Zoning Board of Appeal

You have your time in the back. So, when it works, retire early.

Recording in progress.

Good morning. The City of Boston Zoning Board of Appeal hearing for August 11, 2026 is now in session. This hearing is being conducted in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Open Meeting Law including 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 it's 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 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. Panelists are strongly encouraged to keep video on while presenting to the board. As with our in-person meetings, comments and support will be followed by comments in opposition. The order of comments is as follows elected officials representatives of elected officials and members of the public The Chair may limit the number of people called upon to offer a comment and the time for commenting as time constraints require. For that reason, the Board prefers to hear from members of the public who are most impacted by a project. That is those individuals who live closest to the project If you wish to comment on an appeal, please click the raise hand button along the bottom of your screen in the Zoom webinar platform. Click it again and your hand should go down. When the host sees your hand, you will receive a request to unmute yourself. So yes, then you should be able to talk.

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

Good morning, Madam Chair. Present.

Good morning. Mr. Langham?

Good Morning, Madam chair. Present

Good morning. Ms. Better Barraza? Good morning, Madam Chair. Present. Good morning Miss Turner? Is Miss Turner with us? Ms. Whewell? Good morning, Madam Chair present. Good morning. Is Ms. Turner with us? Does anyone know? Stephanie or Caroline? She should be, let me try to contact her for a second. Okay thank you because right now without Ms. Turner we are a five member board.

I think she's here.

Okay, well let's make sure we're elevating her. Do you see Ms. Turner?

Yeah, she should be...

I apologize, Madam Chair. I was having some technical difficulties. I'm here now. Awesome. Thank you. So with that we are a six member board and I will turn it over to Mr. Stembridge.

Thank you Madam Chair. We'll begin today's hearings with the approval of hearing minutes scheduled for 9 30 a.m these hearing minutes are from July 28th of this year I'll make the motion to approve the minutes.

Is there a motion?

I think Mr. Stembridge made the motion to approve, so I'll second.

Okay, Mr.Stembridge? Yes. Mr. Langham? Yes Ms.Better Barraza? Yes Miss Turner? Yes. Ms. Whewell? Yes. Chair votes yes, the motion carries.

Next we have the extensions scheduled for 9 30 a.m

There are six extension cases.

I will read them all in one after the other

If anyone has any questions regarding them, we can address those to Madam Chair and we'll go from there.

We have case VOA 1625031

with the address of 26 Lawrence Avenue. Next, we have case VOA 1450131 with the addresses 60 to 70 Geneva Avenue. Next we have case BOA 1526561 with the address of 1015 Hyde Park Avenue. Next, we have Case BOA 55 with the address of 1052 Hyde Park Avenue. Next, we have case BOA 101-9280 with the addresses 10 to 12

Bentham wrote.

And finally, we have case BOA 159-8752 with the address of 308 Norwell Street. Madam Chair, those are the extensions before us this morning.

Thank you. Are there any questions from the board? May I have a motion to approve the extensions as requested?

Motion to approve the extensions as read.

May I have a second? Second. Second. Mr. Stembridge?

Yeah.

Mr Langham?

Yes.

Ms. Better Barraza? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes, Ms. Whewell? Yes Chair votes yes the motion carries

Next we have board final opportunity case scheduled for 9 30 a.m this is case voa 181 7132 with the address of 18 dell avenue The applicant and or their representative are present. Would the police respond to the board?

Good morning Madam Chair, members of the board. Nick Landry from DRT were the architects for the project I believe we're also joined by the property owner Paul Grant Yes, I'm here So we're here this morning to request the removal of a proviso that was issued on 18 Dell Avenue. There was a provisos requiring the three parking spaces in the rear of the property We have permeable pavers and if we scroll down, so this project it's one lot with two buildings on it. So you can see right here the blue building on the left Thank you for joining us.

The entire site plan was submitted to Boston Water and Sewer with the stormwater management and the entire parking, all six parking spaces. So that was previously approved. If we scroll down I think to... Slide after the next one. Two slides, please. If we can shift down two pages on the PDF. One more page there. So you can see here on the left-hand side, that's the original site plan that was approved by Boston Water and Sewer with all six parking spaces, the stormwater management, and catch basin. Um, and the plan on the right just shows it's the same plan. It just showed when you building dropped in and tying into those existing utilities So we're asking for that renewable paper proviso to be removed because the current system has already been designed and approved by Boston Water & Sewer.

I think you can stay on that page. Actually, if you go to the last slide, page nine, that also helps to keep going down right there. So you can see here so the building in yellow along with the site was all approved Previously, 16 Del Ave. And then the building next to it, 18 Del Ave is the property we're here for today.

So just to clarify, so the yellow is part of the previous project that was developed, correct? And so it's all that yellow surface. That's where the six parking spaces are?

Correct. Yeah, they're towards the back of the property.

So it already bridges the two lots?

Correct. Well, it's one lot. It's just one full lot with two buildings on it.

Right, so what's the open space for the proposed project?

The open space from the proposed product is 287 feet per unit. So just under six nine square feet.

Other questions from the board?

Yeah, yes. So 16... Sorry, I'm like... Okay, 16 Del Ave... That's already built? Correct. It's so interesting that Google Earth doesn't have it as a built structure yet. So, that was built and along with that was the stormwater system, correct? Correct. So was the chambers, the leaching chambers installed in a driveway? They were. Huh?

That's correct.

They are okay great I think that your request is reasonable, you know, that you had already Boston Water Sewer Commission review the plans and review your mitigation of stormwater runoff. And I don't recall the specificities when this project came in front of the board, whether that detail was given. I'm okay with the removal of the proviso because we already had an agency review that mitigation. Thanks, I don't have any further questions.

Thank you. And yeah, I'm sorry, I wasn't here for that previous presentation and I think you are correct. I don t know if that was specifically described during the presentation.

Thank you. Are there other questions from the board?

The request, the proviso was for a permeable to make the land permeable. Is that correct?

Yes, it was requiring the applicant to install permeable surface at the three off-street parking space.

Then my next question would be why wasn't that done?

All of this work was already done before the meeting. So we built the building, installed the water infiltration system, the catch basins. All of that was done before the 18 Del Ave meeting. because it was all approved. When we had 16 DELAB approved, we designed the entire stormwater system knowing that this building would be coming along at some point but we knew we needed to get a variance for this building 16 Del Ave would you not need a variance for?

Can I ask when the 18 Del Ave parking was constructed?

Those 16, yeah, 16 Dell Avenue was constructed in the beginning of 2024 and then the driveway was paved in late 2024.

So the parking behind 18 Dell Lab was constructed in 2024?

So, the driveway and three parking spots The driveway that will be shared between 16 and 18. was done and three parking spots behind 16 were done. We didn't do the asphalt behind where 18 was gonna go because of course we have to excavate that site, and we just felt like that would get damaged in the process

Yeah, I think I'm just trying to backtrack and see because I looked back at the plans that we received for the June meeting. The buildings both had a label of either existing or proposed, the parking did not. So it was unclear whether that parking was existing or proposed, or what the status was. And I also see on a satellite image that the 18 Dell building or parking wasn't there April 2026, so that was just so close to the June meeting that I just wonder you know the timing of everything and whether When it was constructed and when you knew you needed to come for the variance for 18, that gives the board the ability to place reasonable conditions on it. So just trying to understand one thing.

Yeah, it almost seems like we weren't given the full picture when it was in front of us and now We're trying to see if it makes sense to just parse out a component at the rear and to make it permeable when you already have a stormwater. I think the intentions of the board is to preserve open space and to remove the heat island effect that's usually tied to impermeable surface. Good observation, Katie.

All right any other questions from the board? Someone prepared to make a motion?

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

Is there a second?

Better Barraza is second. Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Langham? No. Ms. Better Barraza? Yes, Ms. Turner? No, Ms. Whewell?

I'm going to vote yes. I'm a little torn on this one, but ultimately sometimes I question whether that proviso is appropriate for smaller projects like this one. The permeable pavers need to be maintained and vacuumed out that they remain permeable. And if they're not maintained, and Permeable. Sorry, I think I switched the language so I'm going to vote yes. I probably would have rather seen more open on this site but just something for us to consider in the future. The maintenance that goes into permeates and permeable pavers

Thank you. Chair votes yes, but the motion does not carry. Is there another motion?

Madam Chair, I'll put a motion of denial.

Is there a second? Second Mr Stembridge

Yes.

Mr. Langham?

Yes. Ms.

Better Barraza? Yes, Ms. Turner? Yes Ms. Whewell?

I'll vote yes, and maybe there's another solution here that we're missing. Can we look at the site fresh?

Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Thank you.

Now we'll move on to the hearing schedule for 9 30 a.m At this point, we'll ask if there are any request for withdrawals or deferrals from 930M here.

Yes, Mr. Stembridge, this is Attorney Ryan Spitz. Madam Chair I just want to confirm, is there still a six member board?

We will be a six-member board today, yes.

Okay great um so uh Mr Stembridge 86 Walworth Street please.

So that means this request is for Case BOA 1787126 with the address of 86 Walworth Street.

Would you go ahead and explain the transcript? Yes, thank you Mr. Stembridge. Madam Chair, members of the board, attorney Ryan Spitz with Adams & Maranci, business address 168 H Street 1st floor South Boston here requesting an administrative deferral to allow my client to be heard in front of a full several member board.

Okay, we are faced. We could do September 22nd, October 6th or October 27.

Sure we'll take September 22 if that's the earliest date please.

Okay with that may I have a motion?

Motion to defer till September the 27th.

May I have a second?

Mr. Stembridge. I'm sorry, what was the date again? September 22nd?

22nd, sorry.

Oh, the 22nd. Sorry. Do you prefer December 22nd or yeah? September 22.

Okay, so Mr. Stembridge? Is that a yes?

Yes, that's a yes.

Okay, Mr. Langham?

Yes.

Ms. Barbraza? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Mrs. Whewell? Yes Chair votes yes, the motion carries.

Thank you um Mr. Stembridge I have one more 425 East 3rd Street

So this request is for case VOA 1749425 with the address of 425 East 3rd Street. Would you go ahead and explain this?

Thank you, Mr. Stembridge. Madam Chairmembers of the Board, Attorney Ryan Spitz with Adams & Maranci, business address of 168 8th Street, 1st Floor, South Boston. We're here requesting an administrative deferral to allow my client to be heard in front of a full seven-member board.

Okay, and of those dates? Are they still the same dates available? Yes.

20 seconds would be fine then please thank you.

Okay may I have a motion?

Motion to defer until September the 22nd.

Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge?

Yeah.

Mr Langham?

Yes.

Ms. Better Barraza? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes, Ms. Whewell? Yes Chair votes yes the motion carries Thank you

We have a note on another one, but I'll ask if anyone has any further requests for which are all deferral?

Hello. Hi, I'm the owner of 121 R River Street. I would be requesting a deferral at this time.

So this is for HBOA 1782691 with the address of 121 River Street. Would you go ahead and explain please?

Yes, I'd like to request a referral as we've made some minor tweaks to the plans. So we'll need to re-advertise for the public.

Okay.

Next, what are the dates Caroline? We could do September 22nd, October 6th or October 27th. September 27th, I mean 22nd works well for us.

Okay, with that may I have a motion?

Motion to defer this case until September 22nd.

Is there a second?

Second.

Mr. Stembridge.

Yup.

Mr. Langham?

Yes.

Ms. Better Barraza? Yes Ms. Turner? Yes Mrs. Wewell? Yes Chair votes yes, the motion carries.

Thank you.

Any further requests for withdrawals or deferrals from 930 AM here? Hearing none, we'll move on to the first case which is Case DOA 1851830 with the address of 415-415A. and on the street. If the applicant and or their representative were present, would they please explain to the board?

Good morning Madam Chair, members of the board. On behalf of Ristorante Lucia my name is Bill Frateroli co-owner Ristorante Lucio respectfully submits this proposal to the Zoning Board of Appeal requesting approval for seasonal outdoor seating. at Fort 15 Hanover Street and Boston's North End. The proposed patio would operate annually from May 1st through October 31st, and is the same outdoor seating area that has been in place and operating since 2020 on private property. The patio has become an established valued extension of the restaurant, and proposed seating would allow Ristorante Lucia to continue its operation in a consistent manner. Thank you.

