Zoning Board of Appeal

Recording in progress.

The City of Boston Zoning Board of Appeal hearing for December 9, 2025 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 this 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, and members of the public. The chair may limit the number of people called upon to offer a comment and the time for commenting as time constraints require. For that reason, the Board refers 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 any appeal, please click the raise hand button alongside 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. That's Mr. Stembridge.

Good morning, Madam Chair.

Present. Good morning. Mr. Valencia.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Present.

Good morning. Ms. Turner. Good morning, Madam Chair, present. Good morning, Ms. Barbraza. Madam Chair, present. Good morning, Ms. Whewell. Good morning, Madam Chair, present. Good morning, Mr. Langham.

Good morning Madam Chair. Present.

Good morning. The floor is yours Mr. Stembridge.

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

These hearing minutes

The hearing minutes are from the dates as follows.

October 23rd, October 28th, November 6th, November 18th,

and November 25th, all of 2025.

I will make a motion for approval of the minutes.

Is there a second?

Second.

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

I don't think you mentioned, I don't think you asked for me, Madam Chair.

I'm so sorry. Ms. Better Barraza? Yes. Thank you. Motion carries.

Next, we'll move on to the extensions scheduled for 9.30 AM.

All the extensions appear to be reasonable.

I'll read them in one after the other.

If there are any questions after that,

We can address those to Madam Chair and take a vote. We'll begin with case BOA 1341467 with the address of 3407 to 3409 Washington Street. Next we have case BOA 1341344 with the address of 635 Hyde Park Avenue. Next we have case BOA 1371277 with the address of 1180 Washington Street. And next we have case BOA 148-5817 with the address of 521 Cambridge Street. And those are the extensions that we have for today.

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

Motion to grant the extensions as requested.

May I have a second? Second. Thank you. Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza?

Yes.

Ms. Whewell?

Yes.

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

Next, we have a board final opportunity case scheduled for 930.

This is case BOA 1679542 with the address of 23

Nottingham Street.

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

Madam Chair, I need to recuse myself.

Thank you, sir. We are a six-number board for this case. Is Mr. Frazier or someone else on for 23 Nottingham? Jesus, do you see any raised hand for this?

No, Madam Chair. Let me, let me, let me type. If I see someone, I will let you know, but no, I don't see.

Okay, well, then let's keep going.

We will go to the Groundwater Conservation Overlay District case scheduled for 9.30 a.m. This is case BOA 17951. 3-8 with the address of 146 to 150 Milk Street. If the applicants and or their representative are present, would they please explain to the board?

Good morning. Thanks for the introduction. My name is David Lindpark with Goulson & Storrs at One Post Office Square on behalf of Wingate. The proponent and we do have the proponent and the project team available if there are questions. So good morning Madam Chair and board members that we This project at 150 Melkor, also known as 75 Central Street, is part of the Planning Department's Downtown Office to Residential Conversion program. And so as noted in the short description, it's a conversion of the existing office space to 18 multifamily units. It's consistent with inclusionary zoning, so it has three affordable units. and the ground floor in addition to having residential amenities will be activated with continued commercial use. The project itself just went through small project review.

It received its small project review vote on November 13, 2025. And I'm actually, I'm not getting into too many details about the project other than that explanation because the only item of zoning relief is GCOT, is the Broward Conservation Overlay District. We're a substantial rehabilitation, and actually under the current zoning, the site was just rezoned. Substantial rehabilitations would be processed through ISD directly, although we filed previously under the prior zoning. Where this does need key count approval from the Board of Appeals, so we're here. And we're mainly coming to explain that we're intending to install a compliant rainwater infiltration system.

and we've submitted the Boston Water and Sewer Compliance Letter and also our Project Engineers No Harm Certification to show that the infiltration system will be consistent with GCOT standards. and with that we'd ask for your approval vote. Thank you. Thank you.

Any questions from the board?

Is Mr. Simonelli on? Yes, Madam Chair, good morning. Members of the board, Christian Simonelli, Boston Groundwater Trust, and we have both key card letters from the applicant.

Thank you so much. With that, may I have a motion?

Madam Chair, I'd like to... Madam Chair, I'd like to... Madam Chair, I'd like to... Madam Chair, I'd like to... Madam Chair, I'd like to... Madam Chair, I'd like to... Madam Chair, I'd like to... Madam Chair, I'd like to... Madam Chair, I'd like to... Madam Chair, I'd like to... Madam Chair, I'd like to... Madam Chair, I'd like to... Madam Chair, I'd like to... Madam Chair, I'd like to... Madam Chair, I'd like to... Madam Chair, I'd like to... Madam Chair, I'd like to... Madam Chair, I'd like to... Madam Chair, I'd like to... Madam Chair, I'd like to... Madam Chair, I'd like to... Madam Chair, I'd like to... Madam Chair, I'd like to... Madam Chair, I'd like to... Madam Chair, I'd like to... Madam Chair, I'd like to... Madam Chair, I'd like to... Madam Chair, I'd like to...

Goodwin. Yes. Thank you. Mr. Valencia. Yes. Ms. Turner. Yes. Ms. Better Barraza.

Yes.

Ms. Whewell.

Yes.

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

You're welcome. Next, we have recommendations. Skipper for 9.30 AM. from the subcommittee on Thursday, December 4th.

I'll read through all the more proof.

I'll read through and then we can vote.

Next we have case BOA 1754594 with the address of 97 Horace Street.

That was approved.

Next we have case BOA 1754594 with the address of 97 Horace Street. 178-8331 with the address of 1 Hudson Street, which was Next, we have case BOA 1772325 with the address 232-234 Commercial Street, which was approved. Next we have case BOA 176-4003, the address of 8850-852 Summer Street. Next we have case BOA-1757382 at the address of 79 Sheridan Street. This one's approved.

Faisal's that nothing be built on the adjoining property across the line and for part of the department design. Next we have case BOA 175-7478 with the address of 74 Street. Then we have case BOA 177. 465A with the address of 12 Lorain Street. That's your application, BOA 1784562. The address is 26 Woodford Avenue, 24th Street. Finally, we have page BOA 178-7374 with the address of 71 Anna Wham Avenue.

Madam Chair, those were the questions.

Any questions from the board? May I have a motion? Motion approved. Second? Second. Mr. Stembridge? Yeah. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza?

Yes.

Ms. Whewell?

Yes.

Mr. Langham? Yes. Chair votes yes, motion carries.

Next, we'll move on to the hearings scheduled for 9.30 a.m. Again, just asking if there are any request for withdrawals or deferrals from the 930 area of the conference.

Mr. LaCasse? Yes, please. Mr. Stembridge, 3430-3436 Washington Street.

That would be for case VOA 1765915 at the address of 3430-3436 Washington Street.

Go ahead, attorney LaCasse. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. Mark LaCasse, LaCasse Law, 75 Arlington Street in Boston, attorney for the applicant. This is one of two companion cases. involving two new buildings on Washington Street, Jamaica Plain that had been approved by the planning department in July of this year, but only one of them was advertised for today. So I spoke to Stephanie this morning and she indicated they would be able to re-advertise for this case and the second companion case, 3440 Washington Street, for hearing on January 13, 2026 at 1130 a.m. So that is what I'm requesting.

Thank you. May I have a motion?

Motion to defer this case to January 13th, 2026.

May I have a second?

Second.

Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

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

Yes.

Ms. Whewell.

Yes.

Mr. Langham.

Yes. Motion carries. See you then. Thank you so much.

Are there any further requests for withdrawals or deferrals from the 9.30 a.m. time frame? With that, then, we'll begin with case BOA. 1769549 with the address of 5 West Hill Place.

If the applicant and or their representative are present, will they please explain the case to the board? Yes, good morning, Mr. Stembridge and members of the board. My name is Timothy Burke. I'm the architect for the project. And with me today is also the owners, Lindy and Jay Johnson are on the call. The Johnsons live in this building. It's a three-unit condominium. There is a fourth condominium unit that has been on the assessor's rolls for 40 years but has never been made a dwelling unit. So we're seeking permission to convert the existing basement space to a studio apartment. It's going to be owned by the Lindy and Jay. It's really used for when their daughter visits them from she lives abroad. So the idea was to make use of this underutilized space. It creates another dwelling unit with a minimal amount of work and very little impact.

There's no changes to the exterior. We do need relief because we're creating a new unit for off-street parking, which we have no way to provide here. And also the FAR goes to 2.1, which it's 2.0 is the allowable in this district. The last sheet shows the plan of the unit and I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have.

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

Good morning Madam Chair and members. Siggy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This applicant has completed the community process. Our office hosted an abutters meeting on September 29th at which no concerns were raised. The Beacon Hill Civic Association is in non-opposition to this application. That background, our office defers judgment to the board. Thank you. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and members of the board. My name is Lily. I'm here on behalf of Councilor Durkan. After connecting with BHCA, she would like to go on record in support of this application. Thank you.

Madam Chair, there are no additional comments.

Okay, with that, may I have a motion? I'm sure I'd like to put forward a motion of approval. May I have a second? Second.

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

Yes.

Ms. Whewell?

Yes.

Mr. Langham? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Give up.

Thank you very much. Next we have case BOA 1694621 with the address of 562 East 5th Street. It's the applicant and the representative who are present. Would they please explain to the board?

Yes, thank you, Mr. Stembridge. Madam Chair, members of the board, Attorney Ryan Spitz with Adams & Maranci, business address of 168 8th Street, 1st Floor, South Boston. Joining me today is Alex Gibson from the development team and the project architect, Eric Zaperson. This is a proposal to preserve and renovate the existing historic structure and erect a new three-story addition to contain a total of four units with four parking spaces located in the rear. This parcel consists of approximately 5,361 square feet. Proposal falls within an MFR subdistrict and is aligned with the area stated planning goals. Medium density infill housing, preserving historic structure, and increasing the availability of housing options under Boston 2030. I'd also like to mention the applicant prior to filing this application within the Special Services Department has had preliminary conversations with the Landmarks Commission regarding the design.

Hence, after working through those design conversations, this is the plan that was actually filed along with the substantial changes that were made going through the community process. The existing structure will contain Unit 1, while the addition will contain Units 2, 3, and 4. Unit 1 will contain approximately 1,435 square feet and 485 square feet of basement space, which will be a three-bedroom. Unit 2 will be approximately 1,980 square feet located on the first floor of the addition. It will be a two-bedroom. Unit 3 located on the second floor of the addition will contain 1,340 square feet, which will also be another two-bedroom. and Unit 4 located on the third floor of the addition will contain approximately 1,325 square feet will be another two bedroom. We have violations for the roof structure restriction.

which is a conditional use permit being sought as the building is partially being demolished in the rear and the addition exceeds the front building's height but is below the 40-foot requirement under Article 68 as this proposal is at 32 feet in total height. The extension into the rear yard of 1,000 square feet or more is another conditionally used permit as the addition extends into the rear yard by more than 1,000 square feet but does not trigger any violation for the rear yard setback. As the rear yard setback is currently 33 feet and 20 feet is what is required under this sub-district. Further, the proposed FAR is at a 1.37, which is well under the 2.0 requirement under Article 68. We have a parking insufficiency. Code requires 1.5 parking spaces per new unit of housing. And this proposal calls for four total spaces, but is aligned with the mayor's initiative of reducing dependency on private vehicles. Further, as aligned with the Transportation Department's recommended parking ratios for the area being one to one.

