Chair, I'll pause and take any questions or comments that board members may have.

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

Madam Chair and Board Members, Siggy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This applicant completed the community process our office did at a Butters meeting on February 5th, at which there were questions about the design, its suitability with the surrounding context, The applicants have also met with the City Point Neighborhood Association, which is supporting this application. That background, ONS defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

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

Councilor Froom would like to go on record in support based on a good community process and feedback from neighbors and the City Point Neighborhood Association. Flynn respectfully requests that the development team work closely with neighbors and the civic group on any quality of life issues that arise during the construction phase. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we'll have Luann.

Good morning again. Lou Anne O'Connell, President of the City Point Neighborhood Association. The proponents came in and presented before City Point some of the conversation that happened with Attorney Maranci and Greg Donovan. was that there are two trees that apparently the city has deemed dead out in front of those properties. And Greg Donovan agreed to replacing those trees. He was not opposed to that. So that was a good thing in our minds. There are no roof decks. That's a better thing. And the height is high. However, it is zoning compliant. So with that, we think that it's a good project. They also agreed for the balconies. to be decorative, so sort of like a Juliet balcony, versus actual decks that are hanging over the building. In so far as the overhang, again, like Attorney Maranci said, they are willing to go through BPDA design review for that.

So with all of that, form was present, post was taken, and we are supporting the project. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Chair, there are no additional comments. Okay, any other questions from the Board?

May I have a motion? Madam Chair, I would like to perform a motion of approval with BPD Design Review, paying special attention to the contextual surrounding as it applies to the exterior. 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. Thank you.

The next case has been deferred, so that will take us to case BOA. 1790078 with the address of 58 Bullitt Street. If the applicant and or their representative are present, would they please explain the case to the board?

Is Charles Robson on for 58 Ballard Street?

Okay, if you...

Yes, Madam Chair, I think I see.

Someone says they're here.

Yeah. He will be on the panelist section very soon. I don't know. Charles, if you can speak now, you are allowed to unmute yourself.

Yes, good day. How are you today? Good. Are you here to speak to 58 Muller Street? Actually, my architect wasn't able to make it due to a health situation. So I, based on the communication, We will probably have to, I guess, reschedule or... Okay, so you need to defer? Yes, please. Okay, Stephanie?

How long of a deferral would you like?

I would like the next meeting if possible.

We could do May 5th.

May 5th? Okay, thank you. Okay, may I have a motion?

Motion to defer this case to May 5th. 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. We'll see you then.

Yeah. No harm, sniper, that is?

That will take us to B.O.A. 182-1678 with the address of 70 Auckland Street. If the applicant and or their representative are present, will they please explain to the board? Not if you're accused.

Okay, we're a six-member board. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the board. Madam Chair, in light of the recusal, we would like to request a brief referral so that this project may have the opportunity of a full board. I have a question about the 54 board. Yeah. Yes, Dr. Murray. Please proceed. I'm sorry, can you hear me Madam Chair? Yes. In light of that recusal, we would like to request a brief deferral so that this project may have the opportunity of a full bullet.

Stephanie? I mean Caroline? That's okay. We can do May 5th.

What's the following after that?

Here. So we have May 5th, May 19th, June 15th.

May 19th is perfect.

Okay.

So can we confirm Stephanie who's sitting since the same issue may occur before you give that date?

That was for Carolyn. I'm not sure. It's Carolyn. I don't do the scheduling.

I can follow up with the ZBA offline, Madam Chair. Yes. So with that, may I have a motion? We'll do a motion to defer and Mr. Christopher can... Yes.

Is there a motion? Motion to defer to May 19th. Is there a second?

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

Yes.

Ms. Pinado? Yes. Mr. Collins? Oh, sorry. Chair votes yes. Motion carries. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for your time. So next we have case VOA 1810310.

with the address of 34 at the Wall Street.

If the applicant and or their representative are present, will they please reply?

Good morning Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Matt Mueller of Hue Architecture and I will be presenting this project today but first I'd like to pass it to Alex Edwards who's the owner and developer of the property just to say a few words. How you doing, everyone?

I'm happy to be here. I just want to take a minute of your time to explain how amazing this project is. Before we went to the city, we went to the neighborhood and we actually designed this project with the neighborhood with everyone involved on our neighborhood meetings. met with the neighborhood about four times before bringing it to the city. And we know what the economy, the type of economy we're in today. And we also reached out to companies like BJ's Wayfair, YMCA, which agreed to give free memberships, lower gas, and lower grocery costs for people that purchase in this particular building.

This is the first time we not only developed a building, but we also developed a community, a lifestyle, and reached out for national help to give people in this neighborhood lower costs in living. We also created our own down payment assistance as well and also receive some funds from private funding for police, law enforcement, anyone in the medical field, and also and educators. So I'm excited about this project. Matt, you can take it away. Thank you.

Thank you, Alex. Okay, just a little bit about the project. The site is currently a vacant 4,665 square foot lot, approximately 80 feet by 58 feet, located near the intersection of Athawale Street, Noel Street, and Millet Street. The property is in a 3F6000 zoning district and is located within a block made up primarily of triple-deckers along with some one-and-two-family homes. Many existing three-family properties in the immediate area sit on lots ranging from 2,000 to 3,600 square feet, so the proposed scale is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood pattern. The site is also very transit accessible, located about three minute walk from the Talbot Avenue-Fairmont line commuter rail station. The proposal is to construct a new six-family dwelling with three off-street parking spaces and six bicycle parking spaces. A new 10-foot curb cut will provide access to the driveway and three parallel parking spaces. The proposed building and massing has been designed to fit comfortably within the scale of the surrounding homes and neighborhood contexts.

If you can go to the next slide, please. The project will require a zoning board of appeal approval for several items, including six family use in a three-up district, insufficient lawn size, excessive FAR, insufficient front, side, and rear yard setbacks, Excessive building stories, insufficient parking, parking located within the required side yard, and insufficient parking maneuverability. Next slide. This is fine, yeah. The building is organized with two units per floor across the residential stories with a small basement used only for mechanical and maintenance access. The unit mix includes two one-bedroom units averaging approximately 520 square feet, two two-bedroom units averaging 850 square feet, and two three-bedroom units averaging 1200 square feet. Next slide, please. This isn't the latest thing we submitted, but it's fine.

It's close enough. The exterior design takes cues from the traditional triple-decker context of the neighborhood. The facade includes front decks, a layered cornice, bay panel detailing, and two-tone material strategy to help break down the scale of the three-story building. The design is intended to relate to nearby homes including neighboring properties along Atherwell Street and Norwell Street abutters while creating a new building that feels attractive, residential, and appropriate to the streetscape. The project includes a combination of private and shared outdoor amenities. Two units will have front balconies, two units will have rear balconies, and the first floor family size unit will have dedicated access to rear yard space. The building is set back approximately eight feet from the front property line to create a more generous and attractive streetscape. The front yard will include landscaping such as dogwood trees, flowering shrubs, stone pavers to emphasize the primary entrance and walkway. Overall, the goal is to create a well-designed, transit-oriented residential building that fits within the existing neighborhood fabric.

The proposed six-family dwelling provides a thoughtful mix of unit sizes, off-street parking, bicycle parking, and meaningful outdoor space. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Are there questions from the board?

I have a question regarding the BPD recommendation in regards to the transformer. Do you have a sense of where the transformer would be located and how that would affect or impact your building footprint?

We did ask an MEP engineer for a preliminary estimate, and he believes we can have a palm-mounted transformer for these units.

A pole-mounted transformer?

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Thanks for your response. Thank you. Any other questions from the board? May I have public testimony?

Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Benberry. I'm the Dorchester Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process, which consisted of an abundance meeting facilitated on January 28th, with no attendees present. Prior to and outside of the formal community process, the proponent met with the community members approximately seven times to develop, refine, and revise the proposal in response to the community feedback. Following the Arbogast meeting, the proposal was presented to West of Washington Civic Association, which voted in support of the project. To date, our office has not received any further community feedback at this time. To my knowledge, thank you for your time, and the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services would like to defer to the Board for their judgment.

Next we have Anastasia from Civil Councilor

Hi, yes, Madam Chair, members of the board, Anastasia speaking on behalf of Councilor Worrell, who would like to go on record in support of this project. Thank you.

Thank you. And there is one person who Laquisa Burke, if you can unmute yourself.

Yeah, thank you guys very much. I would like to say thank you, number one, for hearing out the project on Athol Street. I am not only Member of the WOW community, but I was also the president and the founder of the Washington Coalition. from Original Foundation. And what I really appreciate about 34 at the Wall Street is How Alex came to the community to help to let us help design this particular project like this wasn't a situation where he already had something pre-made it came in and spoke to the community, but it was also like a joint venture of what the building should look like and what people will want to see there. So I want to give my hats off to Alex as being a great developer and as well as supporting All of the down payment assistance programs and things like that that he has brought to WOW throughout the time.

And let's not forget that he's also contributed to many community events. I do support 34 at the Wall Street. I think it's a great project and I think the Well neighborhood is really going to benefit. from this particular project, including the seniors who may be living in the area that are looking to downsize. So thank you.

Thank you. There are no additional comments.

Okay, may I have a motion? Madam Chair, I'd like to put forward a motion given the support of the community and the care that the developer has taken to develop this project. I'd like to put forward a motion of approval.

Is there a second? Mr. Stembridge.

Madam Chair, I'd like to follow up those comments made by Ms. Better Barraza. This appears to be... Our project that a lot of people could follow the lead on for sure. So with that, yes.

Thank you, Mr. Valencia. Yes. Ms. Turner. Yes. Ms. Better Barraza? Yes. Ms. Pinado? Yes. Mr. Collins?

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck.

Thank you. Thank you all. Next, I believe there would be a refusal for this.

Yes, I was going to let you read it, but okay.

Case B-O-A. 181-4225 with the address of 190-200 Cummins Highway. Go ahead.

Madam Chair, I'd like to recuse myself. Thank you.

Thank you. So we are a six-member board for this case.

And with that, if the applicant and or their representative are present, will they please point to the board?