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

Hello Madam Chair, Members of the Board. My name is Eva Jones representing the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services. Regarding 415 to 415A Hanover Street our office defers to the board's judgment as our office does not conduct a community process on this type of proposal and we were informed that the patio is existing and we are unaware of any concerns related to this proposal. Again, the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services differs to the board's judgment on this matter. Thank you everyone for your time and consideration. Thank you.

Next we have Gabriela Ramirez from Councilor, Coletta Solis.

Thank you, good morning Madam Chairman.

Gabriella Ramirez here on behalf of Boston City Councilor, Gabriella Coletta Zapata's office. At this time the council would like to go on the record in support of this proposal. Thank you.

Thank You. Are there any other raised hands?

Sorry, Madam Chair. There are no additional comments.

Okay, may I have a motion? Motion to approve.

Go ahead, Eddie.

Motion to approved. May I have second?

Second.

Mr. Stembridge. Yes. Mr. Langham? Yes.

Ms.

Better Barraza? Yes, Ms. Turner? Yeah. Ms Wewell? Yes Chair votes yes, the motion carries.

Thank you very much. Next we have two companion cases. The first is case 808-184 9656 with the address of 35 Breadon Park along with that we have there is case BOA 185 5093, also with the address of 35 Brighton Park. If the applicant and or their representative are present, they please display the case report

Yes, thank you Mr. Stembridge. Good afternoon Madam Chair, members of the board my name is Justin Burns I'm an attorney with Pulcine and Norton business address 10 Forbes Road Braintree Massachusetts I'm here on behalf of the proponents for the 35 Braddock Street project, Samuel and Lauren Madoff. With me today is John Polgini, managing partner of Polginian Norden as well as Chris Wortley of Chris Wortly Design, the project architect who will be walking us through the plans. Sam and Lauren are South Bend residents currently living at 15 Braddock Park. Both are doctors with Lauren working at Children's and Sam working at the Baptist, so both working in the city. They purchased the existing single-family townhome at 35 Braddock Park with the intent of renovating it so they could stay in the neighborhood that they've loved for so long while providing additional space for their family. The proposal includes the preservation and repointing of the front and rear facades, interior renovations, creation of a green roof deck, and construction of a detached carport.

with the green sitting area directly above. I want to note that this proposal has appeared before the South End Landmarks District Commission and has received approval for all work within the commission's purview. With that, I will pass it over to Chris to go over the plans in a little bit more detail and I'm happy to answer any questions at the end of his presentation. Thank you.

Good morning, everyone. Thank you for having us just to orient you to the plan quickly. The Braddock Parks street is to your page right with the rear alley public alley to page left 33 Braddock Park is on the top of the page with 37 Braddock park, the adjacent unit at the bottom of the Page. This is a five-story renovation It's all contained in the existing perimeter of the building indicated by the thicker light gray lines, including bedrooms for Madoff's children. Primary living space on the first and second floor, as well as a roof deck on top. So everything's contained in an existing footprint for the renovations of the project

And then in the rear, because that garden level, that first floor is one level below the street level. There's a sunken terrace and green space at that level With the elevation of the rear alley, a half level above that. So in this section you can kind of see sort of the elevation changes that we're working with to maintain Access of the garage for the cars, and then access to get up to the first level of Braddock Park street level as well as the garden level time altogether. The structure in the back that you're seeing there is held back from the property line by one foot which is consistent with other neighbors on the street and we can sort of pause here and take a look. This is our rendering looking down that alley

to the garage piece which will house one car, trash storage, bicycles. The owners Mostly bicycle to work and back rather than use their car. We really want to emphasize that this is a green space above that barrage, sort of ties in and connects to the southwest corner which is where we're standing, the perspective of this view. And with that open comment.

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

Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Siggy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This petitioner completed the community process. Our office hosted a well-attended Butters meeting on June 11th where Butters were enthusiastically supportive

Okay, next we have Kristen Simonelli. Yeah, we couldn't hear you singing the rest of what you said just FYI.

Okay, my apologies. Our office defers judgment to the board. There was a well-attended Butters meeting on June 11th where Butters were supportive of that application. We don't have anything further. Thank you.

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

Next we have Meg from Goldsboro Spin Office

Good morning, my name is Meg Leavitt from Councillor Flynn's office. Councillor Flynn would like to go on record in support based on no concerns expressed by neighbors and the Cosmopolitan Neighborhood Association You respectfully request that the proponent work closely with the community on any quality of life issues during the construction phase. Thank you.

Next, we have somebody from the attendance section. Scott Romy. Scott if you can unmute yourself now. Okay, if not then we have Kim.

Ken Crokemeyer? Yes, Ken. Good morning members of the board I've lived on this alley for 59 years I would like to say that I have not yet met a neighbor who is opposed to this project. I fully support it and I would note that there is another garage sharing the alley from a house on Braddock Park that also goes back to the alley itself and has been in there since the 1800s. There are two other roofed carports with green roofs that are enjoyed by the neighbors because they are green rather than looking at the cars underneath them and so I think this is a very appropriate addition to the alley and to 35 Braddock Park. I note that the purpose of

The Zoning Board of Appeals is to care about the safety and utility for owners, for the neighbors, and for the city. And I think this project meets all those expectations. Thank you.

Thank You I'm sure there are no additional comments.

Okay, any other questions from the board? Hearing none may have a motion.

Motion to approve.

Is there a second?

Second.

Mr. Stembridge?

You're mute. I'll try it again, yes.

Thank you. Mr Langham? Yes. Miss Better Barraza? Yes. Ms. Turner?

Yes.

Mrs. Wuwell? Yes Chair votes yes, the motion carries good luck sir.

Thank you everybody

The next two cases have been deferred, so that will take us to case BOA 182-5854 with the address of 57 Mount Vernon Street. If the applicant and or the representative are present, would they please explain the case to the board?

Is this, do you see anyone for not running?

I just promote somebody. The person with the Z is that I just promoted. I'm not sure if you are presenting from these projects.

Yes, hi. No I'm not presenting for this address.

Oh sorry, so then I don't see the applicant also.

Okay let's keep going then.

Okay, with that we'll move on to case VOA 1835605 with the address of 10 North Hampton Street. If the applicant and or the representative were present, would they explain?

Yes, thank you Mr. Stembridge. Good morning Madam Chair and members of the board my name is George Maranci I'm an attorney with a business address at 350 West Broadway in South Boston and I represent Enterprise Holdings Inc., better known as Enterprise Rent-A-Car. This application seeks a conditional use permit to convert the existing building at 10 North Hampton Street in Newmarket District from office use to rental agency for motor vehicles to be operated by Enterprise Rent A Car. The project calls for interior renovations only with no expansion of the building. The proposed use requires a conditional use permit under Article 50. This site sits at the corner of North Hampton Street and Fellows Street. It is just over 13,300 square feet and lies within the Newmarket Industrial Development Area under the Roxbury Neighborhood District. It consists of a one-story building on the southeast corner and a paved asphalt lot for the remainder of the parcel.

The site is also Urban Renewal Parcel 44 within the South End urban renewal plan area which carries no additional use or dimensional restrictions beyond the base zoning. Prior uses of this location include a service station, a repair garage Open Air Parking for 47 vehicles, Conference Center for Healthcare Workers Union all before its most recent use as an office building. A rental car agency is if anything a lower intensity use and several of those prior uses. It does not involve fuel dispensing or vehicle repair operations on site, it is in character closely related to the open air parking use this parcel has already accommodated for decades Article 50 governs the performance standards applicable to all uses within the new market IDA. Section 50-31 sets clear objective limits on uses within subdistrict or rental car agency conducting vehicle check in, checkout and administrative operations

from an existing building generates none of the ill effects recited in and prescribed by section 50-31. The surrounding area context supports the granting of a conditional use permit. This stretch of North Hampton Street is by the Planning Department's own description and its recommendation to the Board a mixture of manufacturing, residential, institutional, and commercial uses. A rental car agency is entirely consistent with that mix and introduces no new category of impact to the neighborhood. The planning department has reviewed the application, issued a written recommendation for approval concluding that project will have Minimal impact on the surrounding area and that it is limited to an alteration of the existing building and satisfies the conditions for a conditional use permit under Section 6-3.

As to the Article 6 standards themselves, on good grounds we assert that the use will not be injurious to the neighborhood given its low intensity administrative character and the site's own history of higher intensity automotive uses It's in harmony with the general purpose of the New Market IDA, which contemplates a working mix of commercial and light industrial activity and will not overload the site or surrounding infrastructure since the building and water being used as they exist today with no expansion or alteration. Finally, the identity of the operator is worth the board's attention. This is Enterprise Rent-A-Car. It's one of the largest and most established vehicle rental operators in the world with decades of experience operating branch locations in mixed commercial and urban settings exactly this kind for foregoing reasons. We would respectfully request that the board grant the requested conditional use permit. Be happy to take any questions or comments from the, excuse me, from the board.

Thank you. Any questions from the Board? Gary Nunn, we have public testimony.

Madam Chair and members of the board for the record my name is Jeremy Benbury I'm the Roxbury Community Engagement Specialist with the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process which consists of a Thank you for your time on the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services. We'd like to defer to the board for their judgment.

Madam Chair, we don't have additional talents.

That may I have a motion?

Motion to approve.

May I have the second? Mr. Stembridge

Yeah.

Mr. Langham? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza? Yes Ms. Turner? Yes Mrs. Whewell? Yes Chair votes yes, the motion carries. Good luck. Thank you and have a good day.

Madam Chair, I need to recuse myself from the next case

I will read it in and then return after we go through.

Thank you.

So this'll take us to a five-member board,

and this will be for case BOA-1820136 with the address of 1013 Harrison Avenue. If the applicant and or their representative are present, would they please explain the case to the board?

Yes. Hi, good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. Paul Momney with Gulston Stores, 1 Post Office Square. Oh, sorry. My bad.

Paul Momney with Goulston Storage 1 Post Office Square.

On behalf of Franklin, the former Badger-Franklin Institute of Technology down on FC Tech We're seeking conditional use permit for open air and educational uses at 1013 Harrison Avenue in Nubian Square. Stephanie or Jesus, do you have our... we prepared a PowerPoint presentation that was submitted Yes, thank you.

So if you could progress to slide two please?

So we will make this as quick as possible. So FC Tech was founded in 1908 with proceeds of Benjamin Franklin's bequest to the city of Boston, with a mission on educating working students and preparing them for careers in the workforce. For over a century, FC Tech was located at its south end campus on 41 Berkeley Street. But in January of 2026 the school relocated to a new campus at 1011 Harrison Avenue in Nubian Square

in which FC Tech made a significant investment in the neighborhood through construction of a brand new school building.

Next slide, please.

In connection with construction of the new campus, the board granted necessary dimensional relief and a conditional use permit for college and educational uses at 1011 Harrison Avenue, which I'll refer to in this presentation as lot one. The school owns the adjacent parcel at 1013 Harrison Avenue, Lot 2 which during the course of construction was used for staging and material storage. Construction is completed and the site has now been sort of hardscaped to its current condition but it's otherwise vacant. The Although the future use of Lot 2 is still undetermined, FC Tech would like to utilize this open space for open area educational uses ancillary to the adjacent college parcel.

and thus in February 2026 filed a conditional use permit application for college education uses on lot two.

Both sites are located in the Nubian Square ADA within the Roxbury neighborhood district and no permanent structures for site work are proposed for this site.

In fact, no work is going to be required to do the open air educational uses which we'll describe in a minute.

We received letters of support from Councilor Culpepper and Santana, and we held a public hearing with the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services

which was well attended and which did not result in concerns from the community. So I'll briefly orient the board to the site, you can pause on that site plan there One page up, please. Thank you. So just to orient you to the proposed uses, you'll see on the left side of the plan that's lot one which is the existing school building

Lot 2 is on the right.

It's really comprised of three main areas.

There is the which is outlined in green, where there are 10 parking spots. This is not ancillary parking for the school but rather vehicular storage for the schools automotive program

There will be some outdoor educational opportunities on the vehicles in the corral.

That's a fenced corral. You'll see there's a paved area that's sort of to the right of the corral where vehicles enter the corrals,

The proposed path of travel is shown in yellow there.