Lastly, we have a screening and buffering violation as the parking spaces are less than five feet from the lot lines. However, this can be addressed during design review if approved. And then also, I'd just like to end, Madam Chair, with this proposal is well aligned with the planning department's recommendation of approval. At this point, I'm going to turn it over to you for any questions or comments.

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

Madam Chair and Board Member C. Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This applicant has completed the community process. Our office hosted an abutters meeting in March of 2025, after which the proposal was substantially reworked. A follow-up of Butters' meeting was held on August 7th, 2025, at which concerns remained about parking. The Gate of Heaven Neighborhood Association is in non-opposition to this proposal. Our office is also aware that the applicant forwarded a letter of support for their original version. Next, we have Ashley.

Thank you. At this time, Councilor Flynn would also like to highlight for the board that at the outset of the community process, there was overwhelming concern that a six-story, four-unit building did not fit in with the character of the surrounding neighborhood on East 5th Street and beyond. But since that time, the project has evolved and has been reduced significantly from six units down to four units with four parking spots. The height reduced from over 43 feet to match the existing roof at 31 feet side. and Marriott setbacks increased far reduced significantly the rear stair enclosed and parking in the exterior. As a result, Councilor Flynn understands that these number of Changes have alleviated a number of concerns from nearby neighbors, abutters, and civic organizations. Thank you.

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

Okay. With that, may I have a motion? I put forward a motion of approval. Is there a second?

Second.

Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr. Roncia? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza? Yes. Okay, thank you. Ms. Whewell? Yes. Mr. Langham. Yes. Chair quotes yes. The motion carries. Good luck.

Thank you. Next, we have case BOA 1760013. with the address of 110 West Concord Street. If the applicant and or their representative are present, may they please explain the case to the board.

Yes, good morning. It's Marcus Springer of Springer Architects, 46 Waltham Street, Courtyard 1, Boston, Mass. 02118. This project is for a roof deck atop the rear living room structure of the main building. It will be spanning over the existing copper roof. The intent is to demolish the existing solarium, that kind of white structure on the back, and create an access stair on that to the deck above. We go to the... Next one. The zoning code refusal is for restricted roof structures. and we met with the Landmark Commission on site and received a certificate of exemption from them.

It's not viewable from any street and the street it's on is exempt. We had in the Butters meeting on August 26th. There were no reservations about the project during that meeting. And these are the plans. So off the living room, you would have basically an access stair and an office. If you go to the next one, basically it's an access area to the deck above. The deck will be cantilevered over the copper roof. And that's it, clad in red cedar. Questions from the board? Oh, I'm sorry. Then there's the structural plans, and then at the very end, there are 14 letters of support, four of which are from direct abutters.

Are there questions from the board?

I think what I'm missing is typically, and sometimes it's presented at the South End Landmark District, is a section showing whether the structure is visible from across the street. It seems like that kind of drawing or diagram is missing, but you mentioned that you cannot see it from across the street?

That's correct.

Do you have drawings that display that? Or can you indicate in the roof how far off it is from the front?

How do you mean how far off it is from the front?

What's the offset from the front of the building?

The roof itself? Yeah. It's roughly a foot above the roof.

Can you show us where it is in a roof plant?

The penthouse. Yes, you can go back to the drawings. So this plan of the deck is directly above the copper roof below. And then if you go to the elevations,

Yeah, so I can't see it in context, like where is this penthouse relative to the overall building?

Oh, I see what you mean.

And that's how typically you would, you know, you usually would show a section. I'm just missing that drawing, but that being said, it would be great to have Jeff Hampton or someone from BPD because Their recommendation was denied due to an interest in having a hatch versus a penthouse. Um, and it seems like the architect already kind of put this forward in front of the South End Landmark and received kind of, you say, initial approval?

It was a letter of exemption. The area in question is not in the South End Landmarks Purview.

Okay, so it would be great to hear from BPD. Yes, he was on my list. Are there any other questions from the board? Okay, is Mr. Hampton on?

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board, Jeff Hampton, City of Boston Planning Department. Ms. Better Barraza, I agree with you. Without that cross-section, we had a very difficult time. Thank you. Thank you. You know, stand in the way of something like this, especially if Landmarks gives it the exemption. But because we were missing that cross section in the elevation, that's why we went with the recommendation of denial.

Oh, I see what you mean. So yeah, it's over the first floor and the building's four stories high.

So you wouldn't see it from the glass marker at all. Right, and that's just something that wasn't part of it, so we didn't know if it was going up four stories or one story. Oh, I see what you mean. Sorry about that. I get you.

That's why I guess you weren't understanding what else.

Right, I didn't understand what you were talking about. Yeah, yeah. When you were saying the roof, we didn't know if there was a four-story extension going up over that. Oh, no, no, no.

The living room's on the first floor. It's just the first floor.

Okay. So I think... I think I heard enough. That would be great. That sounds great for explaining. Thank you so much.

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

Yes, hi, my name is Dr. Mohamed Hamidi and I live in Unit 2 at 112 West Concord Street directly next door.

Oh, you're muted.

You just muted yourself. Sorry about that. Yes. My name is Mohamed Hamidi, and I live in Unit 2 at 112 West Concord Street, directly next door to the proposed roof deck. I strongly oppose the project. First the deck, which sit immediately adjacent to our living space, eliminating our privacy and exposing us to frequent noise in a very dense neighborhood. Second, we rely on two fire escape routes from our unit, and one of them exits onto the roof at 112 West Concord. The proposed deck and enclosed staircase could block this emergency escape path creating a significant safety concern. Third, the proposal will negatively impact our property value and quality of life through loss of privacy, increased noise and obstruction of natural lights and views, including seasonal sunset exposure that we currently enjoy.

Finally, The rooftop use typically includes grilling. Any barbecue activity will direct smoke and odors into our windows, making it difficult to use and ventilate our home. For these reasons, I respectfully ask the Board to deny this request. Thank you. Thank you.

Any other raised hands?

Okay, can the applicant briefly respond to those concerns?

Yes, I can. The fire escape is not blocked. The deck ends and provides for the escape from that window. So the fire escape system is left intact. The wall next to 112 is largely solid except for that window that he was talking about, which is the fire escape. which I mentioned that does not change so that escape hatch is there. The The wall between 112 and 110 is a solid brick wall and a metal clad wall, which is not affected by the access stair to the deck in terms of the sun path.

The stair is articulated in such a way to minimize the mass to just follow the stair itself.

Any other questions from the board?

I'm sorry, Madam Chair, members of the board, my Zoom crashed. I can provide my testimony if you'd like. Please. My name is Eva Jones. I'm representing the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services regarding 110 West Concord Street. Our office defers the board's judgment. A community process was conducted, including an abutters meeting held on 8-26-25 that was likely attended by two South End community members. who did not provide any questions or feedback. My office has also received the 14 letters of support from the applicant that were submitted to the board and the proposal was not in the catchment area of any local civic associations and was not asked to meet with any regarding this proposal. At this time, the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services defers to the Board's judgment on this matter. Thank you, everyone. Thank you.

Any other questions from the Board? Hearing none, is there a motion?

I'd like to put forward a motion to defer the case to allow the applicant to submit two drawings that I think would clarify. for me at least to review the project in its whole, which would be the cross section just to look at where the addition is in relationship to the building, the whole building. And the second drawing would be to to do kind of an egress drawing to show that the egress is remaining and that the structure does not interfere with the egress which I cannot C identified in the existing drawings.

That's fine.

Is there a second?

Second. I think this is an opportunity for the applicant to talk to a neighbor and figure out how they can improve the project.

Okay, so I heard a motion and a second. Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza?

Yes.

Ms. Whewell?

Yes.

Mr. Langham? Yes. Chair votes yes. Motion carries.

Is there a date? Madam Chair, we're into February of the deferrals. We have February 3rd or February 24th.

Mr. Springer. February 3rd is fine. Thank you. All right. Thank you. See you then.

Bye-bye.

Next, we have case BOA 168. 8948 with the address of 47 Dell Avenue.

If the applicant and or their representative are present, would they please explain to the board? Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Stembridge. Anthony Mackey, architect for 47 Dell Avenue. This project is an existing three-family in the jacket. It's been used historically and taxed historically as a four-unit building. This application is part of a comprehensive renovation of the building. which includes a full gut and rebuilt. The proposal is to make the building a legal floor family and it includes Rear porches, side porch, a head house at the top of the building, which includes a front deck at the roof and a rear deck at the roof. We are removing the existing stair system inside of the building just due to its condition and it's sort of dangerous.

The proposed is for a new stairway, four new units, one bedroom. Rear decks, and then a side deck there as you can see. And I'll go through the violations. Insufficient rear yard setback due to the addition of rear porch. Insufficient lot area per unit. We're hoping to make up for this with the decks to be serviced per unit. And then, since we're adding a unit, we need a parking space. We do not have room for that currently. and we are adding a head house here. The existing height of the building is 36 feet 2 inches. The proposed height is 47 feet. We've done a similar renovation at 55 Del Avenue. It came out very well. It also has a head house there and it looks very, very nice.

We've performed the At Barraza's meeting, no objections were heard at that time, and we also met with Community Alliance and Mission Hill. No objections were heard at that time either. I think that's the project.

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

Madam Chair and members of the board, Siggy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This applicant has completed the community process. Her office hosted a mutters meeting on June 25th at which the butters were supportive of the proposal. The Community Alliance of Mission Hill is in support of this application and our office has also forwarded two letters of support to the board. With that background, we defer judgment to the board. Thank you.

Madam Chair, there are no additional comments.

Oh, sorry. I would like to chime in. My name is Lily. I'm here on behalf of Councilor Durkan. She would like to go on record and support reiterating CAMH's strong support for the project.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. With that, there are no additional comments.

Okay. May I have a motion?

Motion of approval with a review from the planning department.

Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

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

Yes.

Ms. Whewell? Yes. Mr. Langham?

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Members of the Board.

The next case has been deferred, so that takes us to case BOA 1554854, the address is 69R Perrin Street. The applicants and their representatives present.

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Tim Longdon, 1A Treetop Circle in Northborough. I'm the owner of 69 R. Perry Street in Roxbury. I'd first like to offer some background on the site. and explain this proposal in that context. This site, 69 R Perrin Street, was originally a portion of a much larger parcel, 67 Perrin Street, which I purchased in March of 2023. I subdivided that lot into three separate parcels. The first was 67 Parent Street where I rehabilitated an existing three-family home. The second was 71 Parent Street where I built a zoning-compliant three-family. and the last was this parcel, subject parcel, 69 R Parent Street, where I'm also seeking to construct a new three-family. This is a rather simple and standard three-story, three-family dwelling on a non-standard lot.

