Zoning Board of Appeal

Thank you.

Thank you.

The City of Boston Zoning Board Repeal Hearing for March 10, 2026 is now in session. This hearing is being conducted in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Open Meeting Law, including the updated provisions enacted by the legislature this year. The new law allows the board to continue its practice of holding virtual hearings through June 2027. This hearing of the board is being held remotely via the Zoom webinar event platform and is also being live streamed. In order to ensure this hearing of the board is open to the public, members of the public may access this hearing through telephone and video conferencing. The information for connecting to this hearing is listed on today's hearing agenda, which is posted on the public notices page of the City's website, boston.gov. Members of the public will enter the virtual hearing as attendees. which means you will not see yourself on the screen and you will be muted throughout unless administratively unmuted when asked to comment.

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

Good morning Madam Chair, President.

Mr. Valencia. Good morning, Madam Chair. Present. Good morning. Mr. Langham. Good morning, Madam Chair. Present. Good morning. Ms. Wewell.

Good morning, Madam Chair, present.

Good morning, Ms. Turner. Good morning, Madam Chair, present. And I apologize in advance for my video. I thought I got it straightened out, but it's not functioning, so I will be off camera. No worries, technology, love it or hate it.

Mr. Bernal.

Good morning, Madam Chair, present. Good morning. For yours, Mr. Stembridge.

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

These are from the hearings on February 12th.

and February 24th of this year.

I will make a motion of approval.

Is there a second?

Second.

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

Next, we have the extensions scheduled for 9.30 a.m.

I will read all of the extensions that appear reasonable.

So I read them in one after the other and we'll take a vote on them after.

Have any questions for Madam Chair and then take a vote on them afterwards.

We begin with case BOA.

113-3499 with the address of 117 Coleridge Street.

Next we have case BOA 1333-102

with the address of 4 to 6 Woodville Park.

Next we have case BOA 107.

4303 with the address of 99 to 105 Fairmont Avenue.

Next we have case BOA 150-7893

with the address of 1809 to 1813 Dorchester Avenue.

And final extension for today is case BOA 1527.

with the address of 112 to 114 Chelsea Street.

Those are the extensions for today.

Thank you. Any questions from the board? May I have a motion to grant the extensions as requested?

I make a motion to grant the extensions as requested.

May I have a second? Back in. Mr. Stembridge?

Yeah.

Mr. Valencia? Yes. Mr. Langham? Yes. Ms. Blewell? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Mr. Brunell? Yes. Chair votes yes, the motion carries.

Next, we have a groundwater conservation overlay district case scheduled for 9.30 a.m.

This is case BOA 1813655 with the address of 4 Haynes Street.

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

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Dominic Coppola. I'm an attorney at Draco and Discono LLP representing this property. We're asking for a deferral for this property on March 24th, the next EBA hearing date. We've already been approved to be heard on that date.

Okay, can you just clarify why?

Yes, so we have a board final arbiter going on the 24th and new violations being heard, so we just ask for them to all be heard on the same date.

Okay.

Is there a motion? Motion to defer this case until March 24th. Is there a second?

Second.

Mr. Stembridge?

No.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Mr. Langham?

Yes.

Ms. Whewell? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Mr. Bernal? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. See you then.

Thank you. Next, we have a building code, case paper for 930M.

This is case BOA.

with the address of 86 Pembroke Street.

If the applicant and or their representative present, will they please explain to the board

Good morning Madam Chair, members of the board. Mark LaCasse, LaCasse Law, 177 Huntington Avenue in Boston. I represent the owner of this property, Jamison Brown, and also on the hearing is Mark Van Brocklin, our architect of record from Embark. The single-family home renovation has already commenced and has been underway pursuant to a long-form permit that was issued, and this is an amendment to that permit Regarding access to the roof deck, which has already been approved by the Southland Landmarks Commission, the sole issue before you today is, as shown right here on this screen, access to the roof deck. Deck is proposed to be via a hatch. And this case presents the familiar anomaly between the building code On the one hand, and the zoning code and Southern Landmarks Commission standards and guidelines.

On the other hand, the building code requires access to roof decks be through a penthouse. also known as the Head House, and Article 64-34 of the South End Zoning Code and the South End Landmark Standards and Guidelines require that access to roof decks be via a hatch. We seek a variance from the provisions of the building code in order that we may install a hatch consistent with the zoning code and the South End Landmarks Commission guidelines. And that's it. Thank you so much.

All right, any questions from the board? Hearing none, is there a motion? I make a motion to approve. Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Mr. Langham?

Yes.

Ms. Whewell? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Mr. Bernal.

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Thank you kindly.

Next we'll go to the hearing scheduled for 9 30 a.m. At this time we'll ask if there are any requests for withdrawals or deferrals from the 9 30 a.m. hearing.

Good morning Madam Chair, members of the board. Eileen Rose on behalf of the owner for 168 Dana Ave. We're looking to request a deferral for the next availability as an updated refusal letter has been issued and needs to be re-advertised. Thank you. Mr. Stembridge has to read it into the record.

This would be for case BOA 1710494.

68, Dana Avenue. And this one we can put on for April 16th.

Okay, since the applicant already gave us their reason, is there a motion?

Motion to refer to April 16th.

Is there a second? Second. Dr. Statenbridge? Yeah. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Mr. Langham? Yes. Ms. Whewell? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Mr. Ronell? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. See you then. Thank you.

There are no other requests for withdrawals.

I see another raised hand. Can you identify yourself?

Yes, Attorney General item under McLennan and Fish. I have an item on the first hearing for the 11 o'clock.

So you have to wait if you're on.

Okay, very good. Thank you.

So with that, we'll go to the first case scheduled for 930, which is case BOA 178-5172 with the address of 254 Bremen Street. the applicant and or their representative present. Will they please explain to the board?

Madam Chair, if I may?

Yes. Yes.

Thank you Madam Chair, members of the board, Jeff Hampton, City of Boston Planning Department. The petitioner Jeff Thomas is having internet troubles right now so he is not able to get on so if It would be an ask if people have asked.

Okay, we can keep going and come back to them.

Great, thank you.

Thank you.

So with that, we'll go to case BOA 1809938 with the address of 60 Byron Street.

If the applicant and or the representative present, will they please explain the case to the board? Yes, thank you, Mr. Stembridge. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board, for the record, Richard Lins, business address of 245 Summer Street in East Boston on behalf of the petitioner. This is involving the property at 6062 Byron Street. East Boston. If we could jump down to our app slide. Yeah, these slides are good to start. Yeah, it's perfect. So, Madam Chair, as a pre-existing two-unit dwelling on the property, our proposal is to demolish the existing structure and to replace it with six new residential units with six parking spaces. If we go down to the next slide. This is an existing curb cut on the right side of the property. You can see the area that's to the right of the structure. is all part of this parcel.