And then sort of to the north of those two areas is the open space educational area where some of the uses that Kevin Hender from FC Tech will describe in a minute. So with that background, I will hand it over to Kevin Heppner who is the CFO of FC Tech. Who'll walk through some of the uses and the vision for this space on behalf of school.

Good morning, everyone. Thank you so much for your time. If you could advance to the next slide please. So these pictures show what the lot looks like currently. The top left is the car storage corral. This is where we store cars, these are cars either waiting to be repaired by community members, but mostly these are cars that are donated through the program to be used by students learn auto repair techniques. And the lower right picture shows a lot in its current condition. Next slide, please. Thank you. So what are we proposing to use?

What we find is that we need outdoor space to augment programs that actually happen within our labs We have clean energy labs and so students are learning and experimenting with wind, wind generation. and solar installations. These are utilized by our HVAC programs and practical electricity programs, so this site will give us the space needed to experiment with Erecting and taking down these types of installations in a real world outside scenario. We also need space for our robotics program to Program and test programming of our robots. You see the picture, robot pet dog so that they can learn to navigate and be programmed to navigate various terrains

And so the other piece we already talked about, which is the storage for up to 10 vehicles for the auto program. We also have a virtual reality program where we program virtual reality goggles. And so this gives open space or people using the virtual reality installation. The popular one is virtual reality for working on wind generation Windmill, so it feels like you're actually climbing up a tower, etc. And then it also provides us temporary outdoor space for events. Next slide. So we hold, you know during nice weather these photos are from our south end location where we hold lots of outdoor events.

especially our admissions program and our student affairs program, barbecues for students supporting recruitment and retention events, graduation ceremonies and receptions. and then orientation space for student activities in the summer months. Next slide. So benefits of improved and active use of 1013 Harrison Ave. Accessible to all students and faculty, and directly is adjacent to our campus at 1011 Harrison Ave We don't see any adverse neighborhood effects. It replaces the vacant lot with a secured educational use purpose, well maintained. The site is secured by new fencing

No serious vehicle or pedestrian hazard across through an open existing curb cut with a locking and control gate with very little vehicle traffic. except for the cars we spoke about. The property is professionally managed, we have security cameras that provide Sightlines to the property by our security staff within the building and so there's good security of the site. provides facilities for open-air learning, secure storage for our automotive life vehicles. And again it's a fenced lot with gates Parking is for program vehicles only. It will not be used for staff or student parking.

Next slide please. Here's some kind of examples of how we see using the space. The top space is what we call our career exploration day where we bring high school students in and they can See various activities and participating activities in the area of interest. So you can see a small solar array, some heat pumps etc., and then the lower picture is how we envision if we were going to use this space for events that you would have a tent, etc. And that concludes my presentation. Thank you.

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

Madam Chair and members of the Board for the record, my name is Jeremy Benbury. I am the Roxbury Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process which concluded in the Voters' Meeting Facility on May 28th During the meeting, ABUDA's questions and inquiries were addressed and no concerns of opposition were raised. Following the ABUTA's meeting, our office determined that no further committee process was required. If we have time, the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services would like to defer to the board for their judgment.

Thank you.

Next we have Camille Platt-Dacosta Good morning Madam Chair, members of the board my name is Camille Platte-Dakosta I am the Boston Planning Department project manager for the aforementioned project at 1013 Harrison Avenue Very quickly, I wanted to say the Planning Department approved the project in December of 2021 and we are in support of their request. Thank you.

May I have a motion?

Madam Chair, I'd like to perform a motion of approval. May I have the second? Mr. Stembridge.

Oh sorry, Mr. Langham. Yes. Ms. Better Barraza. Yes Ms. Turner. Yes Ms. Wewell?

Yes.

Chair votes yes, the motion carries. Good luck.

Thank you all very much. Next we have two companion cases. The first is case BOA 177-4508 with the address of 37 Kimball Street along with that we have case BOA 177 4510 with the address of 39 Jumping Street. If the applicants and or their representative present, will they please respond to cases through report?

Oops. Share my screen.

So we're using whatever you provided? Yep. Meaning, we're not sharing your screen? OK. Kinnebastia, thank you.

All right, good morning Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is Zachary Schmalz property owner of 37 Kimball Street seeking relief on the maximum allowable curb cut of 20 feet without special permitting. And this right now is basically the existing site plan that you see Kimball Street on the north top side of the page is parking. There's parking allowable on Kimball street On the sidewalks, I'm sorry on the curves themselves for open use. The orca field is a one way no parking allowed that is the entrance to our building

This right here is the proposed plan, essentially showing the extension of the curb cut off of Orcafield Street. to a dimension a little bit obviously greater than 20 feet, but not necessarily the full width of the property just to allow for Parking to be taken off of Kimball Street and relocated to our private property. There was another slide that I have. It doesn't, I don't know if it made it in here but just to kind of orient everyone on the call Kimball Street, like I mentioned has parking allowable on two sides but one side is not prohibited from eight to six Monday through Friday. There are businesses in the area which have overflow of parking that do not fit

In their respective parking lots and Kimball Street essentially gets more populated, more densely populated with on-street parking. myself and residents are part of that equation. And so with this widening, it allows us to essentially just You know, access the lot a little bit more easily. We do have more than one vehicle per unit per owner there are six owners total and Orcafield Street. Right now, there's two foot sidewalks on either side of the street for pedestrian use, I'd say 75% of entire Oroka Field Street sidewalks are deteriorating or unobstructable.

based off of lighting poles, telephone poles, vegetation trash debris things that nature so We would be, essentially it would be a betterment in my opinion not only to our property but the public right of way to have at least this 60 foot section approximately become a new condition with concrete, the appropriate percent slope and everything to make sure that it can be utilized As a path of travel for pedestrians, most of the time they're honestly walking in the street to get up and down the area which I know is not necessarily an issue of this board but it is something that we deal with. Dandy out and you know we're just trying to do right by the property and improve the property if I could say that.

And if this is just a small start to that, I think this will be beneficial for the street and for the neighborhood.

Can you explain why you need so much wood?

That curb cut that you see on the screen there, it's essentially 10 feet clear. We exit and enter the one way is going, if you were looking at the plan there, the one-way arrow is going towards the left. of the page. So that's the flow of traffic. It's difficult myself, I'm okay but a lot of times we're hopping the curb to maneuver the cars in. The way that they're shown diagram sorry excuse me Diagrammatically, there is the best way to park in this lot of having the length of the cars go north to south. So therefore we're constantly backing out into Orcafield Street and then going up the road to get the Dorchester Ave. So extending that allows us better maneuverability of getting cars in and out

and that's primarily the reason.

Questions from the board? Do you have a question? What's the current parking situation on that street, and with this curb cut how many Off street parking or on-street parking spaces will it be taken away? Thank you.

Hi. The parking on Kimball Street, well I'll start with the second part of that question. There will be about five, I'd say spaces or four or five vehicles that would come off of Orcafield and surrounding neighborhoods. And then the conditions of Kimball, it's wide enough for two-way traffic. However, at night or after 6 p.m., parking is allowed on both sides of Kimbell. However, to allow for two-way traffic and manage this as we're sandwiched in between two one-way streets. Kimball Street is a two- way I guess you could say width wise dimensionally wise Orcafield and the other street to the north of Kimball are both one-way streets, so no parking on either of those.

The nearest part of on-street parking is Dorchester Ave. So between the hours of 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., one side of Kimball... becomes off limits for parking. So that one side gets overpopulated pretty quickly and you're really not able to find parking until work hours, normal business hours close for the day.

And is it the side that you're on, that is restricted in the day or the opposite side?

The opposite side. Orkerfield Street does not have any parking on the street permitted on either side of the street whatsoever.

And it looks like are you creating six spaces?

Or we have six spaces. We have six bases where the next page shows just, you know, tandemly putting cars Thank you for joining us. It's kind of spotty. We have some owners that have more than one vehicle, others do not so

How many units in total are there in year 37 to 39? Six units, total. Three each. Other questions from the board?

Uh, Madam Chair if the planning department is available I'd like to hear their recommendation.

Yes, thank you Mrs. Stembridge. Good morning everybody Jeff Hampton City of Boston Planning Department. We recommended straight denial on this appeal if you look at Just the sheer paving in the Massive curb cut that they're asking. We think this is an excessive ask. We understand the neighborhoods are looking for more parking proposed projects but when you look at the paving that has been done and the lack of open space, the number of cars that are in a tandem We're going on the record as a straight denial from this. Thank you.

Am I allowed to comment?

I just want to see if there are any other questions or comments from the board. Okay, so let's take public testimony and we'll circle back to the applicant.

Hello Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Eva Jones representing the Mayor's Office and Neighborhood Services. Regarding 37 and 39 Kimball our office differs to the Board's judgment A community process was conducted including an abutters meeting held on 6-8-26 that was well attended by the Dorchester community. The feedback from this meeting was supportive regarding the proposal where community members expressed a heightened pressure of parking on residents and welcomed the project that would take even a few cars off of the street. The proposal was not in any catchment in an area of any civic association, and was not asked to meet with any for that reason. 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.

O'Rourke, Madam Chair, members of the Board, Liam Remus and Councilor Fitzgerald's office. The councilor would like to go on record in support of this proposal. Thank you. Madam Chair we will have additional hands raised at that point.

Okay, so we'll circle back to the applicant.

Yeah just a follow-up on the denial recommendation from the planning department This property was, it's a single property now. However the previous board in the 2019 era or 2018, somewhere in that neighborhood. This project was presented before the board for approval as you can clearly see this On the handout I had that showed the two properties side by side, one of the properties on the right was an existing two-story house. There was a vacant lot on the left side which is the building we inhabit now The amount of work or surface area that was created in support of that project I think created this condition and I don't know what

What actions were taken to challenge a project of this magnitude at that time being presented for approval without modifying the existing curb to enter and exit the property? For my opinion, that curb cut that we're using today has not changed since there was people living in 39 Kimball Street when 37 was still a vacant lot. So we're dealing with this now. And I imagine that there's been a lot that's changed, both personnel and policy-wise between now in 2019 however I believe that this is not degrading the area at all we do have a catch basin that I'll make a point to mention was a catch basin in our parking lot so water runoff is not an issue. There's probably one or two catch basins on Orkert Field Street that are at the very Far End, where it intersects Freeport Street and that's it.

So we're contained for lack of a better purpose on what we need to talk about here but I just wanted to kind of put that on the table as well for the board's consideration, thank you.

Thank you are there other questions from the board? Hearing none is there a motion?

Madam Chair, I agree with the Planning Department's assessment. I think that the curb cut request is accepted and I think it makes sense You know, whatever was approved before the amount of paving to access the six parking stalls. With this curb cut, you're kind of asking for double the amount of parking and I can't support that. And just for safety and circulation concerns, so I'll vote no in denial.

Is there a second? Second. Ms. Stembridge?

I'm going to vote no. I would hope that they reduce the size of parking Um, about the curb cut. But that's another story obviously so I'll just vote no for none.

Mr Langham?

Yes.

Ms. Better Barraza? Yes Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Whewell? Yes Chair votes yes, the motion carries

Okay, next we have um the next case was deferred so that takes us to

Sorry, can we put a date for that? Can we do something on the 22nd? 4. Or 2-1-3-221 voted.

The one I was deferred to escaped this chat zone.

Oh, I'm sorry about that. The next case has been deferred but we need a date to defer it to?

No.

So we can put it on for September 22nd.

Okay, may I have a motion?

Motion to defer to September the 22nd Is there a seconder?

Mr. Stembridge

Yes.

Mr. Langham? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza? Yes, Ms. Turner? Yes Ms. Wewell? Yes Chair votes yes the motion carries

Now we'll move on to case BOA 1828690 with the address of 472 Ashmont Street. If the applicants and or their representative are present, would they please explain the case report?

Thank you Mr. Secretary, good morning Madam Chair and members of the board my name is James Christopher 686 Architects with the business address of 10 Forbes Road in Braintree Mass I'm here today on behalf of Brendan Hussey the owner of 472 Ashmont Street The proposal from before you is to construct a rear garage attached and change occupancy from two units to three units. It bears mentioning that at the start of this project, just prior The owner engaging me, there was an existing detached garage here that was torn down because it was at the end of its life. That's why this is being proposed as a new structure Mr. Ambassador, if you scroll to the A drawings. Thank you. There's no change to the existing building so we'll be constructing a 22 by 26 rear garage Oversized two-car garage, the curb cut will remain as it is.