The parcel of 6,040 square feet is in a 3F4,000 zoning subdistrict, making the proposed three-family dwelling perfectly suitable to the site. But owing to the unique geography of the site, and its location behind the two other parcels I developed on Parent Street, zoning relief is required to accomplish what would otherwise, like 71 Parent Street, be a zoning compliant building. The zoning refusal letter was issued owing to four cited violations. First, there was a floor area ratio violation. I'm actually not certain this violation was correctly cited. The maximum FAR under zoning is 0.8. Here, Unit 1 and Unit 2 are each 1,360 square feet. Unit 3 is 1,413 square feet, for a total of 4,133 square feet, plus approximately 100 additional square feet of non-unit area.

4,832 square feet are allowed by zoning. If the examiner counted the basement space, which has been marked unfinished, it would likely exceed allowable FAR, but only to a very small extent. There is a cited front yard setback violation. The required setback is 20 feet, while the front of this building is approximately 14 feet from the lot line, separating this lot from 67 Parrard Street. That area of the 67 Parent Street lot is a parking area, so there's no impact on the residents in that building, which is located nearly 45 feet away from its rear lot line. There is a sighted rear yard insufficiency. The required setback is 30 feet, whereas the provided setback varies from approximately 11 to 12 feet. but there is a significant setback of the building to the rear from its own rear lot line mitigating any potential negative impact from this violation. The violation is caused again by the perpendicular geometry of the lot

and is unavoidable in order to allow reasonable three-family development of a lot that meets minimum lot size requirements. Also, there is a violation arising from lack of screen and buffering of the building's three-spot parking area. If the Board were to see fit to approve this, we would be happy to work with the Planning Department on a suitable landscaping plan. as well as to refine the architectural plans in light of the neighborhood design overlay district. Finally, I wish to point out that the fire lane access from Burton Ave was reviewed and approved by the Boston Fire Department and is stamped on the site plan as complying with 527 CMR. Thank you.

Thank you. So can you clarify, you mentioned Burton Ave, so does this property, will this property be exiting from Burton Ave or on to Perrin? Like if I'm a resident there, how am I accessing my unit?

So when I spoke in front of the community, they wanted to, well, actually, two reasons. One, the community would rather have vehicular access come to and from Burnt Neff. And secondly, the only fire lane access we could provide was from Burnt Neff.

So that means if I live there, I'm walking into my unit from Burton now, but that's my question.

Yes, I mean, there would be a pedestrian access from Perrin Street. But we are going to put up a fence so there would be a pedestrian pass-through. But as far as parking and car access, it would all come from Burton Ave. Thank you.

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

Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Benberry. 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 April 28th. That was very well attended but not very well received by the community. Abutters felt the proposal, although reduced from six to three units, was still too large for the neighborhood and the parcel. Abutters and residents of the community felt the area is already too dense and congested and will increase the traffic and parking issues currently experienced by the neighborhood. With the proposal having access to both Bertrand and Perrin Street, as well as a concern as well as a concern for college students moving into the area. The civic leader who oversees Roxbury Path Forward Neighborhood Association has had issues with the college students renting out in the area and is concerned that the developer will continue to rent out to college students. Next, the proponent presented to the Niagara City Neighborhood Association on October 20th, where butters again felt the proposal, although reduced from six to three units, was still too large for the parcel.

Our office has received three letters of opposition. I will read a brief description of two as they have been sent to the board for review. Our office has received one letter from United Neighborhood Association Alaska Parent Association and Project Right requesting to not allow a cut through for pedestrians and vehicles to travel between Copeland and Parent Street. and to continue to for that to continue to exist due to significant public safety issues as well as requesting a deferral for Burton Avenue residents to be fully engaged in the process. and one from Roxbury Path Forward requesting that the proposal be deferred so that the address can be updated to Burton Ave from Perrin Street for clarity. and to ensure that the correct group of residents are made aware of the project. The Civic has dealt with a proponent in the path of Perrin Street, which was built as of right. Thank you for your time, and the Mayor's Office of Tablet Services would like to defer to the Court for their judgment.

Okay. Thank you.

Next we have Lorraine Payne.

Hello, I'm here today on behalf of Roxbury Path Forward Neighborhood Association. And as Jeremy said, we are very concerned that this project The only entrance would be from Burton Ave. And I understand that now the developer or one of the developers, because there are three developers, But one of them has now said that there would be no car access. from Perrin Street, but there would be pedestrian access. But when he came to the meeting at Project Right, that's not what he said. And so we've had this several times with this particular developer that he comes to the city and says something else so we would like to have this deferred so that we can ensure that the people on Burton Ave

and Copeland Street, because Bird Nav is really like an alley, would have a chance to speak about the project as well. So thank you very much. Thank you.

Madam Chair, there are no additional comments.

Can the developer address those concerns for Mr. Bembry and Ms. Wheeler?

Yes, so this has been under review with the community, I want to say for the past 18 months. It possibly could be as long as two years. So we've tried to reach out to the To the homeowners on Burton Ave, just requesting some feedback. I tried on two occasions now and haven't received any. We deferred this last year when I proposed six units. Due to the neighborhood feedback, I reduced that to three. And as far as the pedestrian access from Parrot Street, that is a life safety issue. So that was with the fire department. decided on the vehicular access from Burton Ave. As far as the fire lane, we could put up the fence to reduce so that there wouldn't be any vehicular cut-through from Burton Ave to Parent Street.

But we did need to have a pedestrian exit for the folks at 69 Our Parent Street in case of emergency. We can lock it so there wouldn't be access from Parent Street and the only way to utilize that door would be from 69R Parent Street in case of emergency. But we do need, we can't just put up a fence and and restrict pedestrian access for the fire department.

Other questions from the board?

Yes, Madam Chair. My understanding is Burden Street is a private way? Yes. So who's responsible for maintaining that?

We would have responsibility along with the other residents on Burton Ave. Would it remain a private way or would it become a city street? It would remain a private way, I think, until it was, you know, if somebody proposed something to PIC. But for now, it would remain a private way. and if I heard you correctly, you said you reached out to people on BirdNav and You got no response? Yeah, we got no response. I did that twice. I was asked to do it. I met with Nine Streets United a few times over the past couple months. Just sort of checking in. I had sent mailers out twice and received nothing. Also, there was no one from Burton Athlete who attended the community meetings.

Thank you.

Okay, any other questions from the board? Hearing none, is there a motion?

Madam Chair, I make a motion of approval with Planning Department design review.

Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge.

I'm going to say no, Madam Chair. I believe the changes are, I understand that the residents of Burton haven't been reached out to, but I believe this needs, You need to hear from someone on that street, that private way, whatever. So I'll just leave it there and say no.

Thank you. Mr. Valencia.

Yes.

Ms. Turner.

No, for reasons of... I would hope for a better community process. I agree with Mr. Stembridge. And also, I know that there are concerns around people who live on Copeland Ave as well. So I'd like to encourage the applicant to reach out to those folks as well. Ms. Better Barraza?

Yes.

Ms. Wewell?

Yes.

Mr. Langham? I'm going to vote no to. The Chair votes no, the motion does not carry. Is there another motion?

Motion of deferral, Madam Chair.

Is there a second?

Second.

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

Yes.

Mr. Langham? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. So... February 3rd or February 24th? Does that give you sufficient time for the additional outreach that the board has recommended?

Okay.

See you then.

Thank you. Next, we have case BOA 1730685.

with the address of 10 Eckler Street.

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

Yeah, no. I was going to say Chris Wise is the applicant for this project here. I don't see anybody here. for this project at the moment.

Well, and then come back to it? Mm-hmm. Okay, so we'll move on for now to case BOA.

173-3253 with the address of 53 Brown Avenue.

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

My name is Timothy Sheehan. I'm at 9 Wall Street in Charlestown. I'm the architect for the project. My client, Fred, is the builder. He's on as well. Basically what we want to do is put a single family house on this lot. It's an existing lot. It's an existing undersized parcel. It's 35 feet wide. and the majority of the houses are 50 or 55 but they're it's adjacent to another 35 foot parcel and two houses away there's also a 37 foot parcel with almost identical house on it So just in particular, the house itself, what we want to do is create a 30, 30, I'm sorry, Yeah, 3294 gross square feet, which puts us over on the FAR. But what we're trying to do is build a three-story. Two main stories and a gate, little story with a master. It'll be four bedrooms, four baths.

The big difference from number 45 down the street, which is very similar, is we don't want to have the parking at the front so we've turned it around from the Ada Street side so we have two garage spaces under a deck and then there's a 50-foot driveway which they could park in as well I suppose. My client has dealt with the West Village Neighborhood Association. There's some landscaping issues as well. And we've worked with them on this as well. And as far as the violations go, We have a few of them here. Our refusal letter had lot area insufficient. It's a 4,200 square foot lot, a 6,000 minimum. The width is at 35 feet. It's under the 50 required. Side yards have to be 10 feet. We have a 22 and a half foot wide house on a 35 foot lot. So right and left are like 6.2 and 6.3.

And then, yeah, frontage, I talked about frontage is at 35 feet. Our neighborhood process has gone Well, so far, like I said, we dealt with the West Village, the Neighbors Association, and basically mostly about landscaping. and that's the project. Any questions, please let me know. Thank you.

Are there any questions from the board? Yes, I have a question. So landscaping issues, I understand there's a There's a maple tree on the project. Can you talk a little bit about how you would deal with the tree and the other landscaping issues, if there are any?

Unfortunately, that sugar maple is right in the middle of the site. You know, it's a 24-inch caliper tree. So we'd remove that one. There's another existing 18-inch caliper sugar maple at the back right looking from Brown Ave. So we can keep that. And our plan was to add three trees. In the front, we'd do a flowering dogwood. On the back, looking from Ada Street to the right, we could get in A Japanese Cherry and a Japanese Alcova. And then I've got various plantings. We went back and forth with the neighbors, with the association a bit, but we got to the point where we had a plan that they were happy with. And that's what we do. Like I said, that tree in the middle, it's almost directly in the middle of the site. And the root ball is going to be out, you know, covering 50% of the lot. So there's just no way to save that tree in the middle. But we can save the other existing good-sized 18-inch caliper sugar maple. We'll keep that. Thank you. Thank you.

Any other questions from the board? Is there an existing curb cut for you to have access to the- At the back?

I don't believe so, no. I can just look on Google Earth real quick in the back. Because there's no... Not in the front, I mean in the back. Well, we're doing the parking from the back, and there's really no parking there.

Right, but so I don't see in your plot plan a burr cut.