We do have access rights to the left of our building for an existing driveway, and that would be used to address the parking access to the back of the property. This curb cut would be closed up in connection with the redevelopment site. Next slide, please. So we are located in the EDR-3 district. And that, of course, triggered two violations from the inspectional service department. For all intents and purposes, this project meets all requirements under Planning Boston's amended zoning for East Boston, Article 53. The only items that we were cited for involve the The use of the property as six units because of the lot width. Our position is that the use of six units is actually allowed It's the lot width that requires 55 feet. That was a requirement that was included with the amended zoning for Article 53. As the board can see, we do have a lot that is 5,000 square feet, 50 feet wide by 100.

Since the amended zoning for East Boston no longer requires minimum lot size or lot width, The site could easily accommodate a total of six units, three on each lot, and we would not be required to do off-street parking. The proposal that we vetted with the neighborhood association was that certainly they encouraged us to consider parking on the site. and in doing so we opted for a single building of six units which does require parking as opposed to two separate three new buildings. Next slide please. So you can see here from our site plan, our building does meet setback requirements for front, side, and rear. That would be consistent with the regulations for EBR 3 for this neighborhood. So again, if we were to propose two standalone, three-unit dwellings, the bulk of the building and the density of the building should be exactly the same.

The only difference would be we'd have two entranceways and not be required to do parking. And once again, I believe that the neighborhood who supported this project was okay with six units based upon the fact that we would incorporate parking. Next slide, please. So this just shows in context, we are within the height limit. So our building is three stories, 35 feet. We do incorporate roof decks for the upper levels. The building immediately to our left that we can see in this photo is actually a four-story building. Again, we kept our building in line with what the requirements for Article 53 permit. Next slide, please. Just a layout of the floors. I don't want to get too detailed on this. Next slide, please. Just showing the roof, we do provide those two private roof decks. I will point out that the refusal letter did cite us for roof structure restrictions. As we've said in the past, roof structure restrictions apply to existing buildings, not

proposed new structures. So in this particular case, provided that we're within the height limit, we are permitted to have roof decks as a matter of right under the amended zoning for East Boston. Next slide, please. Just showing the elevations and again that we are within the height limits, three stories and within 35 feet. Again, this being Exactly what would be built if these were two separate buildings. We just consolidate by having a single common stairwell as well as one main entranceway. Next slide, please. Just our elevations to the side. We do set back the lowest level that's to allow for appropriate maneuvering for the parking area. And as I said, we do have access rights to get to the parking and the rear of the property through a shared easement to the left of our building. Next slide, please. Just a weird elevation showing that lower deck at the first level. Next slide.

And then just the right side elevation. I will pause there and address any comments or questions by the board.

Thank you. Quick question. The slide that you showed with the property next to it, is your proposed project same height, lower, or taller than that one?

Lower. The building, if we would jump back to slide, I think it's slide two or three, we do have, I think, a 3D view of the area. Yeah, you can see the building to our left at 58. Madam Chair, it's a four-story. There are other four stories along both sides of the street. We're actually below that. We'd be at three stories in line with the height of 64 to our right. Thank you.

Questions from the board?

Madam Chair, I have a question. So it seems like the number of units is conditional on the A lot with their frontage. So can I ask why you didn't consider a three-unit building?

Through the chair, we did. We considered two three-unit buildings. We could subdivide the lot into two 2,500-square-foot lots and erect two separate three-unit structures For a total of six units, and that would be by running. When we presented initially to the community, the concern that we did hear was about parking. In order to be required to have parking, we would go to a single six-unit building that does require parking. Two separate threes do not. So in looking at this, we felt the appropriate tradeoff was to incorporate the parking while making a single building, which is a much more efficient build.

Mr. Linz, I want to ask about what is your vision or the proponent's vision for open space? I'm looking at the site plan and I see that essentially all the housing that I personally don't have any problem with the unit count. The only place that you are keeping is for six parking spaces and driveway. So how is that going to benefit the residents who may be living in those units? Right.

It's a great question, Mr. Valencia. That did come up during the community process. Our original plan, again, to consider two standalone threes would have Thank you. Thank you. We are under the 60% block coverage and we do have the minimum of 30% permeable area. So even though we are proposing parking, we would be incorporating permeable pavers as part of that solution.

Mower of the Open Space Requirement. But the question is about the quality of life of the residents who have only parking in cars in order to spend their free time. Have you considered reducing the parking and rearranging the parking to provide At least half of the opening space for the Residence Studios.

Once again, I think when we originally started our conversations on this, that was our intention to not have the parking. The feedback, strong feedback from the surrounding neighborhood in this particular area, Thank you. Thank you. The parking was something that was a real important issue for the neighborhood. And it isn't often, I'm sure as the sport is aware, that we actually get the support of civic groups on projects like this. The Civic Group actually voted in favor based on this plan with the parking.

Final question. If you reduce the parking during this hearing, are you going to trigger a neosonic violation?

Yes, because we do propose six units in one building as opposed to two separate three-unit buildings. We would trigger a violation for minimum luxury parking because it is one per unit at six units. We're at zero for one to three units. Thank you.

Thank you. Let's open it to public testimony.

Hello Madam Chair, Members of the Board, my name is Eva Jones representing the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services. Regarding 60 Byron Street, our office differs to the Board's judgment. A community process was conducted including an abutters meeting held on Tuesday, December 9th, 2025 that was lightly attended by the members of the East Boston community. where productive questions were asked regarding the proposal and comments were made about the project where the community felt the building was nice and fit into the neighborhood well. They did also show preference for the parking in the proposal due to the immense concerns regarding this issue in the East Boston community, not just in this meeting but in several of my meetings in this neighborhood. The proposal was also reviewed by the Harborview Neighborhood Association at their meeting on August 4th, 2025. The association expressed support and has voted 10 in favor and seven opposed about the proposal. and they've also provided a formal letter of support submitted to the board. At this time, the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services defends the board's judgment on this matter. Thank you everyone for your time and consideration.

All right, next we have Steven from City Councilor Coletta.

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Stefan from Councilor Coletta Zapata's office. We wanted to go on record in support of this project, like was mentioned before from Attorney Linz. This project was supported mostly because of the parking that was included. The Harborview Neighborhood Association informed us that they voted 10 to 7 in favor. So we would like to go in support as well with the parking included. Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, there are no additional comments.