Largely violations of preexisting nonconformances including front yard side yard rear yard and FAR, which we are worsening the FAR from 0.77 to a 0.99. Next slide please. This is the proposed floor plan. As you can see, we would have a two-car garage at grade. The common curb cover will remain where it is. There'll be a stairwell accessed off of Garage that leads to a common mechanical space with the sprinkler room below. Next slide, please. And then the unit itself is a... 811 square foot, two bedroom unit. It's pretty traditional above garage unit and then you can see our roof plan on the left here. Next slide please. There's the new garage roof to the rear.

You can see a relationship with the attachment, maintaining existing lines. Next slide please. and then this is the building in elevation. This is a building along Garner Road which is the side elevations, the right side when facing the building you can see the relationship of the building to the existing structure here The new garage doors, next slide. This is the opposite side rear elevations and with that we'll answer any questions. Thank you are there questions from the board?

Madam Chair, I have a question. So I see the elevation with the garage doors but I think on the survey I reviewed I didn't see how that access would work I think it's on the landscaping survey, but not the official plot plan. Could you take us through the access to this unit?

To the parking or pedestrian?

Parking.

The curb cut doesn't change if you go to the, you can go to proposed survey or the existing there's an existing curb cut there as there was a Previously a garage there, so we're able to maintain the existing curb cuts. Mr. Ambassador if you could go to the survey? So you can see the existing curb cuts here, which exist and will remain. And that's the vehicular access to the driveway there.

OK, thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions from the board?

Yeah, I was able to read the Boston Planning Department's recommendation and I find the proposal very modest. They do set it back a little bit In regards to the massing, the height seems to be within the zoning below 35. I really don't see any issue. Thank you.

Yeah, I saw that comment as well, Hanson. Thank you. We're happy to work with the BPD on the design comments. I think we can satisfy their concerns.

With that let's take public testimony. Hello, Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is Eva Jones. I'm representing the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services. We're running 472 Ashpond Street, our office differs to the Board's judgment. A community process was conducted, including an abutters meeting held on 4-16-26 that was lightly attended by Dorchester community members. The proposal was not requested to meet with the Civic Association. At this time, there is Office of Neighborhood Services This defers to the board's judgment on this matter. Thank you everyone for your time and consideration.

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

Madam chair we'll have additional comments.

That may have a motion?

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

Mr. Stembridge? Yeah. Mr Langham? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes Ms. Whewell? Yes Chair votes yes, the motion carries Thank you for your time

Next case has been deferred, so that will take us to Case BOA-1817575 with the address of 86 Brown Ave. If the applicant and or they represent a person, would they please reply? Yes.

Yes. Hmm.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is Leslie Cheney and this is my husband Jim I have owned and lived at 86 Brown Avenue for 42 years. This is where we raised my daughter, where we've been active members of the neighborhood and intend to remain part of the community. For nearly 40 years, the first floor apartment of our existing two-family home was occupied by Teddy Corsilius, a fixture in the neighborhood whose Dedication to maintaining the public pathway beside our property was recognized by the city and thus is now named the Teddy Corsilius Path. We postponed any major renovation because we did not want to displace him and he passed away at age 95.

And now we have the opportunity to renovate what has become a very outdated building. This is our home, it's not an investment project by an outside developer. And we have approached this proposal with the goal of improving our property in a way that is financially feasible and respects the surrounding neighborhood. The street view photo shows the existing house and the large left side yard. Our proposal preserves, and completely renovates our existing two-family structure Well, with an addition on the left side that creates two additional family-sized residential units. And we do this by utilizing the existing 36 foot side yard on the Left

As shown on the plans and renderings, the design preserves the residential appearance of the existing home through traditional roof lines and architectural Thank you, Mr. Chair. and the two upper units would each be two level and have three bedrooms. One important characteristic of our lot is that it is unusually large and wide. Although we are in a 2F5000 zoning district, The immediate area consists primarily of one, two and three family homes on significantly smaller and narrower lots. We are proposing approximately 2,360 square feet of land area per unit while some by nearby near

by three family properties on Brown have at less than 1,650 square feet of lot per unit and narrower than the required side yard setbacks. In effect, our proposal functions much like two attached two-family buildings on a single oversized parcel. while remaining code compliant side and rear yards. The proposed addition complies with all setback requirements, and the cited near yard violation only relates to a portion of the existing building that was constructed well over 60 years ago and is an existing non-conforming setback. The design also preserves significant open green space. The proposed off-street parking is located beneath the building

So the side and rear yards remain landscaped and open rather than being converted to surface parking. We recognize that despite our careful design efforts, zoning relief is still required. And that is why we're here today seeking the board's approval We respectfully submit that our proposed four-family use is reasonable, compatible with the unit density per lot area of nearby uses and that the proposed open space approximately 1,500 square feet per unit were $1,750 Square Feet is required and the proposed FAR of 0.68 are not out-of-character for the immediate neighborhood while also providing much needed housing in close proximity to Roslindale Square.

We respectfully ask the board to grant the requested relief and would be happy to answer questions or respond to any comments. Thank you. Thank You.

Are there any questions from the board?

Madam Chair and members of the board for the record, my name is Jeremy Benbury. I'm the Roslindale Community Kitchen Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services The applicant has completed the community process which consisted of an abundance meeting facilitated on April 13th, where abundance feedback reflected both support and opposition's proposal. A board has voiced concerns that the proposal did not demonstrate a unique hardship warranting the request of zoning relief and that the neighborhood is currently being overdeveloped, creating more congestion. A concern for parking was voiced, feeling that a nearby school already places significant demand on street parking and that the proposal would further increase the existing parking issue. A supporter acknowledged the inconvenience with the existing parking challenges associated with the nearby school, but felt that those conditions should not actively impact the outcome of the proposal. An inquiry was also made for the future of a large beach tree on the property. Next, the proponent presented to Prospect Hill Neighborhood Association and completed their community process.

To date, our office has received letters of opposition restating the concerns for parking safety density and maintaining the zoning code as well as one letter of support all sent to the board for review. Thank you for your time and at this time the members of the Office of Independent Services would like to defer to the board for their judgment.

Thank you. Next we have Tia confirming

Thank you very much. Hi, my name is Thea and I'm a direct abutter to 86 Brown Avenue. 86 Brown avenue was the fourth house in from Cummins Highway directly across from the Edward Brooks School. It's an extremely congested area, It's not just the school that causes the congestion, but Brown Avenue is from Hyde Park all the way through become a A path of convenience for people who are avoiding Cummins Highway and the Square. That increase in traffic has caused traffic to further spill into the very tight neighborhood we have with narrow streets, parking on both sides so that it's It's difficult to travel without sometimes having to stop, back up, let a car through, people drive up on sidewalks.

So it ripples through is what I'm trying to say. I have a deep concern about the traffic. I also have a big concern about safety of maneuvering with school children going in and out, and also the pedestrian pathway It is, I live on Johnswood Road. It's above the staircase on that public pathway comes up parents park in front of my house to wait for their children particularly if it's off hours and I'm done. Thank you.

Next we have Seth Roberts

Sorry, my camera doesn't work. Good morning Madam Chair and all board members. We are direct abutters to 86 Brown Ave. This is not just an interior renovation. The applicant is seeking to add a very large addition to this historic quality building more than doubling in size from 2,856 square feet now to a proposed 6,386 square feet. Not even including the proposed rear decks off the first floor. This is not a simple accessory dwelling unit request. We have spoken directly with the majority of the abutters and neighbors, and the overwhelming opinion is that the project is too large and out-of-character with the neighborhood. This holds true for the majority of the abutters within the 300 foot radius as certified in the petition we presented to you.

We have spoken to many members of the Prospect Hill Neighborhood Association and while their policy is not to be pro or con, many members agree with this concern as well as the precedent-setting nature of this request that it will irreparably cause a reversible damage to open space in our neighborhood. The applicant has refused to consider decreasing this proposed size of the addition Numerous abutters have sent in and registered their objection with ZBA and Office of Neighborhood Services. This is not a double lot. The proposed building is too large and out of character with the neighborhood. There was no unique hardship to grant five variances, including forbidden use, excessive FAR insufficient setbacks, insufficient open space.

Thank you are there any other raised hands?

Madam Chair we don't have additional

Thank you. Can I ask the applicant to address those concerns?

Sure. Well, as most people know Seth and Thea are the house immediately behind us so I would want to say that in response to that, while this area does contain one, two and three family houses In our area, our lot is substantially larger than the surrounding lots. Looking at this in relation to density, There are existing multi-family homes on much smaller lots. Our proposal is designed so the amount of land devoted to each dwelling unit is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood

This functions basically as two family houses, like we were saying, combined together in a common unit on an oversized lot of 9,440 feet. This is not materially different than the three family homes that are down the street from us. There's a couple of three-family homes Next to each other, there are lots of less than 5,000 square feet. So that's two three-family homes on less than 10,000 sq ft As far as the hardships and so forth, I'm just going to defer on that one. That's basically what I have to say as far as the density in the neighborhood.

I believe that the amount of quality housing that would be created is in keeping with the neighborhood Thank you.

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

Madam Chair, I'm going to put forward a motion of approval. Going from an FAR of 0.5 to 0.68 is not a large kind Dents Project. It seems pretty reasonable and I do agree that majority of the lots nearby are much smaller, I think is a reasonable request therefore I'm approving it.

May I have a second?

Sir.

Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr Langham? No. Miss Better Barraza? Yes, Miss Turner? Yes, Ms. Buell?

I'm voting yes. I think it's an additional two units above the existing conditions The parking's accommodated on site. I didn't know any parking relief requested for this project and it is one of the larger lots neighborhood, and I also share Ms. Better Barraza's observation that it's sort of a gentle increase in massing, so yes. Chair votes yes and motion carries, good luck.

Thank you for your time.

Madam Chair, two things before we leave the 9 30 a.m hearing um we did not state A deferral date for one of the cases, which is case BOA-182-0617. with the address of 722 East 8th Street. The deferral date that was given is September 8th, Thank you. And then along with that, will return to and ask if there is any response for case BOA 1825854.

with the address of 57 Mount Vernon Street. No one applied before, so we'll ask again if anyone is present to present this case?

Yeah, I think the applicant is supposed to be here. Eva sent me a message saying that the person was- Was able to get in contact with the applicant Madam Chair but I'm not sure if he was able to sign on.

Okay, what is his name?

Cliff Stinson.

Do you see?

I do not.

I don't see it.

Okay, well we need to make a motion to defer in that case. Do I hear a motion?

Motion to defer.

We can do September, sorry. Do you want to give the dates Caroline? Yes please. I'm sorry for interrupting. September 22nd, October 6th. Well they're not here so pick a date.

You'll probably have to renegotiate it with them later.

Okay, let's do September 22nd.

You are loading us up with that so I hope you don't add any more. We had a motion and a second. So Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr. Langham? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza? Yes, Ms. Turner? Yes Ms. Whewell? Yes Chair votes yes motion carries

and with that we'll move on to the hearing scheduled for 11 a.m uh first we will remind folks that we are a six-member board today And then we will ask if there are any requestful withdrawals or deferrals from the 11 AM hearing. Hearing none, We'll begin with case BOA-1860541, with the address of 118 License Street. If the applicant and or their representative are present, would they please explain the case to the board?

Yes. Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Stembridge. Good Morning Madam Chair, members of the Board. Richard Lins Business Advisor 245 Sumner Street East Boston on behalf of the petitioner Mr. Lucas Dunn, this is a relatively straightforward proposal that involves the renovation of an existing single family home in the Eagle Hill section of East Boston Cited only for roof structure restrictions, which requires a conditional use permit anytime there is a modification to the existing roof line of existing residential buildings. Because this proposal involves the modification with the addition of dormers, this was cited appropriately for roof structure restrictions. The renovations in the proposed addition are all in compliance with Article 53. There is no zoning relief by way of variance that is necessary for this project Probably the easiest place to start is slide, I believe 10.

Maybe go back a few slides, I apologize. I had sent it back in so I'm not sure if that's not available to the board. Here we go. Next slide please. If you can go back to the site plan. I have my numbers different because of the deck that I had sent in, so if we could just... There we go. So existing site plan, Madam Chair, members of the board shows the existing footprint of the building. We have Existing nonconformities on the right side of the building. The building sits very close to the right property line, Under the provisions of Article 53, you can expand existing nonconformities vertically. You could also extend them horizontally as long as they don't create any new violations If you jump to the next slide with a proposed site plan as well. Maybe it's a few slides down again, I apologize that I sent this slide back in.