I don't think there's a sidewalk there. My client's speaking. I don't know if you can hear him.

Hi, good morning. Thanks, Fred. There is not a sidewalk in the back. Yeah, that's right. Coming off of Ader, it would be repaved going in there, but currently there is not a sidewalk or a curb cut necessary.

Is it... Is it flushed or do you have to create a curb cut?

Not necessarily. To create the driveway, we have a quote-unquote curb cut. However, the driving into there is basically flat. And it's a private road. Being a private road, we would create it just like the road normally, but the curb cut per se just comes in flush with the grade.

Is it currently, I think it says existing asphalt, is it currently being used as a parking space?

What's that? I'm sorry.

Are you currently using it as surface parking?

Yes, there's surface parking on both sides of the existing house next door at 55 Brown Ave. There's a two-car garage, which is next door, a separate lot, a completely separate lot. And me and the private road, we're going to make a similar approach to our...

I don't have any further questions. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other questions from the board? May I have public testimony?

Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Benbury. I'm the 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 July 8th, where abutters voiced concerns and two abutters voiced opposition to the proposal in line with many of the concerns of the abutters. Abutters felt the lot is too small and the area is too dense and too congested and also voiced concerns about parking and increased traffic. Another concern was water runoff and groundwater and how it will adversely affect the foundations of abutting properties coupled with another concern which was the lack of green space in trees which will exacerbate the groundwater concern and may cause more flooding than some residents already experienced. Because of this concern, the butters requested to maintain the current green space and trees on the property. A director butter voiced concerns for setbacks as the distance from their butting home is less than required, leaving the proposal encroaching on their property. Next, the proponent was connected to West Village Neighborhood Association

where a landscaping plan was submitted that the neighborhood association felt was a good compromise to compensate for the loss of the 100-year-old sugar maple tree and the community process was completed. 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, any other questions from the board? Is there a motion?

Madam Chair, I'd like to put forward a motion of approval with a proviso that the project undergoes site plan review with BPD to ensure that a replacement of the trees is an equal because it is a very mature tree that's being removed. Is there a second?

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

Yes.

Mr. Langham? Yes. Motion carries. Thank you everybody.

Thank you for your time. Next we have... Next we have case BOA 177542. Try this again. Case BOA 1775242.

with the address of 1 Heartland Road.

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

Yes, thank you, Mr. Stembridge. Morning, Madam Chair, members of the board, Attorney John Polgini here on behalf of the proposal at 1 Hartlawn Road in West Roxbury. I'm joined today by Antonio Ferrara, who is the project proponent. One Hotline Road, West Roxbury, zoning is single family 6,000, lot size is 4,645 square feet. The proposal is to raise the existing structure which is a vacant dilapidated eyesore building located at 157 Baker Street and in its place build a new three-story single-family house with a one-car attached garage. as well as it'll have one additional parking space in front of the garage if it's needed. The new house will now face Heartland Road rather than Baker Street.

As the existing house does not have a curb carpet opening, we thought it was best to utilize the side street to provide safer access to the driveway and to the garage. The proposal is to build a four bedroom, two and a half bathroom house. It will be approximately 2,157 square feet of living space. Our violations were FAR. Allowed is four, we're at .46. Bought area, 6,000, 4645. Frontage is 60, we're at 5766. Front yard setback is 20 required where 18 and then rear yard setback is 30 and 12. On the rear yard setback The rear of the house, the property that it butts on Baker Street, on that side of their house, they have approximately an 18-foot driveway. So between the two of them, it is well off of that house and that of Butter.

who is the most impacted has signed a letter of support and submitted that to the board. If you look to the plans on page one of the plans that are included, this is just a site plan showing the new houses Houses orientation as well as the dimensional setbacks. Page two is a front elevation of the home. Page three is the left side elevation. or is the rear elevation? 5 is the right side elevation and page 6 is the basement plan which will be unfinished and used to house the home's mechanicals. Page 7 is the first floor plan Showing a kitchen, dining room, living room, half bath in the location of the garage. Page 8 is the second floor plan, which will have three beds and two baths. And page 9 is the attic plan, which includes a bedroom.

The proposal went through a full community process, culminating with our presentation to the West Roxbury Naval Council, where the proposal received full support. Additionally, we have provided the board with approximately 12 letters of support from all contiguous abutters as well as other neighbors. That's the presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions that anybody has. Thank you.

Are there questions from the board?

Yes. On the site plot plan, I don't see the curb cut, you know, access to the garage.

So, thanks for the question, Ms. Better Barraza. We are adding a curb cut on Hartlawn and we chose that side street as It is obviously much less traveled than Baker Street, so there will be a curb cut that we will have put in there that will provide access to the garage.

Okay, so you're going to be putting that permit application for the curb cut? We're just not seeing it on the site plot plan?

Yes.

Okay. Okay, great. Thank you.

You're welcome.

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

Madam Chair and Board Members, Siggy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This application has completed the community process. Our office hosted an abutters meeting on October 15th. In abutter support of the proposal, a direct abutter raised a concern about the sewer line to their house. The applicant met with the West Roxbury Neighbourhood Council, which is in support of the application. The applicant has sent 12 form letters of support to the board. Six of the addresses signed on the letters are in the 300-foot up-butters radius. That background, our office defers judgment to the board. Thank you. Thank you.

Madam Chair, there are no additional comments.

Okay, may I have a motion? Madam Chair, I'm going to just put this project forward with an approval. It's a pretty straightforward project, and it seems like it works with the context of West Roxbury in terms of the residential housing stock.

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

Yes.

Ms. Wewell?

Yes.

Mr. Langham? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck. Thank you, everybody.

Next, we have case BOA. 177-2133 with the address of 106 Eastwood Circuit.

If the applicants and or their representative present Valencia. I need to let go of myself from this case.

Okay, thank you Mr. Valencia. We are now a six-member board for this case.

Good morning, ZBA Board. My name is Stephen Petipas. I'm the architect for this particular project. This is an existing, the existing house is a non-conforming 1600 square foot house. which is currently one and a half stories. We're proposing to extend the house up to a second floor and then an attic, which would be fully utilized, which then brings us under the third story rule under the zoning law. The existing side yard setback is non-conforming. We are not changing at all the footprint of the house. The footprint of the house remains the same. All of the yard setbacks remain the same. and because this is a very small lot, adding the square footage that we are brings us to the FAR rule. The addition to the house is only a 1,500 square feet.

The existing house is 1,600 square feet. and from the street it has the appearance as any typical two and a half story home and the rear has a dormer which is a slightly larger than half the length of the building and it kicks us into the third story.

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

Madam Chair and Board Members, Siggy Johnson with the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services. This applicant has completed the community process. Our office hosted an abutters meeting on September 25th at which no concerns were raised. The West Roxbury Neighborhood Council is in support of this application. With that background, our office defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, Madam Chair, we have one person, Jim Kennedy. You have 90 seconds.

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. For full disclosure, I am a plan examiner with the Inspectional Services Department, but I am not giving testimony. I'm giving testimony today as an abutter. I tried to give testimony at the West Roxbury neighborhood council meeting but the meeting was supposed to take place at 7 p.m. I arrived at 6 50 and the meeting had already concluded so I do not know why that happened but Now I'm here to give testimony today. I'm a little concerned about the design, being as now the building will have two front doors, a staircase that leads directly to the upstairs, where the second floor appears to have what they're calling a wet bar, but it's basically the same size and shape as the kitchen below. My concerns, obviously, there are no other three-story buildings in the neighborhood.

I understand it meets the height requirement in feet, but not in stories. The lot is small. I'm concerned about the FAR comparison. It's already a non-conforming structure. This will further extend that non-conformance. But my real true concern, and maybe the applicant might be able to answer this, is what are the true design plans for this building? I mean, is this going to become a two-family building? or maybe some kind of a looming house or an Airbnb because the design kind of speaks to that. So that was really my biggest concern. Thank you.

The current situation of the family is that the two elder parents live in the house. and they are in need of having their son, daughter-in-law, and two children move in with them because of the pressures of the economy and whatnot. And so, understanding that they wanted a little bit of privacy between the son's family and themselves and so the arrangement was for the interior design was basically decided upon the way in which you look at it now. It was to try to give as much separation between the two families, but at the same time it's being maintained as a single family

and is being maintained with a single family it's just trying to create a more comfort zone for the three the basically three generational family to Be able to live together. This is not the first kind of project that I've done. I've done other projects in the past where we had 11 bedrooms because we had a four generational family living together. So the number of bedrooms is five, two in the first floor, three, two in the first floor, One on the second and two above, total of five bedrooms. But the reason why it's arranged the way it is is because we have a multi-generational family basically living together. I don't believe, I've not had any discussions with the owner as to whether he intends to divide it into two, but perhaps he can speak to that. I believe he is

at meeting currently at John Conran.

Hello, can you hear me?

Yes, sir.

Yes, me and my wife moved down to the first floor and we've been living down on the first floor for approximately a few years because we're getting older and we don't need to be climbing stairs. We had the whole second floor empty. We were discussing, we spend a lot of time with our grandchildren, our children. That would be nice to create a space for them. It's only intended for my immediate family. and to give them a hand, you know, in terms of relieving some of their rent pressure. But the intent is for it to remain a single family home with me and my family living there. And just giving them, like Steve said, some privacy. It was space and we weren't using it anyhow.

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

I put forward a motion of approval with... Yeah, I put forward a motion of approval

Okay, is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia, he would choose himself. Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza?

Yes.

Ms. Whewell? Yes. Mr. Langham? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next, we have two companion cases. The first is case BOA 1747263. with the address of 25 Royal Street. Along with that, we have case BOA 1747259 with the address of 1 Empire Street. If the applicant and or their representative present, will the police explain these cases to the board?

Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is Paul Ruffo, Smith, Duggan, Cornell, and Golub, 101 Arch Street in Boston. With me today, I'm an attorney in Boston. With me today is the architect, Steven Chung. and also the owners of Father and Son, Aki Olia, O-L-I-A, and Ali. O'Lea. Ali lives on Hooker Street, which is around the corner, in a building that was developed by his father a number of years ago. So they have Our owners in this immediate neighborhood and have owned this property which is A bit of a, there's four lots together you can see there on the site plan. And there are two vacant lots that, one lot, 5-7 Hooker Street, has a two-family

Thank you very much. Oh, I'm sorry, just quickly. We did have a robust community process. We had an abutters meeting with thanks to ONS. And we also went to the Austin Civic Association, presented these projects. I believe Representative will speak about that. It was fairly well received. We also went to the Brighton-Austrian Improvement Association and got their input. Thanks to the input of the Director Butters and the Naval Association, we made some tweaks to the project. including adding additional open space which you'll hear about but just quickly the violations would be use this is a two-family 5,000 square foot zone we're proposing a three-family Triple-decker style.