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

Manager, I'm going to make a motion, because I believe that six units are better than nothing. I still have concerns about the use of open space for parking. I believe that housing is a human right, but parking is not. But anyways, I'm going to make a motion of approval with Planning Department's review. Special attention to improving or revising the parking count and increasing the usable open space.

Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Mr. Langham? Yes. Ms. Whewell? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Mr. Bernal?

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck.

Thank you very much.

Next, we have case BOA 1811519 with the address of 62 Liverpool Street.

if the applicant and or their representative present.

Would they please respond to the report?

Yes, thank you again, Mr. Stembridge and Madam Chair, members of the board, Richard Lentz, 245 Summer Street, East Boston, on behalf of the petition of Trujillo Development. Madam Chair, if we can just jump down to maybe the context of slide three. Maybe one more slide further down. Okay, perfect. So members of this board may remember this matter was before the board maybe about a year and a half ago where the board approved The construction of a new three-unit residential dwelling on Coppersmith Way, which is the private way, the lot is directly behind the building in 62 Liverpool. We had gone through the process, received our approvals, and during permitting, we were

Scott by Boston Fire, who had an issue with the distance to be traveled along Coppersmith Way, even though Coppersmith Way has sufficient width. We believed there was sufficient access for a fire apparatus. They gave us a denial on authorizing any fire permit for that block. So instead, we've abandoned that plan, and we have opted to propose an extension of the existing building at 62 Liverpool, which is owned by The same party. In doing so, we were cited for two items. So if we can jump down to slide seven, that is the site plan is probably the best place to start. The conversation. So this is just for context. It's located in EBR4 district. So this is a pre-existing six-unit multifamily dwelling.

The zoning for EBR4 is actually a little bit more flexible than some of the other districts. As you can see here on the site plan, we do propose an addition that is set back 3.8 feet, I believe, from what would be the left property line, and that it would be a total of almost four or seven feet for the rear property line. These dimensions are actually better than what was originally approved for the standalone three-unit dwelling that were to settle in the site. And we believe that this edition meets with the spirit and intent of the amended Article 53, and I'll walk through that in a moment. Under Article 53 in the EBR 4th District, we would be required to have a rear setback of one-third of the lot depth.

And because we are proposing an addition, the existing condition that is there today for 62 would be considered a corner block condition. As a result, you don't necessarily apply the rear yard setback when looking at a car condition. You look at the side yard setback. In this particular case, side yard setbacks would be 5 feet. and we would be proposing a little over seven feet, which is about two feet more than what would be required if we were doing the standalone building as originally approved. In addition, that 3.8-foot setback from the side yard would also be in compliance, and we would point the Board's attention to Article 5330, which is a newer provision. and the amended zoning. What that says is that we have a pre-existing non-conforming condition such as this one here with our building having a zero lot on the left.

We would be entitled to follow that non-conforming condition provided we make a new course. So as the board can see, we actually set it back 3.8 feet. which would be no worse than the existing condition and therefore in compliance with Article 5330 for the side-end setback. We can jump down to the next slide. We can probably show floor plans. So as you can see, we do have six existing residential units, and the additions that we are proposing, roughly around 19 feet by about 31 feet, I believe. And that would allow for additional habitable space, bedroom, bathroom for each of these units. And these units would become a bit larger than the existing conditions and allow for a little bit more habitable space. Next slide, please.

So we do also propose our roof decks, and this would be in compliance with I-53 as well, that we would be would deny a limit and the setback requirements as set forth in Article 53, and those would be exclusive to those upper level units. Next slide, please. So we do see that we don't increase the height of our building. We maintain what's there. The addition that we're proposing is strictly in the rear of the existing structure. Next slide, please. and just a couple of other different elevation views here. Next slide, please. just showing we have our existing conditions met as well. So it's a relatively straightforward proposal. And again, just to remind the board, this was approved for a standalone three unit dwelling. That has been abandoned. Thank you for joining us.

and compliance of Article 53. I will pause there and answer any questions by the board.

So how big do the units become? From how many bedrooms to how many bedrooms?

We have a single bedroom now, Madam Chair. I'm sorry. Yeah, we have a single bedroom now that would go to two-bedroom units, and the addition for each unit is... 30 by 2600, almost around, just under 300 square feet per unit.

Sorry, I think either I froze or you froze for a second, so I didn't catch the original. What's there originally and how did, so I got the 300 square foot additions.

Single bedroom, single bedroom going to two bedroom.

Okay, thank you. Questions from the board?

We also have the same number of units. They're just getting larger?

That's correct. We don't change. Yeah, six units will remain.

Correct.

Other questions from the board? Hearing none, let's take public testimony.

Hello Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Evan Jones, representing the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services. Regarding 62 Liverpool Street, our office defers to the board's judgment A community process was conducted including an abutters meeting held on 10-125 that was well attended by the East Boston community and questions were asked about the proposal. The proposal was also reviewed by the Maverick Central Neighborhood Association at their meeting on 10-15-25. The Association expressed support and voted for yes and zero nos regarding the proposal. At this time, the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services defers to the Board's judgment on this matter. Thank you, everybody, for your time and consideration. Thank you.

Next, we have Stephen for the Councilor Coletta Office.

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. At this time, the Councilor's Office would like to go in support of this project. Thank you.

Thank you, next we have Christian Simonelli. 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.

Madam Chair, there are no additional comments.

Okay, thank you. Can you address the CPOD issue that's raised in the planning memo?

Hold on a second. Yeah, so I believe because this is existing condition, we're not proposing any habitable space below DFE. I believe that's the basement space. Thank you. Any other questions from the board?

Hearing none, is there a motion?

Motion to approve.

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

Thank you very much. Next, we have case BOA-179-9116 with the address of 12 London Street. If the applicant and or their representative are present, will they please explain the case to the board?

Sure. Hello, my name is Tim Shen. I'm an architect here in Charlestown. 12 Ludlow Street is an existing single family, 890 square foot, single family on three floors. My clients are small family, three of them probably before fairly soon enough, and they'd like to expand the house.

Okay. Is somebody else there?

