Zoning Board of Appeal

Good morning. The City of Boston Zoning Board of Appeal hearing for February 24, 2026 is now in session. This hearing is being conducted in accordance with the applicable provisions of the open meeting law, including the updated provisions enacted by the legislature this year. The new law allows the board to continue its practice of holding virtual hearings through June 2027. This hearing of the board is being held remotely via the Zoom webinar event platform and is also being live streamed. In order to ensure this hearing of the board is open to the public, members of the public may access this hearing through telephone and video conferencing. The information for connecting to this hearing is listed on today's hearing agenda which is posted on the Public notices page of the City's website, boston.gov. Members of the public will enter the virtual hearing as attendees, which means you will not see yourself on the screen and you will be muted throughout unless administratively unmuted when asked to comment.

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

Select yes. and you should be able to talk if you are connected to the hearing by telephone please press star 9 to raise and lower your hand you must press star 6 to unmute yourself After you receive the request from the host, those called upon to comment will be asked to state their name and address first, and then 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. Okay, Mr. Stembridge. Good morning Madam Chair, President. Good morning. Mr. Valencia. Good morning, Madam Chair present. Good morning. Ms. Turner. Good morning, Madam Chair present. Good morning. Ms.

Better Barraza.

Good morning, Madam Chair present.

Good morning. Ms. Pinado. Good morning, Madam Chair. Present. Good morning, Mr. Collins. Morning, Madam Chair. Present. Good morning. And I will turn it back over to Mr. Stembridge.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, folks. We'll begin today's hearings with the approval, vote for approval, excuse me, of the hearing minutes scheduled for 9.30 a.m. These hearing minutes are from February 3rd and I'll put in motion for us that they're approved.

Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza?

Yes.

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

Next we'll move on to the extensions scheduled for 9 30 a.m. These all appear reasonable. And at this point, unless anyone has any questions, we'll take a directive out of chair. Excuse me. I'm sorry?

Okay, please continue Mr. Stembridge.

Will they all appear reasonable? We'll read them all in one after the other and then we'll take a vote at the end. First, we have case BOA 1545997 with the address of 472 to 474 Western Avenue. Next we have Case BOA-1483092, the address of 621 East 2nd Street. Next we have Case BOA-1483092, the address of 621 East 2nd Street. Next we have Case BOA-1483092, the address of 621 East 2nd Street. 132-0835 with the address of 9 to 13 Ewing Street. Next we have case BOA-125-2953 with the address of 595-603 Newbury Street.

and finally we have case BOA 127-9801 with the address of 120 Braintree Street. Those are the extensions that we have before us today.

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

Motion to grant me extensions as requested.

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

Yes.

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

Yes.

Chair votes yes, the motion carries.

Next we have board final armature cases scheduled for 9 30 a.m. First, we have case BOA 1261313 with the address of 154 Terrence Street. If the applicant and or their representative are present, would they please explain to the board?

Are you speaking, Mr. Federico? Yeah, can you hear me? Yes, we can.

Hi, Madam Chair, fellow board members. Thank you very much. I am Joe Federico, 1039, with a business address of 1039 East Street in Dedham. I am the owner and the developer for the 154 terrestry project. And so I'll just briefly go through the changes that we've made from the previous ZBA approval. So we reduced the building in height from seven stories to six stories, which also lowered The overall height from 82 feet to 68 feet and lowered the FAR as well. The remainder of the building ground floor has remained unchanged. We still have 24 parking spaces, so the parking ratio was lowered slightly. The total number of units decreased from 66 units to 65 units. And

As far as that, the building footprint is exactly the same. It's really just reducing it in height, cutting the stories, and lowering the FAR. We also changed the use from condo units to rental units.

Thanks for watching!

and the project has already gone through the BPDA or Planning Department process and the notice of project change was voted on in support last week from the Planning Board.

So we did receive a letter from one of the Mission Hill groups that did have some concerns about some other aspects of the project that I guess in a prior version were perhaps agreed upon around short-term rental Dorm use and other things. I don't know if you can comment on those.

As far as dorm use, I'm not familiar with that.

Concerns about short-term rental, dorm use, and rental instead of ownership.

Yep, so I agreed not to rent to any short-term renters, that the minimum lease term would be one year, and that's something that I said, 100% stand behind. I'm not looking to run an Airbnb here. It's not something I'm interested in at all. I did not agree to not to rent to undergraduates. I don't have or agree to really any of those kind of restrictions because that would severely impact my ability to get financing and actually build this project, which is the goal. So as far as the short-term rentals, I agree with that. It's not something that I'm going to do. It will be a minimum lease term of a full year, but I cannot restrict the rentals. and not rent undergraduate students. That's not something that I can agree to.

Thank you. Other questions from the board?

Yes, Mr. Federico, I also noticed that you are transitioning the projects from home ownership to rentals. And your previous negotiation with the Mayor's Office of Housing was about AMIs for homeownership that is 80% to 100%. as you were providing some funds to the Affordability Payment, MOS. For Affordability. And now with the rentals, I wanted to ask if you have had new conversations or negotiations with the MOH about the changes because I think the AMI and the IDP is different from For the last project that you had, to this new project.

Yes, that's correct. So the previous project, because it was a home ownership project, the previous owner developer negotiated a partial buyout for the IDP units. So of the 66 units that were previously Approved. Only three were going to be on-site IDP units. We are going to increase the number of on-site IDP units from three to eight. and then also contribute to a buyout for the fractional program remainder of that percentage. So those would be at 70% AMI. The rental units, not the 180% that was previously agreed upon. So we lowered the AMI and increased the number of onsite affordable units.

Thank you. So you already have an agreement with the Mayor's Office of Housing for those changes?

Yes, that was part of the board memo, the increased number of units, of affordable units as far and as well as the... The contribution to the fund. We don't have the signed affordable rental housing agreement yet. Usually that happens a little later on. but the parameters of the IDP contribution both on-site and financial contribution are agreed upon and part of the board memo from the planning department.

Okay, thank you. For some reason I couldn't find that information on my package, but thank you for the clarification. Of course.

Thank you. Are there other questions from the board? Hearing none, is there a motion?

Madam Chair, I'd like to put forward a motion of approval with a proviso that the project undergoes agreement in regards to affordability with MOH.

Is there a second?

Second. Second.

Mr. Stembridge? Yeah. Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Are you on mute, Ms. Turner? You're on mute, Ms. Turner. Sorry about that, yes. Thank you. Ms. Better Barraza? Yes. Ms. Pinado? Yes. Mr. Collins?

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Thank you. Next, we have case BOA 148-5817 with the address of 521 Cambridge Street. If the applicants and or their representative are present, would they please explain the case to the board?

Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Johanna Schneider with the Law Firm of Hemingway and Byron, 75 State Street. We are here We're here today in relation to a multifamily residential project that the board approved in September 2023. A few months ago in December of 2025, we were in front of you for an extension of that approval. The originally approved project had 33 rental units, but due to changes in the market since the original approval, in order for this project to be financially feasible, it requires the addition of two units for an overall total of 35 units. In May of 2025, the BPDA Board voted unanimously to approve this change in unit count. As you can see from the plans that we submitted in connection with this request, The increase in units only requires internal reconfiguration. There are no changes to the building exterior or to the approved zoning envelope and no additional zoning relief is necessary.

But we are here today in an effort to head off any confusion with potential construction lenders who might see a ZBA decision allowing for 33 units while we've got a BPBA decision that says 35 units and plans that show 35 units. I do have Rob Del Savio, the project architect, available if the board has questions about the plans, but I think this is a fairly straightforward matter, and we would respectfully request that you grant our request that the boards Thank you. Are there questions from the board?

Yeah, I just We'd like just some clarification. If the zoning envelope, let's say, that was originally approved stayed the same, what Changes in footprint is allowing for two additional units. Is it that you're decreasing the amount of unit beds? How is there like an equal to equal that you're not? Changing the massing of the overall building.

Yeah, it's a totally internal reconfiguration in terms of the sizes of the units, the location of the demising walls, a little bit of change to the previously shown common spaces. If you want to get into more details, as I said, we do have the project architect. You could walk through the changes.

Yeah, I would like to know specifically what allowed for the addition of two units. What actually was removed? Was it A decrease in the X amount of square footage of community space. I would like to understand what was the change that allowed for there to be no increase in F.A.R. or Stories or Building Perimeter.

Just for clarity. Sure. Rob, you do not have audio access.

Typically what's helpful is to see a before and after.

So we do have on the plans that we submitted, and I'm going to try to play architect here for a moment and not do it terribly well while Rob is trying to log in. And Rob, if you want to try to call in, maybe that would be helpful. But if you look at the red bubbled areas, you can see where the internal changes were. Please scroll down. I think that if we look at the floor plans in particular, Yeah, anything that is red bubbled shows the areas that were reconfigured internally in order to make the unit count work. Thank you, Jesus.

Jesus, can you go to the plants that are bubbled out?

Can you hear me now?

Yes, we can hear you. That's perfect. Yeah, so I want to understand. Okay, great. Is your architect here? Yes, that was his voice. What was the squad that allowed you to have an increase with you?

So on all four sides of the building, there's no change to the envelope except in two locations, which we'll get to in a second. Part of the increase in unit count comes from a redemising layout within the footprint itself. and then on the ground floor to the plan that we have in front of us here, what was previously a common area in the bottom right there has now become a unit. So again, no change to the footprint, just use change. On the fifth floor of the building, if you go to that plan for just a second, it is a 105 or so.

105. 105.

Yeah, I believe that's it. You know what I mean? Actually, you can start at 106. Next one down. So previously we had a common area roof deck on this level of the building. The roof deck, which still exists today, was a little more square in proportion. So part of the increase in the square footage was to extend that unit, which is clouded in red, abutting the outdoor space slightly into the outdoor space. Okay, great.

So basically, so thank you for clarifying that because it wasn't presented to us that you're actually removing common space to allow for additional units, but it doesn't necessarily at all change the envelope for the building. Okay, thank you. I don't have any further questions. Thank you.

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

Madam Chair, given that there are no additional zoning violations, I would like to put a motion for approval.

Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Miss Turner? Yes. Better Barraza? Yes. Miss Pinado? Yes. Mr. Collins? Yes. Chair votes yes, the motion carries.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next, we move on to the recommendations scheduled for 9.30 AM. These are from the subcommittee meeting on February 12th. They were all approved, so if we have any questions ask them after I read them in. The first is case BOA-180-02-07. with the address of 301 to 305 West Broadway. That was proof. What happened to our third BFA? Oh, I don't know. Rutland? I apologize, Madam Chair. Forgive me, folks.

Going back to where to find the arbitrary cases. We have case BOA 1263429 with the address of 28A Ridland Road. If the applicants and or their representative are present, would they please explain to the court?

Yes, thank you, Mr. Stembridge and Madam Chair, members of the board. Thank you for coming back to us. It's appreciated. So we presented before the board previously obtained zoning relief to construct a new single family dwelling on this parcel. The current owner controls what is identified on your site plan there as 28 to 26, as well as the subject parcel. The proposal was to put in a long linear driveway with parking to the rear to service both parcels. The long linear driveway would skirt both parcels to be memorialized by a future recorded easement. The board did approve that prior plan of the construction as indicated with the specific proviso of trying to maximize green space. So with that in mind, the owner underwent discussion with the BPDA. There's also significant elevation change on this parcel to the rear and a significant amount of ledge, exposed ledge and rock.

which renders parking at that elevation and configurations difficult. So trying to effectively allow parking to still exist on site for the sake of trying to hopefully increase green space. The updated proposal from the applicant was to try to put front yard parking. There's an existing, not on this plan, but the site plan that the ZBA has seen previously as part of the prior iteration of approval. There's a very long existing curb cut in place. The proposal is to utilize a portion of that existing curb cut but then also return curb to the public domain for on-street parking. This will allow us to continue to utilize that portion of the existing curb cut and put in two parking spaces into the front of the building to remain compliant with parking requirements, but it is triggering a front yard parking problem. refusal that we're coming back before the board for Board of Final Arbiter approval of.

So that is the proposed updated change from the last iteration approved by this board to allow for two front yard off street parking spaces Not in tandem orientation.

Questions from the board?

Was there a possibility to explore relocating the building Closer to the front so that you can avoid the ledge to some degree and allow for the parking to exist at the rear.

The prior iteration had a modal shift to the front to bring us into alignment with current structure. Will you be able to release it today? with parking to the rear and and that what was previously approved by this board in the prior plans and that is you know for geography and other reasons kind of um Mr. Hanson?

Thank you Madam Chair, members of the board, Jeff Hampton, City of Boston Planning Department. We are opposed to this new plan that's being shown to the board today for board final arbiter. One of the reasons is we do understand the difficulty for the off-street parking. However, we would never support front yard parking. and as the appellant has stated this has triggered a new zoning violation so in In the Planning Department's opinion, this needs a new hearing because we need to take a look at it and make a recommendation on a new zoning violation. Our urban design department has also stated that they wouldn't support this as a board final arbiter for any sort of design review. because we never support front yard parking. So we just want to go on the record as being opposed to this as being before board final arbiter and not a new hearing.

Thank you. Are you Caroline?

Good morning, Madam Chair. Yeah, just to clarify, so if the Board did approve the removal of this proviso, the applicant would still have to come back for a forwarding?

You're going in and out a little bit. Can you see the last part? The board, the applicant would still have to come back to the board.

Correct, because it does trigger a new zoning violation. Thank you.

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

So Madam Chair, if I could just briefly respond?

Sure.

So I guess if this is ultimately denied in light of prior approval, the prior plan would still remain in effect. Theoretically, linear parking to the right of the structure might be an option, but that would require replacement of a curb cut. It would also, you know, the tandem orientation of parking would still suffice for parking, but itself create a violation. So that would theoretically be another option with maybe the same end effect. So I guess procedurally, I was just asking if you had any opinion as a board on that orientation of parking versus front yard non-tandem parking. Thank you.

Any comments or feedback from the board?

Is that something that can be worked out in design review with WPDA off the original decision?

We can happily have that dialogue with the BPDA and see if that's less offensive to the BPDA, but if it does require a zoning violation for maneuverability or orientation of parking, even though it still requires the requisite number, I guess then would ZBA board final decision be applicable in that scenario?

Mr. Collins, if I may, I think they're back here because of the design review process and because it does trigger a new zoning violation. This is why we are opposed to them removing the proviso. They have an approved plan. I understand that the parking may not work for them. But having it come before you to show you new parking spaces in the front yard is not something that we support, especially when they acknowledge it's a new zoning violation. It needs its own hearing. They do have design review. If they're agreeable to going through the design review process, then the original approval would stand because it did go through.

Excuse me, the proviso was through design review. If they decide that they want to move forward with the front yard parking, this would require a new hearing and you'd get a recommendation from us. You know, they do have an approved project with design review pending.

And Mr. Hampton, so Mr. Smith mentioned other alternatives. Is it safe to assume those were already vetted?

I can't speak for the design department. I can assume, but I don't want to. Okay, gotcha. Thank you.

Other questions from the board? Is there a motion? I'll make a motion of denial. It sounds like it needs to go back through the design review process with the planning department. Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner?

Yes.

Ms. Better Barraza?

Yes.

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

Understood, and thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Go again to the recommendations scheduled for 9 30 a.m. from the February 12th subcommittee meeting.

All of these were approved.

So if there are any questions, I'll read through and ask them after that. First, we have case BOA-180-0207 with the address of 301-305 West Broadway, which was approved. Next, we have case BOA-178-8475 with the address of 2 Pacific Street, which was... and finally we have case BOA 1696173 with the address of 4843 Washington Street which was approved. and those were the cases of recommendation from the previous subcommittee.

Are there questions from the board? May I have a motion?

Motion to accept the recommendations of the subcommittee.

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

Yes.

Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza?

Yes.

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

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

Mr. Luna, are you?