The dimensions, setback, modal front, setback, left side. and rear yard for 25 Royal Street, FAR and lot size. The height, actually the height is going to be only 31 feet where 35 feet is allowed, but The number of stories is 2.5 stories and we're proposing three stories. So we need a relief for that. And then finally, parking. Five parking spaces would be required for three units, and we're providing three off-street parking spaces, one space. If you want the same very similar process for One Empire Street, which is abuts, they abut each other on the rear, and Mr. Chung will take you through that. Same process. We presented them at the same time since these actually three properties are going to work together.

To access one of the parking spaces, as Stephen will explain to you, we'll need a A small easement over the 57 Hooker Street to access the off-street parking space, which will be underneath the 25 Royal Building, but he'll explain that. The violations, as I say, are the same for One Empire Street, very similar. So that's the thumbnail of the proposal. I'll turn it over to Stephen, to Stephen Chung. Our Architect to walk you through the plans and the presentation. Thank you.

So sorry, Mr. Chong, just as you're presenting, can you keep in mind two comments from the Disabilities Commission and just answer that at the appropriate time during your presentation. They mentioned that Unit A appears to be a basement plus first floor two level unit. Thank you. Unit A appears to be a basement and first floor unit. First floor two level unit, as this is a ground floor unit, It must have accessible route between levels. And then it also mentions for 25 Royal Street, what is the accessible route from the parking to the entrance that should meet all the requirements for an accessible route. So just to keep that in mind when you're presenting to us.

Okay, can you do you mind just stop right there? And thank you for members of the board. Good morning. Yeah, it's for the The purpose of this submission, I mean, we broke apart because they're separate lots, but I wish I could show my design drawings, which really show the three parcels because the yellow house, the left on that rendering, is also owned by the... and then the green building that you're looking at is really in question but then to the left of that is this other site and really we looked at this as holistically as kind of a master plan uh replacing that fence that goes around all three properties creating landscaping for all three properties and really try to think about it holistically so that was always sort of part of the The thinking and then also that there was a previous proposal which was a quite a bit larger and I think that I mean I wasn't part of that but just going back through the community

um input and really sort of understanding that I think that the the larger building that was proposed earlier I mean was probably the wrong direction and and really trying to find a typology a scale that was more in keeping with what's around it was really the right approach which is what We eventually did. So what you're looking at, as Mr. Ruffo said, is kind of a triple-decker-inspired block, which is sort of staggered and bumped to follow the... All of the site, which is, as you see, is curving. And there's really basically three units, one per floor. There is parking that's accessed from the left. There's an existing curb cut, and we sort of took that. that ramps down underneath the building the site just happens to slope up so it really creates an opportunity where when the ramp goes down you're able to sort of park underneath underneath that building so um I don't know if you want to scroll ahead a little bit, but basically, I mean, I think that the key things that Paul had mentioned, three stories, it's less than...

and many more. That's underneath. That's ramping down. And then there's three parking for that building. And then really these are all, you know, well, it's very comfortable, three-bedroom apartments with kind of an attached... A deck, balcony, similar that you'd see in triple-deckers. They're in that area. I think that the meetings we basically just really tried very hard to kind of listen and respond to kind of some of the comments about the expression. which are sort of vertically oriented windows, fiber siding, really, again, looking at the sort of typology of triple-deckers. Any questions? Did you want me to address the accessibility issue?

Yeah, if you could, that would be great.

So maybe go to the floor plan. And again, what was the question was?

The accessibility issued, Chair Dong, is on the access from... The parking to the entrance, there was no comments on the interior.

So from the parking, I mean, there was a stair on the ground floor plan, that stair that then leads up to the main floor. I don't know if that answers it. And then on the ground floor, if you go to the ground floor, there is some...

It's basically what's the accessible route from the parking lot to the entrance, yeah. So I think you're just missing... um like a route of sorts uh you know I mean it's indoor so I'm not sure what they're looking for specifically because it's not like you have an ADA elevator from inside the parking.

Right yeah so I guess I don't really know how to answer other than on the ground floor you just see there because the topography of the site there is some ramp because that there is some steps of the entry to get to the lobby and then from the parking I mean it really is just going through the stair or I mean I don't think the ramp is actually the it's not a desirable path for someone that's in a wheelchair or something.

Other questions from the board?

No, but Karen, I could include some accessibility in the decision if you like.

Thank you. Okay, let's take public testimony.

Madam Chair and Board Members, Siggy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This applicant has completed the community process. Our office hosted an abutters meeting on September 10th at which an abutter raised concerns about the design of the structures and the amount and design of the usable open space. The Alston Civic Association has sent a letter of support to our office and to the board. With that background, our office defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Madam Chair, do you have any additional comments? Hello?

Yes.

Hi, my name is Josh Geeding. I'm a local resident. Is now the time to speak? Are you speaking on this One Empire or 25 Royal Street?

Yes. Okay, so state your name and address for the record and...

Josh Geeding. I've moved into 11 Ronald Street five years ago. This is my first time doing this, so apologies. This is all new to me. But I came very excited to really settle down here and start a family with the introduction of The Link at 525 Lincoln Street. and over the course of the five years I've been here, parking has just really gotten decidedly worse to the point where that may be the make or break decision for me to move with my family elsewhere. That's, this area has always struggled with owner versus resident ratios and I feel like it's just really hard to get ahead of that as parking is bad and this is kind of just a college town, so it seems like this is This has some violations regarding parking. I don't really know all the details of what's going on, but I just saw the flyer came my way. I saw the meeting. I figured I'd mention that parking is definitely a problem. Got a lot worse with the link, and it seems like it's going to continue getting worse here.

It's hard for me to find a spot when I get home from work these days, and I really got to get home early to find a spot, whereas when I first moved in, that was not an issue. Thank you. Thank you.

Madam Chair, there are no additional comments.

I don't know if the applicant wants to address the comment about parking.

Maybe Paul, you can speak to that.

Well, yeah, we've provided one space per unit, which I would suggest goes along with the BPD. We're going to be freeing up some parking along the Empire Street side. Not available, but by developing that Empire Street, that's actually a public street and there will be parking allowed on the side, at least one or two spaces there along that side. But we are certainly sympathetic to the parking issue there. That's why we're providing at least one space per unit of off-street parking.

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

Madam Chair, I'd like to put forward a motion of approval with a proviso that the project meets accessibility requirements.

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

Yes.

Ms. Whewell?

Yes.

Mr. Langham? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck.

Thank you, Madam Chair. That motion applies to both proposals. Correct. Great. Thank you so much.

Go with me, Madam Chair. Yes, as soon as we approach the 11 o'clock hour.

Why don't we just take a five minute break then?

Madam Chair, sorry to interrupt. I think there was one person for one of the case that we missed. Oh, was there? Okay, sorry. Freddy, if Freddy is here for the, it was 90, no, no, no, one second, please, I'm sorry, 23 Noniham Street. The person sent me a message in the chat earlier.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Garciamotta. It's like all of you from the beginning, okay. Yes, it's actually Timothy Fraser for 23 Nottingham. Thank you, boy.

Madam Chair, I need to recuse myself.

Okay, well, let's let Mr. Stembridge relocate that one. That was the BFA.

No, I locate it. 20.

They're both on offer.

Both on offer. Okay. So that would be for the final operating case for case BOA 1679542. with the address of 23 Nottingham Street. Would you go ahead and please explain?

Thank you, Mr. Stembridge. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board for accommodating the schedule change. This matter was, my name is Timothy Fraser from the law firm of Dane Torpey, 175 Federal Street in Boston. This matter was before the board on February 25th, at which the board granted variances for this MOH-led project to construct a three-story multi-family residential building with 12 affordable units and eight off-street parking spaces on a newly combined vacant lot. When we submitted the plans, we intend to combine vacant lots to total 12,496 square feet. The refusal letter and the agenda and decision reference the combination of three lots, but this is actually the combination of four lots that comprise that 12,496 square feet.

So we're before the board for a final arbiter to just have the decision corrected to reference the combination of four parcels rather than three parcels. and again, the plans that we submitted to ISD and everything tracks with the four parcels. It's just the decision that references three.

Okay, are there questions from the board? Is there a motion? Motion to approve. Is there a second?

Second.

Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Whewell? Yes. Mr. Langham?

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, members of the board.

Now I understand 10 Hecla is here now?

Yes. With that, we will return to case BOA 173. 0685 with the address of 10 Heckel Street.

Who's here from Hector Street?

One second, she's on the 10th station, let me elevate it.

Hello, can you hear me?

Yes, can you hear me now? Sorry, hello?

Yes, are you here to present for Tanhekwa?

Yes, yes. Sorry.

That's okay. Can you state your name and address for the record and then please let us know what you're proposing?

Yeah, my name is Jenny Tan. I'm here for the meeting for the 10 Heclo Street. We're hoping to seek relief for this zip violation for to come accommodate the community needs for more housing for our property. Hello?

We can hear you. Can you please proceed?

Yes, I'm so sorry if I missed anything because today I have a lot of things in my hand. Bylaw just passed away, so that's why there's certain things I'm not prepared. I'm so sorry. But we're hoping to get relief on the three. Right now it's a two-family occupancy. It's a two-family, and we're trying to convert it as a three-family to hopefully get more... to help with the accommodate with the housing needs and I know that it was denied because of the square footage I believe or the space and the parking space so we're hoping if you can help us get this approved So we can... Hello, can you hear me? Yeah, we can hear you. Yes, ma'am. Yeah, and this is my first time at the meeting, too, and if I have...

So like I said, we're hoping to get converted from a two-family to a three-family. This will really help to accommodate with the community too. If there's anything that's needed for us, please let us know.

So just to confirm, it looks like from this you're not expanding the footprint, you're just going up? Is that what's happening? Yes, yes. Okay, and sorry for your loss. Any other questions from the board? Hearing none, may I have public testimony?

Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Bembry. I'm the 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 July 31st. With no abutters present, no concerns were raised. Next, the proponent presented to Meeting House Hill Civic Association who voted in support of the proposal. To date, our office has not received any further community feedback at this time. Thank you for your time, and the Mayor's Office and the Board of Services would like to defer to the Board with their judgment.

Hello, Madam Chair, members of the board, Lane Remus from Councilor Fitzgerald's office, Office of Lyco and Records for this proposal. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Chair, we have somebody from the public, Jane Hsu. Jane Shou, I'm not sure if you are speaking for this case, but you have... No, I just for my own case.

Maybe I responded too early. Sorry.

All right, all right. Madam Chair, there are no additional comments.

Okay, thank you. With that, may I have a motion?

Motion is to approve.

Second. Thank you. Mr. Stembridge?

Yeah.

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

Yes.

Ms. Whewell?

Yes.

Mr. Langham? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck now.

Thank you so much. Thank you so much for everybody. Thank you and have a good day. Thank you.

With that, we will now move on to the cases to the hearing scheduled for 11 o'clock. And Before we begin with those cases, we'll ask that there is any request for withdrawals or deferrals from the 11 o'clock time frame.