All right. So basically what they want to do is make the house bigger, I think, as anybody else would in a, you know, some 900 square foot house. So currently now they are on Lundell Place and behind them is Eden Street Park. What we'd like to do is put a three-story addition on, which is each floor would be 56 square feet. Essentially, the first floor, we'd just like to make the kitchen bigger. You know and the addition would be six foot two by nine foot utilizing you know what's left of the land that they have to the back to their back property line so it would be We're basically filling up the lot to that rare property line. The second floor, we'd like to add a normal-sized bathroom, which would be 710 by 5-7 in that addition. and then on the third floor we'd like to make a master bathroom and make a master bedroom suite in that square footage. Currently now,

There's some land there that we have a deck on that's not fast. Some of those properties have some, they're on the land that doesn't really belong to us. It's part of Eden Street Park. But the way it is in the field is there's a retaining wall and a fence, so it's sort of no man's land. It's been like that as long as I've been around. And our zoning violations are, there's an open space violation. There'll be, you know, there'll be open space violation because they don't even have the space now and we're filling up, you know, another 56 square feet of it. There'll be obviously a rare setback violation because we're already into the 15 feet as the property sits. And there'll be an FAR violation because currently we're over, you know, I think we're 10, 15 square feet over what's allowed and we're adding 168. Currently the house gross is 1010. We had a good community meeting and they've got multiple letters of support from the immediate neighbors, which I believe are on record. With that,

I'll take questions if there are any from the board.

Thank you. Any questions from the board? Hearing none, may I follow the 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 January 15th at which abutters were supportive of this application. Our office has also received a petition of support with 43 signatures that has been forwarded to the board. That background, ONS defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we have the person, Hadisha Barini.

Yes, Heidi and Mitra Cheverini, can you hear us? Yes, ma'am.

Yes.

Good morning, everyone. My name is Mitra Chavarini, and I'm with my husband, Hadi. I've been the owner of 11 Ludlow, which shares the common wall with 12 Ludlow I certainly support Mr. Murray's intentions of improving his house, but I really would wish that we would comply with the zoning rules that apply to all of us. after carefully reviewing the summited plans, and I'm sorry that I could not be there for the neighborhood meeting. I would like to again reiterate that the proposal eliminates the required rear yard setback. You all know the details of that. The second is that it does not meet the open space requirement.

Third, that the plans show an increase in the gross per area, which is really an excessive and space to the zoning analysis. I know I have limited time, but I really want to say that this is also Going on additional land from the city, which is a really bad habit for Charlestown to be getting into for all of us just because Mr. Sheehan said, oh, it's done. I don't think this is really a pattern we want to get into Charlestown as someone who's and that property for 40 years. I think that's a wrong direction for the city. And Mr. Murray himself, we have a similar thing. Our space is three floors, we have two floors. Jim, who was the previous owner, had built a third floor. And when we proposed the same exact idea to propose a third floor, Mr. Murray was vehemently against this project and we abandoned it.

respecting the neighborhoods for his decision that we were adjacent to his house and would be disrupting his life, really, my son. And he's also neurodivergent, so this construction, would be really hazardous for his health. So we really want to defer to your judgment and hope this does not pass. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you.

Thank you. Fred Murray?

Hi, can you hear me? Yes.

Yes, we can.

Mike, thank you to the board. I want to thank the ZBA, the community process. Very much appreciated to Tim and Are you the property owner or are you an abutter? No, excuse me. I'm the owner. Excuse me. Sorry, I did not.

Can we just make sure there's no other public comments? And if there are not, we can go back to you as the owner. Sorry, Madam Chair. Okay. Are there any other raised hands? We don't have any other raised hands. Okay, perfect. So then we can hear from the applicant on those abutter concerns. Thank you. Mr. Murray?

Okay, thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you again to the board. Again, like Timmy said, a little echoing off of Mr. Sheehan, just the size of the house of a growing family where I'm an IAM worker myself in the city and my wife Brenna is a nurse at New Health down the street on Bunker Hill Street. We have a young daughter, three years old. Timmy, as he mentioned, is on practice has seen many many houses in my neighborhood in Charlestown and Ours is, to his words, the smallest, if not one of the smallest. Naturally, we want to grow our family. We want to stay here in Boston. I really, really don't want to go anywhere else. Prior comments to our direct neighbor. There was never any true, true issue with their project.

It's just I had structural issues that I thought maybe should have been addressed. It's not my take to tell somebody what to do with their house. It's more or less just a structural issue. But with that being said, I hope the board is willing to considerate the fact that So small of the house and so small of the land that we are on to potentially grow in this house is very hard, naturally. That's why we're asking for the addition. Thank you.

Thank you. And can Mr. Sheehan or can someone remind us, the board, what's the total square foot addition? Because you have 966 square feet right now.

Yeah, we're adding 168, 56 per floor. We're essentially adding a bathroom every floor. You know, it's a very small space. Thank you. Other questions from the board?

Hearing none, is there a motion? Madam Chair, I just realized that I need to recuse myself in this case. Okay, so we are a six-member board.

Thank you. Is there a motion? I'd like to make a motion to approve, Madam Chair.

Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Mr. Langham? Yes. Ms. Whewell? Yes. Mr. Bernal? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck.

Thank you, everybody.

Thank you. Next we have case BOA 1796393 with the address of 241 Bunker Hill Street, If the applicant and or their representative are present, would they please explain to the board?

Good morning, Madam Chair and the Board. My name is Beth McDougall. I am the architect for 241 Bunker Hill. So what we're proposing here is to add a small roof deck on top of the first floor. If you could go to the next page, please, and the next page. Thank you. On the right you can see on the left hand side is the small deck which would be on top of the first floor with a spiral stair that would go up to a deck on the top floor. Now the deck on the Lower level is 10 by 15. We're using the existing house structure to support that. And then the deck on the top. is 18 feet by 21 feet on the top of the house. We've held the deck back six feet from the roof edge. It's 510 from the actual structure.

and what these two decks will do is they will give us a combined space of 546 open space for the house. The spiral stair as you come out of the second floor To go onto that deck, you'll go up this spiral stair up to the top deck. And I'll stop there. It's fairly straightforward and answer any questions you may have.

So can you confirm, so this is for the same unit, both decks?

It's one, it's a single family home, yes ma'am. Okay.

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

Madam Chair and Board Members, Ziggy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This application completed the community process and the buttress meeting was hosted by our office on October 3 of 2025. at which no concerns were raised. With that background, judgment from our office is deferred to the Board. Thank you.

Madam Chair, there are no additional comments.

Okay. Is there a motion?

Washington, if approved.

Is there a second?

Second. Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia? Yes. Mr. Langham? Yes. Ms. Whewell?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Mr. Bernal. Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Thank you, Madam Chair and Board.

Next, we have case BOA 176.

3761 with the address of 10 Harold Park.