Yes, thank you, Mr. Stembridge. Good morning again, Madam Chair, members of the board. For the record, Richard Lenz with a business address at 245 Sumner Street. On behalf of the Burke Charter School, with me is Sarah Humphrey and Anthony Piermarini. I believe he may need to be elevated to a panelist. They're with Studio Luz, and they have a project architect for this project. We may also have with us Mark Loring, who is the executive director of Book Turner School. I did provide a slide deck. If we could jump to slide three of our slide deck. Yeah, perfect. Yeah, so quick overview. This proposal involves a relatively small addition, Madam Chair, to the existing Brook Charter School located in Roslindale. Brooke Charter School serves approximately 600 students in grades K through 8 and it's located at 190 Cummins Highway in Rosalind Hill as I mentioned. It's operated at this location for more than two decades. So just a quick overview.

This site involves about 65,000 square feet with an existing pre-existing non-conformal structure. Our proposal would add about 3,400 square feet to the actual building, increasing our total FAR up to about 1.06. This would involve a new elevator, new staircase, improved accessibility to the building and the site, as well as adding some resource rooms, break room, and then we're also looking at some exterior improvements which aren't really zoning related but involving upgrade and entry plaza playground in the courtyard. We are actually adding one additional parking space for a total of two accessible parking spaces. Let me jump to slide four, please.

So with respect to the items that ISD decided as for respect to Article 67, we are cited for two particular issues and these relate directly to the pre-existing non-conforming conditions on the building. The first involves the Florida area ratio. The district allows a maximum of 0.5 under Article 67. We are already at a 1.01, so an exceeding condition already, which makes this a non-conforming condition. The increase up to the 1.06 would require relief in the form of variance in order to accommodate this relatively modest addition to the building. The second issue involves the height. Once again, the building already being pre-existing non-conforming at a height of, at some points, three stories and over 35 feet.

Our addition does not exceed three stories, and although it does exceed 35 feet, it doesn't exceed the highest point of our building, which is just slightly over 38 feet. So once again, relief for that would be required. Again, we believe this is the minimal relief that would be necessary to accommodate this proposed addition, which would greatly improve accessibility for the buildings. If we can jump down to slide six, just a quick overview of some of the benefits that go along with this, looking at how much new space is being proposed, The outdoor improvements that we're making to the grounds would be a huge improvement for the students that go to school here as well as some new trees that are being added to the site and of course the elevators which is the chief reason for this edition. Jump down to slide seven, please. I think there's actually a slide.

Can we go back one slide? Probably easier. Perfect, yeah. So what we're showing here, members of the board, is the existing condition on the left with proposed changes on the right. The green area labeled letter E identifies, again, you can see this is a relatively small addition to the existing building itself. The impact of this addition would be extremely minimal, including Recording stopped.

Recording in progress.

There you go. Yeah, sorry. You can see some of the changes for circulation, parking, the new playground area, entry closet, et cetera. So an overall improvement to site access as well as the addition for the accessibility to the building. If we could jump down to slide 12. So this is probably a good illustration of the scope of this addition that we're proposing. As I mentioned, the height of the building at its highest point, as you can see on the top portion of this slide. Shows that we are at three stories already pre-existing. The building does step down and at various points gets down to one story. And as you can see in the lower section, our recording stopped.

As you can see here in the lower portion of this slide you can see the scope and extent and the extent of the addition again in line generally with the highest point of our building and not exceeding the overall existing height we're at. I'm gonna go to slide 13 please. The studio does a great job of identifying how this would relate to the existing conditions and as you can see here this illustrates what this addition would look like in connection or with respect to the

So just to clarify, this addition is tucked inside, like basically in like an open space between two existing sections of the existing footprint?

That is correct. It doesn't extend, you know, the extent of the existing footprint, the father's points of the existing footprint are not changed. This is really infill or great partial infill. of the area that's open between the two main portions of the building currently. and I believe that's it. At this point, I'm happy to answer or address any questions or comments. And again, we do have our architects here as well that could address any specific comments or concerns of the board.

Thank you. Would you be able to address concerns that we received from abutters about noise? Are these noise levels being excessive and I guess continuous?

With respect to the proposed construction or the operation of the school itself?

I believe it's well both but operations of the school itself I think is the long-term concern.

Yeah, I participated in the community process on this. We did have a good number of neighbors participate in those meetings as well. And I know that Mark Waring, who is the director of Perk Charter, has a very good working relationship with the surrounding community. And I believe during the community process, those questions were similarly raised, and there will be continued dialogue with Mr. Waring and the community on those issues. As to any noise related to construction, this would be subject to all the same ordinances and requirements that the city puts in place for any permanent project in the city of Boston. I don't anticipate that this would be any different than any other construction project would be happening. We feel this is a relatively, again, small addition to the building and that the impacts should be, well,

temporary, I would say, but also minimal to the surrounding neighborhood as well, especially based upon where the most of this construction will be taking place.

Thank you. Questions from the board?

Yes, Madam Chair, just to piggyback on your comments, Mr. Lins, the comments that we received from residents in the area are about the Regular performance of the school. I'm glad you hosted a community process, but the comments are about double parking, traffic control, noise, leaf blowers at one in the morning. So those are things that are not related to youth project. I like the project, but I wanted to mention this for school members and the school team to try to work closer with the neighbors and figure out how to create a better quality of life for everybody.

Yes, indeed. And I think to your point, Mr. Valencia, the questions regarding, you know, certainly the traffic and parking were also raised during the community process. and I believe that the changes and the improvements that they're making to the site will help alleviate some of those concerns that certainly is part of this process as well. Circulation for the site, access to the site, all of that is Thank you for joining us. The addition certainly would. Those issues were also raised during the process and Mr. Loring is well aware of those concerns.

Thank you. Any other questions from the board? May we have public testimony?

Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Bembry. I'm the Roslindale Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process, which consisted of an abutters meeting held on February 18th During which our brothers expressed numerous concerns primarily related to the construction phase of the project. While there was limited opposition to the proposal itself, significant concerns were raised regarding construction impacts including noise levels, and hours of operation. Above is cited prior experiences with construction activity occurring before 8 a.m. and after 6 p.m. and on weekends and requested that work be limited to standard weekday hours with no weekend activity.

Regarding noise... Recording stopped. Recording in progress.

Noise from construction equipment including reversing alarms, general cold weather activity, and increased traffic from vehicles accessing the site. These issues were raised repeatedly in the budget's request and assurances that appropriate mitigation measures would be implemented. Next, the proposal was presented to Prospect Hill Neighborhood Association where they remain neutral but understand Brooks School to be a good neighbor. Thank you for your time and the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services would like to defer to the Board

Thank you. Madam Chair, we don't have additional hands raised at the moment.

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

I would like to make a motion to approve.

Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge?

Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes.

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

Thank you very much. Before we move on, The first case that we called, but we didn't get a response. I'll return to that and state case BOA 181-1706. with the address of 360 Princeton Street and ask if there is, if the applicant and or their representative are present.

Do we have Laura Costa or anyone else for 360 Princeton Street?

I don't see anyone without a chair.

Okay. Thank you. May you want to make a motion to defer?

Motion to defer this case.

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. Caroline, if someone can call this applicant to find a new date, that would be great. Thank you. 11 o'clock, Mr. Stembridge.

We'll go to the hearing schedule for 11 a.m. And this time we'll ask if there are any requests for withdrawals or deferrals from the 11 o'clock hour. Hearing none, we'll go to the first two cases, which are companion cases. These are case, these will be case BOA 1825579, with the address of 100 Beachview Road. Along with that, we have Base BOA 182-5581 with the address of 102 Beachview Road. If the applicant and or their representative are present for these cases, will they please explain to the board?

Yes, thank you again, Mr. Stembridge, and good morning again, Madam Chair, members of the board, for the record. Richard Lins with the business address at 245 Summer Street, East Boston. On behalf of the petitioner with me is Eric Zacherson, who is our project architect. If we could jump right down to slide five, Madam Ambassador, that would be a good place to start. So, quick overview, if we can zoom in a little bit. This involves a pre-existing 5,000 square foot vacant lot. We are proposing a subdivision of the lot into two 2,500 square foot parcels. Our proposal involves the construction of two separate two-family dwellings. We can probably stop right at the screen right there. Two separate two-family dwellings and these will be semi-attached. Our proposed structures are designed to be in compliance completely with the relatively newer regulations for the EBR 2.5 zoning sub-district governed by Article 53 and applicable to East Boston.

So the use and dimensional controls that would be in place for this proposal are all in compliance with the requirements set forth in Article 53. The only item that we were cited for was for the height of the building. And I think this is a good place to start. We believe, and this isn't often, this is one of those instances where the shape of the lot and the topography actually matter. As you can see here that I have on the screen, there's an existing elevation of the site from the sidewalk. It looks like it's approximately four to five feet. There's an existing two-family dwelling to the left side of the property, to the left side of our lot. You can see it here. And that building is set higher because of the topography of the site. Our proposal would involve maintaining the topography rather than eliminating this retaining wall and bringing the site down to grade, which would put us at the sidewalk level.

We believe that the continuity of the way buildings along this side of V2 are aligned, this would be a more appropriate design to have it as we propose it versus excavating the site down and eliminating the topography. in a way that would really disrupt, I think, the rhythm of this section of VTU. If we could jump down to slides six and seven. I think that would be going to slide six. Yeah, seven, eight. Yeah, actually, let's go to slide 15. I apologize. One thing I will point out is I did have a chance to review the recommendation of the planning department for both of these projects. I'm sure as the board is aware, the planning department has recommended approval, straight approval on both of these. based upon substantial compliance with EBR 2.5 requirements. And even though we do and we are requesting relief for height

We believe that relief is based in large part upon the interpretation of how high it is measured and certainly the uniqueness of this particular site and the topography that we have. As I'm showing here, this is the building that would be on the right side. This would be 102 Beachview. And as you can see on the site, we do set our building back appropriately from the street side of Drumlin Road as well as Beachview Road. Next slide please. Here you have the semi-attached condition of 100 beach view and again designed to be completely compliant with all the dimensional regulations and uses for Article 53 and WBR 2.5. Next slide, please. just including our architectural site plans as well just so that the items including open space, permeable area, etc. can be shown and all of that area outside of the

The dark shaded area including the green hatched area includes open space and permeable space on the site. Next slide, please. Again, just showing our relationship at the building located immediately next door. Next slide. And just our typical floor plans. And again, being a semi-attached building, we are showing these as bi-level units. So you'd have lower level unit one and unit two would be two upper levels as seen here. Next slide, please. Showing again, again, we have this two separate units. So showing the elevations of our building here, we show it at a The left side, this would be the 100 BG side. It's a little difficult to tell from this elevation. This would be considered two and a half story as measured from The grade of the site as opposed to the grade of the sidewalk.