Good morning, Mr. Secretary. 180-182 Savin Hill Avenue. Is there a companion case as well?

Yes, so those two cases are case BOA 178-3686

The address of 180-182 Savanel Avenue.

Along with that is case BOA 178-3689.

also with the address of 180-182 South 11. Would you go ahead, attorney Christy?

Thank you very much. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is James Christopher of 686 Architects with the business address of 10 Forth Road in Braintree, Mass. Here today on behalf of the owner, Christopher Tomasini, for 180-182 Savin Hill Avenue and requesting a very brief deferral. This project has been through a neighborhood process, but we very recently learned that there was a butter that had some concerns. So we'd like a brief deferral to meet with that client and try to address them so that we can bring the project to the board for approval.

Okay.

Stephanie? We're into February. February 3rd on 24th. February 3rd. Yeah, we'll take February 3rd. Okay. With that, may I have a motion?

Motion to defer to February the 3rd.

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

Yes.

Ms. Whewell?

Yes.

Mr. Langham? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. See you then. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Secretary. This is Attorney Mike Ross for 567 Adams Street.

Thank you, Attorney Ross. So this will be for case BOA 179. 0972, the address of 567-577 Adams. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. We've been requested by St. Mark's Area Civic Association to come back for a follow-up meeting based on our last meeting a month ago. A month and a half ago and the clients agreed to do so to try to get there with the neighborhood association. So we'd like to do that, have a brief deferral so that we can come back and hopefully with a small changes to the plan.

Okay, Stephanie, same dates? Let's say February 3rd on 24th.

A February 3rd would be great, please.

May I have a motion?

Motion to defer this case until February 3rd.

Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza? Yes. Ms. Whewell? Yes. Mr. Langham? Yes. Chair votes yes. Motion carries. See you then. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Mr. Williams.

Yes, good morning. Mrs. Stembridge, that's 191 Brook Street, please.

So this request is for case BOA 17908.

00, with the address of 191 Brook Street.

Go ahead, Mr. Linds. Thank you. Richard Linds, business address at 245 Sunder Street, East Boston. On behalf of the petitioner, good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. Asking for a brief deferral, we had a chance to review the Planning Department's recommendation and we think we can make some adjustments to address several comments at least, if not all the comments. So we're asking for a brief deferral while we go ahead and make those updates. Okay, seeing no February dates.

February 3rd or 24th, and this will be the last one for February 3rd.

February 3rd, please. Thank you.

Okay, with that, may I have a motion? Motion to defer to February 3rd. I have a second. Second. Second. Mr. Stembridge. Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza?

Yes.

Ms. Whewell? Yes. Mr. Langham? Yes. Chair votes yes. Motion carries. See you then.

Thank you very much. A happy and safe holiday season to you all.

So with that, we'll return to the hearing schedule for 11 a.m. And we'll begin with case BOA 170-5643. With the address of 101 P Street, if the applicant and or their representative are present, will they please explain to the board?

Hello Madam Chair, members of the board. This is Eric Zacherson, architect for the project. I believe the owner is online also, but I will walk you briefly through the project. This is an existing single-family home, which we are expanding to the rear. There are no changes to the front of the building. That was very important to the neighborhood, but we are proposing to expand 12 foot 10 inches to the rear on both levels one and two. Removing an existing sunroom and adding space on the rear. So if you go forward a little bit, you'll see there's no changes to the basement. On this drawing, you see the dark area at the top of the page is the addition on the first floor. It should be a larger kind of family playroom. And then up above where it's spanning two of the guest suites or suites on the level two. to make them kind of larger bedroom suite rooms. And then if you scroll forward, you can see in the elevation, no changes to the front of the building, very important to the neighborhood.

on the sides the building slopes from front to back so the additional be Not continue the line of the roof, but we'll have kind of a raised roof so that the spaces in the rear have full height. But that's briefly the project and we're here for any questions. Any questions from the board?

Hearing none, may I have public testimony?

Good morning Madam Chair and Board Members. C.E. Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. His applicant has completed the community process. Our office hosted an abutters meeting on October 15th at which abutters were supportive of the application. No concerns were raised. The City Point Neighborhood Association is not opposed to this application. That background, our office defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have Brian Hurley.

Hello Madam Chairwoman, members of the board, Brian Hurley here on behalf of Senator Nick Collins here to offer our support for the project at 101 Peachtree. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we have Ashley from City Council of Flynn.

Thank you. Council firm elects go on record in support based on a good community process and the proponent working closely with neighbors, abutters, and the City Point Neighborhood Association. We respectfully request that the proponent continue to work with the community during the construction phase. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have Luann.

Yes, good morning, Madam Chair and the Board. Luann O'Connor, President, City Point Neighborhood Association. The abutters meeting was held. The proponent reached out to all abutters and direct abutters. There was absolutely no opposition. He specifically did not put a roof deck in his plans. which is very supportive of CPNA and we think it's a good project. It doesn't affect the architecture of the housing stock so we are in support of it. Thank you.

Madam Chair, there is just one person in the chat that also Elaine Smith, she's in support.

Thank you. With that, may I have a motion? Motion to approve. Second. Mr. Stembridge?

Yes. Mr. Valencia?

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

Yes.

Ms. Weevil?

Yes.

Mr. Langham.

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Give up.

Next, we have case BOA 16887.

3-0 with the address of 69 Highland Street.

If the applicant and or their representative present, would they please reply to the case report? Hello, good morning, everyone. My name is Joel Hopper. I'm from Binghamton Construction, speaking on behalf of Emanuel for 69 Highland Street. Pretty much what we're looking to do is to add the basement to the first floor living space. We did go to the city. We went through the budget meetings, the community meetings, the neighborhood meetings to get approval and also We put permits on it, long story short. When the property was bought, look at the prior owner, they made it like a full basement. But since then, we removed the bedrooms, took out all the walls. and made it easy access for the electrical panels for the second floor and third floor unit to be able to enter at any point in time, but we just wanted to know if we can add the living space from the basement, make it like a recreation for the first floor unit.

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

Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Benbury. I'm the 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 30th, That was very lightly attended where all inquiries and concerns were addressed such as the location of the gas meters moving from inside to outside for access, sprinkler systems, as well as a discussion of a proviso to stop the basement from being an apartment or unit in the future. Next, the proponent presented to Highland Park Newboat Association on October 15th, where they voted in support of the proposal. Thank you for your time, and the Mayor's Office of Newboat Service 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? No, no.

Excuse me. Hello, Karen Smith, I don't know if you are speaking for this case, I don't know what happened with this person. Probably is not for this case. Sorry about that, but we have another person.

Okay, sorry. Where were we? Is there motion?

Hello, can I speak?

Oh, okay.

Yeah, Karen Smith is for 69 Holland Street. She is one of the unit owners upstairs. But I'm going to speak for myself. I was at the abutters meeting and they did talk about the concern about the gas meters getting moved to the outside. We did have our meeting this month at the start of December and it was mentioned that they were unsure if the gas meters were going to be able to move to the front because they didn't know if they could get coded for it. So my only concern is just I want to make sure that those gas meters are moved to a place that we can access them. because currently right now the second floor or the third floor units are not able to access the gas meters without having to go through the first floor.

Yeah, so we are pulling our long form, which is the ALT permit through the City of Boston.

So we can... Mr. Helper, can I just make sure we wrap up?

I am still trying to speak.

Sorry. Okay. Karen is muted. Can you unmute yourself so you can provide testimony? You're muting yourself, I think. So you need to unmute yourself. Okay.

Okay. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Neve, speak and then I'll speak.

That person spoke already, so if you can provide your brief testimony as to whether you're in support or opposition and why, that would be helpful.

Opposition completely is I was informed about this yesterday afternoon, seven hours ago. to find out this was even happening. The next thing, I have been, my husband and I own unit three. in that building and we got the abutter's notice about a meeting two days before then Now, seven hours before this, and I'm

I'm just stunned that we were not informed that all of this was happening in the basement of the building until way after it had happened. So, no. We don't want this to happen. We The Home Owners Trust should have blocked a sale to the person who currently has it? I'm just so upset about all of this.

Thank you, ma'am. Are there any other raised hands?

May I address? I'm the owner of the unit, the concerned race.

Sir, please proceed.

So my name is Emmanuel Casse. I'm the owner of Unit 1, 6900 Street and the Unit 3 owner concerned, I don't think Ms. McGrady has been following the email communications all. So you three, you have three owners. Ms. McGrady is 25% and the 75% owners have been informed and attended all meetings. and all notifications has been sent by email and by posting the apartment notices appropriately and the other unit number to owner can attest to that. I don't think the Reason for the objection was accurate. We have all email documentation on the time it was sent. The reason the seven hour is yesterday, once we got the link for this meeting, I went above and aboard and sent them a link through email.

Hey, tomorrow is the meeting, so if you are interested to attend, this is the meeting. And that's what she's referring. But that's me being a little more Trying to include them so that they don't miss it. But all notifications has been sent on time and recorded through email as well.

Okay. Is there anyone else for public testimony that's not the applicant? So we're not going to repeat people.

Yes, Madam Chair, there are two more people now. Malik Smith, you can unmute yourself. Please state your name and address, and you have 90 seconds.

Hi everyone, my name is Malik Smith, one of the owners of Unit 3. I think what Karen is talking about, and this goes to the prior owner, was just that What ended up initially happening wasn't brought to the Condo Association until after the fact, but Amon has been trying to communicate at this point, so I think the concern precedes him. But I'm not sure how it should have been done. So I think that was the sentiment that was trying to be expressed.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, there are no additional comments.

I have some other questions from the board.

Just for clarification, to access the basement you have to Go through Unit 1, is that accurate? Or is there access directly to the basement?

There is access directly to the common area through the basement.

There is, okay. And... And all you're doing is you're opening up the space that used to be these enclosed rooms. And that's to allow... And you're... The gas tanks are staying?

In the comment area.

Is it moving at all?

The only thing that's in my property is the gas meters. So we are trying to move them into the common area. First, we try to move them outside. I'm still working with the National Grid. If the outside is not feasible, we will move them to the common area. The previous owner has built the two bedrooms in the basement without notifying me.

Right, so you're just trying to allow for access.

I'm trying to correct it. I removed the illegally built two bedrooms. I'm just asking to get approval for extended living space with no bedroom in it.

Right, and...

I'm trying to correct the mistake that was made by the previous owner.

And who owns the... So the basement, it's all the three-unit owner? So in order for you to get a building permit, you are required to have agreements with the other units?

to allow you to do the work. Yeah, this is dedicated unit number one. We're not taking any common space. This is from the master plan and everything's dedicated.

Right, so unit one, which is what you owned. Right.

Okay.

It's not part of common space.

No, it is not.

Okay. I mean, it all depends on your condo board paperwork. But okay. Thanks. No further questions.