Numbers are a little bit different. Here we go, perfect. Slide 11 has the proposed site plan. Jump back maybe one slide? Yeah, here we go. So you can see there's a proposed change in the footprint of the forward portion of the building which allows for the expansion of livable area. This is occupied as a primary residence by Mr. Dunham and his family. But the extension of the footprint of the building does not violate any of the setback or rear setback requirements, siloed rear set back requirements. Again, it's permitted to be extended under the provisions of Article 53. Go to the next slide please. Showing the existing condition for a plan. Next slide. and the proposed condition with the modifications that are represented by the addition that's being proposed mostly to the left side of the building. Next slide, please.

Again, existing floor plans, next slide. and Propose, next slide. So we have the existing conditions here for the elevations all sides. If you go to the next slide Show the modifications, and again this is all completely as of right. The only relief that would be necessary is the conditional use permit for structural restrictions Something that is commonly an issue with any renovation of existing buildings in the East Boston neighborhood because of the provisions requiring relief for the conditional use permit. With that, I'm happy to address any comments or questions from the board.

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 Evan Jones representing the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services. Regarding 118 Lexington Street our office differs to the Board's judgment A community process was conducted including the distribution of a subcommittee flyer. During the community comment period, I did not receive any feedback from local abutters. The Eagle Hill Civic Association reviewed the proposal and voted to support with a total of 10 yes and 3 no. At this time, the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services differs to the board's judgment on this matter. Thank you everyone for your time and consideration.

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

Unmute? Yes. Thank you. Mr Langham? Yes. Better Barraza? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes Ms. Whewell? Yes Chair votes yes, the motion carries, good luck Thank you very much

Next, we have case BOA 1865030 with the address of 34 Vinson Street. If the applicant and or their representative are present Would they please explain?

Good morning, Madam Chair. My name is Gavin Driscoll. Business has 26 Quarry Lane Milton Mass. This is a renovation of an existing two-family home. Its owner occupied the Ackland actually renovated the first floor in 2014 and their family's getting bigger so they're going to be renovating the second and third floor. It's just an extension of an existing dormer on that right side. We do have one violation of FAR. I'm increasing it about 70 square feet, but just because of the way that the dorm works and makes that second floor a lot more workable. If you go to the next slide. This is just the proposed site plan showing the proposed dormer on the right side. And then there's the existing site plan If you can just zoom in, there's gonna be no work on the basement first floor besides structural work.

and then you can zoom in to the upper floor where we're going to renovate the second floor to pretty much match what they did on the first floor originally, and then just extend that dormer on the right side. To add that additional square footage on that upper level. If you just go to the next slide, it will show the elevations That's just a section to the building and then the roof plan. And then, the next slide will show the upper left-hand corner is a dormer that will be extended on the right side there. Upper right hand corner is the left side where there'll be no work Bottom left hand corner shows the new dormer and then on the, my mistake there's two front elevations here for some reason but it's just a flip mirror of the same plan from the rear. And if there's any questions, I can take some questions. Thank you.

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

Madam Chair and members of the board for the record my name is Jeremy Benbury. I'm the Dorchester Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services The applicant has completed the community process, which consisted of an abutters meeting facilitated on June 3rd with one guest. No issues or concerns were raised. Following the abutter's meeting, no further community process was required and there was none that was allowed to move forward. Thank you for your time, and the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services would like to defer to the Board for their judgment.

Thank you. Madam Chair, we now have additional comments.

Thank You. With that, may I have a motion? Motion to approve. Is there a second?

Second.

Mr Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr Langham? Yes Mr Barraza? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Mrs. Whewell? Yes Chair votes yes, the motion carries. Good luck.

Thank you so much

Next, we have case VOA 1838409 with the address of 27 to 29 Ballard Street. If the applicant and or their representative are present, would they please explain to the board

Eric, you can unmute yourself now. Hi, good morning.

Can you hear me okay? Yes.

Yes, we can.

Oh hi. I have not submitted in advance any slides. I failed to appreciate that this is the case for this hearing. I do have slides that I've shown to the JEP Zoning Board, which I can share with you if you prefer.

So we don't share screens so what you submitted is what we have and what you should present from.

All right All right, my name is Eric Cantor-Vunidis. My wife and I are the owners of this two family place in Jamaica Plain and we have proposed to add a dormer on the left-hand side as you face the building. So what you see here at the front is the front of the building, at the dormer, at the third floor and turn the third into living space as well as then the basement into living space. So this is a two-family that remains a two family but the but the attic, now with a dormer is going to be part of the unit number two. We have the second floor as the main floor and then unit number one it's gonna made up of floor number one

The existing one and the part of the basement that's going to be made part of that unique one. The building department identified two issues with our proposal. One has to do with the FAR, we go beyond .6 FAR for the neighborhood and the second thing that was identified with the side yard was as insufficient a side yard to the left is when added with the the sideyard on the right does not meet the 17 feet requirement. We have very little, we have two and a little bit over two feet of side yard on the right so as you what you project right now to the right Added to what is existing to the left adds up to about 15, with I believe the limit being 17.

And of course, thank you for bringing this up. You can see the donor to the upper left of the building and as part of the second unit that's now going to incorporate Theati. I think that's all of the top of my head, unless you want me to address any specific questions or anything. Thank you.

Are there questions from the board? Hearing none, I approve the testimony.

Madam Chair and members of the board for the record my name is Jeremy Benbury. I am the Jamaica Plain Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services The applicant has completed the committee process which consisted of an abutters meeting facilitated on May 18th with no opposition voiced. Abutter's inquiries were addressed during the meeting. Next, a proposal was presented to Jamaica Plain Neighborhood Council where they received a vote of approval. To date, our office has received one letter of opposition concerned for the loss of sunlight from the domus if constructed and one letter approval from the Jamaica Plain Neighborhood Council requesting the board's approval for the proposal. Thank you for your time and the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services would like to defer to the Board for their judgment.

Thank you. Madam Chair, may I have an additional comment?

With that, may i have a motion? Motion to approve. Is there a second?

Second.

Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr Langham? Yes Ms. Better Barraza? Yes Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Whewell? Yes Chair votes yes, the motion carries good luck thank you very much have a good day okay and uh with that we'll take A break till the 1130 hearings.

Recording in progress. Mr. Stembridge.

Present, Madam Chair. Thank you. Mr. Langham? Present. Ms. Better Barraza? Present! Ms. Turner? Present Ms. Whewell? Present Thank you for yours Mr. Stembridge and a reminder that we are a six-member board today

and along with that we will ask if there are any requests for withdrawals or deferrals from the 11 30 a.m here?

Yes, good morning Madam Chair and members of the board. I'd like to request a deferral for two of the cases. The first one being BOA case 1810... Tell us the address and Mr. Stembridge will read it into the record. Sure thing. One Hopkins, please. The first one.

So this request is for two cases the first being case of BOA 1810051 with the address of 1 Hopkins Place. And along with that, the request is for case BOA 1810052 with the Address of 2 Hopkins Place Would you go ahead and explain?

Thank you. Good morning Madam Chair and members of board my name is Mark Sullivan with Chew & Company Architects business address 1 Billings Road in Quincy we would like to request an administrative deferral for BOA Case 181005. 1, which is one Hopkins Place and 1810052, which has two Hopkins Place. There was a clarification issue on the case being grouped together, the two projects Even though they are two separate owners and two separate projects, so we would just request the time to clarify this to the public and also administratively resolve the issue between the ownership.

Okay and just a reminder the board had some other questions that I don't remember off the top of my head but they were important ones that we needed addressed as well so

Yes, Madam Chair. I believe they were tied into the two projects being considered together and the affordability aspect of it.

There was another question. I just don't remember it right now, but... Yeah, Madam Chair, it's Jeff. Thank you, Jeff.

Please weigh in. Thank You, Madam Chairman, members of the Board, Jeff Hampton, City of Austin Planning Department One of the issues that had come up was because it was same representation, same architect, same time that these were could be considered for inclusionary zoning because its total of nine units. rather than two separate and with the threshold being seven units. There was concern, and I had let their counsel know about this concern and MOH was actually going to reach out to the council because there may be an issue If IZ does apply because the city may have owned one of these properties at the time and if that were the case then i think inclusionary zoning or may definitely apply to one of or some sort of affordability.

I know that MOH was going to have a discussion yesterday about this and hopefully get in touch with the proponent, I'm not sure if that happened. We'll support the deferral But there were Article 79 questions that needed to be addressed before this moved forward.

Thank you, what dates are we looking at?

We can do September 22nd or October 6th.

Does that give sufficient time to resolve these matters, Mr. Sullivan?

Yeah I think the September one will be sufficient.

Okay with that may have a motion.

Motion to defer September the 22nd.

May I have a second? Sure. Mr. Stembridge. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Langham? Yes. Miss Better Barraza? Yes Miss Turner? Yes Ms Wewell? Yes Chair votes yes, the motion carries.

Thank you. With no further request for a withdrawal or deferral We'll go to the first case for the hearing schedule at 11.30 a.m., which is Case BOA-181-1706, with the address of 360 Cunston Street. The applicants or their representatives present, please explain.

Yes we're present.

Please feel free to proceed. Are you presenting or is someone?

Yes, my name is Conan Lee I'm the property owner and I am presenting So thank you, everybody. Good morning. This petition is to allow the construction of a rear deck which is allowed but the deck extends slightly into The setback for the property. The set back from between the rear yard and the deck should be six foot four inches basically based on, you know, the one third rule. And we are requesting to build the deck Two feet five inches into that space, allowing still a four-foot setback. And the reason is because we need a 15-foot deck for the purposes of, yeah as you can see, the egress, the second means of egress and the stairway.

You know, we would like to just request that additional space into the setback area. We feel that it still allows sufficient setback and also, the deck is not visible from any of the streets There are no trees in the backyard. We feel that it is a safe request. I guess I'll stop there and see if there any questions.

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

Hello, Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is Eva Jones representing the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services. Regarding 360 Princeton Street our office refers to the Board's judgment. A community process was conducted including an abutters meeting held on 2-17-26 that was not attended by any East Boston community members. The proposal was also reviewed by the Eagle Hill Civic Association at their meeting on 2-25-26, and the association expressed support and has voted eight yes and zero no's regarding the proposal. At this time, the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services differs to the board's judgment on this matter. Thank you everyone for your time and consideration.

Thank You. Madam Chair we'll have additional comments.

Okay may I have a motion? Madam Chair, I'd like to put forward a motion of approval with a proviso that the project undergoes BPD design review to allow them to review the size of the deck to increase open space. Is there a second?

Second.

Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr Langham? Yes Ms. Better Barraza? Yes Miss Turner? Yes Ms. Whewell? Yes. Chair votes yes, the motion carries. Good luck.

Thank you. Next we have key DOA 184 4018 with the address of 729 Murray Court. If the applicant and or their representative are present, would they please explain to the board?

Yes, good morning again. Mrs. Stembridge, Madam Chair, members of the board. Richard Lenz, business address 245 Summer Street East Boston. On behalf of Brad Greenberg, who is the petitioner in this matter, if we could jump down to slide four, the slide deck that I provided. Just by way of a very brief background, Madam Chair and members of the board. This is... I'll make sure we have the right slide back here. Hold on. This doesn't again... Here we go. Perfect. Great. Perfect, good place to start. So Madam Chair, members of the board, this is a pre-existing nonconforming structure, pre-existing three family nonconformity structure although the use is conforming. The structure currently sits on a lot The existing height of the building is also nonconforming as it sits

The proposal here is to change use and occupancy from three to four units, to essentially square off the existing pitched roof to allow for that fourth unit. and all other changes that are being proposed are all internal. There is also a proposed roof deck, and this particular proposal does not really change anything with respect to the weir There are no new decks that are on the building except for the addition of a new deck where you have the additional living space on the upper level. The proposal that's before the board went before the community. There was strong support for the alteration based in large part upon the existing context of the surrounding neighborhood. If we can go to the next slide, please? As we can see here, it's a relatively dense area of Jeffries Point but is surrounded by a number of buildings that do sit around four and some five-story buildings in the immediate vicinity.