Yes. Yes, good morning Madam Chair. Joseph Luna representing 33 Princeton, BLA number 16422. Okay, so is that the address you're looking to defer?

Yes. Okay, so please let Mr. Stembridge read it into the record. Okay.

So this would be for case BOA 1642295 with the address of 33R Princeton Street? That's correct. Would you go ahead?

Anyone? Yes. This is the second part of a two-part approval. My client has advised that he did pull permits on this back in 1992. We are trying to locate more documentation through ISD regarding that initial permit and would like to request for an additional month to find this information.

Okay, Caroline? We can do April 7th.

That'll be fine.

Okay, with that, may I have a motion?

Motion to defer this case to April 7th.

Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge?

Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza? Yes. Ms. Pinado? Yes. Mr. Collins? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. See you then. Thank you. We'll see you in April. Have a good day.

Thank you. Further requests for withdrawals or deferrals for the 9.30 a.m. hearings? Then we will move on to the first case, which is case BOA 180. 3891 with the address of 344 to 350 Washington Street. This is an Article 80 case. So if the applicant and their representative are present, would they please explain to the board?

Thank you, Mrs. Stembridge. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board, Attorney John Pulgini here on this proposal at 344 Washington Street in Brighton. Currently, this property is a Dunkin Donuts and has the Asperia Grill, which has been a neighborhood institution for decades. It's a one-story commercial building. With me today is Mark Sullivan, the project's architect. He's having some difficulties, as am I, with power outages, so he is trying to join by phone, as well as the property owner, Tim, after the status. Tim is a longtime fixture in Brighton neighborhood together with his wife and son. They've been operating the Asperia Grill at this location for the past 20 years. We appreciate the opportunity to speak before you. 344 Washington Street. The zoning is neighborhood shopping one. The lot size is 6,450 square feet. The proposal before you is to take down the current one-story commercial building. and the construction of a new six-story mixed-use building on this lot.

The ground floor of this building will remain retail space housing a new Dunkin Donuts location. The remaining five floors will be comprised of 19 two-bedroom condominium units. Each unit will have private outdoor deck space. And again, these are often as homeownership units. Project will also include 17 parking spaces in the interior of the building. Six of those spaces will be for the Dunkin' Donuts customers, while the remaining 11 spaces will be for residents. This project underwent a part of Planning Department's Article 80 and was approved by the Board in August. Throughout the community process, the proposal was well received, especially in light of the homeownership Homeownership part of it, and we received support letters from the BAIA as well as City Council President Breadon. As I stated, the proposal was just approved by the BPA in August.

In addition to providing 19 homeownership opportunities, the proposal will provide three affordable homeownership units, street improvements to both Washington and Academy Hill. a crosswalk at Washington, street trees and widening of the sidewalks through the granting of a pedestrian easement to the city. I appreciate your opportunity to present and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

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

Good morning Madam Chair and members. C. Johnson with the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services has completed the community process led by the Boston Planning Department. The BPD held its public meeting on July 30th of 2025. The applicant spent multiple times with the BAIA and has secured the support of that group. The proposal was adjusted to accommodate more parking and the home ownership aspect was supported by the community. With that background, our office defers judgment to the board. Thank you. Thank you.

Next, we have Sue Duvall.

Yes, good morning. My name is Zoe Duvall. I'm a project manager in the Development and Review Division of the Planning Department here to express Planning Department support of the project. The project filed their SPRA with us as an Article 80 small project on June 25, 2025. and the planning department hosted a public meeting on July 30th. The team conducted independent community outreach as well as explained and both received with public support. The project was approved by the BPDA board on August 14th, and we're happy to see this project move forward and progress to the design review phase of Article 80. So we defer to this board for further action. Thank you.

Next, we have Brandon.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is Brandon Derbyshire, and I'm here as the owner and operator of the property located at 354 Washington Street in Brighton. I'm a direct and immediate butter, and I apologize for giving all my feedback late in this process, but I was never given access to the drawings until two weeks ago, so there was no community outreach with me being as a direct butter. To provide world history, we began our design development a few years ago. Our drawings were coordinated as we look to develop our lot as well, and we coordinated with the 344 Washington Street team. However, the coordination has not been reciprocated to us. Since receiving these drawings on 211, I've been able to review them and have the following comments directly impact my project. 344's building is directly on and against my common wall. This is a structural wall.

Also, the violations of aquatic setbacks and fire separation are directly on my property. The placement of windows and openings that directly overlook my property does not accommodate my future development. In the absence of recorded protections binding future property owners of the condominium units, Excuse me, I'm a little under the weather. There is no recorded potty wall agreement, easement, or covenant permitting the use of the structural wall or the White Line. Abstinence of such agreement. Any construction both on the White Line against my building is improper. I do not consent to the use of my building or line as a party wall, firewall, or structural support for this project.

Excuse me. Can you please wrap up? And it sounds to me like there needs to be some conversation offline with the applicant.

Sure. Yeah, so my proposed reasonable resolutions are for full setback on the shared common lot line. Also reconfiguration of the design that there are no windows that overlook my property since this will impact my future development. and lastly provide legal documentation to my legal team that will be included in the condo association documents and all these efforts will be reciprocated on my future development as well. Thank you.

Any other raised hands?

There are no additional comments.

Okay.

Mr. Bugini? Sure, I'll just address that last issue that was raised by Brandon. So... These two projects are going through the BPDA approval, Article 80 approval process concurrently. We were using the same architect. Okay, the same architect was developing their project as our project. The BPDA wanted these to work together. We have been as open and obvious as possible. Transparent as possible. 352 right next door. It's a 19 unit just as us with six parking spaces. That's the apartment building. Ours is home ownership. We'll continue that dialogue and we'll continue working with them, but we have been reaching out to everybody and there has been no, everybody has had the plans for quite some time.

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

Madam Chair, I would like to put forward a motion of approval. I think this is a very good way to utilize existing parking lots and especially to keep retail or businesses in the area and at the same time providing affordable housing. So my motion is of approval.

Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Thank you. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Barraza?

Yes.

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

Thank you, everyone. Next, we have two companion cases. The first is case BOA-180-0101 with the address of 255 Allendale Street. Along with that we have case BOA-180-0111 with the address of 257 Allendale Street. If the applicants and or their representative were present, would they please explain the cases to the board?

Yes, thank you. Good morning. Madam Chair and members of the board, I'm Barry Fogle. I'm the attorney for the project from Keegan Worland. With me here this morning is Helen Glotzer. She's the president and CEO of Allendale Farm. This is a project to build two new structures to replace some aging structures on the portion of the property on Allendale Street near the Brookline Boston town line, city line. If we go to the next slide, our project team quickly involves the farm. We have landscape architects at Klopfer Martin. Union Studio is the architect. VHB has been the civil engineer. Our general contractor is Landmark Services. Next slide, please. Allendale Farm is a working farm in the city. It's over 105 acres.

It's been operating for more than 150 years, and the retail use has been on this parcel for more than 60 years. This parcel is subject to an agricultural preservation restriction held by the trustees of reservations. and this particular part of the property under that APR is considered the farm building envelope which validates and allows retail and agricultural uses. The retail market has been there, operates sustainably grown fresh produce, and the goal is to upgrade the facilities to make it more efficient, more sustainable. and to support the regional community but in a way that continues to be consistent with the neighborhood. Next slide, please. Again, the project goal is to offer a better visitor experience that improves parking and circulation.

There's increased environmental sustainability with stormwater management, protection of the adjacent wetland resources. It's dark sky compliant to improve lighting. The Market Barn is the first of the buildings that will serve as the headquarters for the retail and there's a retail greenhouse that will be able to support the greenhouse function. Next slide, please. This gives you an idea of the location. It's a little bit small, but that orange Parcel in the middle of the circle is where it is. And that larger parcel with the outline is all of Allendale Farm. And as you can see, it's part of a larger green space area in this entire area. The JP neighborhood plan actually identifies this as open space. The next slide, please. This is an aerial photo showing you the facility.

Allendale Street is on the left, running from east to west into Brookline. There's a pond to the right of the property where the parcel where the structures would be. These are the former structures, but you can see how it relates to the larger wooded area of the farm, which is off the image. Next slide, please. This was the current view. We actually got approval from the Boston Preservation Commission to allow demo, and this was completed in the fall without any... Significance having been found, but this was what it looked like previously from Allendale Street. The stone wall is remaining. Go to the next slide, please. This is a plan view showing that same image.

These were the structures in the black and in the gray were the former retail structures. on the property, the parking area between them and Allendale Street. The orange structures are existing. The Harvest Barn is the smaller one and the production greenhouse, the larger production greenhouse in Brookline is on the top left. Next slide please. So these are the two new structures that are proposed in these filings. The market barn on the left and the retail greenhouse on the right. As you can see, there are landscape islands in the parking lot. which is going to have new stormwater management system in it, but the pond and the wetland adjacent to it on the right are protected. We were before the Conservation Commission last year and received approval from the Conservation Commission. The project was approved by the BPDA Board in March of 2025.

We've been before the Public Improvements Commission for the crosswalk that you see. A new pedestrian crosswalk has been proposed and approved by the PIC. To allow pedestrians to cross from the sidewalk on the south side of Allendale Street to make it into the property. Next slide, please. So this is a rendering of what the new buildings look like, the retail greenhouse on the right and the Market Barn on the left. You can see the crosswalk through the stone wall and into the parking area. And we have a couple of elevation views that I'll run through quickly to go to the next slides. This is the south elevation looking from Allendale Street on the oblique. Actually, the north arrow is a little bit oblique to it. So this is the Market Barn and the retail greenhouse. Next slide, please.

This is the view from the back, from the pond side. Next slide, please. This is a view from the north looking from over where that harvest barn was. The retail greenhouse is obscured behind it. And then the next slide, please. And that's the view from, if you will, from the Brookline side looking back. Next slide. So, we... received refusal letters from ISD when we filed for our building permits because under the JP neighborhood District, retail and agriculture actually are forbidden. Even though the Lawrence Farm Conservation Protection Sub-District was actually named for The Farm, Allendale Farm used to be called Lawrence Farm.

And because Allendale Street is a Greenbelt in the Greenbelt Protection Overlay District. We require a conditional use permit because each of these structures is just a bit over 5,000 square feet. Thank you.

We're happy to answer any questions you have. Thank you. Are there questions from the board? May I have public testimony?

Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Benberry. I'm the Jamaica Plain Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process and received board approval on March 13th of 2025. And the proponent has also met with the civic association for that area, Jamaican Hills Association, and was approved in April of 2025. The proponent then met with the neighborhood council, Jamaica Plain Neighborhood Council, and received approval on December 17th, which completed the community process. Today, our office has not received any further community feedback at this time, and the proposal was approved to move forward with its own input. Thank you for your time, and the MS Office of Network Services would like to defer to the board for their judgment.

Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have Jorda from Councilor Webber's.

Good morning, Chair, members of the board. Jordan Frias here, Director of Policy for Councilor Weber. Councilor Weber, I'd like to go on record in support of this proposal. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair, and additional comments.

With that, may I have a motion?

Madam Chair, I would like to put forward a motion of approval.

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

Yes.

Ms. Pinado? Yes. Mr. Collins?

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next, we have case BOA 1710868 with the address of 110 to 114 Business Street. For cannabis, poison, this is for... Senator or President. Would they please explain the case to the board?

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair and the board. Attorney Quinn Heath on behalf of the petitioner, Caleb Mathis and New Growth LLC. New Growth LLC is seeking a conditional use permit for a marijuana-related use which consists of direct delivery to consumers only with no on-site sale of product. The New Growth is also seeking a variance related to a buffer requirement to be over 500 feet from schools on the basis that the business is over 500 feet when you take into account impassable barriers including a train track and a brook. Newgrowth was approved for and executed a host community agreement after presentation to the Hyde Park Neighborhood Association and Boston Cannabis Board and executed that post-community agreement for 161 Reservation Road on January 30, 2026.

New Growth will be owned and operated jointly by its two owners, Caleb Mathis and Mo Taha, who have joined us today if you have any questions. I'd like to just walk you through very quickly the simple plans for this project. So on this slide, we have just the general layout. This is going to be a small, single unit in a shared lot. It will be used for administrative use for drivers who are making deliveries to stay when they're not making deliveries. as well as storage of cannabis product which will be secured in line with all of the state regulations with strict requirements for health and safety of cannabis products. This slide shows the surveyed buffer plan that shows the distance to the nearest school and daycare facility measured by the Boston regulations and state law around buffers to schools.

Although the distance is approximately 428 feet measured from entrance to entrance, the 800 feet. I believe it's closer to 1200, although it's not measured on this precise plan. With that, I think this is a simple project and proposal, so I will turn it over to the board for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Any questions from the board?

Yes, is this a certified Boston equity applicant?

Yes, this is a certified social equity applicant.

What are the hours? That you're operating?

I believe I would need to check. I'm sorry. I believe we've got 10 a.m. to 9 p.m., but I would It was approved by the Boston Cannabis Board. I can get you that information in a minute.

Okay. And Mr. Stembridge, did you have a question?

Two, yes. So there will be no on-site transaction?

There will be no on-site transactions. There will be a shed, that is, A garage, essentially, that we can pull a van into to load product into. That is all that will happen. The products will be loaded there and taken to the consumer's order. and also I do have the hours of operation that's 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. thank you and there's no direct access from the No, the only entrance is by the road through the surveyed plan is the distance that we showed you and that is a gate. So at night and in the evening hours, there's going to be no access to the lot at all without a key. During the day, you will have to drive in, but it is a shared lot with other businesses and a private shared lot. Any onsite security? There will be at least one individual working during business hours doing security.

During nighttime hours, there will not be, but it will be a fully secured establishment with cameras, perimeter alarms, and other security mechanisms. Very good.

Thank you. Any other questions from the board?

We have public testimony. Madam Chair and members, Sugi Giotso with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This applicant completed the community process and a butters meeting was hosted on October 23rd, 2025, at which an abutter raised a concern about the street being narrow and the suitability of this location for Delivery Operations with the concern that delivery vehicles would block the street. The applicant met with the Hyde Park Neighborhood Association. That group is... NOS application. Boston Cannabis Board heard this application on January 21st, at which time commissioners asked questions about the buffer conflict with the school nearby, but were satisfied Sally, that the train tracks and Reservation Road Park provide an impassable natural physical barrier between the school and closed location. For that background, our office defers further judgment to the board. Thank you.

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

Okay, with that, may I have a motion?

Motion is- Would you like to make a motion? Approval. We provide so that the approval is for this applicant only.

Okay, is there a second? Yes, second. Mr. Stembridge. Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza?

Yes.

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

Thank you Madam Chair and the Board. Next we have case BOA 1783270. with the address of 7 Mountain Avenue. If the applicant and or their representative are present, then please explain the case to the court.

Oh, I'm here. Can you guys hear me?

Oh, we can now.

Perfect. Perfect. Good morning, members of the board. My name is Alice Mann, and I'm the architect representing the owner. He's also current in the meeting. For this project, I propose to develop an existing lot to develop a new three-family residential Located in the new address will be 11 Mountain Avenue. This will be three units with four bedrooms and two bathrooms. These will be rental units. The owner has had a very successful meeting with the neighborhood. and one of the main goal is having four bedroom units that will be allowed to be used within the home-based program and the Section 8 as the owner currently has properties around the area and he works very close with the program. As of now, it's a vacant lot. We will have two parkings on the rear and we are asking variants for front yard and side yard. We had at some point a rear yard, but with the conversations with the meeting or with the neighborhood, we're able to shift the building to smaller to be able to suffice a rear yard.

Now we'll pass it to the board for any comments or questions.

Okay, any questions from the board?