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

Madam Chair, I'm going to move forward with an approval.

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

Yes.

Ms. Whewell?

Yes.

Mr. Langham? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck.

And I would encourage you to reach out to your unit owners.

Thank you all so much for your time.

The next three cases are to companions and companions.

Camp that have companion cases and the one after that have been deferred.

So that will take us to case BOA 175-3888. with the address of 170 Poplar Street. If the applicant and or their representative are present, would they please explain to the board?

Hello, this is Thomas Thune. I am a co-owner of this property together with Jijing Zhengzhu, who is also on the call. A good day to the board and the chair. We are proposing a change of the envelope of the... Can you just stay on this picture, please, right now? Thank you very much. So what we are proposing is several fold. First of all, you see this little house on the flat part of the roof. That is actually a staircase that goes all the way downstairs. We want to actually eliminate that staircase because it is extremely steep and certainly not suitable for a secondary means of egress.

What we want to do is we want to enclose the flat part so that nobody falls down from here and then have a staircase outside that is going over the garage into the and to the outside there as you can see on the right side. um also what we want to do is we want to erase the roof um the apartment that is currently in that roof is a an illegal apartment that is uh one thing and b so this is dated back to probably The 1970s, at the very least, maybe even before that. And we want to put a box on top of this as you can see on the right side and increase the living area from the second floor apartment into the third floor. That creates a zoning variance from a 2F where the third floor part is somewhat too large

for the current zoning requirements. And I invite questions.

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

Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Bembery. I serve as the community engagement specialist for the Office of Renewable Services for Roslindale. The applicant has completed the community process which consisted of an abutters meeting facilitated on September 10th with two abutters on attendance, one voice support for the proposal. and new oppositions or concerns were raised. Following the abutters meeting, no further community process was required and today 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 with their judgment. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Chair, next we have Jane Shull. I think this is the case that you will speak on.

I just co-owned this house with the speaker, Thomas Kuhn, so Yeah, I just in case someone ask us the questions. Yeah, no comment. You know, definitely I would call on fully support. Thank you.

Any other public comments?

Madam Chair, there are no additional comments.

Okay. Is there a motion?

Madam Chair, I make a motion of approval.

Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza?

Yes.

Ms. Wewell?

Yes.

Mr. Langham? Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck.

Thank you very much and have a great day.

and Chair, since we've passed the 11.30 hour, I will ask if there are any requests for withdrawals or deferrals from the 11.30 time frame.

Yanisolo 62 L Street?

Yes.

So this request is for case BOA 157. 5425 with the address of 62 L Street.

Would you go ahead and explain please? Yes, my name is David Luciano. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is David Luciano. I'm the owner of 62 L Street in South Boston. After a community process, we revised our Our plans to accommodate some requests from our neighbors. There is one additional item. We are still small item that we're waiting on to complete our updated package to ISD. So we're requesting a short deferral to submit that item and have one more voters meeting.

Okay. February 24th on March 10th.

I will take the 24th, please.

Okay, with that, may I have a motion?

Motion to defer this case to February 24th.

Okay, may I have a second? Second. Mrs. Stembridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza?

Yes.

Ms. Whewell?

Yes.

Mr. Langham? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. See you then. Thank you.

There are no more requests for deferrals. which are also deferrals from 1130. Then we will return to the last. We will return to the last case.

I need, I need.

I'm sorry, you need to mute this person. Yeah, can you stop please unmuting yourself? We've moved on.

We return to the last case for 11 o'clock, scheduled for 11 o'clock, which is case BOA-171-9183, Skipper.

with the address of 72-74 Mapleson Street. 58 Mile Street is currently a vacant lot per cut located in the 2F-5000 zoning sub-district. The minimum lot size in the zoning sub-district. Ms. 5000, we are at 3,120 square feet. The lot width and frontage required is 40 feet. We're at 39. FAR, side yard. My clients, Liz and David Seegers, have owned this property. I've been in the neighborhood for 30 years. They own this vacant lot at 58 Mallet and also the budding property at 56 Mallet, which is currently a two-family dwelling. At 58 Mountain, we are proposing a two-and-a-half-story, two-family dwelling.

I'm sorry, I'm very confused. Are we going to be on Mapleton?

Yeah, same confusion.

And then, if I could request that Karen be removed from the panelists, thank you.

We are proposing a two-hours or a two-family dwelling.

So, Mr. Johnson, just to confirm, are you presenting for 72 Mapleton? Because I heard Mallet Street. So is there anyone here to present on Mapleton Street?

I don't see anyone.

Okay. Okay, so we'll try to circle back to this and Mr. Stembridge can go to the next case, which is also not valid.

Okay, Madam Chair. We will move on now to the read discussions scheduled for 11.30. And the first case is case BOA 1653647.

with the address of 38 Fenway.

If the applicants and or their representative present, would they please explain in this case the report?

Yes, thank you, Mrs. Stembridge. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the board, Attorney John Pagini here on behalf of the owners and developers of this project. Mark Ehrman, and Chi Kwan. Also with us today is the team architect, David Fried. 38 Fenway, the zoning is multifamily residential two. The lot size is 3,000 square feet. The proposal before you today is for the redevelopment of the building at 38 Fenway. The existing building at 38 Fenway has been unoccupied for decades and has fallen into extreme disrepair. Mark and Chi, a longtime residents of the Back Bay neighborhood, and are determined to remediate the building and turn it into a location that will not only provide much needed additional housing to the city, but a building they can manage and live with for themselves. They intend this to be an owner-occupied building for themselves and also for their adult children.

To do so, they plan to change the use of the building to a five-unit multi-family dwelling as allowed by zoning. and complete a full interior renovation along with the vertical and rear additions. An elevator will be installed along with rear decks and a private roof deck. The building will be ADA accessible and three parking spaces will be provided. The unit mix will be as follows. Unit one on the first floor is a studio at 492 square feet. Unit 2, second floor is a two-bed, 1,492 square feet. Unit 3 is on the third floor. It's a two-bed, 1,646 square feet. Unit 4 is on the fourth floor. That is a two-bed, 1,631 square feet. And Unit 5, which is the owner's unit, is on both the 5th and 6th level, and it's a one-bed, 3,288-square-foot building. Our zoning violations are use. Basement is a forbidden use in the zoning sub-district.

FAR. What's allowed is 4.0. We were at 4.25. and rear yard. Those are the only violations. The minimum rear yard is 20. We're at 15. It should be noted that the rear yard of this property does not abut any neighboring properties. It abuts a public alley to the rear of the, you can see it on the screen right there, it abuts a public alley to the rear of the property. This proposal went through an extensive community process. It started way back in September of 24. The proposal has been through three of our meetings as well as a meeting in continued dialogue with Fenway Civic. Community input has resulted in multiple changes to the proposal over the past year. At this point, I'd like to turn it over to David Free to walk through the plans and we will be happy to answer any questions after his presentation. Thank you.

Thank you, John. My name is David Freed, and I'm an architect at Chew & Company. Hello, Madam Chair and members of the board. If you could please go back one sheet. Thank you. So just to take you quickly through the plans. As John said, the existing building was a single-family house. We're doing an addition to the rear and also a vertical addition. So on the alley level or the garden level, we're going to have two garage parking spaces. And then we'll have a studio unit that meets the code requirements for light and air. Actually, it seats the code requirements for light and air. If we could go to the next sheet, please. and then for the next three floors we have flats that are laid out as two-bedroom, two-bath in the study.

They're very generously sized at 1429 square feet as John said and then I believe at 1646 for force two and three. If we can go back to the, I keep going up to the next sheet, A12. Thank you. Yeah, and so the unit stack, there is an existing fire escape, fire egress balcony from the adjacent building, which we will maintain and connect back to our building. Next floor, please. Same layout. And then as we get up to Sheet A14, we have a very unique layout for this unit based on the owner's particular As John said, it's a very large one-bedroom at over 3,200 square feet.

The building will be elevator accessed and ADA accessible for the owner. If you could please go up one more sheet, please. and then the following sheet and then we have a roof deck on the very top floor that will be accessible for the owner and if we go to the elevations. So the addition is, The existing building is a sort of a cream brick building with a limestone base. We're cladding the addition in cream color terracotta cladding. to provide kind of a visual separation from the existing brick and also highlight kind of a contemporary layer and respecting historical building. Go to the next elevation, please. Thank you. So the back will be,

All of these units are paneled with light gray textured metal panels which will also provide kind of a neutral tone in contrast to the existing brick. And each of those units will have very large balconies so they all have open space. Next sheet, please. And then the two, the exposed sidewalks be clad in a patterned fiber cement panel. Next sheet, please. and then if we go to the following sheet we have a rendering, some renderings there. It won't be, the addition won't be visible from the sidewalk, however it would be visible from the park on the adjacent side of the street. Next sheet please. and that would be a sort of a two-scale rendering of our proposal. And that wraps up my presentation. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Are there questions from the board?

Yes, I heard some of the comments from local organizations. They have concerns that this proposal is going to be for short-term rentals instead of housing. What is your vision for the property once this is redeveloped?

Thank you for the question, Mr. Buencia. So Mark and Chi currently live on Beacon Street. They're elderly. Mark has a degenerative disease which is making it very difficult to live in. It's a single family house on Beacon Street that is a very large home. But it's not ADA accessible. As his medical condition deteriorates, He needs to live in a building that has an elevated building, and that's why you can see that you have a 3,200 square foot unit that's only a one bed, and that will be the owner's unit. So there is no intent. We've been working with the district councilor on this as well. And I know there was some questions from, I think, primarily from the memory CDC. However, they have no intent and will not. I mean, they're spending a real lot of money reinvesting into this building. It's a very difficult build, the way it sits, because the construction will be more difficult, obviously, than most projects.

Their intent is not to ever rent this out as short-term rentals or anything like that. They are not those kind of people and it certainly doesn't bode well for them investing all this money to do that.

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

Madam Chair and Board Members, Siggy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This applicant has completed the community process. Our office has hosted three of UTTER's meetings regarding this proposal, the first in October 2024. 2nd in December 2024 and the 3rd on October 6, 2025. Abutters were universally opposed to the proposal at all these meetings. Abutters felt that the design is not contextual to the area. That the plans are not consistent with the use proposed, but others were concerned that the property will actually be used for short-term rentals. The Fenway Civic Association is opposed to this application and has sent a letter to the board explaining their position. And with that background, our office defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Uh, Siggy, could I just interrupt one second? I believe the Family Civic Association emailed us yesterday. They're taking no position on this project. and I think that's probably what the email will show.

The information that my office has been provided is that they were opposed, but I can double check on that for you.

Yeah, I can forward you the email, but go ahead, I'm sorry. Sorry to interrupt. Thank you.

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

Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have Lily Suderman. I'm sorry.