I do note that the zoning for this area allows up to three stories, 35 feet. As I mentioned, this already exceeds the height limit and the proposed increase would result in an increased total overall increase of about two feet from its existing height to the proposed height and mainly involves squaring off that upper level. Next slide, please. Just a different view here. This is a pretty good place to stop as well, as you can see the buildings in the lower portion of the photo actually sit close to five stories. There's a four-story building directly behind my report at the corner of Orleans and Webster, and numerous four- and five-story buildings along that part of Webster Street. And as I mentioned, Jeffrey's point is Relatively sensitive to heights in the neighborhood, but did review this proposal and my understanding is that there was strong support for the proposal based in large part upon the existing context of the surrounding neighborhood. Next slide please

I'm gonna go one more slide, a good place to stop. So this is Murray Court. Our building is located on the right-hand side as part of that series of row houses that exist For some time on that side of Marty Court, just by way of comparison you do have directly across the street at Marty Court a four-story building that was relatively recently approved and built Something that hadn't existed when the original Murrayport building at 7-9 was built. Again, to give the board a little bit of an idea of the surrounding context, four stories is not something that is unusual for this particular neighborhood. If we can jump down to slide 10, please. So this shows the existing footprint of the building, as well as the rear decks that exist. And as you can see it's a relatively small site. The building occupies pretty much lot line to lot line

and we do have a relatively shallow rear yard with the existing decks that are used for egress. Next slide, please. Existing conditions, we don't need to go here. We can probably jump down a slide. 20 please? So just showing the proposed changes that are involved with the upper level. This is the existing, what I call the attic level and you'll see that in the elevations at a moment A two-bedroom unit to be located in that area with access to the roof deck off of the rear decks. Can we jump down to slide 21, please? So we do see the modified elevations here that involve an upper level. And again, you do have the rear decks that are already pre-existing on levels one through three. We would extend that deck up to level four

There is a parapet that is included and I'm sure the board's aware, parapets don't count towards the height. The roof deck would sit below that parapet so it would be somewhat hidden from the surrounding We would be accessing that from the rear deck as you can see here in this elevation. If we jump back to slide 15, just for comparison purposes I wanted to show the board The existing conditions. As you can see, we do have that pitched roof condition. And as I mentioned, it's at about 39 feet to the top. That would essentially be the area that we squared off and with an additional two feet of height to allow for that livable space above that third level. If we go down to, I believe back to slide 21 or 22. Yeah, perfect. Yep, perfect. So just showing the rear elevation again that rear deck and that addition area is shown here towards the top of the page and the violations are as follows Madam Chair

We do have a height which currently is nonconforming, so the existing nonconformity increased slightly up two feet. We do have a number of stories. Again, pre-existing condition is a little bit above three stories now. We would be going to a full fourth story. We are cited for side yard and rear yard where normally under the amended provisions of Article 53, vertical additions on non-conforming buildings are permitted as long as they do not exceed Any of the existing zoning regulations that are in effect or the existing nonconformities. In this case, because we would be two feet above the existing condition, we would require relief for those side and rear setbacks. Hope you can jump down. I think that might close the last slide. The last is use, so to change the occupancy from three units to four units We do require relief for use. I would point out in the EBR 3 district, this is a little bit of a nuanced use Optus 6 units is not forbidden.

It is actually allowed in the VR3 district. The controlling trigger is the lot width, Any lot that is larger than 50 feet is eligible to go up six units. Again, I don't really understand the rationale behind that issue but in this particular case I just do want to point out The uses are permitted, provided that you have a lot with. The building directly across the street just by way of example is a four-unit building. There are numerous multifamily buildings in the immediate context and Cincinnati. So again, this is not a use that would be completely out of character for this section of Jeffrey's Point specifically. I will pause there and ask if any questions from the board to address. Thank you.

Questions from the Board?

Would the roof access be accessible to all the units or just to the fourth floor?

Good question, Ms. Barraza. This is a condominium building so this would remain exclusive to the upper level unit only? Although there would be access because we do incorporate this as egress, it would be exclusive to Unit 4 only.

And would you be open to modifying, I think it's the home office, to have more of an internal stair? To be able to have like a bulkhead or a hatch to access the roof deck within that unit?

If we can jump back to the floor plan, I believe that's at slide 20. 11. Oh. Yeah, I think that's what it proposed, yeah. So you see the home office here just below the bathroom? As you can see, Ms. Better Barraza, this is a relatively small unit. We do want to make this a livable unit. I think Mr. Greenberg has proposed and actually moved his unit out to live in this unit here. you know to the extent that we could make it work I'm sure this is a workable solution but i do understand the board's concern about accessing roof decks from common stairwells in the rear exactly just from a safety and also from a noise

What if you keep noise internally?

The width of that whole office is only about five feet, just the way the stairwell works. That was one thing we kind of looked at early on was like, was there a way to get it internally? Right, you have a round-around stair. Yeah but it's pretty tight there. One thing that I'm sure we would do to make that so that it is exclusive is there wouldn't be some form of gate or Something that would be locked, that wouldn't have access to Unit 4 itself. Somebody from Unit 3 or anybody else couldn't get up to that roof deck so I'm sure there was definitely a way we could You know, section that off so that would remain exclusive to uniform only.

Okay and then Have you had a chance to review the Boston Planning Department recommendation?

I have, Ms. Barraza. I do understand and certainly respect the planning department's position

Yeah, I just wanted to make sure that you did see it and that they...

and Wade out against what type of support and opposition there is. And as I've done in the past where there's strong opposition and a negative recommendation for planning, I think Mr. Greenberg, you know, living in the area and having, you Understanding that this was not an impact they felt was, you know, unreasonable based upon the existing conditions that are there today.

Right and I mean, I just wanted to point out to my colleagues that the new zoning is EBR 3 but as you already mentioned the building on Orleans Street right in a corner Thank you for joining us. I don't have any further... Questions? Thank you.

With that, may I have public testimony?

Hello Madam Chair and members of the Board. My name is Abbott Jones representing the Mayor's Office of New Road Services. Regarding 7-9 Murray Court our office differs to the board's judgment A community process was conducted including an abutters meeting held on 2-2426 that was well attended by East Boston community members. The feedback from this meeting was overwhelmingly positive support from neighbors who were happy to see the proposal align with the neighborhood character and to support their neighbor. The proposal is also reviewed by the Jefferies Point Neighborhood Association at their meeting and they expressed support, and has voted eight in favor and one in opposition. 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.

Madam Chair, there are no additional comments.

Well that may have a motion. Madam chair I'm going to put forward a motion of approval with a proviso that the project undergoes BPD design review, paying special attention to the access to the roof and to determine the size and location of the roof deck. and to explore whether an internal stairwell makes sense. The reason for supporting this request is because you have two buildings that are already in the EBR 3 district That is much larger than what's being proposed and the request I would find very minutia in regards to that exceeding two feet of height.

Is there a second?

Second.

Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr Langham?

Yes Ms.

Better Barraza? Yes Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Whewell? Yes Chair votes yes, the motion carries. Good luck. Thank you very much.

Thank You Next we have case B08 1846713 with the address of 1-1H Washington Place if the applicant and or their representative are present. Would that include this point?

Yes, thank you Mr. Stembridge. Madam Chair, members of the board, Attorney Ryan Spitz with Adams & Maranci Business Address 168 8th Street 1st Floor, South Boston Joining me today is the applicant Richard Sokolow and project architect Tim Sheehan. This is a proposal to confirm the occupancy as a single family, preserving the existing single-family structure and changing the occupancy to three attached single-family townhomes, each with a private roof deck and outdoor patios. This is a unique true lot with dual frontage on Washington Street and Rutherford Avenue. The neighboring residence at 104 Rutherford Avenue shares a zero-lot line condition with the subject parcel. Site falls within a 3F2000 sub-district. Each townhome will consist of a kitchen, dining room and living room on the first floor. Basement will be mechanicals and a family room with three bedrooms located on the second and third floors. Mr.

Ambassador, Madam Ambassador if I could just ask you to kind of scroll through the deck as I speak that would be great please thank you all three residences will be equipped with a fully automatic sprinkler system Further, the fire department has reviewed this proposal and is okay with it as long as it is sprinkled. We have violations, we have three violations. One being the lot frontage. The sub-district requires a minimum of 20 feet of frontage, the lot has 14.47 feet along Washington Street and 19.5 feet along Rutherford Avenue. This is a unique true log condition when compared to the standard surrounding parcels, in that the existing 14.47 feet of frontage is adequate to provide functional driveway access to the lot from Washington Street. Next, we have a usable open space violation. We believe we were cited in error. The requirement is 350 square feet per dwelling unit and the proposal does provide 378 square feet of open space

Per Unit derived from the roof decks as well as the patio areas. Lastly, the proposal calls for a conditional use permit for the roof structure restriction as we are providing roof deck structures. All three roof decks are designed with adequate screening and buffering from their respective roof edges, and sit at an appropriate height so as not to impact any of the surrounding properties. In concluding, the proposal is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood context and its overall approval in this site as well as consistent with The Planning Department's recommendation of approval. So Madam Chair I'm going to pass it over to you for any questions or comments from the board Thank you.

Are there any questions from the board? May I have public testimony?

Madam Chair and members, Siggy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This petitioner completed the community process. Our office hosted a well-attended debaters meeting on May 21st and a Butter had concerns about the setback, although the applicant indicated the set back was compliant with zoning. Another at Butter had concern about the project being subjected to demolition delay which they felt It should have been a handful of other abutters spoke positively about the design. Our office has received one letter of opposition that has been forwarded to the board with that background ONS defers judgment to the Board, thank you

And so we have Ronan Cabir.

Good morning Madam Chair, members of the board. Ronan Carey at Daugherty Law Firm 50 Franklin Street Boston I represent the two direct butters at 39 Washington Street Charlestown uh my clients would like to go on the record of opposition of this project for A few main reasons. The first being that the applicant is not accurately represented, that they will be demolishing approximately 48% of the existing structure and was not provided a demolition plan until questioned but whether this should be subject to demo delay or not. Second, the project is too dense for this parcel. The lack of meaningful open space demonstrates that three units are being forced onto a lot that's more appropriately suited for two Third, the proposed front-facing windows and roof decks of the project will create a direct line of sight into the rear yards and rear window of the neighboring homes particularly 39 Washington Street resulting in significant privacy impacts.

Finally, the applicant has provided no turning radius or vehicle maneuvering studies demonstrating that Washington Place can safely accommodate construction vehicles and provide adequate fire emergency access to these rare units. For these reasons, we respectfully request that the board deny their requested relief. Alternatively, if the board is inclined to approve the project, we ask that they impose provisos requiring that the applicants submit a complete demolition plan and obtain a demolition permit, then provide vehicle maneuvering and turning radius studies demonstrating adequate site emergency access before any final approvals are issued. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Any other? Yes, we have Chris Tesoros.

Yes, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Chris Tsouris. I was dressed as one federal street in Boston. I represent the owner of the property 104 Rutherford Ave in Charlestown and direct abutter of this property. First and foremost, I want to agree with everything that Attorney Carrier just said in terms of the deficiencies and why the Board should be turning this down. We clearly are in opposition to this as well. And there are three reasons that I think the Board needs to consider. The issue of Article 85 is not an issue that should be taken lightly. It would be bad public policy For this board to go ahead and adopt zoning relief when the whole question of whether or not the property can even be demolished is one under the jurisdiction of landmarks, not this board. So by not having gone to landmarks first, by not even I believe having filed a proper demolition plan before ISD so it could consider it at the time that it issued its turndown letter

The whole thing is deficient from the beginning and it runs roughshod over the policy and the demarcations between what Landmarks is qualified to do and what this board should be doing. The property is 190 years old. Landmarks has the expertise to make the determinations as to what the impacts are going to be That's number one. Number two, the issue of frontage is incredibly contorted. We've submitted an opposition dated July 13th. There's an exhibit C to that which is the applicant's own assessment of frontages It's interesting that they characterized it as unique through lot conditions. There isn't such thing as through lot conditions under the zoning code. We'd ask to consider that and look at the definition of lot frontage under Article 2, as well, and deny. Thank you.