Ma'am, public testimony. Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Benbury. I'm the Mattapan Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process, which consisted of an abutters meeting facilitated on October 22nd, That was not very well received by the community at that time, with many of others voicing opposition and others voicing concerns in line with the opposition being issues with congestion and density. and the neighborhood in a concern for parking. The positioning of the proposal above is felt would cause a blind spot from Woodrow to Mount Deneuve and with the speeding issue in the neighborhood would create a dangerous corner that is already experiencing accidents would increase the danger. Barraza also voiced concerns for the upkeep and management of the property if approved as the current state of the property according to Barraza is unkept and dirty and some must be done to which the owner stated they would have a team go out and clean the property The upcoming Friday at the latest and security company to manage the property in the future.

Next, the proposal was presented to Woodrow Abb Neighborhood Association on November 20th, where they voted no opposition and the proposal was allowed to move forward in the process. Thank you for your time, and the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services would like to defer to the Board for their judgment.

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

Okay, with that, may I have a motion? Madam Chair, can I just have a clarification on the survey plot plan? Yes. Okay. Your survey plot plan notes dimensions that are different than the survey, so One of them on the left side says four foot seven and a half, and then you have 15 and two and a half on the access car aisle. And on your drawings, you have something different, which is you have a 10 feet drive aisle, but then you have three feet from the left side yard. Which one is more accurate?

I'm just pulling the drawings in my side. So in the beginning, the building was centered. In the latest drawings that we made to change, we have a 10-foot drive aisle to access the parking lot in the area of the lot. and a three-foot from the new building to the existing property line. Okay.

Okay. That's fine. I don't have any other further questions. Thank you. Just ready for a motion.

Yes, may I have a motion?

Madam Chair, I'd like to put forward a motion of approval with a proviso that the project goes under BPD design review for site plan. Do I have a second? Oh, sorry. To increase open space. Thank you. Second? Is there a second?

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

Yes.

Ms. Better Barraza?

Yes.

Ms. Pinado? Yes. Mr. Collins?

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck.

Thank you.

Next, we have three companion cases. First is case BOA 1798548 with the address of 101 School Street. Along next we have case BOA 1798549 with the address of 103 School Street. Finally, we have case BOA 1798550 with the address of 107 School Street. If the applicant and or their representative are present. Would they please explain the case to the court?

Yes, thank you, Mr. Stembridge, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Timothy Burke. I'm the architect for the project. I have a business address of 142 Berkeley Street in Boston. And thank you for this opportunity. My client is also with us today Mr. Michael Cohen. On the screen you're seeing the overall lot is just under 12,600 square feet and it has two buildings on it on the right are two two families that are attached and on the left is our two three families that are attached And for the two-family building 101 and 103, we are seeking permission to expand the first floor living space into the basement.

Thank you for joining us. Be in the basement. So that unit would become a five bedroom, two bath, which would be great for families. These are rental units and we feel that the work can be accomplished without much change to the neighborhood and a very little embodied energy required to make this a useful space. The building at 105-107 is similar. That one we are only proposing two bedrooms in the lower level. and that would become a four bedroom, a two bath unit for 107. 105 doesn't have the ability to expand into the space because of mechanical equipment.

And so I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have.

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

Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Bembry. I'm the Jamaica Plain Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. Lincoln has completed the community process, which consisted of an abuttors meeting, facilitated on December 17th, with two guests in attendance, also members of the Eggleston Square Neighborhood Association, had a few inquiries that were addressed during the meeting regarding current occupancy, future occupancy, and the clarification on the total unit count. Next, a proponent presented to both Eggleston Square Neighborhood Association and the Jamaica Plain Neighborhood Council Eccleston Square Neighborhood Association voted in non-opposition and Jamaica Plain Neighborhood Council voted to approve the proposal. To date, our office has received one letter of support from the Eccleston Square Neighborhood Association with suggestions to the proponent to upgrade all units for energy efficiency, window clearance, for safety and adding sprinklers which were sent to the board for review. 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 don't have additional enhance rates at the moment.

Okay, any questions from the board? May I have a motion? I'll make a motion of approval. May I have a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge. Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Barraza?

Yes.

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

Thank you very much. Next we have is VOA 181-1355 with the address of 145-157. If the applicant and or their representative are present, would they please explain the case to the board?

So thank you Madam Chair and on behalf of the board and staff of Mission Hill Neighborhood Housing Services, We wish to thank you for your time and consideration of our- Madam Chair, I'm sorry to interrupt.

I need to recuse myself. Thank you.

We are now a six-member board.

Please proceed. Thank you. Thank you so much. And so we do thank you for your consideration of our 145 to 157 San Alfonso Street project. My name is Ricardo Sanchez. I'm Director of Real Estate at Mission Hill NHS. We're a non-profit community development corporation serving Mission Hill for over 50 years. With me today are our executive director Patricia Flaherty, our architect Katie Faulkner of Westwork, Our Permitting Attorney Nick Zazula and several members of our Board of Directors. I do also want to thank those folks who have participated in the process to date at the CAM community meetings, at the City of Butters meeting, and again here today. We're thankful for and we're proud of the generally overwhelming support that the project has received. Next slide please.

So 145-157 San Alphonsus was originally constructed in the mid-1960s. It included three townhouses, two flats, and two duplexes over those flats for a total of seven units. Prior to Mission Hill NHS's involvement the building had been operated for decades as speculative student housing. On our inspection units were overcrowded and with significant code violations. Mission Hill NHS is looking to acquire the property and is pursuing this development because it represents a very unique and highly unlikely opportunity for the organization to reclaim these units from the speculative and transient student market and instead convert them to new 100% affordable code compliant and sustainable rental housing for extremely low-income families at 30% of area median income in perpetuity.

The seven units is a similar unit count and income level as our warehouse property just on the other side of the park, which we have operated since the 1980s. The project is in Mission Hill near the intersection of St. Alphonsus and Tremont Streets and located within the 5.5-acre Kevin W. Fitzgerald Park and Arboretum property. It's being subdivided as part of our proposed acquisition of the land and building and it is this subdivision that triggers the zoning requirement and the need for zoning relief. Our proposed project reconfigures units internally but maintains the same unit count, same height and footprint. Same square footage as before, but with a little bit less off street parking than previously.

It is intentionally limited in lot size and project scale. to what has historically been the residential use. Mission Hill NHS proposes to fully rehabilitate the property including a deep energy retrofit and electrification, enhancements to the building envelope for sustainability, all new interior finishes, and the creation of a new fully handicap accessible Unit, and Ramp. And with that, I'll turn it over to our attorney, Nick Zuzula, for discussion of the zoning and relief.

Thanks, Ricardo. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. Next slide, please, Jesus or Madam Ambassador. As Ricardo had mentioned, on the left side you can see the side plan and you have the park, Fitzgerald Park, one Brigham Circle to the other. The zoning requirement before the board today is 100% St. Augustine, St. Augustine Thank you for watching.

It made sense to subdivide the property out from the larger site, and that's the reason for the zone. Again, as Ricardo mentioned, the use itself is allowed. There's no change to the footprint, no change to the height. No additional square footage, no change to the Unicom. and you can see to the top here of the screen we do have just his own chart for the board's edification but again all because of the subdivision. Next slide, please. It's just our refusal letter. Don't need to spend a lot of time on this. Relief was cited by ISD for the subdivision again and this refusal letter correlates to the chart.

that was up on the previous screen just to give you an understanding of the existing conditions and again why the zone was leaving as a result of the subdivision. I'm happy to go over this in more detail, but don't need to belabor the point because it is a pretty simple requirement of why the zoning is to do that. So if you can go to the next slide, I will toss it over to Katie Faulkner from WeWork. We have many more slides. She'll be very quick and just go over the plans and then I can answer any questions that you all may have. Katie, are you available?

I'm here. Yeah, thanks, Nick. This is Wells. Can you hear me? Yes, ma'am. Okay, great. Thank you. So it's been explained quite well. I'll try to be quick and certainly can ask questions. We've really tried to keep what's good about the scale and size and approach and street front of the building while giving it another 50 years of durability. We're enhancing the access to it. There is new handicap parking. There are new handicap accessibility. to the unit which is accessible, which wasn't there before. Improved site lighting. We have fewer parking spaces than we did. We've gone from 11 to seven, and that's primarily to give Bike parking access, better access to site operations like trash and storage, and then also adding a transformer as we have to increase service because we are moving from gas to electric. There will be improved storm water management with a drainage strip around the building and there's also some dedicated outdoor space for every unit with a deck in the back. Next slide.

Next slide, please. Thanks. So the unit reconfigurations try to stay within the existing footprint. However, improving these sizes on some of the units to meet MOH and EOHLC standards of room sizes. That's not possible always. We can't always hit the closet size or the bedroom size, but it's much improved. The interior materials are meant to be both sustainable and durable. There's a variety of flooring in a variety of, as you can imagine, student housing kind of turning over over the years. We would take all of that out and replace it with a marmoleum, which is primarily a linoleum flooring, tile in the bathrooms, rubber treads on the risers for both the community For the community stairs as there's duplex units to the side. All of the cabinetry would be the HUD rated for smart cabinetry or equal. and the HUD rating just is a durability rating which we've been using in a lot of our supportive housing.

Resilient countertops and then non-paper faced wallboard in any wet area including bathroom, laundry and kitchen. Next slide. Exterior is also meant to improve sense of address and generally upgrade the appearance of the building while keeping the scale. So the siding all comes off because we're adding insulation to the outside as well as building envelope. The existing windows are often replaced with larger windows because some of the bedroom windows were too small. So we're putting on lap siding, New Impervia Double IGU Thermally Broken Windows, New Doors, and New Roofing. And with that, I believe we are finished. Happy to answer any questions, and thank you so much for your time.

Thank you all. Are there any questions from the board?

Just curious, how many bedroom in the nation?

There is a variety. If we can go back to the floor planner, I'll try to get it off the top of my head. So there's a one bedroom accessible unit on the first floor. I think they are mostly one bedrooms and two bedrooms. and then I think Ricardo if I'm not mistaken we're maintaining three bedrooms in the townhouses is that right?

Yes.

Thank you. With that let's have public testimony. Madam Chair and members, Siggy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This application has completed the community process and the Mayor's Office would like to express our support for the relief being granted here today. Office hosted an abutters meeting on January 28th where the proposal was widely supported by community members. The application brings new affordable housing units online. The Community Alliance of Mission Hill is also supporting this application. That background, just to reiterate, we were to the board to grant the relief as requested.

Thank you. Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Tony. I'm here on behalf of Councilor Sharon Durkan, who represents Mission Hill. Mission Hill NHS is a great organization Thank you. Next, we have Liam Rimas.

Hello, Madam Chair, members of the board, Liam Remus from Councilor Fitzgerald's office. The councilor just wanted to go on record and support his projects and his father's park, so he just wanted to let it known that the family supports the use of this lot. Thank you. Thank you.

Next, we have Consular Office, Indus Johnson from City Consular.

Yes, good morning, Madam President, members of the board. Excuse me, my name is Indis Johnson from Councilor Santana's office, and we would like to go on record in support of this. Thank you so much, and have a wonderful day. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have Emily.

Good morning. Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. I'm Emily Polston from Councilor Louijeune's office. The councilor would like to go on record in support of this project. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have Christopher Rooney.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the board. Christopher Rooney from the Mayor's Office of Housing. MOH is in strong support of the project. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have San Montano.

Hey, everyone. State Representative San Montano for this district. I would like to go on record in support of this project and glad that it's moving forward.

Thank you. Thank you. And the last person, Richard Giordano.

Always a trick to remember to find the unmute. I'd like to go on record in strong support. Full disclosure, thank you, Madam Chair, for this moment to speak. I am a board member of Mission Hill NHS. But I do want to point out two things. Mission Hill NHS is the organization that created Fitzgerald Park. that gave us this incredible shopping center at 1 Brigham Circle and they're continuing on the mission to improve the neighborhood. So these are going to be the good stewards of these houses. Secondly, this is probably the first time in the last 35 years that I've lived on Mission Hill that I've found that we've been able to convert student housing into permanent long-term residential housing. This is a first.

I don't know if all of you can appreciate how significant that is, but we have about 3,000 students living on Mission Hill, 1,000 of them alone on Hillside Street. This is the first time we're able to turn a building around and get long term residents back in the neighborhood. We need that for stability. We need that for just livability. So I want to thank you all for entertaining this and hope you support it. Thank you. Thank you. Madam Chair, there is one more person.

Adam Zerbago.

Madam Chair, members of the board, my name is Adam Sarbaugh, community alliance board member, NHS board member, and resident of Mission Hill. You heard from all of our electeds in strong support, MOH as well. You don't really need to hear from us. Further, but we echo everyone's comments of support here in furthering this process in a timely manner. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Thank you. Madam Chair, I'm sorry, there is one more. Yes, one more. Martin.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Martin Weinborn. I'm speaking on behalf of the Community Alliance of Mission Hill, the local civic association in this area. We agree with everything that was said. We near unanimously support the project in our vote and think this is a highly meritorious application. Thank you. Thank you.

Madam Chair, without there are no additional comments.

Okay, with that, may I have a motion?

Momshare, this is a really good project. Oh, sorry, go ahead.

Go ahead. Go ahead, your mommy.

Thank you. Really good project. I'm happy to support, especially Very pleased to see so much community support from city and state officials and organizations and I make a motion of approval.

Is there a second? Second.

Mr. Stembridge. I concur that this appears to be a very good project, and yes.

Thank you. Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza? Oh, sorry. Ms. Pinado. Yes. Mr. Collins.

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck all.

Thank you. Next, we have case BOA-180-5985 with the address of 11-11A Parker Hill Avenue. This is an Article 80 project, so would the applicant and or the representative please explain to the board?

Thank you, Mrs. Stembridge. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board, Attorney John Pulgini on behalf of the proponent. With me today is Alex Hume from Monty French Design Studio, the project architect. 11 Park Hill Ave. The lot size is 22,069 feet. Zoning is multifamily residential one. Before, as Mr. Stembridge pointed out, it's in Article 80, located on an irregular-shaped 22,000-square-foot lot. Currently on this property is a 24 unit apartment building which is also owned by the proponent. The proposal is to build a six story addition to the rear of the existing building. Adding 71 additional units for a total of 95 apartments, 7 off-street parking spaces, and 86 bicycle spaces. The development will also include amenity space and communal roof deck. Of that proposal, 12 of these 71 new units will be offered as affordable units at 60% AMI.

The existing building to which this addition will be attached will undergo no structural changes. It will just be up face to the facade to and other matched the new edition. It underwent a full article 80 review from BPDA. It was approved on November 13th, 25. At this point, I'm gonna pass it over to Alex Yoon to walk through the plans and happy to answer any questions. Appreciate your time this morning.

Thank you, Madam Chairman, members of the board. My name is Alex Hina. I'm an architect at Montefranco Design Studio. I will just quickly go through the project here. I believe most of my time will be spent explaining the siting. If you can go to page four, please. Sorry, if you can go to page EC001, the fourth page of the PDF. As John mentioned, this is a regular shaped site. It does have frontage, significant frontage along Parker Hill Avenue. But as you can see, it does turn the corner behind our neighbors at, I believe, 17 and 19 Parker Hill. So the majority, a good chunk of the site is behind these properties. And then the rear of the property, which is the south of this bottom of this page overlooks Michigan Hill side as well as an electrical substation across the way.

There is an existing four-story building that is that longer rectangular portion that is fronting Parker Hill. and then behind that is a current existing surface parking lot which is accessed by, on the right side, the dry vial that abuts our neighbor at 15 Parker Hill. Next page, please. This is the proposed addition in the dark gray. We are proposing a six-story addition that will add 71 units with a basement below that will house seven vehicular parking spaces. 71 enclosed bike parking spaces, a new fitness area and then as well as a new trash room that will serve the entire site and will move the existing just service exterior trash bin indoors. Next slide, please.

This is just a front model. Sorry, we can skip this one. Our front yard is 20 feet unchanged. So this is to explain some of the site improvements. There is a landscape plan that was not included in this set, but we did Commission, Verdant Landscape Design to provide a robust open space and landscape design that was reviewed with the Boston Planning Department. But just to quickly go over The main site components, the existing building is in the long rectangular gray portion. The dark gray at the bottom is the six-story addition. and then we do have a main drive aisle which is on the right of our frontage which is 20 feet wide to accommodate a fire access lane that goes Thank you.