No, that's okay, Suderman. Lily Suderman again with Councilor Durkan's office. I'm going to read a letter she submitted to the board really quickly. It says, Dear Chair, Dong, and members of the board, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the zoning relief requested at 38 Fenway. This property has been in poor condition for decades and has largely stopped vacant since the 1980s. Because of its long deterioration, many neighbors are eager to see the building restored and the possibility of reinvestment has generated considerable interest. I'm not opposed to the project moving forward, though I do want to respectfully highlight a few concerns raised by neighborhood stakeholders. Both the Fenway Civic Association and Fenway Forward have raised specific concerns about the variants requested. FCA's letter to the Board notes objections regarding the scale of the proposed additions and emphasizes the importance of maintaining the historic character in the Fenway's built environment. There are also questions about future use, particularly with respect to short-term rentals and student-oriented leasing, and the need for assurances that the property will remain the proponent's residence. I do acknowledge these concerns and believe they merit careful consideration.

At the same time, I recognize the rare opportunity to restore a long neglected property and return it to residential use. I also want to note that the applicants who are currently constituents living in the Back Bay reached out to my office directly. In their letter, they explained that they purchased 38th and Fenway to accommodate a medical condition and the resulting need for a more accessible building. They stated clearly that they have no interest in allowing short-term rentals and will prohibit tenants from doing so. They plan to redevelop the building into five units served by an elevator with one unit for themselves and the remaining units intended for their children and long-term tenants. I've also reviewed the Planning Department's memorandum on this proposal and I would like to request the recommended provisos be included. Specifically, they requested the applicant obtain review and approval of the plans by the Boston Water and Sewer Commission due to the site's location within the Groundwater Conservation Overlay District have the plans be submitted to the Planning Department for further review with particular attention to the design of the vertical addition and maneuverability of the proposed parking spaces. This building is special and we believe it requires special consideration in the terms of design. With these provisos added, the Councilor would like to be reported as a non-opposition.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you.

Next, we have Steven Farrell.

Good morning. Good morning. My name is Stephen Farrell. I'm the Executive Director of Fenway Forward, formerly Fenway CDC. Fenway Forward has participated in the public abouters meetings over the last year and has had and several conversations with John Pulgini, the lawyer for the proponent, multiple times over the same period of time. As I have shared in each of these conversations, the primary concern for Fenway Forward as an immediate abutter and as a community membership-based organization has been the allowed use of the apartments. Specifically, because of significant upward pressure that short-term rentals and renting to undergraduate students have on local rents, We ask that the proponent consider entering into a good neighbor agreement with us again on behalf of the community that prohibits these two rental categories. Because we know good neighbor agreements have no official standing but the City of Boston, Fenway Forward engaged in conversations with the attorney for the proponent so as to identify a potential pathway, specifically a written document with some level of accountability

related to the renters of the units, and ideally setting a standard for future projects in the family. During our participation at the abutter meetings in our role as a neighbor and membership-based organization, We have requested that our concerns and the concerns of other neighbors be addressed in an open and transparent manner. I believe and am grateful that the process has been open and transparent. In fact, Fenway Forward has shared a template of a good neighbor agreement previously used in another neighborhood with a proponent's lawyer, and we remain in discussions about options to move forward. Therefore, because the proponent's lawyer has said that the proponent continues to be open to this concept, and even though the concept has not yet been executed Fenway Forward does not oppose this project in the hope that further conversations will yield a good neighbor agreement amenable to all parties. Thank you.

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

Yes. Mr. Gorgini. Anything you want to add? Just this. I mean, this issue is, it's a non-issue. It really is a non-issue. These people are, they live in the back bay in a very expansive house right now that they're selling. The owner has Parkinson's disease. He has to move into a house that is ADA accessible. That's where it's coming from. They have no intention of ever... It's just an issue that was raised and it's how do you undo something that was raised when it wasn't your intent to do it. So we'll continue through the process. Like I stated, they had reached out to Councilor Durkan's office directly, communicated that intent with them, and we'll continue to work with Steve. He's a very nice guy. and as well as the Fenway Civic and go forward from there. But again, relying upon what the BPA recommendation states, It's consistent with all the other developments.

And obviously, if people don't like the design, it has to go to a BPA design review anyway. So most times, designs change. But thanks for the opportunity.

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

Madam Chair, I make a motion of approval with Boston and Water and Sewer Commission Review to put the project location within the Yicor District. In answer that the project undergoes planning department review, With attention to the design of the vertical addition and to improve parking configuration considering the reduction of parking spaces if needed.

Mr. Steminelli already signed off on G-card, but that's, you know, we can, we can...

I think they just got mixed up in the, when they, when it was forwarding paperwork, yes.

Yeah, that's, that's okay. Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge. Yeah. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Better Barraza?

Yes.

Thank you. Ms. Whewell?

Yes.

Mr. Langham. Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck.

Thank you, everybody. Have a great Christmas. Enjoy your holidays. Thank you.

Madam Chair, I'm going to return to the last case.

For 11 a.m., I believe the attendants have arrived.

Okay.

And this is for case BOA 1719183.

with the address of 72 to 74 Mapleson Street. If the applicant and or their representative present, will they please explain to the board?

Madam Chair, I don't see anybody for this project.

Okay.

One second. I think actually there is one person now. Aguimar, if you can... Hello, hi. Hello? Yes.

Yes, are you here from Mapleton Street? Hello?

Can you hear us? Give me one second.

Hello?

You can't say anything.

Are you here for Mapleton Street? Sir, are you here for Mapleton Street?

Okay, now I am. Sorry, I was on mute. I'm so sorry.

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

Thank you. Yes, my name is and the address is 72 Mapleton Street. I'm the general contractor representing the owner.

OK.

And what are you proposing?

Well, this is a two-family home, a legal two-family home with an illegal third floor. Right now, they have a third-floor unit that's already there. She says she bought it like this. I'm not sure. But anyway, what we're trying to do here is change the use of the building, going from a two-family home to a three-family home. That's all.

Okay, so the unit's already there and no additional work is being done?

No, nothing's being done. It's already there.

Okay. Questions from the board? Hearing none, is there public testimony?

Madam Chair and Board Members, Siggy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This applicant has completed the community process for office hosted at a Butters meeting on June 11th. at which no concerns were raised. The applicant met with the Brighton Alston Improvement Association, which chose to abstain on taking a position regarding this application. With that background, our office defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Madam Chair, there are no additional comments.

Okay, with that, may I have a motion?

Motion is approved.

Is there a second?

Second.

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

Yes.

Ms. Whewell?

Yes.

Mr. Langham. You're on mute, Mr. Langham. Yes. Thank you. That's okay. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck.

Thank you very much.

Have a great day, everyone. This is case BOA 1696317 with the address of 58 Mallard Street.

If the applicant and the representative present, would they please point to the board? Thank you, Mr. Umbridge. Tim Johnson, the project architect. Good morning Madam Chair, members of the board. Currently, 58 Mile Street is a vacant lot with a curb cut. It's located in the 2F-5000 zoning subdistrict. We are proposing a two and a half story, two family dwelling. The lot size minimum is 5,000. We are at 3,120 square feet. The minimum lot width and frontage is 40 feet. We are at 39 feet. The usable open space, 750 square foot per dwelling unit. We're at 636 square foot per dwelling unit. and the FAR max is 0.5. We're at 0.7. Lastly, the yards, the front yard requirement is 15 feet. We're at six feet to align with the other buildings on the street and the side yard

Minimum is 10 feet. We're at six feet. My clients, Liz and Dave Siggers, have been in this neighborhood for over 30 years. They also own the abutting property To the left, which is 56 Mallard, a two-family. And on the vacant lot, we are proposing a two-and-a-half-story, two-family dwelling. We are also proposing to relocate the existing curb cut of the lot to provide a shared driveway between the existing two family at 56 Mallet and the proposed two family at 58 Mallet Street. The new units at 58 Mallow Street will be two-bedroom units, approximately 1,100 square feet, and each will have a rear deck for outside enjoyment. We are also, as I just mentioned, proposing a shared driveway between the two buildings to provide two off street parking spaces for each two family building.

There are also a number of trees on the site and we work to With a direct abutter to make sure any trees that we did take down, we would replant them. So currently we're proposing to take down three trees, but we will be planting three trees to replace Those threes on both 58, between 58 and 56 Mallard Street. This doesn't confirm the stretch energy code, which is 20% more energy efficient than current code. This will be an all electric building for heating, cooling, and cooking. and we do follow the dark sky initiative. All down lights will be shielded and down lit. Finally, we did receive support of the direct abutters, neighbors and the St. Mark's Civic Association. and that's my brief presentation Madam Chair.

Thank you. One of the Recommendations from the planning department mentioned moving a curb cut to preserve an existing tree. Is that something that you would be open to?

Yes, there is, if we go to the site plan, which is close to the beginning of the drawing set. Yes, right there. You can see where the proposed infrared driveway is in the existing street tree as shown. We feel that we can provide the required Thank you. Thank you. We can submit a surveyed plot plan showing the curb cut. the existing tree location and required tree well and subsoil condition below.

Thank you. Other questions from the board?

Yes, I'm looking at the site plan and I see that the big area of the lot is going to be covered by asphalt to accommodate four cars. Would you be willing to reduce the parking count to maybe one parking per unit so you can have more open space?

Well, the requirement for the zoning sub-district for parking is one space per dwelling unit. So we would incur a zoning violation if we began removing the number of cars from the site. The open space required is $750 per dwelling unit. We're at 636 square feet open space for dwelling unit. We're also providing rear decks for the proposed. The existing does have rear decks. And also with the trees, we feel that we're providing the same number of trees that are on the site now. So, There is a balance. There's a tug of war on parking between the city and the neighborhood.

We feel that these parking spaces are needed and there is an existing curb cut that we're relocating.

Thanks for watching!

I actually think, yeah I think you actually did a good job like consolidating the aisle but perhaps a good balance would be to provide more of a permeable materials so you don't have impervious You know coverage, so I think you can do it through materials.

That's a good point, Ms. Barrasso. I do use an interlocking permeable paver a lot in the city and they work quite well.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

May we have public testimony?

Okay, I'm not sure if someone from ONS is providing public testimony. If not, we can move forward with the city councilor's offices. We have Attorney Gilardi, please. Proceed.

Thank you. Good afternoon. Excuse me. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the board. Anthony Gilardi from City Councilor Aaron Murphy's office. The council would like to go on record in support of the application. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have Leon Rimas.

Hello, Madam Chair, members of the board, Leon Rimas from Council Fitzgerald's office. I would like to go on record for this proposal. Thank you. Thank you.

Without Madame Chair, there are no additional comments.

Okay, with that, may I have a motion?

Madam Chair, I'd like to put forward a motion of approval with the proviso that the project works with permeable material for the driveway. Is there a second?

Second.

Mr. Stembridge. Yeah. Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair, and Merry Christmas.

Thank you. All right, so for those we won't see next week, happy holidays. Happy holidays. Happy holidays.

Recording stopped.