And as I mentioned earlier in the presentation, the grade of the sidewalk require us to excavate out, eliminate that retaining wall, and to bring the building down. We believe that this being in line with our neighbor immediately next door would be more consistent with the rhythm and flow for this section of the interview. Next slide, please. This is the 102 side. Again, semi-attached condition. Showing the Weir. Next slide, please. This shows the Weir of 100. Next slide, please. in the rear of 102. Next slide, please. This is an important slide because this, I think, shows the difference between the sidewalk at Beachview Road and the slope of our site. and again rather than excavating out the site and bringing the site all the way down to the sidewalk we would maintain the existing topography and as you can see from this elevation here this would be considered a two and one half story building

which is permitted as a matter of right in the EBR 2.5 district. Next slide, please. Just showing our opposite side here. This would be on the Drummond Road side showing the right side of the building. Next slide, please. Again, the section condition showing level one as the main level for unit one would be the lowest level, and unit two would be all of the second level and a portion of that half story up above. Next slide, please. and just a section plan again from the other side. Next slide. and this would show the elevation in the rendering and again this shows it in relationship to the building located immediately to our left and this once again would be two and a half story and as measured from grade at the site would be compliant with the EBR 2.5 height limit.

However, because this is higher than the sidewalk and the site is higher than the sidewalk, relief from the physical height requirements for Article 53 is necessary. and we can go one more slide I believe with comparisons. So this shows a comparison of this side of Beachview Road. As you can see, our building is highlighted here with the red bubble. and showing that in relation to the building that's looking adjacent which is also owned by the proponent would be consistent both height and scale and then obviously maintaining that elevation as you can see as you move down Beachview Road those retaining walls continue and that is all based upon the slope and grade separation between the back portions of those lots and the lower portion where the sidewalk is on Beachview Road. With that, I would pause and answer any questions of the board for this matter. Thank you.

Are there questions from the board? Hearing none, 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 100 Beachview Street, our office defers to the board's judgment. A community process was conducted, including an abutters meeting held on 10-30-25, attended by several East Boston community members. The feedback from this meeting was significant concern from community members that prior to Plan East Boston, this proposal had upwards of 10 plus violations. and following Plan Eastie, all but one of these violations were removed. Community members felt that this was a gift to the developer and believed that the proposal should adhere to the intent of Plan East Boston. They expressed concerns that the applicant's as of right proposal would remove the retaining wall which is cohesive throughout the neighborhood and contributes to its character rather than revising the plans to remove the half story which is the only remaining violation. There were also some community members who did not oppose the proposal in the meeting. Additionally, we did receive one letter in opposition expressing many of the same concerns from one of the Director Butters,

and the proposal was also reviewed by the Orient Heights Neighborhood Association at their meeting on 12-15-25 and who voted on 2-9-26, which resulted in a vote in non-opposition that was four yes, four no, and two abstain. At this time, the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services defers to the Board's judgment on this matter. Thank you, everyone, for your time and consideration.

Thank you. We have Stephen from Councilor Coletta Zapata's office.

Hi Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Stefan from Councilor Coletta Zapata's office. At this time we defer to the judgment of the board. We did want to note that we requested... The official vote count from Orion Heights NC at gmail.com, who we believe is the, who runs the organization, the neighborhood association, excuse me. and we did not receive a response when we were trying to deliberate a recommendation on this case. But that being said, we defer to the judgment of the board. Thank you. Thank you.

and we have a Ronald Orlando.

Hi, everybody. My name's Ronnie Orlando. I'm an abutter to the property. I've lived in this neighborhood my entire life, and my family has been here for decades, including that 43 CVU Ave and 45, which directly abuts the property. I have several concerns with this proposal that I'd like to make sure are clearly heard on the record. From what I understand, the project is requesting a height variance and is proposing a level of density that appears to exceed what the lot is intended to support. I have not heard a clear explanation of a hardship that would justify it. If the issue is soil or excavation, I don't see how this necessitates additional height as opposed to a design that complies with the current zoning. I also understand that the proposed height is being justified by a neighboring structure that predates the current zoning. I also review the assessor's record, which lists the lot at 4,978 square feet. My understanding is that 5,000 square feet is required for this level of density, so I'd like clarification on how that requirement is being met.

Taken together, this reads as multiple forms of zoning relief to support a project that is larger than what the lot can reasonably accommodate. The proposed height and massing are out of scale with the surrounding homes and will have real impacts on the abutting properties. While I appreciate the community process, I do want to note that my experience with outreach on this project felt more combative and dismissive than constructive. I ask the board to take these concerns seriously and closely consider whether the standard for granting a variance has actually been met with this case. Thank you. Thank you.

Next, we have Gary Miller. Gail. You can unmute yourself now.

All right. Thank you. I'm an active member of the Orient Heights Neighborhood Council. The vote on this project, I might suggest, was very low due to the off-week meeting date. It often throws people off when we meet the week before. So that number does not reflect the usual numbers. and Attendance. The Orient Heights neighborhood councilor, as kind of was mentioned, was very enthusiastic about and engaged in the Eastern Master Plan, which embraced the one and two-fifths zoning in Orient Heights and its character. That character is not what is being presented here. It's stated as a semi-attached. To me, my understanding is either attached or it isn't. The two lots are not fully 2,500 square feet each. So that should perhaps, I think, significantly be addressed.

You were shown the abutting property sitting higher on the lot, which has a building permit currently. but has been left to wreck and ruin for the past five years. Windows open and all kinds of animals in and out of that building. There have been complaints filed, of course, with your departments. And also left to rack and ruin is the formerly beautifully designed landscaping. on the site. I offer my objection to the height. I don't think it's warranted. And the massive sizing.

Okay. Okay. Anyone else here?

All right.

I respond, Madam Chair.

Yes.

Thank you very much. So with respect to the first speaker who is indicated, Director Butter, first of all, Planning Boston, not to Eat the Dead Horse here. Plenty's Boston made significant changes in East Boston zoning, including density requirements. Florida Air Ratio in the EVR 2.5 is something that is one of the only residential neighborhoods that has a maximum. We're well below that, so this does meet with the density requirements for EVR 2.5. Up to two units are allowed in a single lot. That also is consistent with our proposal. More importantly, we did hear a comment that there's a 5,000 square foot minimum. The board may be well aware of this already. There is no minimum lot size requirement, a minimum frontage requirement any longer in any of the residential districts in the East Boston neighborhood. So therefore, the 5,000 square foot issue is irrelevant.

As to whether or not we're just under 5,000 square feet, the subdivision of the lot into roughly two 2,500 square foot lots is permissible under zoning. We're not cited for that. It's not a violation. That's before this board. and with respect to the height that we are proposing, this may be one of those instances where a hardship actually can be demonstrated. In this particular case, in order for us to meet the height requirement, a significant amount of excavation for the site would be required. We think that would be probably not so good results for a directive order, including Mr. Orlando, who spoke first this morning here on this project. Having their property of budding eyes, there is a small encroachment that is onto our property. We have no issue allowing that encroachment to remain. However, if we had to excavate our site, Down to the sidewalk level to comply with the height. That would actually be detrimental to that abutting property owner. We're happy to work with them.

Thank you for joining us. Some hostility as to whether or not this project will be going forward. But we will continue to do that and we believe that hardship is pretty self-explanatory based upon the topography of the site. With respect to the second speaker who spoke about the building, I'm sorry, about the Porian Heights Neighborhood Council, I believe the vote has been conveyed. I think Ms. Jones conveyed that the vote was four in favor, four against, and two abstained. We don't have control over who shows up at these meetings. If people choose not to show up or choose not to vote, that's not really our issue. We go through the process as prescribed.

If the vote was not something that reflected a larger community involvement, perhaps there wasn't as much interest in this project as others that we certainly presented to that community group. I think those are all important elements here. I think certainly based upon a recommendation of planning department and that this project in all other respects complies with EBR 2.5 Zonement Regulations. This is a worthwhile and meritorious project that should receive. Thank you Madam Chair.

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

Motion of approval.

Is there a second? Mr. Stembridge.

Yeah.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza?

Yes.

Ms. Pinado? Yes. Mr. Collins? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Goodbye. Thank you very much.

Next, we have case VOA 18053. 08 with the address of 109 Prince Street. Nope. If the applicant and or their representative are present. Would that please explain the case to the board?

Yes, thank you, Mr. Stembridge. Madam Chair, members of the board, Attorney Ryan Spitz with Adams & Maranci, business address of 168 8th Street, 1st floor, South Boston. Joining me today are the owners, Carol and Sean Muniz. This is also a modest owner-occupant project. The Municists live in this building and intend to raise their young family here. The proposal converts an existing head house into functional living space with an outdoor deck. The conversion of the existing head house into approximately 355 square feet of livable space and 487 square feet of roof deck space exclusively serving their unit. We are here seeking two forms of relief for conditional use permit. Under Article 54, Section 18 to alter the profile of the roof line within a restricted roof district, and we're also seeking a variance for an increase of the pre-existing non-conforming floor area ratio.

We are aware of the planning department's recommendation, but we believe their recommendation was based upon the original file set of plans and not the revised set of plans stamped and dated February 24, 2026. Those are the plans that are in front of you here today. Ambassador, if I could just refer you to sheet A2. First, the proposed scope of the plan includes adjustments to the roof deck geometry to achieve a minimum of a three-foot setback from the property line along Prince Street and the DiFilippo playground. This further exceeds that stated minimum of 2.5 feet on the playground side that was stated within the Planning Department's recommendation. Ambassador, if I can direct you to now Sheet A5. Secondly, it was noted that the third floor alcove deck would extend at least one additional foot beyond the existing building edge, which itself already encroaches approximately 2.5 feet into the playground lot, resulting in private residential space overhanging city home. Land.