Thank you. The building code and fire department access requirements so that we have adequate coverage of fire truck access around the six-story addition. Filling out the remainder of the site, we do have a variety of open spaces and landscaped areas on the front yard, as well as the side yards, as well as some small terraces. As well as a new roof deck at the top of the six-story addition. Next page, please. This is the basement I was referring to. Again, seven parking spaces enclosed, the 71 enclosed bike parking spaces, a new trash room that will accommodate all of the The 95 units that will be on the project in total.

Once this project is completed, it will be changing to private pickup from the existing Trash that is currently on site. Next page, please. We do have a new consolidated entry lobby in Mayor Pagani's room, which is in the kind of corner between the existing building and the new addition. That will consolidate what is currently two addresses, which is 1111A Parker Hill, which are the two walk-up entries to the existing building. That will be consolidated with the new proposed addition so that there will be a single spot delivery for both mail and packages. Next slide, please. This is a typical floor plan. There will be 54 studios, five one beds, and 12 two beds. Next slide, please.

And then, as again, I mentioned, there's a common roof deck at the top of the new six-story addition. Next slide. This is the front elevation. As I mentioned before, this is the vertical edition, which is six stories. But what's not shown is that from Parker Hill Avenue. Our neighbors at 15 and 17 are actually in front of this elevation so that and many more. Thank you. portion of the street frontage that is primarily made up of three to five stories and so that is relatively undisturbed from the street view. There are some other elevations, but I'll be happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much. Thank you.

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

Madam Chair and members, Siggy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This applicant completed an Article 80 community process led by the Boston Planning Department. A public meeting was held on October 20th, 2025. Members are concerned about the unit mix at this location. Members of the community do not want to see studio and micro studio units and prefer larger unit sizes. The file from BPD included five letters of opposition and four comments in support. The applicants have met with the community alliance of Mission Hill. That background, our office defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Okay, Madam Chair, we have Richard Giordano.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for this opportunity to testify. I'm a Mission Hill resident. live on 129 Fisher Hill Ave. I'm very sorry to go in opposition to this project. And I would hope that the board would look at the entire context This same developer is building another unit across the street diagonally on another parking lot for about 40 or 50 units, in both cases taking away existing parking. increasing the density tremendously and then has another project up the top of Parker Hill at the former Baptist Nursing School. with 114 units and about 10 parking spaces. So in context, The developer is jamming studios all over Parker Street to the tune of about 225 units.

Minimal, minimal parking and this one in particular is down the end of a small narrow driveway at the precipice of a drop-off below the power plant below it. It's a bad location. The density is too much. The number of units is too much. And the mix is all wrong. And it's what this development does all over Mission Hill. Lots of studios. Good for transients and short-time students. That's not what the neighborhood needs, and I would hope that you would oppose the project. Thank you.

Thanks. Next, we have Martin.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I'm speaking on behalf of the Community Alliance of Mission Hill and also as a Mission Hill resident myself. We share similar concerns that were were just mentioned and strongly oppose this proposal. What we heard is that the proposal is excessively dense, We are concerned about the very small rental units that are predominated by studios. The likelihood has become another transient student dormitory, which would further destabilize our neighborhood coherence. We are also concerned about the lack of adequate parking in a narrow, very steep street where abutters are already struggling for parking and another two similar parking deficient developments by the developers are in progress. I think maybe the most serious concern is traffic danger and congestion.

which is exacerbated by the fact that the Baker Center Children and Families is very nearby uphill and by the absence of adequate accommodation for deliveries in emergency vehicles. In the end, there was near unanimous opposition to this proposal. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you. Next, we have Mitch Hilton.

Thank you. My name is Mitch Hilton. I live at 59 Iroquois Street. I've been a Mission Hill resident for over 50 years. This proposed development, in my opinion, does not benefit the neighborhood. It's too large, it's the wrong kind of apartments, and it's most definitely in the wrong location. Tucked in on the side of the hill down a driveway that has been a surface lot. That stretch of Parker Hill Ave is narrow, difficult to navigate as is, and it's dangerous. Some 20 years ago, a fire engine lost its brakes going down the hill. Just perhaps a hundred yards away from the driveway that at the end of which this project is proposed. Firefighter Kevin Kelly lost his life that day. I don't think it is safe or good for the neighborhood to put 71 units in the location that's proposed. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. The last person that we have is Tyler Rose. Tyler, you can unmute yourself now.

Thank you. Good evening, Madam Chair, not good evening, excuse me, good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board, Tyler Ross, Senior Project Manager in Development, the View Department, the Planning Department, Um... We reviewed this project and the Planning Department hosted two public meetings on August 13, 2025 and October 20, 2025, which were well attended and advertised in the local newspaper. The planning department reviewed and supports this project as stated, six stories, 71 units. adding an addition to the rear of an existing 24-unit building totaling just under 49,000. Close Floor Area. The project will also contain seven parking spaces and 16 short-term bike parking spaces.

And then with that, I will turn it back over. Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, I think there are two more people.

Eric? Are you talking about Eric Zacherson? He's an architect. All right. Okay. So. Okay. So if I could ask the applicant to comment on these concerns.

Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah.

Are you here to provide comment? Okay, so if the applicant could address some of the concerns about unit mix and appropriateness for the area, et cetera, that would be really helpful.

Sure. Thank you, Madam Chair. First, I'd like to say that this went through extensive design between us, our engineer and BFT, with respect to any sort of access or problems with respect to that. Also, where this is located, I mean, this is a very large lot. This is over half an acre of lot. It's an underutilized section of this building that is pressed back, and... With respect to the unit count, we're providing two beds, we're providing studios, we're providing a gamut of different type of hollow one bedrooms. and one thing that's important to know when you come in with you know three billion units people talk about dormitories you come in with studios and they're saying well it could be dormitories This developer and property owner has hundreds of units. His portfolio is less than 15% undergraduates. And with respect to

The smaller units, that gives you the ability for people that are overhoused to live in Mission Hill and their house is too much for them. It gives them an opportunity to go someplace, stay in the neighborhood. and have a full service building for them. So that's all I have right now, Madam Chair.

Thank you.

Any other questions from the board? If the BPD project manager can expand on the community process because what I was hearing from the community members was that there was a lot of opposition and I am not here I've heard from the project manager and BPD in regards to Those that were present, you know, what was kind of the recorded of opposition and what was the recorded kind of support for the project from the community? That would be good to hear.

Yeah, Tyler Ross here, planning department, project manager for the project. So as you heard in terms of opposition, I think you've heard to hear it was about unit makes and safety regarding the fire access, and the site location being typed on the site in the hill as that John just spoke about, as Paul just spoke, the fire access had been discussed with our transportation planner who ensured us that it was Safe and that Boston Fire Department will be reviewing the plans and so if the plans are not adequate to what the fire department standards then Obviously the plans will not be approved by them, but our transportation planners, landscape planners,

All of our internal planners that reviewed the plans seemed to be confident that the fire access was safe and that it would be fine when Boston Fire Department reviewed it in that aspect. In terms of the unit mix, we did hear opposition in the public meeting about the unit mix. I believe the Project team adjusted the unit mix slightly to add I believe larger bedrooms some of those two bedrooms that Mr. Bargini was talking about. And so that was addressed somewhat by the proponent in an attempt to listen to the community and address those concerns. And in terms of support for the project, we heard from community members on the public meeting that more units are needed

and Mission Hill because of the rising cost of housing and that, you know, putting more units in all of, Boston in general, just not specifically in the Mission Hill neighborhood, will help alleviate some of the rising cost of rents in Boston. So that's some of the support that we heard.

And Ms. Better Barraza, if I could just comment quickly. We also provided nine letters of support for today's meeting as well.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Other questions from the board? Is there a motion?

This is okay.

I'm really concerned about the commuting process. I do see the nine letters of support, but I also see 21 Opposed and with Community Alliance of Mission Hill along with the people who are present here on the meeting. talking about the problems with the community process. And so with that, I'd like to put forward a motion of denial without prejudice so that there could be a better community process to come back and resolve some of those issues.

Is there a second?

Second. Mr. Stembridge? Yes.

Mr. Valencia? I'm going to vote no on this one.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza?

I'm going to vote no because this is an Article 80, and Article 80 projects that are in front of us typically needs to vet out The community in regards to support, more so support than opposition, so I'm going to say no.

Ms. Parado.

Yeah, I agree with Ms. Barraza that articulating processes occurred and been approved, and I'm going to vote no.

Mr. Collins.

I'll vote no as well.

Chair votes no. The motion does not carry. Is there another motion? Or actually no. Yeah, is there another motion? Yeah, I'll put forward a motion of approval. Is there a second?

Second. Mr. Stembridge. I'll vote no. Even though it is an Article 80 case, I don't believe it's been vetted enough.

Mr. Valencia.

I vote yes and I want to ask the proponent to keep working with the planning department to see if there are ways to modify the unit count or No, just keep it like that. Yes. We will do that. Thank you.

Ms. Turner? Uh, no. Ms. Better Barraza?

I'm going to vote yes, but I'm going to ask the BPD on future Article 80 process. They should have a recording to present in front of the board that counts how many committee members are voting to support the project versus those community members and direct abutters are largely impacted and is in opposition. That information will be tremendous because I can see us turning it back and voting no if we hear a lot of community opposition in front of us. So I just wanted to recommend that on the next Article 80 review project.

Thank you. Ms. Pinado. Yes. Mr. Collins?

Yeah.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Thank you, everybody. Enjoy the rest of your day.

Thank you. We are at 1116.

So you motion carry.

We're at 1116, so we'll ask at this point.

There's something wrong.

Yes. Yes. We'll ask if there are any requests for withdrawals or deferrals from this time period. Hearing none, we'll return to the 930 hearings and we will go to case BOA 176-4751. with the address of 33 Shirley Street. If the applicant and or their representative are present, would they please explain to the board? Someone present for 33 Shirley Street.

I think, okay, is Brian Glasgow speaking on behalf of this case?

Yes, thank you. Can you hear me? Yes. Great, thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Brian Glascock. I'm a resident of 30 Johnswood Road in Roslindale, and I've been a member of the Shirley Eustis House board for about seven years. The request that you see before you today is really to memorialize a condition of pre-existing nonconformity that's been this way for about the last 50 years. Shirley Eustace House was the colonial governor's mansion for William Shirley who was the governor of Massachusetts but also under England. controlled all the British activities in the Caribbean as well.

Sort of the very essence of the British Monarchy here in the New World. The house itself, built in 1747, was moved at one point, but it's been in its present location, and in fact, they surely used this house association. took over the care and control and management and ownership of the house in the early 20th centuries. The House consists of a museum, a house above with one residential unit, On the sort of the garden level, we call it the basement, but it's really the first floor level is how the house stands now. The second issue that we're seeking to get memorialized is the fact that it's existed all this time without any off-street parking.

The house itself, we are open to the public and give many tours. There are also special events there. and in all these years we've never had any off-street parking on the site. So this is really pre-existing non-conformity. We could go through and look at some of the slides. I see our executive director, Susie Buchanan, prepared a nice slide exhibit so you can sort of see, if you haven't been to the house itself, Thank you for watching. Rash of Arson in the 50s and 60s and 70s. It really is an amazing piece of history that we have right here. in the middle of Roxbury. So if we could just quickly go through a couple of slides and then we can answer any questions you might have.

Please advance the slides. I'm not going to spend much time.

Can the Ambassador advance the slides?

Yeah. And next slide. So I was going to pause here for a second just to see where it is in relation to the rest of Boston. Initially, it was very close to the water back before the South Bay was filled in. This house is 4244 Shirley Street. You can stop right back at 4244. This is a property that the Shirley Useless House Association acquired across the street. It's the former stables. The building you're looking at here is the carriage house that was moved onto site. That was the Carriage House from the Isabella Stewart Gardner estate that was slated to be demolished. We obtained it and moved it on site. The prior slides 42-44 Shirley Street.

That was the former stables for the mansion in Governor Shirley. and it was also, we later learned, was home to some of the enslaved people that Governor Shirley had to do all of his work around the estate. as well as care for as many many horses and carriages and so on. Next slide. Yeah, there's the list of names that we've been able to determine so far. And we have tried to gather as much information as we can. and you can find it around outdoors when there isn't four feet of snow on it that there's markers around the property telling you a little something about about these people that were part of the estate. Next slide please. This is some of the many activities we have.

Roxbury Russet Day, celebrating a strain of apples that was We also have bread right in Roxbury and was part of the orchards there. Large and really fun Juneteenth celebration. We get the kids out. It's a really great gathering spot for the community. We hold many events there. Also private events, weddings and things like that. Next slide, please. Yeah, so this shows some of the things that done some on-site archaeology to try and find out more about What was going on there? I think in that very small picture, that's someone's hand there. It looks like a cowrie shell, which found its way to the site from Africa.

because they're not native to the New England waters. And so in all likelihood, that was something that had belonged to one of the enslaved people that lived there at 4244 Shirley Street. And then the final slide, please. And this tells you a little bit about the work we're doing at 4244 Shirley Street to try and determine what the building really looked like. It was initially twice as big. And so we're in the process of both fundraising and planning for how we interpret that building, making it usable again. Getting people in to sort of show them that this part of history is still here in Boston, still here in Roxbury. It's a real thing. You can see it. You can touch it. and it's all part of our collective histories.

And I appreciate the board's indulgence in letting me take you on this little tour, It's not often you get a chance to tell people exactly how wonderful this site is. And so, again, I appreciate your attention. Indulgence and open to any questions that might have about the legalization of this use as a museum house with a dwelling in it and relief from the requirements of off-street parking.

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

Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Bembry. I'm the Roxbury Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process, which consisted of an abutters meeting facilitated on September 15th, and with no abundance present, the proposal moved forward and presented to Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative on September 25th and with no opposition, the proposal was allowed to move forward in the process with the Zoning Board. Thank you for your time and the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services would like to defer to the Board for their judgment.

Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have Donald. If you can unmute yourself. Donald Weiss. If not, we have Jerry, Jerry Wheelock.

Yes, Madam Chairman and CBA Board members. My name is Jerry Wheelock, presiding at 10 Biltmore Street, Jamaica Plain. I'm on the board of the Shirley Eustis House Association, and we have an important need to upgrade our fire detection system in both the Shirley Street Mansion and the Carriage House, which is at 15 Rockford Street, parallel street. We have Boston landmark status, including the 4244 Shirley Street property, but need to comply with all ISD requirements for code and online documentation. to proceed with this project. While we have an ISD certificate of occupancy for the carriage house, obtaining this variance is really essential to completing the change of occupancy status for our mansion. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you. Any other raise hands for support or opposition?

We don't have additional hands raised at the moment. Thank you. That may have a motion.

I'll make a motion of approval.

Second.

Better Barraza second.

Second. Mr. Stembridge, thank you. Appreciate all the seconds. Mr. Stembridge. Yes Madam Chair. Mr. Valencia. Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza?

Yes.

Ms. Pinado? Yes. Mr. Collins?

Yes.

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

Thank you. Next, we have four companion cases. The first is case BOA 1809760 with the address of 98 Winthrop Street. Next we have case BOA 1808916 with the address of 96 Winthrop Street. Along with that, we have case BOA-180-8911 with the address of 100 Winfield Street. and finally we have case BOA 1809764 with the address of 102 Winthrop Street. If the applicant and or their representative are present, would they please explain the cases to the board?

Thank you, Mr. Stembridge. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board, Attorney Jeff Drago with Drago and Toscano with the business address. of 11 Beacon Street, here on behalf of the applicant, Jimmy Zhu, and we also have Eric Zacherson from Context Design, who's the architect. on the proposal. What you're looking at, and this is an existing conditions picture and view.