Madam Chair, if I could just briefly respond to a few things. So a couple of things. One thing that the Mayor's Office Enablement Service forgot to mention which I'm sure you do have on file we do have Seven letters in support from some of the director butters as well as some of neighbors in here as well. So I do want the record to reflect that we do have support on this proposal. Furthermore, I know there was concerns surrounding the fire department. Again, fire department has reviewed this proposal and it's okay as long as the buildings are being fully sprinkled in that is being done on this proposal. and again to move on I do have attorney Richie Lins if there's any further questions regarding the landmarks that was brought up in demolition. One thing that I do want it worth mentioning is that Article 85 review is not required for this project. The applicable trigger here would be removal of more than 50% of the structure here. and we are removing less than 50%. So over 50% of that structure will be preserved.

And this is an ALT permit, so therefore article 85 does not apply in the situation But again, to some of the landmarks questions I have attorney Richie Lins here who can work together with this applicant and rebuttal to those questions that we had surrounding Article 85. If the board does have any further questions pertaining to the landmarks in Article 85, Attorney Lins is here to answer those.

Thank you. Any other questions from the board?

Yes, if you can please tell me what is the FAR that's required and was being proposed?

Sure. Tim Sheehan are you here with us too? I am. Great. On your drawings there, could you just tell us specifically what page the zoning chart was on?

Oh, it's on A. My drawing is on A1.

So the applicable FAR I do know here is a 2.0. Tim, do you know exactly?

It's right in front of me. FAR 2.O zone max we can go with 85-86. Existing, that house there now is 2240 gross. We're going 6693 so we're under.

Okay he just sorry can you just repeat again what's the ex what's to require FAR?

2.0, 2.00.

And what's proposed?

I have square footage but it's about 1.7.

Okay and the existing that you have right now is a 0.63.

Sorry, I had to go through those numbers.

Yeah and then we heard from one of your abutters. I didn't quite catch where that abutter lived can you Was it on the record? Maybe I'm asking the secretary. We had one of Butter, I just would like to know which one was his property.

If you can see the site plan, basically when you come into our property on sort of the dog leg I guess I'd call it. It's the house right there. You know if you have Google Earth, it's a blue house. I think it's 37? and there's two houses that have bought us that are on Washington Street itself. One is blue, it's...

So right now on your site plan you have 104 Rutherford Are they in support or an opposition?

No, they're in opposition.

Okay and then what about 39 Washington Street right behind your property are they in Support or Opposition?

We did get one letter from, I believe 39 the Hobes mostly about the tree and drainage. So sort of post zoning stuff that we would deal with they were worried about drainage Right, you have two offenders. One is 39 Washington Street.

I would like to clarify that 39 is in opposition to this. That would be Edward Dougherty and Regina Quinlan Doughery. Sorry, yes. We are in opposition.

Okay, and then 37 Washington Street? Is that the same? It seems like there's two lots to have that house, so they're probably the same owners. Okay, those are the buildings that are most impacted. So I just wanted to get clarity in terms of who was in support and who was out in opposition. Thank you. No further questions.

So Ms. Better Barraza, if I could just add, so just to kind of highlight which the board does have it, so 33 wrote a letter of support, 35 wrote a

Thank you. Are there any other questions from the board or comment? May I have a motion? I'm sorry, yeah. Were you trying to speak up for anyone else?

Yes, I just want to be clear for the board. I know there were some comments made by two of the attorneys with respect to Article 85. I think it's important for the record. Article 85 is as this board is well aware There's a specific provision that is not triggered through zoning review. It's triggered through application for demolition permit with the Inspectional Services Department. The Boston Landmarks Commission has no jurisdiction over this This is not a designated landmark. It's a pending landmark. There was no specific designation that has occurred, so therefore landmarks jurisdiction would The question on whether a demolition permit is even necessary is completely within the purview of the Commissioner of Inspectional Services. And in this particular case, although we don't necessarily agree that there's a percentage threshold

Commissioner Joseph has indicated that at 50% that would then be a requirement for a demolition permit. I think Attorney Spitz and Mr. Sheehan have indicated that the amount of demolition in this particular instance is less than 50%. So even by Commissioner Joseph's standards, a demolition permit isn't even necessary I just wanted to be clear that I know that when Article 85 gets raised, a lot of times that issue becomes somewhat confusing because it intends to insinuate that there is landmark jurisdiction. I just want to be clear with the board that there is no jurisdiction here until such time as a demolition permit, as required by ISD, is filed and landmarks cannot administer out of A5 until such time as an application has been submitted. So just to make that clear for the record, thank you.

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

Yeah, sorry. I was just trying to find the unmute button even though it hasn't moved. I will put forward a motion of approval where the proviso that plans are submitted to planning for design review with focus on parking and alignment of the residential units. I just want to make a comment, you know, on this case we are tasked with the zoning violations. are other ordinances at play and I trust that the city staff will follow the proper procedures for making sure those are followed. And we only see that if there's sort of an interpretation request, so This motion is focused solely on the zoning, so I'm moving approval with that proviso.

Is there a second?

Second.

Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Langham? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza?

I'm going to vote no and it's for these following reasons, one is The two abutters that are adjacent to the property are going to be the most impacted by the proposal and they do not necessarily support the project. The second is, while I do acknowledge that the law has unique characteristics for which to request a variance It doesn't necessarily mean that you have to fill it to get to the zoning allowable amount of units, which I think it is by right. Three units, but the way that it's going about it is I think poor planning and it impacts many of the other units.

Those are the reasons that I'm saying no. Ms. Turner? No.

Ms Wewell? Yes. Chair votes yes, the motion does not carry.

Is there a different motion? I'm going to propose a motion to deny without prejudice, to allow the applicant to come back to propose three units, but to work with better accessibility to parking and to allow some open space to make the project work.

Is there a second? Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Motion to approve the video doorbell. Yes.

Ms. Better Barraza? Yes. Ms. Turner?

Yes, Ms. Wewell? Yes I was hoping the issues could work out in designer view but i would like to see them come back with something different

Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Thank you.

Next, we have case BOA 18335 1-4 with the address of 176 L Street. If the applicants and their representative present, would they please explain to the board? Madam Chair, I'll just make a note that there are some changes that are going to be addressed and I'll leave it at zero for now.

Okay. Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is James Christopher, 686 Architects with Business Address at 10 Forest Road here today on behalf of The Hogan Family for 176 L Street. I received an email just now from the board stating that I have to defer because there are decks The decks have been a part of this project from the beginning. They were presented that way, this project was discussed last month or two months ago and deferred so I'm not sure how the board would like me to proceed with that and i'm not The decks, the walkouts on the upper level or the rear decks that are in question yet?

Yeah, so my concern is just in terms of open meeting law. In order to comply with it the purpose need to have stated that there was a new construction of a deck on the fourth floor because currently the purpose just states The homeowner seeks to erect a four-story addition to increase living space with no change to occupancy. So the applicant has two options, they can defer to next month and make that change in the purpose so we can re-advertise with the correct purpose or the applicant can move forward. And if the board chooses to approve the project, I would just ask that there's a proviso that there is no fourth floor decks.

Okay, so Mr. Christopher no fourth floor rec or deferral?

I'm just going to shoot my client a text Madam Chair because i don't think i can make that

Well, I think it's a short deferral. So is it- Sorry to beg your pardon. Frankly, yeah. Okay, well we need you to decide which way you want to go.

I think we'll... Proceed without the decks, Madam Chair. Okay. Okay, so the proposal here is to construct a four-story addition which included walkout balconies at the front and rear of the property but those will be removed. You can go ahead and scroll through the drawings there's no real change Mr.

Ambassador Any mess in our scroll? or tell him, her what page you want.

Well, the proposal is to construct a full story addition with no change to the set first and second floors. The third floor will become a bi-level unit with the construction of that upper level. You can scroll down please. Again, so no change to the footprint of the building. That's our existing survey and then that's the proposed survey which shows the fourth story added on there with the mansard roof Some shape that was added during the community process. Next slide, please. These are the existing floor plans. You can scroll through these. Go to the A drawings, please I'm not sure what number that would be Keep going The A drawings right there. All right, so again on the first and second floors is no change if you scroll down zoom in on that floor plan now please

So you can see that the third floor will become a primary living space with two bedrooms on that level, a home office. and then a large kitchen living area to the rear. And then on the fourth level within the new addition, you would have a primary bedroom with a family room facing L Street. Next slide please. In elevation, we've proposed to incorporate a parapet wall along the front elevation to bring that wall up and shield the front of the building and extend the height there. and then we'll have the man-sod style roof behind it. During the community process this was a design element that was changed, we had more boxed and at the request of the Civic Association, we were able to come up with this design which I think fits more appropriately. Next slide please This is the broadside elevation. Again, those decks are gonna just stay the way they are. There'll be no change to them now. Next slide please.

This is the opposite side elevation. You can see the relationship of the manside roof to the parapet wall. Next slide, please. This is our building section which shows the overall height. And then the next slide is some renderings. This is comparable for the building that we were proposing and have discussed as such the whole way, which included some walk-out balconies on the upper level There was some discussion whether this property, whether that exists in the neighborhood and it does. He has several examples but that point's moot now. Next slide please. And then this is the building in view from Bella Street. By bringing up that parapet wall, we helped to hide the Mansab and the additional level from the street.

And I think the next slide is a nice aerial view of what the- Additional look like. Next slide. Recording in progress. Scroll to the end there, I think that's it. So, yeah again the proposal is just construct that four story addition reorganize the existing living space to create a three bedroom with a home office and for a long time Boston resident, South Boston resident firefighter who's looking to just stay and raise his family here. So with that I'll answer any questions.

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 petitioner completed the community process office hosted in a Butters meeting on October 29th of 2025 where one attendee expressed support for the application and two other attendees expressed concerns about the violation for excessive building height, and how it could create a precedent in the area. Our office received one letter of support from an abutter that signed an address in the abutters radius and a petition in support with nine signatures, eight of which signed an adress into 300 foot abutter's radius, which have been forwarded to the board. The applicant has met with the City Point Neighborhood Association, which is opposing this application. This application would set a new precedent along this corridor and does not align well with existing conditions. With that background, our office defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Stiggy, is it the height? The decks both?

Are you speaking in regards to the Butters meeting or the Civic Association? If you're talking about the Civic association, I'm sure that their membership is on hand to provide you the most accurate information and public testimony.

Okay thank you Next we have Meg from Councilor's Office.

Thank you Madam Chair and members of the board, my name is Meg I work in Councillor Flynn's office and Councillor Flynn would like to go on record in support

Yes, good afternoon Madam Chair and Board Members. I'm a little confused here so I do just want to give some background They did come in and present, and at that time I thought they were going to present with just the addition and to remove the reef decks. Based on that conversation what I had said on the last meeting where they deferred is that I think that this is a conversation that needs to be held with our elected officials and in community because that will forever change The landscape on that part of Bell Street. And Ms. Whewell, I believe the board Better Barraza was not available so you were actually able to go in and look at Google Earth and came to the same assumption. So I think it's wonderful that they are willing to remove the front roof decks there, that was something that the community asked for.

It's not a great thing to have on L Street as the main corridor but if they're going to revamp their plans as we initially asked them to, I would like to see this come back through a community process and perhaps we can garner support and have that conversation. If we're going The Elstree corridor because this will in fact set precedent. A lot of it is absentee landlords, a lot of its rental properties and this will absolutely allow profit for those people. So let's have this conversation and see if this is something we can work together on, thank you. Thank you.

Next we have Linda. Novich.

Hi, can you hear me? Yes we can ma'am. Okay thank you. I am greatly opposed to this project for several reasons. that Louieune had mentioned. This is going to greatly change, it's going to set a precedence on Elstreet and it's gonna greatly change the architecture As for the design of this roof, that design has absolutely nothing to do with a design of a three family building. Two completely different types of architecture there and You know, I also have an issue with the parafit because what is the height of that going to be? Just out of curiosity of the parafait.

Can you scroll up to this section? I can tell you, I don't know off the top of my head.

Can you keep going while he's looking for that? Okay so what my concern with the height of these parapets is that There may not be a roof deck allowed there, but when you've got paraffin that looks like it's probably at least three or four feet high, goodness only knows what you can hide behind that. And that could also set up precedents. for in the future people saying, well it's there why can't we? And I think there is going to be too many precedents set without complete community involvement. And this needs to go back to more community involvement, more community discussion because this is going to ever change the face of L Street and it's taken away some of the heritage of this community when you do changes like that, especially when it comes to the architecture. and we need to have this considered. This needs to be for the community. I understand it's great, I understand him being a firefighter. I spent 33 years with EMS so I also want that consideration. Thank you.