This revised architectural set incorporates a revised deck footprint and confirms that the deck setback from the playground lot line is maintained. The plans confirm that the debt does not extend beyond the existing building's legal footprint relative to the property boundary. To the extent any existing nonconformity in the building's relationship to the playground lot predates this application, that is a pre-existing condition not created by the applicant and not properly chargeable against the proposed improvement. The proposed work does not exasperate any such condition. Further, there is an abutter's wall owned by the City that is directly abutting the building itself as well as the DeFilippo Playground, which we believe created the confusion. However, there is no overhang into the park area. Thirdly, it acknowledges that rooftop structures are prevalent in the immediate vicinity and that nearby four- and five-story flat roof buildings commonly feature headhouses and roof decks.

The objection is not to the roof structures categorically, but to the asserted scale of this one. The applicant respectfully submits this characterization overstates the departure from the neighborhood norms. The architectural plans include a neighborhood context and design compatibility sheet, if I can direct you to A-10-1, documenting comparable rooftop structures throughout the North End. These include 96 Prince Street. New head house constructed December 2025 directly on the same block, 5 Thatcher Street, head houses and roof decks along Paul Revere Mall, North End, several with no or minimal setback from the adjacent parks. Roof Decks and Head Houses along Prince Street facing north and south, Hanover Street Head House and Tidal Stone Head House comparisons. Each of these comparable structures, either a head house or a rooftop addition in the north end, several abutting public open space that has received approval. The proposed solarium at 109 Prince Street is proportional to the building's footprint.

and consistent with the scale of improvements visible throughout the neighborhood. The total roof addition is only 394 square feet. with an associated roof deck of only 487 square feet. This is not the profile of an oversized OPEC head house that would dominate the roof scape. It is a glazed residential-scale addition appropriate to the building in the neighborhood. The zoning code refusal identifies an existing FAR of 4.9 against the permitted maximum of 3.0. with the proposed addition increasing the FAR to 5.5. The Board should note that the existing building is already substantially non-conforming as to the FAR. The existing 4.9 FAR represents a pre-existing condition not of the applicant's creation. The proposed rooftop addition results in an incremental FAR increase of 0.6 above an already non-conforming baseline.

Lastly, the shadow analysis confirms no material impact on the DeFilippo playground across every time, increment, study, morning, midday, and evening at both spring equinox and summer solstice. The proposed head house casts no incremental shadow. The Planning Department's concern about the impact of the project on the public improvement is not supported by the shadow analysis. And lastly, if in fact there are other further changes that would be recommended from the Planning Department, This will have to go through two extensive reviews if in fact you decide to choose so that it went through a planning department review, but the mandatory review would also be conducted through the parks department. So at this point, Madam Chair, I'm going to turn it over to you for any questions or comments from the board. Thank you.

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

Hello, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Deva Jones, representing the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services. Regarding 109 Prince Street, our office defers his award's judgment. The community process was conducted, including an event meeting held on 1-14-26. that was well attended by North End community members. The feedback from this meeting was positive from the community. They were in support of this proposal. The proposal was also reviewed by both of the civic associations, the North End Waterfront Residents Association on 3-12-26 that expressed non-opposition through a formal letter submitted to the board. and the North End Waterfront Neighborhood Association at their meeting date on 3-9-26 who voted to support the proposal. At this time, the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services defers to the board's judgment on this matter. Thank you, everyone, for your time and consideration.

Thank you. Next, we have Katerina Patras.

Good morning. My name is Katerina Patras, and I live at 51 Commercial Wharf. I'm here to support the Munis family. They've been great neighbors and the kind of family I think represents the best of our neighborhood. And I just want to say that I'm confident they will respect the park and that there will be no misuse of that space. Thank you.

Okay, we have Stephan from Councilor's Coletta Zapata office.

Hi Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Stefan from the Councilor's office and we want to go in support of this project at this time. Thank you. Thank you. Next we have Robin Green.

Hi, my name is Robin Reed, and I am the president of the Friends of the DeFilippo Playground, a direct abutter to the Munis' family home, and I want to express my support for this project. I've looked extensively at the plans and I don't see any reason why there should be a denial of These improvements to the property and if it will keep this wonderful family that participates in the community and in the playground So positively and add so much to the neighborhood, I definitely would support any movement forward on this without any restrictions. Thank you.

Thank you. And we have Nicole.

Hi, my name is Nicola Rosa. I live at number 4 Pond Street Place in the North End. I have known the Menis family for at least four or five years, our children. They're very respectful to the park. I'm in support of them to continue their plans to seek more outdoor space in their building. When I looked at it visually in the playground, the construction will not impede any visual or will not do any harm to the playground. Like I said, our children play in the park almost every day together. They're very respectful neighbors and they contribute to the wealth of our neighborhood.

and it's a privilege to be their friends and I believe that they should be able to continue their plans to expand their outdoor space. Thank you.

Madam Chair, there are no additional comments.

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

Madam Chair, I'll make a motion of approval.

Is there a second?

Second.

Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza?

Yes.

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

Thank you. Madam Chair, we've passed the 1130 hour, so I will ask at this point if there are any requests for withdrawals or deferrals from the 1130 hour. Yes, Mr. Stembridge, 87 Forest Street, please. So this request is for two companion cases, case VOA 148. 2368 with the address of 87 Morrow Street and also for case BOA 1482374 also with the address of 87 Morris Street.

Would you go ahead, Attorney Lins? Yes, thank you. Again, Madam Chair, members of the board, Richard Lins, business address of 245 Summer Street, East Boston. On behalf of the petitioner, Madam Chair, we've taken some deferrals on this. We are actually still awaiting GCOD. This still involves a GCOD conditional use permit, and I know those materials need to be completed before we can finalize this. There are some building code matters as well that we have the design team working on. We think a deferral would be necessary at this point. So asking for perhaps maybe six weeks.

Okay. Caroline? We could do June 16th, July 14th, July 28th.

Why don't we do June 16th? I hope to have... This was all by them.

Okay, with that, may I have a motion?

Motion to defer these cases to June 16th.

Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge.

Yes.

Mr. Valencia.

Yes.

Miss Turner. Yes. Miss Better Barraza. Yes. Miss Pinado. Yes. Mr. Collins. Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. See you then. Thank you.

Any further requests for withdrawals from the 1130 hour? Yes. Good morning, Mr. Stembridge. Gerard Meen here for 62 L Street.

62. So that would be case VOA 1575425 with the address of 62 L Street. Yes, that's correct. Go ahead and explain, please.

Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is Drew Armeen, owner and applicant along with Dave Luciano for 62 L Street. Our original permit was seeking variances for insufficient side and rear yard for the reconstruction of an existing exterior staircase and access to a roof deck other than a roof hatch. After going through the community process, we submitted updated plans to ZBA for review by an ISD plans examiner, which we have shared with our local civic association and direct brothers. At this time, we have not yet received an updated refusal letter from the plans examiner. Therefore, we request a short referral until ISD is able to complete the review of the new plans. Thank you.

May 19th?

Is there anything in early June, by chance?

Oh, June 2nd? Or June 16th?

Let's do June 16th, just so we have plenty of time. Thank you.

Okay, may I have a motion?

Motion to defer this case until June 16th.

May I have a second?

Second.

Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Thank you. Ms. Better Barraza?

Yes.

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

Thank you.

So with that, we'll return to the hearing schedule for 11 a.m. And that takes us to case BOA 1716926 with the address of 1258. 1262 Massachusetts Avenue. If the applicant and or attorney Morantia are present, please explain to the board.

Yes, thank you Mr. Stembridge. Good morning Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is George Maranci. I'm an attorney with the business address of 350 West Broadway in South Boston. Madam Chair, members, this is Nothing new. It's frankly a bit of housekeeping related to and cleaning up for the record this board's approval. Last July of the 45 unit 1274 Massachusetts Avenue small project. I represent Douglas George who owns both this piece of land as well as the immediately abutting 1274 Massachusetts Avenue parcel. As part of that project, the 1274 approved project, a piece of My client's land on this parcel, 1258-1262 Mass Ave., was subdivided off and combined with other parcels to form The site where the new 1274 Massachusetts Avenue building will be.

In January of 2025, ISD issued its zoning refusal letter pertaining to this parcel for two violations created by virtue of the fact that the lot size was being reduced by approximately 4000 square feet for the subdivision and consolidation. That refusal letter, which was issued at the same time of the 1274 refusal letter, was appealed at the same time of the 1274 companion application through oversight, including my own The two cases were not scheduled and heard at the same time. The fact which I finally figured out several weeks ago at which time I worked with Stephanie and ONS to schedule this hearing. So nothing is happening with respect to this petition besides an unused portion of this lot

being subdivided and consolidated with other parcels to create that 1274 Massachusetts Avenue lot which was again already approved by this board last summer.

Questions from the board? May I have public testimony?

Madam Chair, members of the board, Conner Newman with the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Service. This time the Mayor's Office has deferred to the judgment of this board as you heard from the applicant's representation. They went through a Boston planning-led community process for small project review. I understand they also engaged with the local civic association, McCormick Civic, as well. We're unaware of any concerns presently. With that, I'll defer to the board.

Okay, thank you. Madam Chair, members of the Board, Liam Remus from Councilor Fitzgerald's office, our Office of Lake Golan Records for this proposal. Thank you.

Madam Chair, there are no additional comments.

That may have a motion. Motion to approve. Better second? Better Barraza second. Mr. Stembridge? Yeah. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza?

Yes.

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

Next, we have two companion cases. The first is case VOA 1809584 with the address of 11 Benson Street. Along with that, we have case BOA-181-1248 with the address of 13 Vint Street. If the applicant and or their representative are present, would they please explain to the board?

Thank you, Mr. Stembridge. Madam Chair, members of the board, Attorney Ryan Spitz with Adams & Maranci, business address of 168 8th Street, 1st floor, South Boston. Joining me today are the owners, Stephen Flaherty and Pete Burke, as well as the project architect, Kevin Moniz. This proposal seeks to convert an existing two-family to a three-family by way of an interior renovation in a rare addition on a 2,198 square foot lot. The primary physical changes are a rare addition extending the building's footprint at all three levels and into a newly finished basement. Proposal will also provide two off-street parking spaces via a shared driveway easement with 13 Vinton Street accessed by an existing opening. Due to the shared driveway, it creates the need for relief at 13 Venton Street to legalize its use of a one-car parking in the rear of the property. Unit one will be approximately 1,180 square feet, three bedroom located on the first floor in the basement level.