Please mute.

Thank you. Sorry, it's comprised of four buildings. 96 and 98 are attached and 100 and 102 Winthrop Street are attached. And all of the plans that we're proposing are typical of one another. So they're all Similar in layout and design. What we're proposing is in line with what the BPDA recommended for approval. and under their guidelines which is to create additional housing opportunities within existing buildings without building out on the building so all of the building the contours of the building would remain the same What we'd be utilizing is this top floor pitched attic spaces on all of the buildings. Currently, All of the buildings have rooms in that attic space. Part of them are finished, many of which were my client-purchased of those top locations are unfinished.

and so just we'd be changing the occupancy of all the buildings to add one additional unit to occupancy for each of the four buildings so a total of four additional occupied units so at 96 Just to go over these a little more clearly, if you could go to the next slide too, Mr. Ambassador, thank you, if you could stay on that slide. 96, we're proposing to go from seven, an occupancy of seven to eight units. At 98, from six to seven. At 100 from 4 to 5 and then at 102 from 6 to 7. All of this space would be within the attic on two of the units. At both 96 and 100, we're proposing to demo the top and add two one-bedroom units. And then on 96 and 102, we're proposing to add Two larger three bedroom units on site.

If you take a look, even though this area is zoned as three family, you can see all of the similar apartment style complex or many apartment style complexes. Within the immediate area as well. So it is typical of this area for this kind of building in the back through access of an existing curb cut and driveway. There is parking for about six spaces and as part of this proposal will actually be making the building safer. They're going to be completely sprinklered as well as second means of egress. Off the top floor. The violations really all are pre-existing. The only two that we're increasing slightly for each building is the FAR which has an existing FAR of 1.07 and we're proposing to go to 1.08.

and then parking because we're adding additional units although this immediate area is 0.2 miles so walking distance Dudley Station as well as two bus routes right across from us as well. and so all of these top floors are already have like a hodgepodge of rooms and bedrooms my client is not utilizing them right now we don't feel it's safe and so what we're proposing to do is add these units within The existing structure. With that, I can pause and answer any questions that the board may have. Thank you. Appreciate it. Are there questions from the board?

Can you just describe how you're accomplishing the second means of egress from that top floor?

Eric Zacherson, who I see is on here. I think he'd be the best to describe that.

Yeah, thank you. I can answer that. So the existing, the building has a central stair in the front. and has a stair in the rear that goes up from the basement to the third floor, we'd be extending that common stair in the rear of the building. Yeah, you see it at the very top of the page there. I'm extending that up one story to get that second means of e-commerce.

Okay, thank you. Other questions from the board? 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 for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process which consisted of an abutters meeting facilitated on July 10th that was not very well received by the community. Abutters, while recognizing the need for housing, voiced concerns for the increased density, parking, and traffic congestion, along with the increase in current loading activity from the lack of property maintenance. But has felt confused on how or why any variances would be allowed considering the property is already a problem property, Abbott is complaining of an overflowing dumpster that also takes up parking spaces, increasing the road issue and exacerbating the parking issue. Three of Abbott has voiced opposition to the proposal for those reasons. Next, the proposal was presented to Roxbury Path Forward, where they voted in opposition to the proposal, maintaining the theme of the concerns and opposition, as well as stating the area is too small and too narrow. To date, our office has received one letter of opposition from the Roxbury Path Forward sent to the board for review. Thank you for your time, and the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services would like to defer to the Board for their judgment.

Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have Carl Todisco.

Yes. Good morning. Thank you for calling me. I'm a butter within a few homes of this, and I'm opposed because, number one, The street is way too dense to support more apartments going in. I mean, I know that we've had a snowstorm, but if you came down our street right now It is beyond, you can't even get around that corner where those homes are, but besides the fact of that, I'm very afraid those buildings were built in the 1800s. They're over 100 years old. And to add more families to the top floor, I'm afraid that it's going to cause a fire hazard, lose lives, because one of the buildings, the brick wall that is

Supports the building had collapsed once already and it had to be rebuilt so my concern is on top of it being too dense for the neighborhood adding more families I believe it's going to be a fire trap. The homes are closed together. If one house gets on fire, you're looking at six large apartment buildings all going on fire. There's no place to park. It's just not acceptable in our neighborhood. Thank you.

Thank you. Thanks. And we have another person, Lorraine.

Good morning. I'm here this morning on behalf of the Roxbury Path Forward Neighborhood Association. And as you heard, we met with the developer several times and the neighbors are just against this. and most of these reasons have been stated well by Carl and also by Jeremy but I want to tell the board I don't know if you received it but I sent you photos of a parking behind the building. It's simply unacceptable. I don't know how the Boston Planning could approve this. They have dumpsters and they might have room for six cards altogether, but they already have 27 apartments. And these buildings were built as three on each side, side-by-side apartments. And so the number of people on this property

It's just too much for the neighborhood, which is still, Winthrop Street is primarily three family buildings, homeownership buildings, and it's just, they would be taking more. Thank you for watching. reasonable to suggest that the parking can be used that way. So we're going to ask that the board oppose this project at present. And then just one other thing about the bus line. There is a bus line on Blue Hill Avenue. But it is incredibly slow and will not get you to work on time. And we don't have local jobs, and so therefore, People Drive.

And as Kyle stated, the street is already overwhelmed by the number of cars that are there. So thank you very much.

Any other questions from the board?

Does the applicant wish to address any of those concerns? Thank you, Madam Chair. Appreciate it. So I just want to point out the space in the top floor that we're looking to utilize is already Existing Space. When my client purchased it, half of it was unfinished, half of it already had bedrooms up there which he isn't using. The occupancy on two of the buildings reflects that that space is being counted towards the general occupancy. What we're looking to do is, one, and I always mention concerns about fire, Make the building safer to be fully sprinklered with two means of egress. Two, utilize that space. We're not expanding the building. I know it was mentioned that density... Thank you for joining us.

and then some one bedroom units for a total increase of occupancy of four units, which is exactly what the BPDA's recommendation had mentioned. I realize parking is an issue that seemed to be the general concern. We are near the bus route. We are within walking distance of the T. There's also a playground directly across the street for additional open space. and we're not expanding the footprint of the building at all. My client has a property management company that manages the buildings We actually have dumpster pickup once a week for the buildings as well. When we went to the meeting, it was mentioned there was concern about rodents. He has an exterminating company that comes by once a week. There's been no signs of rodent activity. There's been no ISD issues on the building or citations or anything like that, which we checked.

and we did update the Civic Association on all of those points which they asked us to look into.

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

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

Second.

Mr. Stembridge.

I believe it needs more work, no.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? No. Ms. Barraza?

Yes.

Ms. Pinado? Yes. Mr. Collins? Are you on mute, Mr. Collins? You're on mute, Mr. Collins.

All right, well, yes.

Chair votes yes, the motion carries. Thank you very much. That was the point.

Next, we have Case Vigil. I'm here with the Nevada Chair. We passed the 1130 time frame. We'll ask if there are any requests for withdrawals or deferrals from the 1130 time frame.

requesting deferral for 62L Street.

So that would be for case BOA. 1575425 with the address of 62 L Street. Could you go ahead and explain please?

Good afternoon Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is David Luciano. I'm owner of 62 L Street in South Boston. We had gone through the community process and worked with our director butters that were previously opposed Uh... to our project, but we came to an agreement. We've submitted, or we are submitting the final paperwork today to ISD for the revised plans. We request a deferral to wait for approval from ISD and conduct our budget meeting. Okay.

How much time do you think you need? Oh, go ahead. Sorry, Stephanie.

April 7th, April 28th, or May 5th.

April 28th.

Okay, with that, may I have a motion? Motion to defer until April 28th.

Thank you. Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

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

Any further requests for withdrawals or deferrals from the 11 to 8 time frame? Yes, please. Mr. Stembridge?

Yes, Mr. Stembridge, 49-51 Calendar Street and Sister Application 53, Calendar Street, please.

So this would be for case BOA 1766723 with the address of 49 to 51 Calender Street, along with case BOA 1766728 with the address of 53 Gallaudet Street. Go ahead, Attorney Spitz.

Great, thank you, Mr. Stembridge. Madam Chair, members of the board, Attorney Ryan Spitz with Adams & Maranci, business address of 168 8th Street, 1st Floor, South Boston. requesting a deferral as there were some inconsistencies that were just cleared out with the refusal letters that they need to be re-advertised.

We're going to do this one for March 24th. We already have them scheduled to be re-appetized then.

Okay. May I have a motion?

Motion to defer until March 24th.

Is there a second?

Mr. Stembridge? Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Burns? Request? Yes, going to be requesting a deferral for 183 St. Petolph Street.

So this would be a request to defer for case BOA 174-1777 with the address of 183 St. Pataw Street. Would you go ahead and explain, please?

Yes, thank you, Mr. Stembridge. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the Board, Attorney Justin Burns from Pulgini & Norton, Business Address 10, Forbes Road, Braintree, Massachusetts. The proponent and the design team have been in discussions with the landmarks department in regards to some design components of our project. And based on those discussions, we are beginning a re-evaluation of the design of the project, so we will need a little more time to complete that process.

April 7th, April 28th, May 5th.

We'll do May 5th. Motion. Motion to defer until May 5th.

May I have a second?

Second.

Second.

Mr. Stembridge?

Yes. Excuse me, yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza? Yes. Ms. Pinado? Yes. Mr. Collins? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Thank you.

There are no more requests for withdrawals and deferrals.

We'll return to the 930 AM cases.

That will take us to case BOA 1784126 with the address of 634 Dorchester Avenue. The applicant and or their representative are present. Would they please explain to the board?

Yes, thank you, Mr. Stembridge, Madam Chair, members of the board, Attorney Ryan Spitz with Adams & Maranci, business address of 168 H Street, 1st floor, South Boston. Joining me today is the project architect Eric Zacherson. The proposal in front of you today seeks to change the occupancy from a three-family to a four-family dwelling by legalizing an existing garden level unit By maintaining the footprint of the building. Unit will have its own private entrance. I would also like to note for the board that this is a garden level unit with a full walkout in the rear. There is a substantial grade difference that runs from the front of the property to the rear. The property is also abutting the Marielle McCormack Housing Development, which is currently under construction to redevelop the site with substantial heights and a substantial increase in units. By way of history, Mr. Ordway purchased the property over 20 years ago with the existing garden level space built in.

At that point, this property was owner occupied and Mr. Ordway utilized the finished space to house his family close relatives that had no place to reside. Further, it's always been Mr. Ordway's presumption that the space was always considered legal habitable space. However, it was discovered during this application that when he purchased the building over 20 years ago, the space was never legalized as living space. This proposal is very closely aligned with the Mayor's by right conversion of internal spaces to accessory dwelling units, except that it is investor-owned. This parcel falls within the Old Wolf's base zone code with an L1 subdistrict. Garden level unit will be approximately 994 square feet. Two-bedroom with eight-foot sailings. We have violations for lot area and additional lot area. The current lot size is 2,071 square feet, which is pre-existing non-conformity as the lot size requirement here in the old base code. is 5,000 square feet and 1,000 square feet for each additional unit.

Lot width is another pre-existing nonconformity of the dimensions of the lot that was cited. We have a floor area ratio violation. The required FAR is a 1.0. and the proposal calls for a 1.8. Again, this proposal is subject to the old base code zoning rather than an MFR, which is one block away that has an FAR of a 2.0. However, the density is consistent with other neighboring FARs along this block. We also lastly have an off-street parking violation as the proposal does not provide any parking for the new unit of housing but is a very close walk to the Andrew Square train station. I am aware of the recommendation of denial put forward by the planning department based upon the CD fraud. However, I'd like to remind the board the C fraud is not applicable as this proposal does not meet any of the applicability requirements as set forth within Section 25A-4 of the Code. Also, there was a carbon copy of this proposal located at 630 Dewitt Trusted Avenue, which is two parcels

Down from this one where the recommendation of the planning department was approval with design review as the property fell within the CFRAWD. There is a discrepancy between the two recommendations, but we ask that the same relief be granted for this proposal as it was for 630 Dorchester Avenue. I also want to remind the board that this livable space has been in existence for over 20 years despite not being legalized and is also, again, a full walkout in the rear. In concluding, we feel that the proposal not create any adverse impacts to the neighborhood and is consistent with the other recent approvals of garden level units as well as meeting the mayor's initiative of increasing unit counts by maintaining the structures of the building itself. So at this point, Madam Chair, I'm going to turn it over for any questions or comments from the board.

Thank you. Any questions from the board?

Are you remodeling at all or are you just putting Or is it just existing plans that you're trying to make a legal occupancy?

Yes, so that's a great question, Hansi. The plans are is nothing else is being done to the actual three units. I believe there's some slight changes being made to the actual basement. I know Eric Zacherson is here today. I think those are mostly digging out to require the full entrance, the private entrance on the side, the right-hand side of the property itself. But Eric, if you're here, if you can comment on that as well, please.

Yeah, the main thing is that we'd have to add a sprinkler system, a tank sprinkler system to the unit, but the wall configuration is going to be the same as has been in place for quite some time.

Okay, so if you were to provide basement flooding kind of mitigation, that would... That would not really necessarily work because it seems like your modifications are very minimum. It's not like...

Very minimal.

You're not redoing floors, insulation. Okay, great. Thanks for... responding to my question. And then I think it's really, it would be great to hear Jeff Hampton in regards to what Attorney Spitz basically mentioned in terms of the Discrepancies between the two recommendations.

Yes, thank you, Ms. Better Barraza, Madam Chair. Members of the board, Jeff Hampton, City of Boston Planning Department. Yeah, we acknowledge that three years ago we made a different recommendation, but that was also at a time where the policy moving forward, as this board knows now, We don't support units that are within the CFRA. We've done it all over the city, whether it be the South End, the North End, South Boston. Over time, We've seen the policy change and we do acknowledge that back then we did design review to address the sea fraud issues, but because this wasn't Any sort of exterior changes, we don't ask for that anymore to deal with the sea fraud. Our policy has been to deny these new units, and this has been very consistent over the last, I'd say, probably two, two and a half years.

And if I could just respond briefly, Madam Chair. Sure. So also, I just, again, I just like to highlight, I think the planning department is for what is considered a full basement units underground. Again, there's substantial grade changes going from the front of the property to the rear of the property, which makes it a full walkout in the rear. which is very consistent with that 630 Dorchester Avenue property that was approved by this board as well.

Do you have an elevation that you can show us for the back of the building so we can see the garden level that you are referring.

Eric, was there one?

Yeah, if you scroll up a couple of pages, there's an elevation or two that'll show how it drops off. If we can scroll up a little bit.

Further, further.

And then Mr. Spitz. Can you also let us know what is the trigger for the CFRA to be applied to this address? Yeah, so it's... Just remind me, please. Yeah.

So what triggers this is typically Article 80 projects, anything 15 units...

Okay. So it's about anything 15... Okay, so given that this is a smaller scale, it doesn't necessarily apply. Yes. Okay, thanks.

Any other questions from the board? Apologies. If we could go back to the plan, I can explain the elevation change. I guess there isn't an elevation included in this set, but I can show it on the plan.

Yeah, I was thinking about that because the planet department refers to this space as basement and you are referring to space as garden level. So I really wanted to see if there is a way to ensure that this is not a basement.

Yeah, if you could scroll to the page below this one, and I can show you on the ground floor plan how this works. Down one page, please. Yeah, so on the left side here, you see the basement and the bottom right hand corner, it shows the gate from the sidewalk. So the sidewalk is the bottom right hand corner of the drawing on the left. Immediately as you go through that gate, you go down seven steps. So you're going down almost four feet right away. That's why none of these windows show window wells. The windows are above the sidewalk. Windows are normal sized windows, and the bottom of them is above the kind of grade around them. And then to get into the unit, you see another three steps going down. But at the very back of the building, you see that it is almost exactly at grade.