If the applicant and or their representative present, will they please explain to the board.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Secretary, and good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. For the record, Attorney Maddock with Fletcher Tilton on behalf of the applicant. With me this morning is Jennifer Hoff from Pew Architecture, the project architect. We're here this morning seeking to change the occupancy of the existing structure from a three-family dwelling to a five-family dwelling and renovate the building. The project site is located at 10 Harold Park, which is near the dead end at the end of Harold Street and Harold Park in a Butsa City of Boston open space parcel. The site is located within a 3F4000 zoning district and is one of the largest lots in the area containing over 8700 square feet. You can see the lot there on the presentation and the existing structure. This project that we're proposing presents a fairly unique situation where we're seeking to add two units to the existing building while proposing very limited changes to the overall structure. and no exterior changes from the street.

It includes a renovation interior and utilizing existing space both within the lower level as well as a built-out existing fourth story. Overall making the building more functional and again creating the two additional residential units. We're also seeking to create some additional open space by utilizing space on the existing Third story roof in the rear to create a deck for the proposed fifth unit on that fourth level. Overall, the lower level unit will have both egress windows, window wells to provide light and egress, as well as a full rear walkout to a sunken patio. And again, the fifth unit will be in that existing Fourth Story, which you can see. So that will be the smallest unit at two bedrooms because we'll keep the profile of the building as is and then just add the deck to the rear of that unit. Overall, in terms of violations, we are seeking a use variance. This is a 3F district and we are seeking the two additional units.

However, as mentioned, this is one of the largest lots in the area. We're also seeking relief for additional lot area per dwelling unit. The floor area ratio, you're allowed a 0.8. We are proposing a 1.0. But again, all that space that we're seeking to legalize is already within the building. It's just making it more functional and utilized for residential units. and then finally we did trigger a violation for height in terms of feet but that's based on the roof deck alone again the building's already 46 feet tall we are not adding any structures above The current roof line so the building profile will remain exactly as you see it today. As part of this process we did meet with the abutters as well as appearing before the Garrison Trotter Housing Committee and their full membership meeting. where they ultimately voted to support the project. We also submitted several letters of support through the board, which you should have on file. With that, I'll very briefly turn it over to Jennifer Ha, again, the project architect.

She can briefly walk through the floor plans and elevations. and some of the landscaping as well.

Hello Madam Chair and Board Members. My name is Jennifer Ha. I'm the Principal Architect at Kew Architecture. My office is at 53H Harvard Street in Dorchester. So Tenthall Park is an existing three-family built A building that's built in 1905 as a four-story Mansard multifamily home. The exterior has been recently refaced in the last five years. and the owner wishes to convert the building from three to five units. The new units will be both within the existing building shell. The changes in the building exterior are pretty minimal, as what Matt had explained, and it includes a second patio for the basement, a roof deck over the rear abutment, and a new exterior stair at the building rear. The proposed basement unit will use the existing entrance lobby of the building, that's on the first floor, and it will host three bedrooms and two bathrooms. It will feature a private sunken patio for the kitchen living space.

The first floor, second floor, and third floor are original to the house. Those are units that already have a private rear deck space. So there's not really many changes on that. On the fourth floor is, the fourth floor unit is within the existing 992 square foot mansard. So the space is already there. It has a beautiful high ceilings and views to the city. So there's already been a walkout towards the roof to that rear abutment. It will host two bedrooms and one bathroom as well. as a new private roof deck so that rear abutment roof is now going to be an official deck instead of just a rubber membrane. The front facade of the building essentially stays the same as what Matt had explained. And the visible changes on the exterior can only be seen from the rear of the house, which is the rear roof deck, the rear stairs, and the sunken patio. That's the end of my presentation.

Great. Thank you, Jennifer. Madam Chair, with that, we'd happily take any questions the board might have. Thank you. Are there questions from the board?

Hearing none, May I apologize? I'm sorry? Just to clarify, the new units are at the Mansard and at the basement, right? There's already units in the first, second, and third?

That is correct, yes.

Okay.

And the only addition or part exterior-wise is the stair in the back. Correct.

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

Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy 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 August 12th. That was lightly attended and a concern for parking was heard multiple times, filling the cul-de-sac is too small to provide no parking, as well as a concern for traffic, the increase of, and affordability. Next, the proposal was presented to Greater Trotter Neighborhood Association who voted in support of the proposal. To date, our office has received 10 letters of support recognizing and supporting the need for more housing. Thank you for your time. And the Mez Office of Neighborhood Services would like to defer to the board for their judgment.

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

With that, may I have a motion? I make a motion of approval. Is there a second?

Second. Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Mr. Langham? Yes. Ms. Whewell? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Mr. Bernal? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Thank you very much.

Good luck.

Next, we have case BOA 1784542 with the address of 9 Claiborne Street. If the applicant can't handle the representative present, will they please explain to the board?

My name is Stedman Blake, I'm the owner, me and my wife own 9 Claiborne Street in Dorchester and 15 years ago we had violations for For rooms and they were actually studios and they it was silenced for 15 years and then we come back up in 2025 so they tell us to file and the City to get it legalized and we're hoping that as a minority that you all will help us to get a relief so we could pay the taxes and be good citizens. We take care of our property and we just want to get a relief I make but just the gradient.

So just to confirm, It's been functioning as a five family, but listed as a three, and you're trying to correct it to be a five, is that correct?

Absolutely, yes. We try to get it straightened out, and we want everything to be straightened and good, yes.

Okay, are there questions from the board? May I have public testimony?

Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Benberry. I'm the Dorchester Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process, which consisted of an abutters meeting held on November 20th, with no abutters present. Next, the proponent presented to United Neighborhood Association, and with no opposition, completed the community process. Thank you for your time, and the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services would like to defer to the Board of Adjutant.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, there are no additional comments.

With that, may I have a motion?

Motion approved. Second.

Thank you. Mr. Stembridge?

Yeah.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Mr. Langham?

Yes.

Ms. Weedwell? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Mr. Bernal?

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Next we have case BOA-177-4682 with the address of 25 Tina Avenue.

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

Yes, good morning once again, Madam Chair, members of the board, for the record, Attorney Matt Echol with Fletcher Tilton on behalf of the applicant. With me this morning is James Christopher from 686, the project architects. We're seeking to erect a new residential building with three ownership units and three parking spaces on a lot known as 25 Tina Avenue. The existing lot contains 3,600 square feet and is currently vacant and overgrown. Tina Ave itself is a private way that connects to Wood Ave and Oakwood Street in Hyde Park. We are proposing a three-story building with a common entrance and one unit laid out per floor. Just to briefly go through the floor plans, we will have a very small basement area which will just house a sprinkler and mechanical room. The first floor will house Unit 1, which is proposed to be 878 square feet with two bedrooms and two bathrooms. The second and third floor are very similar.