Ambassador, Madam Chair, if I can just pause, I'm noticing now, that the correct set of drawings you do not have visible on the screen. We're aware of the planning department's recommendation after speaking with Stephanie A few days ago that the drawings were actually located. They were just saved under a different file under refusal. Hence the reason why we were going to go forward today. But it doesn't seem like you guys have the correct set of drawings. I'm going to defer to you, Madam Chair, if it's best if we defer to ensure that we... Actually, here's the drawing, so I can continue on while you prefer. and then just knowing that the planning department's recommendation was just on the previous set as you saw because they weren't able to see the full elevations. Would you like me to continue on, Madam Chair?

Yes, please.

Okay, so Unit 1 will be approximately 1,180 square feet, free bedroom located on the first floor in the basement level. Ambassador, if you could just continue to scroll down to page... 4 through 7. Those will show the actual building layouts. Unit 2 will be approximately 848 square feet, a two-bedroom located on the second floor. Unit 3 will be approximately 1,046 square feet, two-bedroom, located on the third floor. 11 Vintage Street has violations for insufficient lot size as the lot consists of 2,198 square feet and the code requires 4,000 square feet but again similar in scale and to the surrounding neighborhood we have a side yard violation three feet is required by code The proposal has a pre-existing at zero feet, but is cited for such relief as the addition maintains that zero foot setback. Open space violation. We're required to provide 200 square feet of open space per unit, but the addition eliminates that open space.

However, the property is a very short walk to a very large park, Moakley Park, and as well as Casa Beach. Parking violation proposal provides two parking spaces and the zoning calls for 1.5 parking spaces per new unit of housing. However, this proposal is aligned with the Mayor's initiative reducing dependency. On private vehicles, the parking space locations are also located very close to the property line which creates the need for the screening and buffering. Lastly, there is another violation of the design as the proposal uses the shared driveway of the abutting property at 13 Vintage Street. This is what also triggered the need of relief. for 13 Vinton Streets, which requires that relief for design and maneuverability, screening and buffering, and insufficient width of the driveway. Even though this project exceeds the dimensional regulations for the site, it adds housing units while maintaining the small footprint of the parcel, while assisting the city's planning goals of the housing supply.

At this point, Madam Chair, I'm going to turn it over to you and the Board for any questions or comments.

Thank you. Questions from the board?

Can you just clarify, are you, between the two properties, it's really two parking spaces, correct?

It would be three. So two will be located for this. It should be a side plan at the beginning.

Two on the left and then one.

Two on the left. And there was one existing on the right-hand side. As we discovered through the process, they never had... I use an occupancy to do such so we're here legalizing it on top of creating the design maneuverability for not being able to function and maneuver strictly on our own property as well as theirs.

And for existing, how many parking spaces do you have between the two properties currently?

It'll be three parking spaces total.

Right, that's proposed, but what's existing right now?

So there's no existing on our property itself. There was one that was pre-existing.

Okay, so you're going from one to three. Thank you. I just needed clarification.

Thank you.

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

Madam Chair and board members, Sigi Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This applicant completed the community process. Our office hosted an abutters meeting on February 5th at which... No comments were made. Our office received two letters of opposition and one letter of support. The two opposed cited issues wanting more parking. Andrew Square Civic Association is supporting this application. Without background, our office defers to the board. Thank you.

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

Councilor Finn would like to go on record and support based on positive feedback from neighbors and the Andrews Square Civic Association during the community process. We respectfully request that the proponent continue to work closely with the neighborhood on any quality of life issues during the construction phase. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Chair, we don't have additional comments.

Okay, with that, may I have a motion?

Madam Chair, I would like to put forward a motion of approval with Planning Department review.

Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

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

Thank you.

Bear with me, Madam Chair. We have an interpretation case scheduled for noontime. Should we just go ahead with the next case as we normally would?

Yes, because we have to wait till noon.

Okay, going on. With that, we'll go to case BOA 1781953 with the address of 1 Bayside Street. If the applicant and or their representative present, would they please explain the case to the board?

Thank you, Mr. Stembridge. This is Vernon Woodworth. and I'm with Urban Determination, a consultant to the applicants, Dennis and Gavin Edscorn, who are online, and Project Architect as well, Bob Boynton from the Colwell Group, is available to answer any questions. The proposed project is a three-story multifamily building with six dwelling units and four garage bays at the basement level. The site is located in the 2F-5000 zone in the Dorchester neighborhood district with 4,215 square feet on the corner of Bayside Street and Silent Hill F. Project has been cited for use, lot area, lot frontage, lot width, height, front side and rear yard setbacks, parking, and floor area ratio.

The site is within walking distance, approximately seven minutes of the Red Line, Salmon Hill T-Stop. One bay side is actually one of the larger lots in the immediate area. which is made up mostly of multifamily buildings in excess of the current two-family zoning limit. The corner lot configuration results in a calculation of lot width and frontage which really does not reflect the actual condition of the lots. With a corner lot, the applicant has the choice of street for a front yard designation. Bayside Street was chosen for the building entry and front yard with a modal setback consistent with adjacent properties. A Savin Hill front yard would have complied with lot frontage, but would have been less sensitive to the existing context. The current maximum allowed FAR is 0.5. Less than many of the existing properties in the neighborhood, the project proposes an FAR 1.5.

The proposed height is no greater than the adjacent three family properties. This property is subject to the neighborhood design overlay district and complies with Article 65, Section 32, which encourages housing that preserves and complements the character of the existing housing stock. while providing much needed additional housing within convenient walking distance to public transportation. Despite four meetings with the Butters and the Neighborhood Association, there was no consistent or coherent critique of the proposed design. But the revised design before you today has a reworked basement plan to increase maneuverability into the four parking spaces and has deleted a proposed roof deck and head house. We look forward to resolving any further concerns regarding the building design during a design review process, but would respectfully ask that the board focus deliberations here

on the considerable benefit this project offers to potential residents in the City of Boston seeking access to a walkable, human-scaled, and highly desirable neighborhood. Thank you. Any questions from the board?

Questions from the board? May I have public testimony?

Yes, Madam Chair, members of the board, Connor Newman with the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services. This time the Mayor's Office like to defer to the judgment of this board. Some background information on the community process. ONS had hosted two abutters meetings, the first on October 20th of 2025, as well as the additional one on January 20th, 2026. Both meetings were well attended. Feedback from these meetings, residents were overwhelmingly opposed to the proposal, citing concerns related to the loss of green space, setbacks to other properties, the proposed density. As well as to the parking ratio. The app can also met with the Columbia Savin Hill Civic Association, which unanimously voted to oppose the proposal. I believe 26 members voted to oppose, zero in support, and zero abstaining.

There was also concerns raised by Butters regarding other properties that the proponents owned in Massachusetts in the condition of those properties, doubting the sincerity or the intentions of the applicant. At this time, we have six letters in opposition. We have no letters in support. With that, we'll defer to the board. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have Andrew from the Office of Councilor Murphy.

Thank you. My name is Andrew Galvin from Councilor Murphy's office. At this time, she would like to go in opposition of this project. Thank you.

Next, we have Leanne Dreamers.

Well hello Madam Chairman of the Board. Liam Ramis from Councilor Fitzgerald's office. At this time the council would like to go on record in strong opposition to this proposal due to the concerns of Director Butters and the size of the plot. Thank you. Thank you.

We have Donald Walsh.

Yeah, thank you. So I'm a Savin Hill resident. I'm active in the Columbia Savin Hill Civic Association. I absolutely oppose this. It's literally part of changing the character of the neighborhood, where they squeeze as much building in every space possible. I mean, literally, they're trying to turn us into South Boston. Now having said that, I do want to say that the Civic Association recognizes that we're facing 10,000 new housing units in and around our area. and after a year or two of debate and discussion, we're supporting that. So we are not completely NIMBYs here, we're supporting New housing in the right place. For example, Morrissey Boulevard and the Mary Ellen McCormick Housing Project. So we want the city

and the Zoning Board of Appeals and everybody to not have a very simplistic approach that says, we need new housing, we're going to put it anywhere any developer wants to put it. We want the housing in the right place and we want to preserve the character of our neighborhood and this project is totally against the character of our neighborhood.

Thank you. Thank you. Next we have Christine. Christine, you can unmute yourself.

Thank you so much. I appreciate that and I appreciate your time today. Just a couple points that I wanted to mention. First, the vote at the general membership meeting was actually 56 to 0. There is overwhelming neighborhood opposition to this proposal. There were two abutters meetings primarily because the proponents were relatively unwilling or unable to describe the full nature of the proposal. We had encouraged them to consider three units on a three family on that particular lot. They declined. We asked them to reconsider the layout of parking. and the driveway which seems sort of I don't know because he didn't go through the plans at this particular hearing but if you look at the driveway you can see that it

It's a two-way driveway that runs parallel to a sidewalk on a one-way street, which also seems untenable. We appreciate the fact that the proponent would like to develop a vacant lot. He owns the three family next door. We appreciate the need for housing. But this particular request is not within the character of the neighborhood if you look at what they described as, you know, 3 families on that street. It's actually single 2 and 3 families. This isn't an uncharacteristically large lot and the idea of putting 6 units using that entire Space, which is the gateway to our neighborhood. It just seems out of whack with our streetscape and neighborhood.

Sorry, this has been a stressful process, this particular project in particular. We're used to having people come and feeling confident about a project being approved. But in this particular case, the hubris of this proponent has been breathtaking. I thank you for your time. Thank you.

We have Jane Dougherty. Jenny, if you can unmute yourself, you can press star six.

Jeannie Dougherty, are you speaking on this case? And you can unmute yourself. Okay, well in the meantime, could the applicant address these concerns? You know, there do seem to be generally Can you point out other areas nearby with up to six units and can you talk about the green space that's on the property right now and what's going to happen to that?

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. It is a vacant lot, and I understand that it's appreciated as such. The request to scale down to three units would not have been financially possible. And we did address the parking maneuverability issues that Christine brought up. They were not presented. That revision was done after the final abutters meeting. But that's the sort of thing also that is typically resolved in design review and we had a hard time making the community understand that.

Madam Chair, is it okay to ask a question or should I wait? Please. Okay, I think my big concern is that you currently have an existing curb cut and the four Parking spaces that you're proposing is going to enlarge that curb cut significantly. I mean, I almost feel like potentially even 40 feet. My concern is that the neighborhood would be impacted significantly because now you're removing a pedestrian kind of walkway. and there could be like safety concerns as well. So is that accurate? How big is your curb cut that you're proposing?