When you go through the back of the unit, through that little mechanical space with the sprinkler equipment, and now at the back door, you're within six inches of grade at the rear. So while the front of the building, the unit doesn't And how do you access the unit from the street? You go through that side gate and then down those seven steps and then down three more steps into the unit.

Okay, just looking at the street view, I see like there is a wooden gate that seems pretty old, and I was just wondering if this is the main access to the units.

That would be the main access, yes. We would put an address on it and replace the gate. Thank you.

What's the total square footage of the project?

The unit would be the gross square footage of a basement excluding mechanical space is 990 square feet.

Okay, so it is, I'm going back to what triggers CFRA, it is less than 10,000 square feet. Okay, thank you.

So the total living area for all four units, if this was approved, would be 3,831 with the floor area ratio of 1.85.

Alright, with that, let's have public testimony and we can circle back. Any other questions?

Yes, Siggy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This applicant has completed the community process. Our office hosted an abutters meeting on October 22nd, 2025, at which no concerns were raised. The applicants met with the Andrew Square Civic Association, which supported the application, but requested an additional review to ensure compliance with the egress requirements of the building code. With that background, I'll defer judgment to the board. Thank you.

Next, we have Ashley.

Hi, my name is Ashley from Councilor Flynn's office. Councilor Flynn would like to go on record in support based on a thorough community process and work with the neighbors and the Andrews Square Civic Association when the proponent agreed to provide animal resistant trash barrels For all four units, install exterior lighting and improve the building's appearance through power washing and painting the trim and facade with Andrew Square Civic Association support contingent upon updated plans being deemed compliant. Flynn believes this project will move forward in a way that respects the community. Thank you.

Thanks. Next we have Leanne Rimas.

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

Thank you.

Madam Chair, there are no additional comments.

Any other questions from the board?

May I have a motion? Madam Chair, I'd like to put forward a motion of approval. And the reason why is I do think that the project has had a habitable basement for a very long time. I do think that it doesn't necessarily trigger the sea fraud because the project is less than 10,000, less than 15 units. What I would recommend is that the architect really locates mechanical systems above a height that seems reasonable if there was to ever be a flood. So I do think there is an exception to this project.

Is there a second?

Second.

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

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza? Yes. Ms. Pinado? Yes. Mr. Collins? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck. Thank you. So with that, I'm going to have us take a 15-minute break. You can come back probably to the interpretation. All right. Thanks, guys.

Recording stopped.

Thank you for listening.

Thank you.

Okay, I will keep it unmuted now.

I'm sorry, but I can tell you that I'm going to go before you.

Thank you

Madam Chair. Thank you. Mr. Valencia. Present. Ms. Turner. Present. Ms. Better Barraza. Present. Ms. Pinado. Present. Mr. Collins. Present. All right. The floor is yours, Mr. Stembridge.

Thank you, Madam Chair. For now, we'll hold off on the 11 and the 11.30 a.m. hearings, and we will go to the interpretation case scheduled for 12 p.m. Excuse me. which is case BOA 1810164 with the address of 46 to 47 Beaton Street.

and the, yeah, Ambassador Goodell. Thank you.

Sorry about that. Just again, case BOA-1810164. If the applicant and or their representative are present, would they please explain to the board?

Yes, my name is Michael Bowie and I represent one of the applicants. Are you presenting or is someone else presenting? Yeah, actually, no, I'm sorry. I'm presenting, and Matthew Furman is also on the panel, and he represents the wards, but I'll be the main presenter here. Okay, Mr. Eshow, our traffic engineer.

Okay, and please focus on the zoning relief issues. I know there are a lot of issues that you've cited, so thank you.

Yeah. Thank you very much. So my name is Michael Murray. I'm a land use litigator with Nixon Peabody in Boston, and I represent Connor Lian and Katie Lian, who, along with Robert and Lee Ward, are challenging the issuance of a 2025 alteration permit authorizing the creation of eight luxury dwelling units and a 16-car garage at 46-47 Beacon Street. The Lans are a young couple with a newborn child who have lived in their home at 5-7 Spruce Court since October 17, 2025 after purchasing the property in July of 2025. With me is Matthew Furman, a land use litigator with Todd & Weld in Boston. He represents the wards who have lived at three spruce courts since 2025. The lands in the wards are deeply concerned with the impacts that the proposed 16-car garage will have on their property and Spruce Court. which is their sole means of access to their homes. If we could turn to slide one, which is already showing, it shows Spruce Court from, I'm sorry, if you could go back to the page one.

You had it on the correct page. So this shows Spruce Court from Spruce Street. Spruce Court is a narrow cobblestone way that has existed for many decades and has never seen the type of automobile traffic that will result if 46 to 47 Beacon's garage project proceeds. In fact, the roughly 100-year-old building at 46 to 47 Beacon has never provided parking. If we now move to slide two, please. We see a plot plan superimposed on a stamped plan prepared by Feldman land surveyors laying out the area. You can see the Ward's property and the Leon's property to the upper right. Directly below their properties is an area marked three to seven screws scored fee interest parking area, which I'll get into in a minute. The bottom half of Spruce Court is an established 10-foot wide fire lane. Toward the bottom right is 46 to 47 Beacon, the location of the proposed garage.

Now if we turn to side three, It reflects the result of a lawsuit that the previous owner of 46 to 47 Beacon brought against the prior owners of the lands in the ward's properties to prevent parking on the northern half of Spruce Court. The Land Court ruled that the owners of 3 and 5 to 7 Spruce Court also own the northern 10 feet of Spruce Court in front of their properties and have a right to park there. and that 46 to 47 Beacon had access rights through the fire lane on the southern half which had to remain open. Now if we could go to slide four please. 46 to 47 beacons prior owner appealed that land court decision, but the appeals court affirmed in 2012. Now, if we could flip back to the very first slide, the photograph on the very first page.

So this shows that Spruce Court poses significant maneuverability issues even without the addition of any new automobile traffic. Notably, going all the way back to 1962 when the current rights to Spruce Court were created, we have not seen any evidence that 46 to 47 Beacon has ever regularly used Spruce Court for automobile use, which makes sense because 46 to 47 Beacon has always had access on Beacon Street. Spruce Court, therefore, is just a back alley to 46 to 47 Beacon. But to the Leans and to the Wards, Spruce Court is their sole legal means of accessing their homes. Before purchasing 46 to 47 Beacon, the developer knew of these existing tight conditions. The developer knew that any plans it may pursue for the property must accommodate the fact that the homes along Spruce Court needed Spruce Court as their only means of access and had a right to park along the northern 10 feet.

And the developer knew that whatever use it made of Scrooge Court could not result in blockages to the fire lane. Clearly the developer should have thought twice before planning any garage on this little way here and at a minimum should have obtained a careful and thorough traffic analysis showing that a garage was feasible. This is especially true if we turn to slide six please. And this is where we get to zoning. So this slide shows 23-9E of the Boston Zoning Code, which requires that all off-street parking facilities be designed so as to avoid creating a nuisance Hazard or unreasonable traffic impediment. In its written submissions to this board, the developer's only response to this provision was to argue that it applies only to parking garages that are needed in order to satisfy on-site parking requirements.

Developer's interpretation is clearly wrong because the regulation unambiguously purports to apply to, and I quote, all off-street parking facilities. Therefore, the fact that the garage is not required under zoning and the developer has instead chosen to pursue it in order to sell its dwelling units for even more money does not exempt the developer from Section 23.9 . However, the developer's mistaken belief that it can ignore this provision may explain why the developer never took traffic impacts seriously. Now, if we turn back to slide one, please, which shows, again, the sort of very tight conditions that preexisted Thank you very much. The developer did have enough sense to know that the garage project would be strongly opposed by those who live on Spruce Court.

But instead of working with them, the developer figured out a way to get its barrage project permitted underneath the public radar and basically under the cover of darkness. Thus, in 2024, the developer sought and obtained an alteration permit to allow the conversion of the property to dwelling units only. No parking whatsoever. Then in August of 2025, and without informing any of those who live on Spruce Court, the developer sought a second alteration permit to allow the conversion to eight dwelling units and the 16-car garage. This is a two to one parking ratio, which as far as we can tell is unheard of for any new projects in Boston. As far as we can tell, the developer did this without informing the inspectional services department about the parking rights of the lands in the wards, without telling the ISD that the southern half of Spruce Court is a fire lane,

and without providing any valid traffic analysis showing that the garage project can satisfy zoning code provision section 23-9E. Now if we could turn back to slide six please. which is the zoning provision. Once we found out that the permit had issued, we immediately tried to get our hands on as much of the information as we could about the project. and even more importantly we retain Mr. Robert Michaud a traffic engineer with 37 years of experience and the president and managing principal of MDM Transportation Consultants Inc. We asked Mr. Michaud to analyze the garage project. Am I still on? Yes, we might have missed like a word or two. Okay, I'm sorry. We asked Mr. Michaud to analyze the garage project and determine whether the lands and the wards have reason to be concerned.

Mr. Michaud performed a thorough analysis, actually,

I'm sorry, we're having a couple of tech issues on our side, but I don't think it's interrupting what y'all are hearing, so Mike, please go ahead. Okay.

Mr. Michaud performed a thorough analysis, actually several of them, with Section 23.9e in mind. The results of Mr. Michaud's analysis are sobering, and they are the primary reason why we are here today. Now I would like to turn our presentation over to Mr. Michaud to describe his analysis and summarize his professional conclusions.

Thank you, Michael. Again, Robert Mejia with MDM Transportation Consultants. As Michael had mentioned, MDM has been retained to provide an assessment of circulation from the garage to determine whether or not Vehicles could be reasonably accommodated within the confines of the court and in context of the parking rights and location of a fire lane that exists within Spruce Court. and ultimately, as I'll walk the board through, have concluded that using well-established modeling protocols normally and customarily used for projects, for instance, that are subject to Article 80 review, that there is insufficient area within the court to reasonably accommodate A standard design vehicle that would need to access and egress the garage.

Noting further that the intensity of use of the court would quadruple from its existing and historic use levels. you know rather significant change and potential burden on the court particularly in the light of the constraints that we know exist and that were modeled and demonstrated to not properly accommodate certain vehicle types. The next slide, if you could advance, would indicate the modeling that we've conducted, which in this example is what is referred to as an AASHTO standard design vehicle. This is a design standard that's regularly applied to size and evaluate impacts of roadway facilities and circulation areas. It relies on a vehicle dimension that's upwards of 19 feet long, seven feet wide.

It is intentionally sized to ensure that Vehicle maneuverability is reasonable and would not unnecessarily require the use of spars or undue proximity to or up to or beyond and so on, and so forth. that on the entering movement to the garage, the garage door opening only being 12 feet 9 inches wide, that there's a substantial encroachment into the fee interest area of Spruce Court as shown in the yellow. that essentially comes within several feet of the northerly curb line of the court. The next slide would indicate a similar result.

In this case, a vehicle attempting to exit the garage using that same design vehicle type that shows again a substantial encroachment into that fee interest area. That would not be feasible quite frankly with any parking activity within the fee interest area showing the encroachment again to be somewhere between three and five feet of that curb line. In deference to attempting to understand What vehicle types might be able to use the garage? We then turn our focus on another vehicle design type called ULI composite vehicle, which is really representative of 85% of the vehicle types that may be inclined to use the garage. We've also, as we've done in this example, shown parking activity within the fee interest area within one foot of the curb, though there's no specific city ordinance that would obligate that parking that close to the curb in this case.

We nonetheless, as a fair representation of impact, have shown those vehicles parked, again, in the Fiat trust area within a foot of that northerly curb. The next slide. If you could advance one slide. Shows that smaller vehicle type which is 17 feet 3 inches long. It's about six and a half feet wide. This particular entering movement would also indicate a substantial material encroachment into that fee interest area of several feet upon trying to enter into that 12 foot 9 inch opening. and finally in the next slide you'll see the equivalent movement on exiting the garage which itself also shows an encroachment into that fee interest area.

Not an insignificant encroachment, an encroachment that for any parking activity within the fee interest area would impact vehicles that are parked there. If you could advance just one more slide to demonstrate that second movement that we've modeled. So again, an encroachment of several feet into that area. I want to emphasize that this model of the smaller vehicle Very precisely assumes that the movements that are being made to or from the garage come within an inch of either the door structure or the structural opening of the garage. That condition, quite frankly, would rely on spotters and a very precise movement of the vehicle. So even in an ideal circumstance,

Using a smaller vehicle type, it demonstrates the inability to reasonably circulate to or from the garage within that Spruce Court area. We are also aware, and you may hear testimony, that the developer has conducted field testing of two vehicle types within the court, one on January 20th of this year and again on February 20th. The January testing involved a smaller vehicle smaller than what's actually demonstrated here in this model at 16 feet 4 inches which And their field test, which is video documented, took a vehicle over eight minutes using two spotters to actually maneuver from the garage. On February 20th, an even smaller vehicle was used, 15 feet 4 inches in length.

which also indicated, even under the smaller vehicle type, the need to seesaw, if you will, to properly maneuver into or out of that garage structure. The developer had subsequently retained engineering expertise to conduct its own modeling, swept path modeling, which we've reviewed and have identified as inappropriately making certain assumptions that are impractical or unlikely to occur. For instance, parking within the fee interest area that is two feet from the curb using only compact vehicles. Using vehicles that in fact are smaller than the typical vehicles that may be inclined to use the garage. and that very precisely require the same movements that are shown here but with their own modeling

that demonstrated need to impact structural elements of the garage, notably the garage door. So we conclude on the basis of Our analysis using industry standard modeling, modeling that's normal and customary to the Article 80 type project, for instance, that it is not reasonable accommodation for access to or from the garage, that the intensity of use of the court will be substantial. It will in effect go from one vehicle an hour to four vehicles per hour. Based on the number of parking spaces that are being provided within it within that garage structure of two to one ratio. And that in the instance of even a standard vehicle of 17 foot length, 17 feet three inches, that the likelihood will be the impact of seesawing back and forth, if you will,

for extended periods of time upon trying to exit that garage. That itself will provide an impediment to the regular use of the fire lane. It will create an impediment to the ability for fee interest owners of Spruce Court to enter the court or exit the court during those extended periods of maneuverability. and presents a material consequence to the owners of the court as well as to the regular ability to access the fire lane for the use. So we conclude this is simply Not feasible and will result in a substantial and detrimental impact to the court.

Thank you.

Thank you. Well, I'm sorry. I just got to wrap it up. It'll just be probably two, three minutes. Now, we believe that Mr. Michaud's testimony and reports prove that the developer has not met and cannot meet its burden of satisfying the zoning standard. and 239E. Now, if we could quickly turn to slide 11, please. In our written submissions, we also identify other zoning code provisions that we contend are violated by the garage project, namely the inclusionary zoning ordinance. Our position is on that is that the developer's project is required to provide one unit of affordable housing plus a six-figure payment towards affordable housing, but the developer is only providing luxury units and no payment. And we've also explained why the parking area fails to comply with handicap accessibility requirements. We trust that this board will carefully consider those arguments and we will be happy to answer whatever questions you may have about them, but we otherwise don't want to take up the board's time with that in this oral presentation.

So I'd like to end by noting that the garage project, if it is allowed to proceed, will benefit only the developer. It will harm those who rely on Spruce Court as their only means of access and parking while giving the developer a second means of access that it does not need and that the property has never before used on a regular basis. It will hurt the public interest in public safety by adding unmanageable congestion to the fire lane for the sake of an unheard of two-to-one parking ratio for new luxury condominium projects. It will give the back of the developer's hand to the need for affordable housing. It will violate accessibility rights. And it will do all this without providing any public benefit to the city whatsoever. The liens in the ward thank you for your attention to this matter and your careful consideration of their appeal.

Thank you. Is there anyone from ISD who's present to speak to these points?

I don't know if the developer is here because we have the plans here.

I'm here if you have a mantra.