They will house unit two and unit three, and they're both proposed to be 1,265 square feet with three bedrooms and two bathrooms. Each unit will have one dedicated parking space. Two of the spaces are located at grade underneath the proposed building, as you can see in the side elevation there. We're kind of cantilevered over, and that's going to provide space for two of the parking spaces, and the third space will be looking at the screen to the left, but towards the rear of the property, that'll be a fully exterior parking space so that each unit will have one dedicated space. As part of this process, we met several times with the abutters as well as the East River Neighborhood Association. We made several changes to the project, mostly revolving around the design to make sure it better fit in with the context of the neighborhood. A triple decker look to start, and we worked with the abutters here to come up with a more contextual design that fits within the neighborhood and doesn't play as much as a triple decker.

As a result of that, we did receive several letters of support from direct abutters, as well as a letter from City Councilor Pepén, which shall be on file with the Board. With that, I'll happily pause and take any questions the Board may have.

Thank you. Are there questions from the board?

Yes, one of the neighbors submitted a comment mentioning that you will have to cut at least nine trees. Is that correct? And if so, what is your plan for the open space?

The property is vacant. It's been overgrown for some time. So most of the coverage there are invasive species. So we do have a landscaping plan, which you can see a little bit in the aerial view, the site plan. We have some plantings along the front of the street, along Tina Ave itself, kind of providing a buffer between that walkway. We also have some plantings at the rear and maintain a six-foot side setback to the left. The right side will be the driveway providing access to the parking. So we will be taking down some trees, but they're mostly invasive and it's just been kind of an unkept lot for many years.

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

Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Benberry. I am the Hyde Park Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process, which consisted of an abutters meeting facilitated on October 8th. That was very well attended. Butters voiced their concerns for the size of the proposal, feeling it is too large with a small lot, and for the two-family duplex would be more in line with the character of the neighborhood. The proposed one-to-one parking ratio per unit was also a concern as the voters did not feel it provided enough parking considering the parking congestion issues. Other concerns were ownership, the number of variances being seeked, rodent mitigation during construction, and repairing of the private road the proposal sits on. Next, the proponent presented to East River Neighborhood Association where they voted to oppose the proposal, filling a three-family home was set a negative precedent for the neighborhood. To date, our office has received eight letters of support, one of them from Councilor Pepén's office, supporting the need for more housing while staying in line with the character of the neighborhood. 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. Next, we have Charlene.

Good morning. My name is Charlene Brantley. My address is 18 Tina Avenue. I'm diagonal from 25 Tina Avenue. Nick and his team has met with residents to present the design plans and to listen to the residents. The team made changes to the design plans in response to the residents' concern, one mainly being the structure of the roof, so it can be in alignment more with the other houses on Oakwood and Tina Avenue. Even after that, Nick has made himself available after the abutters meeting to meet as a whole if we wanted to or one-on-one. I personally spoke with Nick several times. I appreciate his availability and his accessibility to hear my concerns to address them and to make the changes. I support the proposal because I support the opportunity for home ownership. Thank you so much for giving me time to speak.

Thank you, ma'am.

Next, we have Natalie Reed.

Hello, I am at, can you hear me? Yes, ma'am. Okay, great. I'm at 22 Oakwood Street, so when we look out our front window where I sit, To do some work, I actually look at this location. It is overgrown. I don't believe those are invasive species. I mean, I suppose most Most trees are from another country, so most of them are, but there are 11 violations. So it's the front, the side, the rear, the height, like everything is in violation. I actually was only invited to one other meeting and I did attend, so maybe the meetings were just not as We didn't know about them, but I am not in agreement with this. Mostly The parking issue as well with three new units.

Oakwood Street is also a private way and so we have two spaces for us. But there's not, I mean like all of the parking is on someone's land since it's a private way and we own the space right in front of our houses. So I think parking will be an issue. I know that when we had a conversation or a meeting, the meeting that I went to, he was proposing possibly making it two units instead of three. So I see that that was not listened to, so. Yeah, I'm not sure how many people are in agreement with that. Thank you for your time. Thank you.

Okay, next we have Jocelyn.

Yes, yes, good morning. This is Jocelyn Campbell. I'm an attorney with the law firm of Rudolph. Will you speak up, ma'am? Yes, can you hear me now? Yes, thank you. Thank you. Good morning. My name is Jocelyn Campbell. I'm an attorney with the law firm of Rudolph Friedman LLP in Boston. and we represent Oakwood Street LLC. And David Rafferty is the manager of that LLC. And they own the property. They're direct abutters at 27-2019. and 11 Oakwood and also 15-25 Oakwood and the small parcel next to that. So they are the direct abutters on one side of this property. And they are in opposition. I've submitted an opposition letter already last week And the gist of the opposition, I know I have just a short amount of time here, is that he feels that the project and the LLC feels the project is just too large. It's too large for this tiny lot. It's too large for this private way.

To submit and have three families with three bedrooms each on this property is excessive. And that's just of the complaint. And we agree with the fact about the meetings. Mr. Rafferty did indicate to me that he received, I believe it was just two pages of notices, but wasn't aware of all the meetings that occurred. So we would respectfully ask that this be denied. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Madam Chair, there are no additional concerns raised at the moment. Okay. Mr. Echo, would you like to briefly address the concerns raised?

Sure, yeah, happy to, Madam Chair. So in terms of the parking, we understand parking is always a concern. However, with the trend to move away from too much impervious, we thought a one-to-one parking ratio is in line with the neighborhood and obviously provides... adequate parking for the units there are two three bedrooms and one two-bedroom unit just for the record I think someone mentioned there being three three bedrooms but obviously with this being home ownership the one-to-one parking ratio It is a private road on Tina Ave. and that's certainly something that any future owners will know there come with a private road comes some Responsibility to work together with neighbors, obviously, to have certain rights over the street. I apologize, it does look like someone from 1915 maybe was trying to speak in support. I'm not sure if they, or not a panelist, but...

In terms of the last commenter, I will just point out for the record that that was the first we heard of any opposition from them. They do have a two-family directly to our left. and then six units around the corner. It's a little bit disingenuous to talk about the size, I think, of the property there when they have eight units kind of wrapping around the corner and we're just proposing a three family. We do think it's in context with the neighborhood. We designed the building to look very much like the buildings that wrap around the corner, which were referenced, the two families to the left and then the six units as you go around the corner to Oakwood. So we do think it's appropriate. It does provide homeownership units and much-needed residential opportunities. And as mentioned, we have, I believe, six or seven letters of support from direct abutters as well.