I think if Bob Boynton's available, he should answer that question. I do want to just point out again that that's just for four vehicles, that that would take place.

I can't see, I don't have a, the survey plot plan does not note the proposed curb cut. It's not noted on the survey plot plan. So that to me that's more significant than whether the parking maneuverability works or not internally. I'm looking at more of the public impact of the neighborhood. You know, to have a huge... And also removal of off-street parking. I don't have any further comments. That's... That, you know, it'll be interesting to hear my colleagues, but that to me is the biggest kind of urban design, I would say, flaw of the proposal. Thank you.

The folks who wanted to speak are able to unmute themselves, so I'm going to move it back to public comment and then shift it back to my colleagues. So I think it was Ms. Doherty who was speaking? Yes.

Can you hear me now?

We can, so we have a number of hands raised. If you all can limit your comments to 90 seconds, we'd appreciate it.

I will. Okay. So I'm also in a butter and I'm speaking in opposition to this. We know that the six units on this lot is just not tenable for our neighborhood, but I also just wanted to point out a couple other things. This project will remove some trees and some hedges, and here we are, we're in lilac season, and there are at least a dozen lilac bushes that line this lot. Obviously, one of the joys of that property and our neighborhood is that we have a lot of lilac trees and we have a lot of dogwoods and that would just you know destroy the happiness and the joy that we have as we walk off streets. I'd also be concerned about stormwater or when it rains it's a neighborhood that already has has flooding and so that is also one of my concerns. Um... You know, this particular parcel has three streets that converge together. We, you know, place Denny Streets, Grampian Way, and Southern Hill up. It's a triangle right there.

And this would create hazards for all of us, whether you're a pedestrian, or someone driving a car. This neighborhood is a cut-through street for people coming off of Morrissey to Dorchester Ave. Listen, I'm well aware that at some point this lot will end up being divided out, but frankly, this number of units is way too much. I appreciate all of our local elected officials for speaking in opposition to this. and thank you all for your consideration board members and I strongly urge you to vote no on this project. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we have Elizabeth. If you can unmute yourself, Elizabeth. Elizabeth McNeil.

Yes. I did send written comments. My main point being that This is totally out of character with all of the rest of Seven Hill Avenue and in fact the main streets of Dorchester and even Quincy and probably other towns. Where corner lots, where they have houses, the house is oriented toward the more major street. The comment that one of the previous speakers made that this structure that is proposed would overwhelm the landscape there is entirely true. One has only to look at the three-family house Facing Seven Hill Avenue from the Bayside Street side, which is what one would get with this proposed house, it is a large wall. Unrelieved by greenery because there won't be any room left to plant a tree.

The other concern is of course density and the precedent that this will set for anyone with a small lot to shoehorn a structure in there under the Appeal of another housing unit. Others have spoken to that, so I will not. I strongly urge you to oppose this overwhelming project by someone who has been a less than responsible landlord already. Thank you for your attention.

Thank you.

I want to clarify my note. I looked very carefully on the plans and I want to correct myself. They're actually using one curb cut to then make like a 90 degree turn to those four parking spaces. So I just want to clarify that it's actually one curb cut. I was misreading the drawings because I didn't see on the survey plot plan. Thank you. Thanks for whoever commented on the chat to clarify some of my assumptions. Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments or questions from the board?

Is there a motion?

I'd like to make a... A motion of approval with BPD Design Review to work with the applicant on the access to those parking spaces and to work with the context in regards to the exterior elevations. Is there a second?

Second. Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? No, I don't believe that the community process is working on this one. So I'm going to say no. Thank you. Ms. Better Barraza?

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

Yes.

The Chair votes no. The motion carries.

Thank you very much.

Negros? Yes, we have. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. which is an interpretation case scheduled for noontime which is case BOA 1689794 with the address of 62 to 66 Condor Street.

If the applicant is available, please explain. Yes, thank you, Mr. Stembridge. Good afternoon. I'm chairman of the board, Richard Lins, business address of 245 Summer Street, East Boston. We're actually going to defer this once again. We finally were able to get a new examiner assigned. to review our request and we believe that we should be able to work this out rather quickly now that an examiner has been assigned to review this. So we're going to request a further referral on this.

Okay.

Any time horizon?

Perhaps that same date that we deferred the other matter to. Is that June 16th, Caroline?

Yes.

If that's available.

Is it available? Yes, it is.

Okay, may I have a motion? Motion to defer this case until June 16th. 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. With that, I'm going to ask for a 15-minute break. See you back at 12 30.

Stembridge

President, Madam Chair.

Mr. Valencia.

Present.

Ms. Turner. Present. Ms. Better Barraza.

Present.

Ms. Pato. Present. Ms. Video. Mr. Collins.

Present.

The floor is yours, Mr. Stembridge.

Thank you, Madam Chair. With that, we will go back to the cases scheduled for 1130. If I can ever find my place on the agenda. And the next is case BOA 182. 7-5, the fourth door with the address of 1954 Commonwealth Avenue.

Yes, I do need to recuse myself in this case today. Okay, thank you. We've got our six-member board for this case.

Great. Thank you, Mr. Stembridge, Madam Chair, members of the board, Attorney Ryan Spitz with Adams & Maranci, business address of 168 8th Street, 1st Floor. South Boston. Joining me from the development team is the owner Patrick McKenna as well as the project manager Brian McGrath along with project architect Mark Sangiolo. This is a proposed 26-unit residential condominium development at 1954 Commonwealth Avenue in the Brighton neighborhood. I'd like to mention that there was an earlier iteration of the proposed project that was previously approved by the planning department as well as this board under a different Project site is approximately 13,368 square foot parcel located along Commonwealth Avenue, bounded to the south by the Chestnut Hill Reservation and Reservoir. It is currently occupied by a vacant two and a half story three family home constructed around 1910 and recognized as one of the few examples of a mission style architecture remaining in the Aberdeen Architectural Conservation Commission.

The site is zoned MFR 2, multifamily residential under Article 51 of the Boston Zoning Code and sits with both the Aberdeen Architectural Conservation Commission and the Greenbelt Protection Overlay District. The proponent proposes to preserve and relocate the existing historic structure closer to Commonwealth Avenue and construct a new five-story rare building Connected to it by a central lobby with one level of below-grade parking, together the project would yield 26 residential condominium units, encompassing approximately 25,475 gross square feet. Four of those 26 units will be deed restricted affordable units in compliance with the City's Inclusionary Development Policy. Project also provides nine parking spaces, 27 interior bicycle spaces, and a reconstructed Port Cochere serving as usable open space for residences.

On January 15, 2026, the VPDA Director issued a certification of approval with the staff finding the project consistent with the planning context of its location. Site-specific goal of historic preservation in the broader neighborhood character despite the required zoning relief. Public meeting was also held September 25th, 2025 with outreach to Obata's, the Brighton-Austin Improvement Commission, and local elected officials. We acknowledge the following dimensional variances required. The lot area falls short of 27,000 square foot requirement for a project of this size at approximately 13,368 square feet. Though this is consistent with many properties in this area that similarly do not meet that requirement. The building height of five stories above grade reaching approximately 53 feet at the existing house and 56 and a half feet at the rear exceeds the three-story 55-foot zoning limit. Though we know this is meaningfully reduced from the previously approved six-story,

77-foot project that held the variance on this site. Open space comes in at 173 square feet per unit against the 200 square foot requirement. Again, a substantial improvement over the 107 square foot per unit approved under a prior variance. The front yard setback of 21 feet to the building with 14 feet to the reconstructed porch is largely compliant. The side yard is 4 feet with the 1 foot overhang against the 10 foot requirement. consistent with other developments in this neighborhood the rear yard is 12 feet where 20 feet is required however the planning department staff oh I just bear with me one second my screen is am I frozen Madam Chair

I see you. I hear you.

Okay, good. I just felt it. For some reason, I thought I was frozen. Open space comes in at 173 square feet per unit against a 200 square foot requirement. Again, a substantial improvement over the 170. over the 107 square feet per unit approved under the prior variance. The front yard setback, again, 21 feet to the building with 14 feet to the constructed porch is largely compliant. Side yard is 4 feet with a 1-foot overhang against a 10-foot requirement consistent with other development in the neighborhood. The rear yard is 12 feet where 20 feet is required. However, the planning department staff specifically noted that this non-compliance is mitigated by the grade change at the back of the site in the location of the Chestnut Hill Drive, which physically separates the parcel from the reservation. Parking provides nine spaces against a requirement of two per unit. This area is well served by public transit and we will note that the project provides 27 secure interior bicycle spaces in addition to the parking.

Finally, no off-street parking loading bays provided, which is a technical deficiency. In closing, the project delivers meaningful public benefits, 26 new homeownership units in a neighborhood facing document housing pressure, four affordable units under the IDP, approximately 60 construction jobs, and increased property tax revenue for the city. Project also preserves a locally significant historic structure and makes the streetscape improvements along Commonwealth Avenue. At this point, I'm going to turn it over to the project architect, Mark Sangiolo, who's going to do a quick run through the drawings for the board. Thank you.

Thank you, Ryan. You did such a great job. I don't know really how much I can add. Everyone loves this project. I know that. So if we go back maybe to the floor plans. The lower here is the lower level plan. We have parking on the left-hand side. We drive under. Parking nine spaces. There's one unit in this ground floor level. Basement level and then some bike parking as well will go up to the next plan. Here you can see the first floor plan. We have an ADA access on the right-hand side of the site to try to get it out of the way. Blocking the, so it wouldn't block the existing historic building and the other ramps could be, the other, excuse me, walkways to the building could be 2% slope and not a handicap slope, which can be quite dangerous in the wintertime.

Next slide, please. Typical floor plans, the two and a half story mission style structure in the front is renovated to six units. The elevator is in the center. Everything kind of works on the same levels. The five-story building in the back has four units per floor. Next slide please. and the next slide please. You can see on the roof plan we have some green roof areas that would be accessible by the residents. and the building section, how the floors work together. Why don't we go to the first page and we can kind of see what their building really looks like. If we go back like to slide one. or four, sorry, four.