But I don't know if he wants to respond to that, Mike Joseph.

Maybe we can have you first, Mr. Attorney Ross, and then we'll turn to Mr. Joseph.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Mike Ross. I'm part of the law firm of Prince Lavelle, and I'm here on behalf of the developer of 46th Sailor LLC, along with co-counsel Joe Hanley. A partner with McDermott, Quilty, Miller, and Hanley. We submitted an opposition brief on this matter on January 18th, as well as a supporting memorandum on February 23rd. from Doug Anderson, a former City of Boston plans examiner of six years and currently in charge of co-consulting services for the international firm Rimkus. And Doug's also here if needed. The attorneys for the owners of Spruce Court who just spoke have conflated today's hearing by bringing in extraneous building permits. Billing permits that are well outside the 45-day appeal period, over a year old.

The only matter that is before this board today is whether the building permit that was issued on November 24th, 2025 by the building commissioner was properly issued or whether the building commissioner erred and should have refused the permit and sent it to the zoning board of appeal. That permit, ALT 1796638, reduced the number of units in 46 Beacon Street from 11 to 8 and includes ground floor accessory parking. Both are allowed uses. Unfortunately, we believe that we are here for one reason and one reason only, to cause delay to this project and to ultimately be tied up in court. I know there's a tradition of this board to not place itself In the middle of litigation, and I'd just like to note that these parties are presently amid litigation.

46 Beacon Street is located in Beacon Hill Subdistrict where housing and accessory parking are both allowed uses. Property is a pre-code structure, meaning it was built before December 31st, 1964. If the attorneys from the spruce court honors were correct and the building permit before the board to reduce the number of units from 11 to 8 and include the allowed accessory parking, both allowed as right, It would trigger zoning relief on every similar project that would now need to be approved by this board. They're essentially asking you to supplant the authority granted to ISD, the Chief Enforcement Officer under the Enabling Act, to review and determine zoning compliance. This is an as-of-right project. Nothing in this building permit or in the zoning code Triggers the need for relief.

As referenced in my memorandum and Doug Anderson's memorandum, Article 23, Section 9E deals with parking design maneuverability. exempts pre-code structures pursuant to Article 23, Section 7A, stating, quote, only the additional number of dwelling units. Additional number of dwelling units shall be counted in computing the off-street parking facilities required. Here, there is a reduction, not addition, of units, and thus it does not trigger zone. Likewise, Article 23, Section 10. which deals with the maintenance of the parking facility specifically included the language that it only applies to parking spaces provided to comply with this article so long as a use requiring them exists. So too with Article 23, Section 11.

which deals with parking accessibility. This project is a renovation and because there are fewer than 12 units, it does not trigger accessible units and therefore does not trigger accessible parking. This does not mean that developers of as-of-right projects can build whatever they want. They can't. They must comply with the state building code. They need to be approved by Boston ISD and with it all the other agencies including Boston Fire, Boston Water and Sewer, the Public Improvement Commission, and the like. The appellant misrepresented themselves before this board stating that this project was not reviewed by the Boston Fire Department. This is not true. The project went before Boston Fire not once but twice. First, as shown in the online portal printouts that I submitted to the board. It was checked off as approved by the Boston Fire Department.

And second, this project went before the city's Public Safety Commission on Licenses, where a member of the fire department says, On December 17, 2025, to determine that the garage was being lawfully and safely used. I know this because I was in the room at the time, as were the appellant's attorneys, virtually. The appellant is claiming that the project cannot possibly comply with Article 23 because it requires multiple terms to get in and out of the garage. Eight minutes to get in and out of the garage. What they fail to mention is that they are deliberately parking their car in violation of Boston parking laws. And Boston parking laws apply even to private lanes like this. In front of the garage door to prohibit ingress and egress to the garage. A photo doesn't lie. This red car is owned by one of the appellants.

It is parked purposely in the middle of the street so as to directly block ingress and egress to the garage which is a deliberate misreading of the land court decision that was cited that prohibits parking in a manner that obstructs access. This is obstructive behavior intended to stop this Allowed Azubray project. In addition, we've supplied this board with a turning analysis. from our licensed traffic engineer that shows compliant access to the parking in this project when their car is not purposely blocking it. And not only that, but in the last hundred years, Spruce Court has been home to at least three garages. Beginning with a horse and buggy, and later on automobiles, and then including a housing of their own fuel pumps.

And just finally today, the appellant testified that the developer sought to apply for the garage permit under the cover of darkness when it initially applied for its 2024 permit. without the garage. Again, this is not true. The project was in litigation with the Beacon Hill Architectural Commission at that time relating to the garage door, a case that the developer won. But because the question of the garage door and therefore the garage was in question, pending the outcome of the court case at the time of commencing construction, the developer began without garage. And so the ALT at the time reflected the project with only the units, without the garage. Once they won the lawsuit, They filed their new ALT, this November 2024 ALT, that has the garage entered into. All above radar.

All within the light of day. Let me just turn it to Joe Hanley who has a few points to hit and then we'll conclude.

Hello Madam Chair, members of the board, Attorney Joe Hanley, McDermott, Coulting, Miller, and Hanley representing the developer with co-counsel Mike Ross. I think Mike did a really good job talking about The zoning issues and what's really going on here with respect to issues that are outside of the ZBA's purview. You know, rights in alleyways and things of that nature. Madam Chair, you asked the right question, the first question, which is keep this to the zoning issues. There are no zoning issues here. What the appellants are asking you to do and this board to do is to supplant the authority and the legal jurisdiction of the building commissioner of ISD under the Acts Chapter 6. 655 of 1956, which is the Enabling Act. A little different than other cities and towns, and it gives a lot of authority

to ISD as you know to interpret occupancy based on permits and compliance with zoning. This project is 100% zoning compliant. As Mike indicated, and if you look at Doug Anderson's opinion, which we submitted for this board. Again, Doug was a plan examiner for six years with ISD, 30 years of experience as a code examiner. speaking to custom and practice as well as how Article 23 operates. It does not apply. unless you're required to create parking. That has nothing to do with how you get in and out. Our expert did in fact conduct and submitted an affidavit on maneuverability even though it's not required. The Article 23 zoning issue is not a zoning issue. It was reviewed.

It was interpreted properly by ISB and there's no reason to supplant their authority on that. Finally, I would just say I think Murray, or one of the attorneys for the appellant, had mentioned a new Article 79, which went into effect for projects who apply after November 1 of 2023. Mike mentioned ALT 1638951, which was issued October 24, 2024. That would be the permit that would be of issue, but it's past the 45-day appeal period, so it's moved. Having said that, that permit was applied for prior to the applicability and enactment date and many more.

Thank you. has the authority now because what Article 79 does as a change is it makes affordable housing required even when you don't need zoning. And it has to be reviewed and triggered by ISD. And in this instance, it wasn't. And that is not at all uncommon to other cases that I have had that applied prior to the enactment. So again, I appreciate the board's time. I regret that not just for this client, but for everyone that needs to rely on compliance and zoning. to move forward. And this idea that for some reason we have multiple permits issued for a project, that that allows the appellants to reach back through history, it simply doesn't.

If you read Mr. Anderson's opinion, you can have multiple permits open. The permit that they're trying to reach back to, which they cannot, is open because the work is still being done. We've had rough inspections, and when it's closed out, then you'll get your CO. Again, there's nothing in the state building code or nothing in custom and practice that prevents this from happening. ISD did their job. in accordance with Enabling Act, and based on real submissions, plans, and review, including from The Fire Department, as Mr. Ross indicated. So I thank you for your time and look forward to any questions you might have. Thank you.

I'm going to ask Mr. Joseph, Commissioner Joseph, if you could weigh in, please.

Yes, good afternoon Madam Chair, this is Mark here, Mark Joseph from ISD here. I've been on this for quite some times now, so I reviewed the plans, I know the appeals, I know about the objections that the other side have with respect to the packing garage. Issued and reviewed by one of our most objective and probably very, very good pen examiner here, Mr. Frank D'Amato. I went over the plans. It's a ratio of two for one, meaning that each unit has two pockets. So there is no issue of people blocking people here inside. We worked on what was presented to him. That's the first floor of the dwelling with the parking.

Accessibility there and also there is also maneuverability inside with respect to what happened on the street and then he had no jurisdiction over the street. He was acting, he acted only based on what was in front of them personally. So the space itself, could sustain all these parking spaces and there is access drive to those parking spaces, there is maneuverability to those parking spaces, and then the He applied the right zoning and approved those parking spaces. So that's why with respect to accessibility and for Any kind of accessibility, it was not required because the number of units is not 12 for existing buildings. And then you have two packings per dwelling units. That makes it eight.

So I don't see, Madam Chair, any problem with the application, with the permit being issued by ICER. So I stand behind what was issued by our plan examiner. which is a very one of our best if it's not the best plan examiner we have on board here. Thank you. Questions from the board?

Okay, I will give a brief rebuttal from the applicant, the appellant.

Thank you very much. You know, 2390, we say it's as clear as day. It's not confined. and many more. The impacts on Spruce Court and surrounding streets were not considered in this review. And, you know, Your Honor, Madam Chair, it's straightforward a matter of The only other point is the picture that was shown to you of a car parked further away. There's all sorts of issues between The developer and people who live on the street. But the bottom line is our traffic engineer, Mr. Michaud, did his analysis as if the cars were parked

along the curb and not away from the curb. So the analysis that he did, which shows unmanageable traffic congestion, impairments of the fire lane, and interference with our clients' rights were based on parking next to the curb, had nothing to do with parking further away from the curb. Thank you Madam Chair.

Just one minute Madam Chair for me.

Another minute.

One minute. I would just like to kind of bring this into the practical. Just consider your own experience as board members. You see projects all the time coming in front of the board think about tandem parking spaces in a two-family or three-family in Dorchester think about stacker parking spaces think about turntable parking spaces When they aren't required pursuant to the zoning, they don't get cited. When they're not required, they don't get cited. And that's exactly the same thing here. If it's a pre-code building, if it was already in place and the changes you're making aren't adding units. Now, when you add a unit, yes. that's considered a new unit and therefore that must comply with all the aspects of Article 23. That's not what is in front of the Board today. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Are there questions from the Board?

I just have one question to Mr. Joseph in regards to the garage. Typically when there's a project in front of zoning we sometimes get recommendations from Boston Transportation Department and so the question I have for you is In ISD, when you do give a permit for a garage in this instance, you have your plan examiner and do you also have or consult with Boston Transportation Department that typically reviews access to garages that makes comments on parking and layout.

I just wanted to know if that was... Oh yeah, that's a good question, but usually this issue came up with respect to other agencies. When people have to go to the board or if he said NBOD, neighborhood design overlay district. This is not one of them. So the plan examiner, based on the zoning, on the language of the zoning, not the spirit of it, the plan language of the zoning, so he shows the permit. There was no NDOD, no Nothing, send them to the Board of Appeals so he did not have to consult with the other agencies in order to issue the building permit. He had the authority to do that.

Okay, thank you. Consultant with Boston Fire Department.

So where does the fire department come in? The fire department come in when they apply to change the occupancy. To eight units. That means they have to do some work with the fire protection on the units and also on the garage itself for safety coverage. That's where the fire department came in.

I mean, this is a really good question, Jeannine, because obviously ISD has jurisdictions looking at the interior of the building, inside the building, and then when there's a A request for a variance, we look at the whole picture, and you have these different agencies providing oversight, and there's obviously a gap. in terms of reviewing of the public way in this kind of process. So we can see why they're in front of us, both parties. But thank you so much, Mr. Joseph, for explaining that background. Okay, I don't have any questions. I'm pretty, I understand the conditions.

Okay, you're very welcome, thank you. Thank you. Let's say something about the gap, just real quickly, and I think Member Better Barraza took a good point. But it's not something that isn't part of settled custom and practice, right? I believe Mr. Michoud, in his discussion, mentioned something about Article 80. I don't know if that was an analogy. This is not an Article 80 project. Obviously, if it was, that would be, as you know, subject to that review. So all my client can do is follow the law and the settled practice over years, which it did and which you've heard from Commissioner Joseph as to how they reviewed this. This is a very limited circumstance. So Attorney Murray said, oh, we could build these parking facilities anywhere. That's not correct. This is a pre-code structure.

And rather than looking at Article 23, you should look at Article 2, the definitions of accessory parking for an allowed residential use. And that's really all this is limited to. And in that circumstance, to penalize our client for following the law and settled practice. There may be some gaps, but that's for policymakers to address, not necessarily plan examiners and the permitting authority.

Any other questions from the board? Madam Chairman, may I please just briefly respond to what Attorney Henry said? I will be very brief, I promise. I am an attorney on behalf of the Lehans and the Warrens as well, alongside with my colleague Mike Murray. Okay, last comment. Thank you very much. I appreciate it Madam Chairman. So just the two responses to what Attorney Hanley just said. Number one, as we have noted, obviously directly within the purview of the Zoning Board and ISD is zoning compliance and as my brother Mike Murray has pointed out article 23-9 begins with the words all off-street parking facilities it provides no exception or grandfathered status for pre-code buildings. Not to mention a very important fact is that in the over 100 year history of 4647 Beacon Street, which is the project, There has never been a garage.

I can't remember if it was Attorney Hanley or Ross that mentioned that in the early 1900s there was a horse and buggy carriage. That's not relevant. Thank you. Also just the one further point that has not been raised is that there is direct evidence that we have submitted directly from ISD's internal system that the Boston Fire Department never reviewed the garage Permit Set. And I think that's very relevant and frankly incredibly concerning given that it's the addition of a 16-car garage and that it directly Are we ready to make a motion? Is there a motion? There are members of the public here to speak. Are they going to be given an opportunity? Not during an interpretation.

I'm sorry, is there a motion?

I'll make, sorry, Caroline, just to be clear, we are deciding on whether ISD, on whether this is an as of right project or not, correct?

Is Caroline here? on whether ISD issued the permit incorrectly or incorrectly.

And ISD wouldn't take into consideration the maneuverability of the parking?

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Yes, sorry about that. Yes, so the motion would be whether or not ISD was correct in issuing the as of right permit or if ISD erred in issuing the permit.

I'll make a motion that ISD was correct finishing the permit.

Is there a second?

Second.

Mr. Stembridge.

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

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

Yeah.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Thank you very much. Have a nice day. Thank you, everyone. Have a good night. Good night.

So with that, we will return to the hearing scheduled for 11 a.m. We'll ask again if there are any requests for withdrawals or deferrals from this time frame. Hearing none, We'll go to the first case, which is case BOA-180-4155 with the address of 35 Ainsworth Street. If the applicant and or their representative were present, would they please explain the case to the board?

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the board. I'm Don Wiese with the law firm of Dane Torpey at 175 Federal Street in downtown Boston. You're with me this afternoon is Paul Sello, who co-owns the property with his wife. If we could keep the presentation, maybe the second image while I speak, I will introduce the background of the case and then I'll turn the presentation over to the property owner. to tell you more specifically about what he plans to do here. There are a few notable things about the 35 Ainsworth proposal.

This is a proposed change of use.

Thank you for watching. There are some minor technicalities that complicated that a little bit. And because the zoning process, the zoning various process is available, that was a more straightforward way to pursue this project. As we walk you through it, you will see the changes. The significant factors here are this is an oversized lot. It's a 6,000 foot lot in a 5,000 foot district.

As you'll see when you look at the photographs, the third floor, which is proposed to be

Convergence.

The original finished space within the historic building, about 100 years ago when this building was built, rather than that third level being an attic with a subfloor and bare rafters, as is the case in many of these older houses. This was a space with plastered walls, beautifully finished historic floor floors. It was always part of the living space of this building. For that reason, there's actually no addition to FAR. The citation from ISD includes a violation for adding to the building height. and to the FAR. Those are mistaken but it can take a while to chase corrections through that process. It is the case that we needed a few other variances and so we have as a precaution Applied for those variances as well. But in fact, building height is not changing. The FAR is not changing with this proposal.