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

I make a motion of approval with the provisor that plans have to be submitted to the planning department for design review to increase and improve open space if possible. and also improve parking configuration. And also that the applicant consider using permeable materials for the driveway and the parking spaces.

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

Yes.

Ms. Whewell? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Mr. Bernal.

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Thank you very much. Next, we have case BOA 173.

2278 with the address of 26 Eastern Street.

If the applicant and or their representative are present, we'll definitely explain the case to the board.

Good morning, Madam Chairwoman and Board members. My name is Steven David. I represent Rack Investments, whose principal is Ricardo Gene. 26 Reston Street is located in Hyde Park. This particular, this street dead ends, there's 16 residential units on this street, 12 are multifamilies. Forrest Singles, and there's a rather large commercial over an acre lot at the end of the street. The street, in fact, dead ends. I have with me Bonnie Tan from JCBT Architects. She is going to take you through the projects and then we'd be happy to answer any questions that you have. Bonnie.

Good morning Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is Bonnie Tam with JCBT Architect. We are proposing to demolish the existing two-family structure located at 26 East and Ave Hyde Park. and construct a new four-story, eight-unit residential building on the current lot. The ground floor will include an open parking garage with eight parking spaces along with one ADA-accessible two-bed, two-bath unit. The second floor will consist of three units, each with two baths. The third and fourth floors will feature a two regular unit and two bi-level units. The bi-level units will have three beds, three baths, and a private roof deck. Unit size will range about 800 to 1200 square feet each.

The exterior design will feature a modern architectural style consistent with many recently approved multifamily developments in the city. The project abuts the commuter rail will require approval from Keolis. The surrounding area includes a mix of smaller multifamily homes and industrial buildings. We also received support from District 5 Councilor. So the exterior we're looking to have hardy siding and PVC and some modern designs. Black windows. We'll have a roof deck, private roof deck on the top floor as a penthouse units. This is my end of my presentation. Thank you. Are there questions from the board?

Yeah, I have one small question.

Will you be rental properties or ownerships? That decision has been made. It's been designed as a rental building and easily convertible over to home ownership. Thank you.

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

Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Benbury. I'm the Hyde Park Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process, which consisted of an boarders meeting facilitated on July 31st, Lightly attended with four guests, two being civics leadership. Where inquiries were addressed and concerns were raised regarding open space for children to play, and the verbiage of the refusal letter regarding forbidden use. Next proposal was presented to Hyde Park Neighborhood Association where they voted in opposition to the proposal, feeling the neighborhood is dealing with overdevelopment and the proposal has too many violations. To date, our office has received one letter of support from Councilor Enrique Pepén's office. Thank you for your time, and the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services would like to defer to the board for the judgment.

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

Can the applicant address the concerns that were mentioned?

We took the concerns very seriously. It was the opposition at the meeting was more about the new development rather than The project quite frankly, so the open space is something that we could deal with possibly with the Boston Planning and Development at that time. This particular area, would actually benefit from this project in terms of some of the homes in the area are much older. This could stimulate some redevelopment and remodeling in that area. The street that ends, so it's really safe at that area. The only one traveling on that street would be people who live there, doesn't access anywhere. So we attempted to address those issues.

That particular issue was a challenge.

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

Motion to approve.

Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Mr. Langham? Yes. Ms. Wewell? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Mr. Bernal? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck.

Thank you. The next case has been deferred, so we'll return to the first case of the 930 hearing to see if anyone's present.

I'm present.

So this will be for case BOA 178-5172 with the address of 254 Bremen Street. Would you go ahead, please?

Yes, and thank you and apologies for my earlier Wi-Fi connection issues. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Jeff Thomas. I am the homeowner and proponent of the project at 254 Bremen Street in East Boston. We are seeking a conditional use permit to construct a single story vertical addition and roof deck on an existing triple decker to expand the living space for our third floor unit. Allowing us to accommodate a growing family and call East Boston home for the foreseeable future. We designed this addition to be as compliant with Planned East Boston zoning as The relief we're requesting is specific to Article 53 regarding roof structure setbacks. While we meet almost all the criteria, we are seeking relief from the five-foot setback requirement on the roof edges due to the narrow footprint of the building, a mandatory five-foot setback on all sides.

Thank you for joining us. Thank you. You can scroll down to the third slide. Despite the lack of setbacks on the roof, we intentionally positioned the deck at the rear of the property so it's not visible from the street level. And we're going to design the structure to support large planters around that we can frame the deck to minimize any potential nuisance to our neighbors. So with that, I'm happy to answer any questions about the project.

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

. Regarding 254 Breadman Street, our office adheres to the board's judgment. The community process was conducted, including an abutted meeting held on Monday, November 24th, 2025, that was attended by two community members, who did not have any questions or comments regarding the proposal. It was also reviewed by the Maverick Central Neighborhood Association and they decided to support the project. At this time, the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services differs to the Board's judgment on this matter. Thank you everyone for your time and consideration.

Next, we have Stephen Marine. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. At this time, our office would like to go in support of this project. Thank you so much. Thank you. Madam Chair, there are no additional comments.

With that, may I have a motion? And I'm sure I'd like to make a motion to approve. Is there a second?

Second. Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Mr. Langham?

Yes.

Ms. Wewell? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Mr. Brunel? Yes. Chair votes yes, the motion carries. Good luck.

Thank you.

And with that, we'll take a break till 11 a.m.

Stembridge. Present, Madam Chair. Thank you.

Mr. Valencia. Mr. Langham. Present. Ms. Whewell.

Present.

Ms. Turner. Present. Mr. Brunel. Present. Mr. Valencia. Okay, it looks like he has not been flying jet. Okay, Mr. Valencia. All right, thank you.

Okay, so what are your reasons to stay? All good. It's too nice to be indoors.

So with that, we'll go to it.

You go to the hearing scheduled for 11 a.m. At this time, we'll ask if there are any requests for withdrawals or deferrals from the 11 a.m. hearing.

Chair, yes, are you seeking a deferral? Yes, good morning, Madam Chair and members of the board. Chair and Eiger, Madam McLennan and Fish for the first item. 119 to 127 North Washington.

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

Very good.

So this request is for case BOA 178. 2541 with the address of 119 to 127 North Washington Street. Would you go ahead and explain?

Yes, I represent the appellant, Copper Mill North End, but the property is actually owned by a family business. now known as Jake Realty Inc. and they've asked for a deferral of two months to discuss internally with their family.