So here you can see that the starting point for this project really was the historic structure which the neighborhood really wanted to preserve as well as some of the elements of the garage which we did do that and what we're doing is The new architecture kind of complements it without getting overly involved in too much mission-style detail. It kind of alludes to it. Proposing that we do the addition all in the ground floor in a cement board and the top floor is in a stucco with some red tile fenestration on the facade. All the units have balconies. And that's really about it. I'm happy to take any questions.

Great. Thank you, Mark. Madam Chair, we're going to turn it over to you for any questions or comments. Thank you. Are there any questions from the board?

Yes, Mr. Spitz. I saw a different document from the BRA from 2016. It is the same project.

Yes, so as I noted in some of my sentiments, there was a previously approved project here for 16 units under a different ownership. A lot of the zoning dimensions were, you know, exceeding what we're actually proposing. So we come in and we revise the proposal, how to go through a whole new R-80 process. which we did receive, again, we did receive the Planning Department's Board of Approval on those differences, or rather changes rather to those original set approved plans.

Okay, I was just curious to hear why a project that was approved in 2016 never got built, and 10 years later we are here with another project that is also good and interesting, but I just wanted to know more about the history.

Mr. Valencia, that's a great question. I don't know because it was under different ownership. And my client here, Patrick McKenna from Glenchain Properties, he purchased the actual approval. Thank you for joining us. A full small project review application. Okay, thank you. Thank you for the advice.

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

Yes, Madam Chair, members of the board, Connor Newman with the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services. This time the Mayor's Office needs to defer to the judgment of this board. Some background information on the community process. So this was originally there was a proposal here approved by the at the time the BRA back in 2016. Since then there's been a few iterations of of different proposals for this site where they've gone back to the community and engaged with neighbors, some when I was a neighborhood liaison many years ago. There's always been some concerns about if this unique building would be preserved and if, you know, any type of new construction occurred. I think at one point they wanted to shift the building itself and move that and people were worried about You know, would that building be lost and not be able to survive that transition? And then there was also proposals about increasing the density. So this iteration back again to jump forward to the present.

They went through a Boston planning-led community process involving a public meeting, meeting with the Brighton-Alston Improvement Association and also receiving public comments. I understand that the Brighton Alston Improvement Association is in support of this project. There were some abutters who raised concerns about the proposed density just with competition for parking on Commonwealth Ave which is already pretty tight. People also alluded that while the property has been vacant for the better part of a decade, there's been some issues with vagrancy, conditions to the property, etc. So I think some residents would also like to see something happen. with this site here. So a mix of concerns and just questions over what is being proposed. But as mentioned, Brighton Austin Improvement Association is in support. With that, I'll defer to the board. Thank you. Thank you.

Next, we have Dillon Norris from the Planning Department.

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Dillon Norris. I'm the project manager with the Development Review Division of the Planning Department and the project manager for the Article 80E small project. As Connor from ONS has alluded, this project does have a long history in the Alston Brighton community, dating back to a 2016 BRA approval. The current proponent team had filed their small project review application with the design before you today in relation to the 1954 Commonwealth Avenue project on June 30th, 2025. which was distributed through the Alston-Brighton neighborhood distribution list. The planning department then sponsored and hosted a virtual public meeting on September 25th, 2025. Public meetings were posted on the Planning Department calendar. Notice was advertised through local newspapers as well as email notifications sent out to all subscribers of the Alston Brighton Neighborhood email update list. Local elected officials and their staff were also notified of the meetings.

Thank you very much. Outside of the BPDA-sponsored review process, the proponent conducted additional outreach with the Brighton Alston Improvement Commission, abutters, and local elected officials to solicit feedback and address comments and concerns. The project was then brought before and approved by the BPDA board on January 15th, 2026. Some comments were brought up during the public review process as far as transportation access and concerns over traffic as well as these viability of the Preservation of the existing structure. I do want to just note that the proposed project is still subject to ongoing design review and approval from the Aberdeen Architectural Conservation Commission.

District, as well as Parks Department Design Review for any potential impacts to the abutting park and DCR-owned property. I'm happy to answer any questions. related to the project or previous iterations or whatever questions you may have to the article 88 review process. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we have Anabella Gomez.

Madam Chair, members of the board, Annabella Gomes from the Brighton-Alston Improvement Association. We'd like to go on record and support this project. Changes are all improvements from the previous project and we welcome the changes and would like to go on record in support. Thank you.

Thanks. Next we have Ines Vito.

Hi. Am I on mute? Yes. Okay, thank you. So yay more housing, definitely everybody's happy to get more housing here. I think as a direct abutter, Just want to voice a little concern and disappointment at the lack of community engagement for direct abutters. The one touch point for this project was the presentation on September 2025 and then Pretty much that's it. Unless you're part of a community group like the ABAI, there has been nothing. So we don't even know if the feedback was incorporated or anything changed from anybody's comments that were submitted. So expressing that disappointment. And also, I sent a letter also that was entered, I don't know where that went, of comments about just basically the property line.

and maybe that goes under the design review but again with one touch point we don't have any information if things were changed or what the correct avenue is but there's like an outdoor space that would affect the people in 1960, the echoing of acoustics there. and there was also issues about the trees. I'm a member of the Chestnut Hill Reservoir Conservancy and we had spoken to the landscape architect for DCR who at that point was not aware of the plans to preserve and protect the trees on the rear side of the lot, for example. Anyway, I just want to do starter comments. I mean, there's a lot about the little things, but it's the lack of communication and community engagement with the abutters, direct abutters, Thank you.

We're going to block out. Okay, and we have Jen Provenzano. Jen, if you can unmute yourself. You can unmute yourself pressing star six. Jean Provenzano.

Are you raising your hand for this, Jean? If so, can you please unmute yourself? Okay, well, in the meantime, can the developer, does the developer wish to respond or attorney Spitz?

Yeah, sure, Madam Chair. There were many avenues, or channels rather, for abutters to further conversation and dialogue during the Article 80 meeting. It was known that information was exchanged. We never heard back from any sort of person. Um relative or any questions sent directly to us or through the planning department any sort of you know communication was always filtered through the article 80 process itself. and again hence we moved on to the community as well and we went you know and met with the the local civic who had where our present presentation was well perceived and hence the reason why We were provided with a recommendation of support from the Civic Group too. But given the fact that abutters, you know, during this phase, I'll be sure to advise my clients to continue to reach out to these neighbors to be good neighbors and kind of continue and facilitate conversations moving forward as well.

Thank you. Any other questions from the board? You bear a motion? I'll put forward a motion of approval. I'll bear a second.

Thank you, sir. Mr. Stembridge?

Yeah.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Oh, sorry. Ms. Better Barraza?

Yes.

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

Thank you.

So with that, We will move to the cases scheduled for 1130 a.m. The first two cases have been deferred. as has the last case in that time frame. So that will take us to case VOA 1747974.

with the address of 142 P Street.

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

Thank you. Thank you Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is Keerthi Sugumaran and I am one of the proponents of the 142 P Street project. I will be presenting alongside Eric Zacherson from Context Architects. As you may recall from the last time we met, this proposal seeks to add five roof decks to an existing five-unit residential building in South Boston. The decks will be accessed through existing roof hatches that are completely hidden from public view by an existing four-foot parapet wall that screens the rooftop mechanicals. In other words, this is a minimally invasive project as it does not penetrate the building nor does it seek to add height to the building. The architectural plans, as I mentioned, were prepared by Context Architects, a licensed architecture firm and reviewed by the City of Boston Planning Department, which has issued a formal recommendation of approval.

The three zoning violations at issue in this case are Article 68, Section 29, requiring a conditional use permit, Article 68, Section 8, front and rear yard insufficient. The Deputy Director of Zoning noted explicitly that the front and rear yard violations are existing conditions not proposed to be extended or worsened by this project and that their impact on the proposal is negligible. As owners we have also been thoughtful in our design goals to minimize impact on our neighbors. For example, the decks are concealed behind the existing parapet They will not be visible from the street or the public right of way. There is no change to the building's appearance from any public vantage point. And in working through the community process, we elected to remove a pergola that was originally proposed due to our neighbors' concerns regarding visibility.

The Planning Department confirmed that roofdecks and upper story balconies are common throughout City Point as shown on page 2, the third page of this PDF. This project is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood's character, not a departure from it. Eric, if I could just ask you to flip to that third page with the aerial view of the decks in the neighborhood.

Can the ambassador please scroll? Who's the ambassador? Can you scroll to the next page?

Thank you. The addition of the roof decks provides each of the five owner or occupant families with private outdoor space, reducing pressure on shared public parks and green spaces. The Condo Association is also governed by our own bylaws that have appropriate noise restrictions in place to ensure future owners comply with the reasonable expectations of our neighborhood. The owners have selected a tile system to minimize construction impact on the surrounding properties. The tiles are placed onto the roof itself. and are environmentally friendly as they repel heat, which significantly reduces the heat island effect created by black rubber roofs in the city. In addition, the board has before it letters of support from more than 35 South Boston residents and abutters, including several direct abutters on P Street, East 5th Street, and East 6th Street. The owners have engaged in a community process in good faith from the start.

Our application was filed in June of 2025 and in a Butters meeting was held on October 9, 2025, consistent with the standard neighborhood review process. The owners made meaningful concessions, including removal of the pergola, We had the project reviewed by the City Point Neighborhood Association and engaged with ONS throughout the process including voluntary meetings in November with CPNA to hear community feedback and a formal vote on April 14th. The CPNA raised concerns about noise, which we've addressed in our bylaws, and fire safety, which we've confirmed our plans are compliant with applicable regulations. and we are specifically sourcing stationary grills that are properly insulated to comply with fire safety requirements.

The CP&A, as you know, had requested a second abutters meeting, and that request had been reviewed by the Office of ONS. They determined that the changes to our plans were not substantial enough to require a second formal meeting. That was a discretionary judgment made by city staff with expertise in this process and the owners should not be penalized for The city's reasonable decision not to conduct a second abutters meeting. Also, one of the concerns raised at the last meeting was a provision prohibiting roof decks at 142P And as you may recall, the City of Boston's Planning Department confirmed that no such agreement or proviso was ever made in writing. and significantly when the proponents purchased their condos, we did so with the understanding that we could seek permission to build roof decks when we felt comfortable to do so.