We're not adding a parking space with that, although there are two parking spaces on the lot. and the real physical change the building is a small dormer has been added on the side of the building to improve the head height as one comes up the existing internal stair and that dormer because This is a historic house, historic neighborhood is actually located, you know, 25 or so feet up in the air, but within The existing zoning setback. So it creates a zoning setback issue. And although the lot is oversized, the math does not quite work out to add a dwelling unit in terms of lot area per dwelling unit, etc. But these are minor and largely technical violations. With that, let me turn the presentation over to the property owner, Paul Sello, who will show you specifically what he is proposing.

Great. Thanks, Don. Can you guys hear me okay?

Yes, sir.

If you just want to, I know Don did a good job sort of summarizing everything we want to do, but if you just want to briefly go up to slide two, I'll just say a three, no more than three, four minute overview and we can get right into questions if that's all right. So if you could just go up to slide two, that would be great. Yeah, almost, I think you're on slide seven. If you want to go up to slide two, that would be great. Awesome. Okay, cool. It's nice to meet everyone. My wife, Liliana, and I here, we're the homeowners of 35 Ainsworth Street. and Rosendale. We just welcomed our baby boy Sam in October. We really love the neighborhood. Just a little context on the house. We purchased the home about three years ago in early 2023. As Don mentioned, the home has three floors and the prior owners used all three of them. When we purchased it, the house was definitely in rough shape. Structurally, it was fine, but

Thank you for joining us. and our son, Sam, we live on the second floor. The home has two off-street parking spaces as we showed in the previous slide and it is fully electrified. If you could go to slide three, that would be great. On the next slide. Great, cool. So here's the current state of the third floor. As Don mentioned, it's pretty close to being finished. It was used by the prior owners, and right now it's just going completely unutilized. We're storing a couple things up there, but... We would really just love to transform it into a small but comfortable home for someone. It will have a well-sized deck. It will have a bedroom, a bathroom.

Air Conditioning and we just think it could be a charming apartment frankly for for someone that wants to live in the neighborhood. Next slide as Don mentioned on slide four the only small change we need to make to the outside is the is the dormer. I know he went over that. And then next slide, slide five. Here are the photos of the outside of the house on slide five. If you don't mind going to the next one there. and as you're bringing that up so just two things to call out as Don mentioned we have two off-street parking spaces one used by my wife and I we have one car and then our tenant downstairs has the other one and we have already built the uh The egress going up on the back side, you can see there in the picture in the top right, the staircases go all the way down. And then if you want to go to the seventh slide there, we can skip over slide six. Just one thing on parking.

And then, you know, Don advised me never to argue with my neighbors about parking. But I did just want to share a couple of key points to show that, you know, an additional car on the street shouldn't cause a major inconvenience. This slide here, number one. We can walk to a commuter rail station, bus stop, a park, a coffee shop, grocery store, all within walking distance. And then on the next slide, slide 8, with the recent snowstorms, it's sort of given us an opportunity, if you go to slide 8 there, to see if there's any unused spots in a street. you know leading up to the storm we had yesterday there were two unshoveled spots that have been unshoveled since the first storm which was on January 25th so Again, my lawyer told me not to argue with my neighbors about parking, but I just wanted to share these two points that it's very walkable, there's unshoveled spots, and I do believe that You know, one additional car from a future resident on the third floor should not be a major inconvenience to the neighborhood.

So with that, I just respectfully ask you guys for approval. I'm happy to answer any questions and hear public comment. Thank you for your time.

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

Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Bembry. I'm the Roslindale Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process which consisted of an abutters meeting facilitated on January 21st and well attended by abutters. Abutter stances were divided equally with half in support and half opposed. The opposed did not feel the change to a three-family, felt the change was out of character for the neighborhood and did not want to see the two-family residential area become a three-family area, which would increase the parking issues as well as the water runoff concerns. Supporters felt they did not experience any parking issues and felt the change to increase the occupancy was a great use of the third floor and a great place for a renter. Director Butta stated they have never had a parking issue and stated the proponent brought the plans to them 11 months ago and see no upcoming issues specific Next, the proposal was presented to Longfellow Area and Neighborhood Association who voted non-opposition to the proposal. To date, our office has received one letter of opposition,

and a nine signature letter of opposition maintaining the aforementioned opposed theme as well as a four letter The four letters of support sent to the board for review, again maintaining the supportive theme. Thank you for your time and the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services would like to defer to the board for their judgment.

Thank you. Next we have Tom Johnson.

Good morning, Madam Chairperson, members of the board. My name is Tom Johnston. I'm a city of Boston resident. I live at 50. That's 50 Ainsworth Street. I'm an abutter to this project. I live here with my family. We have two young adults who are aspiring Boston either condo or homeowners. My spouse, Christine, who is a retired Boston school psychologist. my 95-year-old mother-in-law Joan Cavanaugh, a widow of a Boston police officer, and a lifelong Boston resident. All five of us at 58 Amesware Street are lifelong residents and registered voters and we fully endorse this proposal. We believe that the project does align with the spirit of the city right now in Mayor Rue's housing expansion. We believe reasonable accommodations should be made to create more housing in Roslindale. Thank you very much for allowing us to get our support on record. Thank you. Thank you.

Next we have Mike McCarthy.

Good afternoon, everyone. This is Mike McCarthy. I live next door to Paul. I'm at 31 Ainsworth Street. My wife, Catherine, and I have lived here for about one year, and not from Boston, but from Brookline and Needham. Lived here my whole life. and we love this neighborhood and I'm looking out my window right now and I see what Paul had already, he took the words out of my mouth, a bunch of empty parking spots covered in snow right now. You know, he's got a pretty sizable driveway. I don't think there's any issue. And I agree that with the spirit of adding housing in the city, that it meets the needs of everyone equitably. So I fully endorse Paul's project.

Thanks.

Thank you.

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

Okay. With that, may I have a motion? I'll make a motion for approval.

Is there a second?

Second.

Mr. Stembridge.

Hello?

Yeah.

Hello? Mr. Valencia. This is an additional testimony. I tried to unmute. I thought it was unmuted. Can you hear me?

We're in the middle of... Voting? Jesus, did you see this? Yes. Comment, this person? This is 7070.

She was supposed to mute herself, but I don't know what happened.

Okay, well, in the spirit of hearing you out, we'll pause our vote, which we don't normally do, so please be brief.

Thank you so much. Good afternoon, members of the board and neighbors. Thank you for this opportunity to speak. My name is Susan Yeager, and I'm a long-term resident for over 30 years, legal abutter, and I'm in strong opposition to the requested variance at 35 Ainsworth. This proposal is not just about one property. It's about the long-term stability, safety, and character of our neighborhood. Ainsworth Street has historically and is currently made up of single-family, two-family homes. Families move here because it's a quiet, stable, residential street. And converting this property into a three-family rental Fundamentally changes that character by increasing the density, the turnover, and the transient occupancy, making it less attractive to families and long-term Residence. Importantly, our street parking is very congested. Residents on our street are already forced to park far from their homes.

It's especially dangerous for elderly and disabled neighbors, particularly in winter conditions where the snow removal and disposal are also a big issue and getting stuck. Importantly, the zoning commission has already addressed housing density through the recent rezoning of the Roslindale Square corridor. That squares and streets initiative was designed to concentrate Multifamily development near the transit and business areas while preserving the surrounding residential sites like ours. Granting this variance directly contradicts that planning intent. Thank you. Most importantly, the applicant has not demonstrated the legitimate hardship which is required under Article 7. At the abutted meeting, no unique hardship was identified. A variance should not be granted for financial gain. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you.

We're going to wrap up. Thank you. Okay, so someone made a motion. Now, let's start over. Can someone make a motion? I'll make a motion of approval. Is there a second? Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

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

Thank you very much. Thanks.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next, we have case BOA 1782400 with the address of 20 Cotton Street. Sorry, Madam Chair, I need to recuse.

Okay, so we are now a six-member board.

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

Hi, I'm Lita Maxwell, and this is my partner, Jai Fer. We're the owners of 20 Cotton Street, and we are seeking to do about a 350 square foot addition Thank you for joining us. We just need a little more space and we would like to do the addition for a room for us so that as we age we can stay in the home. So it's a pretty small project. and we've received no opposition from neighbors, just strong support from the people right around us. Happy to answer more questions, but better to be brief, I think.

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

Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Bembry. I'm the Roslindale Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process, which consisted of an abutters meeting facilitated on October 15th, Very well received by the neighborhood with the butters voicing support for the proposal. Next, the proposal was presented to Longfellow Area Neighborhood Association and with no opposition Madam Chair, there are no additional comments.

Okay, would that man have a motion?

Madam Chair, I'd like to put forward a motion of approval.

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

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza?

Yes.

Ms. Pinado?

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck. Thank you so much.

Next, we have case BOA 1614957 with the address of 378 to 380 Center Street. The applicant and or their representative would they please claim the case?

Jesus, see anyone for 378 Center Street?

Can we come back to that, Madam Chair? Sounds about right. Thank you. With that, we'll move on to case BOA 179-8286 with the address of 659 Hyde Park Avenue. The applicants. and those that represent are present. Would that please explain the case to the board? 659 Hyde Park Avenue? No, I don't see it. Then we'll return to that one also. And next we have case BOA 1427993 with the address of 9 Batch Elder Street.

If the applicant and or their representative present, would they please explain the case report?

This is Dr. Morris. I'm present. Can you hear me? Yes, sir. Okay, so basically I bought 9 Batch Holder Street number two in 2023. The previous owner had bought the building and was flipping it and he had applied for a curb cut and he had made the driveway and the unit was listed as having parking and he said that he would have the parking approved by the time that the closing occurred but that didn't happen the curb cut wasn't completed so you have a situation in which there's a fully built driveway that can't be used because of the lack of the curb cut which results in tenants parking on the street So if the ZBA granted the curb cut approval, there wouldn't be any increased parking on the street by doing that.

and the plans are in front of you and you can see where the proposed curb cut is.

Are there questions from the board?

Is there parking on that street where the curb cut would occur? cars are allowed to park there currently on the street?

Yes, I mean, because there's no curb cut, then yes, cars are legally allowed to park there. But what I'm saying is, Like my tenants, when they parked in the driveway, there was a $150 citation, so they don't park in the driveway at all. They park on the street.

Just to be clear, you're saying a driveway already exists? Yes. And to park on the driveway right now, you have to drive over the curb? Yeah. Thank you.

So it's not really a driveway? Well, I mean, you could easily go over and park on the driveway, but yes, it's not a driveway until you have the curb cut. Because especially after getting the $150 citation, you know, nobody wants to park there. I don't want tenants parking there because I'm the one who had to pay that citation, so I said no.

And I'm also to understand that it's paved. Yes. Paved. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions from the board?

No, but I mean, are we going to hear from the city? I mean, typically we don't approve removing a space on the street for creation of tandem parking.

which is also, we have BPD's recommendation, but I'm happy to hear from Mr. Hampton directly if that's what you want.

Mr. Hampton, are you available? I am, thank you Madam Chair, members of the board, Jeff Hampton, City of Boston Planning Department. Our issue with this isn't so much with the driveway and the curb cut, it's that there's no grass. You know, cursory review of it, the entire property is paved over where it wasn't at some point in time. We don't know when this driveway went in, but when you look at In this review from Google Earth, the entire site is paved. That's our opposition because there was a tree there. and now it's gone. There's no shade, there's no permeable pavers, nothing. So that's where our denial comes from. Not so much from the driveway point of view, but because usable open space, which may have been a zoning issue as well when you look at You know, how this is all laid out, so.

Any removal of trees and stuff was done before my purchase. You know, so there hasn't been any removal of trees since both of the units were purchased around the same time. The unit number one was in December of 2022, and my unit's purchase was in February of 2023. So, and then unit one has since been resold to somebody else. But, you know, it was a As I told you, the previous owner had done a flip and he was the one who would have been responsible for removing any trees and stuff. That's not on the trustees of the new association.

On the plans that we're looking at, Madam Chair, from December of 2022.

I know that's when the prior I told you when I bought the place the owner had submitted plans for consideration and there's no change in the plans because The exact work is still going to be the same, doing the curb cut. You know, so I got the plans that were, you know, because what we're talking about is just the curb cut. I can show you the picture of the property as it is. I have the Zoom presentation that went to the community of Butters meeting that shows the and the external view.

Can I ask a question Madam Chair? Of course, please. Would you be open to Removing a lot of the impermeable surface that you have now in regards to all the pavement,

Hold up. I think you should take a look at the photo. Let me bring up my... Is it possible for me to share the screen?

You're not able to share screen. I think where Ms. Better Barraza is going with this is to remedy the... All the pavement, the paved surface.

All the asphalt surface that you have, you know, to apply a little bit more of permeable surface, a little bit more green grass rather than... or would you be open to that?

Well, I mean, I think that because when I had sent Mr. Brambury the Zoom presentation, I think you should take a look at what the actual current date is. Because I'm not even sure, you know, if BPD is relying on Google Street View, which he says shows a tree that's not there anymore, it shows that that's not an up-to-date reflection. And so I would say maybe look at the slide in the presentation that shows what the current state of the property is. Or you could go to like Redfin, the real estate site, and see what the exterior is and then we can talk about well what is it that really can be done because the only the only The usable grass portion would be in front of the building, not the paved driveway on the side of the building, but in front of the building.

And I think what happened The changes that were done there is that when the owner of Unit 1, the other trustee of the association, when she and her husband were living there, they wanted minimal upkeep and they put gravel on that. So, you know, if what BPD wants is removal of the gravel and have grass there, that would be fine. But I don't know what you're talking about with the terms of the paved driveway portion. I'm not sure how you could make that semi-permeable. I mean, it's concrete, you know.

Well, it's asphalt, right? It's not concrete. It's asphalt. It's crushed down on asphalt.

No, okay. I don't want to...

Okay. I think we're good. Thank you. Thank you. Can I have public testimony?

Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Bembry. I'm the Dorchester Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process, which consisted of an abutters meeting facilitated on January 14th, With no abundance present, the proposal moved forward with no further community process required. To date, our office has not received any further community feedback at this time. Thank you for your time, and the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services would like to defer to the Board for their judgment.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, there are no additional comments.

Okay, may I have a motion? Madam Chair, I would like to make a motion to approve with a proviso that the project adds a little bit of more landscaping and considers changing the impermeable surface to a more permeable surface. Thank you.

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

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza?

Yes.

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

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, just to jump ahead and let folks know, all the hearings for 11.30 a.m. were deferred. So we'll go back to the two hearings for 11 a.m. First being case BOA 1614957. with the address of 378 to 380 Center Street and see if the applicant and or their representative for this case is available.

I see the person is here. Norberto, Norbert Salguero. Nolbert Salguero. If you can email yourself, please.

This is your case. Yeah, my name is Nolbert. Last name Salguero. and the owner of Viva Taco Corp located at 378 letter A, Central Street, Jamaica Plain.

And you're simply looking to remove a proviso, correct? No other changes?

No, no other changes. Just remove the provider, the old provider. Okay. Are there any questions from the board?

Let's take public testimony. Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Bembry. I'm the Jamaica Plain Community Engaging Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. have been approved to move forward in the process. Our office believes the proposal, being simple and straightforward, did not require full community process and would not raise any concerns. To date, our office has received one letter expressing approval from Jamaica Plain Neighborhood Council. 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.

Ma'am Chair, there are no additional comments. Okay, with that, may I have a motion?

Motion to approve.

Second.

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

Yes.

Ms. Pinado?

Yes.

Mr. Collins? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck, sir.

and finally we'll ask again about case BOA 179-8286 with the address of 659 Hyde Park Avenue Let's see if there is anyone present to represent the case.

I don't think there is anyone from...

He's on the phone.

He's on the phone?

Yeah. It's Ivan. He's listed his iPhone.

Did you notice the number?