Thank you Linda, just on the design comments if I may.

Are there any other raised hands first? There are no additional comments. Okay please, the applicant.

Thank you Madam Chair. Just real quick on the design elements we did have a more traditional square structure on this building that As we went through the conversation with the community was not well received, I would say that this design iteration was much better well-received. and, you know, at this point the decks have been removed. And I believe that as part of the discussions that I was involved with with the community, that was the biggest stumbling block And if you scroll back up to that other illustration that shows the other L Street addresses, it's very clear that this style of housing exists all over L Street.

Any other questions or comments from the board? Hearing none, is there a motion? You can defer, you can approve. You can deny their ocean. Hello? I'm not sure who's speaking, but the board is voting. If anyone is willing to vote.

Could I pose a question to planning? Kind of looking around at the context, I don't see anything above three stories. So just kind of curious on the recommendation.

I mean, that's a... Katie, you brought something up which is it would be great if If Jeff Hampton would comment on that because I had the same curiosity as you, which is the BPD put forward a recommendation of approval. The zoning is multifamily residential. So it's really about what is the Boston planning kind of position with the idea of increase increased density or height. And I think the architect did do, was really well intended to work with the character of the nearby kind of mansard roofs that you would see in a neighborhood, so I applaud that effort. and I can see that work.

And listening to the neighbors as well, it will set a precedent and you'll start seeing more of these developments. I think it would be great to hear from Boston Planning Department's point of view. Great.

Is Mr. Hampton available? Yeah, thank you Madam Chairman, members of the board, Jeff Hampton City of Boston Planning Department. As you have all seen in our recommendation we supported the variance for the height Because it is set back 10 feet. That is something that we took seriously in our recommendation, that it would not create more of like a canyon type of feel right up on the front facade. We were supportive of the 10-foot setback up the Mansard roof. Anytime you make some sort of change to what a street or block looks like, you're going to set a precedent. But because of the setback, that is why we recommended the support for the variance in the height.

That is really helpful because... Also understanding now that there would have to be a proviso put on if this were to move forward, that there is no front deck there.

That's right, that's right. I think that's really helpful. I mean hearing Jeff and those details really provide kind of context for potential future cases as well so I feel comfortable putting a A motion forward. Feel free. Okay, I would like to put forth a motion of approval with with two provisos, one being that the project undergoes BPD design review and the second is that the that the project does not have a front deck and provides adequate front setback to their fourth story as recommended by the BPD.

Just a quick question to Caroline. Was the provisional no decks at all or no front deck?

No front deck, but I think that deck was recommended was being proposed on the rear.

So I just- I think for the purposes of a motion, the agreement that we've made today is that we will remove the decks to the advertisement. There's an existing rail deck That serves as flows 1, 2 and 3. That will remain the way it is. We will not add the new decks. Okay so improviso is no new decks?

Well, I didn't want to limit it in that way. What I heard Jeff state is that it is important to preserve the character of the street and therefore any new construction should be set back from the front. And so I was just putting a proviso that would not allow a front-facing deck and that the fourth story would be set back as per BPD's recommendation. That's what the motion carried.

And I want to be clear if that's what Caroline intended because you said there was an issue with noticing, so does that suffice?

Yeah, so yeah as long as there are no newly constructed decks. That's what I see with the purpose in terms of making sure when we noticed community members they received the right notice that there were no new decks built. So if they want to build a deck in the future, they can always come back to ZVA. That's fine. But I'm just saying for this presentation, for what was advertised There can't be an addition of decks.

Okay, perfect so I'll clarify that. I'd like to put forward a motion of approval with the proviso that there are no decks in this case that would be proposed and the second would be that the fourth story be said back per BPD's recommendation. And then there will be design review.

Is there a second? I will second that. I think Ms. Sessa made some good points and I'm glad we got clarification on the height issue, I agree that it's Designed and set back, but it is always kind of a decision when you're altering something that changed the context.

Okay, Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr. Langham? Yes Ms. Better Barraza? Yes Miss Turner? Yes Ms. Whewell? Yes. Chair votes yes, the motion carries.

Thank you very much.

Next we have case VOA. 183-5904 with the address of 105 Pleasant View Street. If the applicants and or their representative are present, would they please explain to report? Though there's no one to represent, 105 Pleasant View Street.

I don't see it any ready.

Then we'll move on and come back. With that, the next two cases have been deferred. That will take us to the following two companion cases. Case DOA 185-6474 with the address of 43 Eastwood Circuit. Along with that is case BOA, 1856475 also with the address of 45 Eastwood Circuit. If the applicant for these cases is present, please explain.

Yes, thank you again Mr. Stembridge. Good afternoon Madam Chair and members of the board. Richard Lin, Mr. Business Advisor 245 Summer Street East Austin on behalf of the petitioner Mr. Ambassador, if we can jump over to slide three just to give a little bit of neighborhood context here. While we're doing that... Is this pleasant viewing?

I think this is a different case. Keep going.

Perfect. So Madam Chair and members of the board, this involves the demolition of an existing single family dwelling at 43 Eastwood Circuit in West Roxbury. Our proposal would subdivide the existing parcel and create two new lots. Each lot would then accommodate a new single-family dwelling, each containing four bedrooms, 2 1⁄2 baths 2 1⁄2 stories. If we jump through quickly, we can scroll through slides four through eight that will give us just a little bit of an idea of the context and the surrounding neighborhood As you can see directly behind us is a large commercial site bordering the VFW Parkway, and then the surrounding immediate neighbors left right etc. are similar sized homes All either single or two-family dwellings. If we get down to the slide 10, that'll show us the quick zoning summary and just run through these very quickly

Because we are proposing two single-family dwellings, that would be a conforming use in the district. The district requires a minimum of 6,000 square feet for each lot This being well over the minimum of 6,000 square feet would be considered an oversized lot. Although individually once subdivided they are somewhat below the minimum requirement of 6 000 square feet The same would apply for frontage. There's a minimum required of 60 feet of width in frontage we're proposing, and each instance 44 feet. I would submit to the board if you do look at the surrounding area based upon the assessor's records and the BPDA abstract, this is not unusual for a lot width in this particular area even though the minimum is 60 feet. We are in compliance with both front yard, side yard as well as the rear yard which is much greater than the 30 foot minimum that's required even though our neighbors to the rear is a commercial site and different zoning district.

We do require relief in addition for a gross floor area. The maximum in the particular sub-district per Article 56 is 0.4. For the lot proposed at 43, we're at 0.49 45 is 0.52 so we do require the lead for that. With respect to height, we do comply with that requirement two and a half stories in the maximum 35 feet below the physical height At 28.75 feet but at the full two and a half stories, now we're able to provide ample parking on site for at least two if not more spaces If we want to jump down to slide 13, that is the existing site plan just so we can review what the current makeup of the lot looks like. Thank you. Yes, so you can see here the existing building that will be demolished as well as an existing garage and shed. We would preserve as much of the tree canopy that does exist.

There is some existing landscape in the rear As I mentioned, we're roughly 52 feet from the rear property line and more than in compliance with the 30 foot setback. We can jump to slide 14 that will show the proposed site for the first property. As you can see here, this does indicate subdivision. We are showing the existing building on the right side I do have a new updated site plan for that as well. And as I mentioned, you can see that we do comply with setbacks both front and side as well as the rear Even though we are proposing a garage that would accommodate one vehicle, that is permitted to be within the Regards Setback as shown here on the plan. You can jump down to slide 21. We have the additional site plan for the other side of a property you can see here, very similar in layout

We locate the garage to the rear as well, and these are accessed with more than enough width for the driveway to access the rear of the property. If we go to slide 16 please? 16 shows the typical floor plan we do a full basement there's no habitable space located main living areas in the first level and then we have the upper level which includes a total of four bedrooms laundry bath etc so these proposed single families are More than adequate for single-family home ownership and will provide enough space certainly for any growing family. This is a specific The task of the community with respect to the proposed project that we are looking at subdividing lots here and to ensure that these are family sized homes. These are intended to be sold as individual homes, not intended for rental. Next slide, please.

We do show an attic. There is a portion of that that is finished. It's not identified as a bedroom. and this would likely explain any of the increase in the FAR above the 0.4 limit we did present this to the West Roxbury Neighborhood Council they did support this project, they recognized that Finished attic space does provide extra amenity for family. We do also include some mechanical space up there as well and, as indicated on the plan, we're not looking to propose any Bedrooms or bathrooms, or anything additional in that attic space. This would just be flex bonus room space for the property. If we get down to slide 19 please Just our elevations for all sides, as I mentioned two and a half story. Very consistent with the type of architecture and topology that we do see in that particular section of West Roxbury.

And once again, presented to the West Roxburg Neighborhood Council who supported the project based upon the design and being very consistent with a type of single-family homes that are pretty common in that area. If we go to slide 27, just some 3D views as well so you can see what the building looks like from all dimensions with the elevations shown. We do incorporate I will pause there and ask if there are any questions from the board regarding this project. Thank you. Are there questions from

Hearing none, we have public testimony.

Madam Chair and members, Siggy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This petitioner completed the community process. Our office hosted an abutters meeting on April 22nd at which no comments were made. The West Roxbury Neighborhood Council is supporting this application. With that background, ONS defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Madam Chair, there are no additional comments.

Okay with that may I have a motion?

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

Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr Langham?

Yes

Ms. Barraza? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes, Ms. Wewell? Yes Chair votes yes the motion carries thank you very much have a great day

Next, we have case BOA 1716446 with the address of 178 to 181st Street. If applicants and or the representative present, would they please explain to the board?

Yes, so Madam Chairman and members of the board. My name is Ingmar Sterling. I am the resident and applicant at 178 World Street. We are applying What we're trying to do is rebuild or replace the garage. A tree fell on our existing garage in a storm two years ago. I believe this was flagged for height as well as setback If we could go to slide four. So this is the new proposed garage, you can see the setback lines that it is violating If we could go up one to slide three just to contrast with the existing structure that has the tree fell and the home roof. So this is where the existing garage is. It already is violating the rear and side setback line.

If we could, again sorry go back to slide four We are actually moving the proposed new garage four feet off of the Side Property Line, which is a retaining wall with our neighbors. And then would be expanding it inward currently that is just the patio area Adding a little bit of space to be able to park two cars and have some extra storage and perhaps some flex space there. I do want to note the height violation is only because our existing house is above the height limit, and so by attaching the garage that's why that variation. The actual height of the new proposed garage would be 12 feet which would be underneath that limit if we could go to slide eight

There's a rendering there which shows, again so the garage itself would not be violating but because we are attaching it to the existing structure that then is what I believe flagged the violation for the hype. Additionally, the violation of the front yard is because the front steps of the house ever so slightly exceed the frontline setback. Happy to take any questions from the board here.

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 petitioner completed the community process. Our office hosted an abutters meeting on May 29th, 2025 at which Director Butters had some questions and one raised a concern about the design. The applicant later worked with them to make some revisions. We're unaware of any opposition to this proposal. West Roxbury Neighborhood Council is supporting this application. With that background, ONS defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Thank you. No additional comments? With that, may I have a motion?

Madam Chair, I'd like to put forward a motion of approval with the proviso that the project undergoes BPD design review to review maneuverability of the proposed driveway. Is there a second? Second.

Mr. Stembridge? Yeah. Mr Langham? Yes. Miss Better Barraza? Yes Miss Turner? Yes Ms. Whewell? Yes. Chair votes yes, the motion carries.

Thank you.

We'll ask again if anyone is present for a case of BOA 1835904 with the address of 105 Pleasant View Street.

Do we have any raised hands? No, I don't see anyone.

Okay. So hearing none, make a put forth the motion of deferral

Is there a second? We can do that for September 22nd. Okay, Mr. Stembridge?

Yes. Mr. Langham? Yes! Ms. Better Barraza? Yes Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Whewell? Yes Chair votes yes, the motion carries. All right with that I thank everyone our August 27th Later meeting has been canceled for the month, so I'll see most of you in September. Thank you. Have a good day folks!