Lastly, I'll just point out that we've received broad, genuine community support that speaks for itself. The volume and quality of support letters from immediate abutters, from parents who know families through their children's school, from longtime South Boston residents, reflects that this ownership group has built genuine support and goodwill in the neighborhood. While we recognize the CP&A opposes the project, we would just note that there was a bit of lack of transparency in the process as we were only advised whether the motion would pass or fail. We had approximately 15 individuals who came to support us and vote on our behalf, some of which reported back to us that they were kicked out of the Zoom meeting as voting was called. were told they were not allowed to vote because they were presenting proposals the same day, eliminating

In closing, we would ask that the ZBA grant the Variance and Conditional Use Permit for a modest, well-designed improvement to a residential building in City Point The decks are invisible from the street. The building height is unchanged. The planning department recommends approval consistent with The decks that have previously been approved in the neighborhood and in fact this is even consistent with in fact less impactful than some of the other South Boston roof deck proposals that were approved earlier today. I'll just turn it over to Eric in case you'd like to add anything.

I think you've hit it on the head. We'll go back to the chair.

OK, thank you. Are there questions from the board?

Just a comment. Last time we hosted a hearing for this project, the whole idea of the deferral was that somebody from your team mentioned that you have not been able to Let's schedule a meeting with the local neighborhood association so the deferral was for the team to have your own meeting. I know regardless of if ONS Our opinion was that there was no necessity to have a meeting or not. The whole idea of the deferral was for you to organize your own meeting. with the residents around and collect feedback. So that's my comment. I'm not sure if you want to respond to that.

Just to clarify, there were sort of two requests for meetings. One was with ONS, and ONS had declined to hold a second of Butters' meeting. and then the deferral was for us to go back and meet specifically with the City Point Neighborhood Association. We did so on April 14th. We met with the City Point Association. They conducted a vote. and I believe they'll be here to report on that process as well. Okay, thank you. Thank you.

Are there other questions from the board? I have brought up the concern of grilling on the roof deck and have you looked into requirements and have you done any alterations due to those requirements?

Yes, Hansi, we went back through the regulations. Obviously, we'll have to go through it with the fire department at the end of the permitting. But what we have confirmed is that there are a number of Stationary grills when installed that are rated to be adjacent to the building parapet. However, We haven't specified the grills, so in this set of plans, we've relocated them all to be away from the parapets and towards the center of the building, which would be allowed even if they were Not the rated kind that we would like to kind of, we will confirm as we review this with the fire department.

Okay, thank you so much for looking into that. Of course. Thank you. With that, let's have public testimony.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Board Members. Ziggy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This applicant completed the community process. Our office hosted an abutters meeting on October 9th of 2025. which I need to provide it on the proposal, the duration of the public nuisance issues associated with roof. During the community process for construction of this building, that the building would not include roof decks. Office received 46 letters of opposition, all from abutters in the 300-foot radius. Roff Seltzer received 35 letters of support. Six have signed an address in the abutter's radius. The rest signed addresses in other areas of South Boston. As a result of feedback from the abutter's meeting, the applicants agreed to remove a pergola on their proposal. I also formally met City Point Neighborhood Association on April 14th, and that group has voted to oppose the application. With that ground, our office defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Next. We have Ashley from the Office of Consular Affairs.

I'm sorry, did you say Ashley?

Ashley, yeah.

Thank you. Councilor Finn would like to go on record again in opposition based on overwhelming feedback from Director Butters, nearby neighbors, and the City Point Neighborhood Association. on the lack of community process in a second City of Boston-run abutters meeting. Just weeks ago, this board agreed that the community process was not fulfilled and the proponent was sent back to the City Point Civic meeting. However, Neighbors who are not members of the CPNA may have not attended, and those who did were not allowed to speak. or vote on the proposal. Councilor Flynn believes the second of Butters meetings should have been coordinated by the city so that all neighbors can have a say in what takes place in their community. Flynn maintains a policy against construction of new roof decks based on eight years of meetings and feedback from our seniors, persons with disabilities, veterans,

and young families on quality of life issues, parties at all hours, trash removal with pizza boxes falling into the street, our pest control crisis, and public safety issues with the presence of cooking grills on decks. Flynn believes this is public service. Another meeting was in no way unreasonable with the amount of meetings much lower in the city for years now and and ability to quickly schedule a Zoom. Lastly, a major compromise in 2021 that garnered support of neighbors was specifically the removal of the roof decks. South Boston neighbors continue to support addressing the housing crisis only to have the rug pulled out years later in bad faith on proposals that have no bearing on it. Councilor Flynn believes we cannot call ourselves the most family-friendly city in the country if we continue to willfully disregard the quality of life issues of many residents and families in favor of projects that do not improve the housing crisis. Thank you.

Next, we have Haley Walsh.

Madam Chair, members of the board, Haley Walsh from Senator Nick Collins' office. Senator would like to echo Councillor Flynn's testimony and he would like to go on record in opposition to this. Thank you.

And now we have Monica.

Good afternoon. Thank you for hearing from me. My name is Monica Santos. I'm a direct abutter living on East Fifth Street. I echo, of course, what's already been expressed in terms of general abutter. opposition to the project. I will say what is not being stated so far is the proposal for five roof decks is completely inconsistent. with the neighborhood yes there are roof decks as was noted in the presentation what is being left out is that none of those roof decks are designed per individual units I personally am not opposed to the homeowners having a roof deck if it's potentially one common roof deck, one grill, etc. But to set the new precedent of individual floors now having Individual roof deaths is a brand new precedent for the neighborhood that has not been set previously. Again, there is a significant safety concern with the potential for five gas grills.

I believe original proposals had potential fire pits as well. That's obviously very concerning for direct abutters along with all just the general quality of life.

To meet the standard for zoning would they print?

concerns that exist. I would also like to add that the existing homeowners do get the benefit of the variances that have already been approved for this project of the lack of side yard and rear yard setback. Obviously they had nothing to do with that but they still reap the benefit of the additional living space that now occurs for them and they get to experience This project has already had two variances for the rear and yard setback. This potentially is another variance for the individual roof decks. And then finally I'd like to add that the current units have decks already in the front with unobstructed water views, a significant front yard, over 2,200 square feet of living space, There is, in our opinion, those that are opposed, not the necessity now for specific, unique, livable space per unit.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next we have Christine.

I thank you for your time. I'm opposed. My question to the board is, has the standard for zoning relief been met here? The answer is no. The reasons Four of the relief are frankly absurd. One is we need a place for our children to play. I think you all know we live about 200 feet from Marine Park in Castle Island. Another person says he needs a place for his elderly parents to come sit in the sun. And the third is that everyone else has one, why can't we? You can't sleep here at night in the summer with your windows open due to all the ambient noise and the way it travels. The community has repeatedly told this group we do not want roof decks. They told the developer and I would argue that despite the, you know,

I don't know if she's a plaintiff or the proponents comments about trying to be a good neighbor. This whole process has been just a callous disregard for the neighbors and the community process. And I ask you to please consider The impacts on the neighborhood when you vote today. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Good afternoon, Board. This has been a really tedious process, so I can say I'm glad that it's coming to an end at this point. So I want to first address the letter count by ONS. CIGI reported the numbers of 45 in opposition. Those 45 letters came just from Lennon Court and Toomey Court, which is directly across the street. That was the complex over there that was not part of the process because they didn't know about the abutters meeting. They didn't know about the pergola being removed. So that was the community process. They have since been informed. A few of them have in fact joined CPNA. and they produced 45 signatures of opposition.

That is on top of the direct abutter opposition. The signatures that you have are in fact all direct abutters. from P Street, 6th Street, 5th Street. So we did not go outside of the area because that's not really fair. It's for people who actually live there and will be affected by the project. It's a tough one, but everything that the proponent is asking for, they already have. It's on the first floor. Beautiful manicured lawns. Plantings is wonderful. They each have grills out there. They have outdoor furniture out there. The view of the ocean is right there. and they do have Farragut Park, Maureen Park literally within 200 feet.

So this is a project that is not wanted in this community in City Point. There is something similar, but it's down by Broadway Station and borders the South End and Broadway Station. It's called the McCallum Building. But none of that exists here in City Point. So we're going to ask. The board to please reject this project based on a butter feedback overwhelming opposition of a butter feedback. and hopefully you know these proponents have in fact recently joined City Point specifically for this project and you know welcome welcome you've been in our neighborhood for a year or two We love having new people move in, but we just can't allow this type of quality of life issues to move forward because it's not really fair on the rest of us.

So with that, we ask that you deny this project. Thank you. Thank you.

Madam Chair, there is one more. Okay, last comment. Yeah, okay, there are two more people.

Please be brief.

Alien.

Hello Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is John Collins. I own at 820 East 5th Street and I would just like to say that I am in full support of this project. I've got to meet a few of the owners over the last year or so. Particularly Mejia and Shep who just had their second child and I know with a growing family being born and raised here, there's nothing like your own outdoor space. Having your front lawn is one thing. but having some private space upstairs to yourself is another thing and I think it's just an extension of their living area so I would just like to go on record and support, voice my support. Thank you.

And next we have Elian. It's great.

Hello. Good afternoon. I'm sorry. Can you hear me, folks? Yes, ma'am. Thank you. 776 East Broadway, Eileen Smith. I want to say that our new neighbors seem quite graceful and You know, wonderful to have in our neighborhood. However, the big concern for all of us is the precedence that would be set for having five Dix, Five Grills. I currently live beside a house that has a roof deck and it has been nothing but problems with the police, the mayor's office constantly after interviewing me. So I find it very difficult for the residents that are so adversely affected with the current proposal.

I did want to add a fact, just what I thought on the McAllen building. You know they have 144 units and of course the size of the development is quite large and I believe they only have three to five grilling stations. and that's not a divided roof deck property but just for the record I know the people are very nice new neighbors however unfortunately living beside A roof deck, and I can't imagine five, is terrible as far as quality of life. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, with that, I'll turn it back over to the members for questions. Any last comment from the developer, I mean the applicant briefly? Okay, does that have a motion?

Just a clarification, the last time this was presented, was it a deferral or was it denial without prejudice? It was a deferral in order for them to meet with the civic

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

Motion, I'm going to put forward a motion of the NIL BLP units.

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

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza?

No.

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

And those are the cases from there, I'm sure.

I'm sorry, what happened to 62L? Did they also defer?

Yes, we do.

All right. Well, thank you, everyone.

Thank you for your efforts.