Okay, Caroline? We could do May 19th, June 2nd, June 16th.

May 19th, please.

Okay, with that, may I have a motion?

Motion to defer to May 19th.

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

Yes.

Mr. Langham?

Yes.

Ms. Whewell? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Mr. Bernal? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. See you then.

Thank you.

So again, we'll ask if there are any requests for further withdrawals or deferrals from the 11 o'clock hearing. And with that, we'll move on to

Case VOA 179-6362 with the address of 566 Commonwealth Avenue.

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

Yes, thank you, Mr. Secretary, and good morning once again, Madam Chair, members of the board. For the record, Attorney Matt Eccle with Fletcher Tilton on behalf of the applicant. With me this morning is Eric Zacherson from Context, the project architect. The proposal before you is we're seeking to convert a portion of the second floor at 566 Commonwealth Ave into six new residential units. Currently the building at 566 Com Ab known as Kenmore Tower contains 111 residential units as well as office space. This project would convert some of that existing office space on the second floor into new residential units for a total of 117 residential units. The site is located in Kenmore Square and is within the Boston Proper Zoning District and a B4 subdistrict. The lot itself is approximately 24,000 square feet and is surrounded by many different uses, including residential... Retail Offices and Institutional.

The property is located between the Blanford Street and Kenmore MBTA stations, providing access to the Green Line as well as bus route number 57, which runs right along Commonwealth Ave. outside of the building. The project itself involves interior renovations to create the six new residential units, all of which would be proposed to be one bedroom units. There are no exterior changes proposed or changes to the building footprint. This will all be within the second level of the existing building. The proposed multifamily use isn't allowed use. However, we are seeking relief from the board this morning for usable open space, as this is obviously an existing building on an existing site. Thank you for joining us. and no concerns were expressed at those times. With that, I'll pause and happily take any questions the board may have.

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

Madam Chair and members, Siggy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Service. Services that completed the community process. Our office hosted an abutters meeting on January 7th at which no concerns were raised. The Kenmore Square Association has no concerns regarding this application. With that background, our office defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Anthony. I'm calling on behalf of Councilor Sharon Durkan, who would like to go on record in support.

Thank you. Next we have Nass, RCC, Motelero,

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. This is Semana Perez with the Carpenters Union. We just like to go on record on support of the project. Thank you, Mr. Pasador. Thank you, Madam Chair.

There are no additional comments.

Okay, would that man have a motion?

I'd like to make a motion to approve. I have a second.

Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Mr. Langham? Yes. Ms. Whewell? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Mr. Brunel? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. You're welcome. Thank you very much.

Next we have case BOA 1798179 with the address of 555-567 East Broadway. If the applicants and or their representative are present, will they please explain to the board?

Yes. Good morning, Madam Chairman, members of the board. My name is Francis Adams. I'm an attorney. In South Boston, business address of 350 West Broadway. I represent the owner, Stephen Collins, who was also on the call. As the application today is to add a roof deck to an existing townhouse condominium. The first slide shows the site plan we are seeking relief for. Article 68.29 Roof Decks Restriction and also Article 68 Building Height Excessive. This project is new construction, six townhouse condominiums located on East Broadway in South Boston. Next slide, please. You can see the front elevation of the property. Broadway slopes down from G to Broadway, from G Street to H Street. Next slide, please, which shows the deck.

The proposed addition of the deck, as you can see from the proposal, is a roof deck to an existing structure accessed directly from the unit via a hatch from within the unit. Exterior staircases or balconies. It's an exclusive use deck solely for the use of the unit owner. This is the side of Broadway. There's a parapet. The whole deck is hidden behind the parapet. It's below the level of the parapet. If the board can't see but the property is surrounded in the rear entirely by the Verizon building, there is no residential. Abbott is in the rear and to the right of the building on the Broadway facing side there are five commercial storefronts then there's the South Boston Courthouse and then there's the Paraclete Center. There are virtually no residential abutters in the rear or to the right of the property. As I said, the deck will be accessed directly from the unit.

Thank you very much. It's all commercial buildings. It's not going to be visible from any of those buildings. Total size of the deck is approximately 12 by 7, or 300 square feet. It's accessed directly from the deck. And this deck is from the roof edge. We're seeking a conditional use as well as a variance for the two violations that are cited. With that, we can take any questions from the board. Questions from the board?

Hearing none, we have public testimony.

Madam Chair and members, Ziggy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This petitioner completed the community process. Our office hosted an abutters meeting on December 11th, 2025. Abutters were opposed to the application. Abutters stated that part of the community process for the construction of this building was a compromise for no roof decks on the building Our office has received three letters of opposition that has been forwarded to the board. Our office is aware of a petition from 11 abutters that has been forwarded to the board. Gate of Heaven Neighborhood Association is opposed to this application. With that background, ONS defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Next, we have Ashley from Consular Flint.

Good morning, my name is Ashley from Councilor Flynn's office. Councilor Flynn wrote to the board today in complete opposition to the proposal at 555 East Broadway. There was significant opposition during the community process with nearby neighbors in the Gate of Heaven Neighborhood Association meeting. Moreover, the reason why the community, the Gay to Heaven Neighborhood Association and my office supported the original project years ago and now oppose this one is specifically due to a good faith compromise to remove the roof decks Residents believed individual owners adding roof decks after the fact does not deal with our housing crisis and there is no hardship to address. Flynn has a long-standing policy against roof decks in the residential areas of South Boston due to years of negative feedback from our seniors, persons with disabilities, and young families on the quality of life issues in the form of noise at all hours, Trash Removal, and subsequent pest control concerns. SL Boston has become a destination for young people to visit on the weekend, These neighborhood issues have increased dramatically.

Moreover, as a roof deck does not address our housing crisis, Councilor Flynn believes it should not be granted zoning relief to benefit individual property owners over many concerned neighbors. Thank you.

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

So can the applicant address that comment about the pre-existing agreement?

Yeah, sure, Madam Chair. First off, Mr. Collins did not have an agreement with the abutters. He's a residential unit owner. He recently purchased the condominium. My understanding is when the project was approved by this board previously, there was no restrictions on roof deck. Furthermore, the original application was for rental units, not home ownership units. and turn the property into all residential units as a compromise. Furthermore, Mr. Collins is an owner-occupant. He's a sole person living in the property. There is no renter in the building. There is no party deck. It's an exclusive use common deck for one particular person. As far as the abutters opposition, I would again like to point out to the board, there is no residential abutters in the rear of the property. The Verizon building takes up half a city block, which is directly behind this property.

If you're looking at the front of the building, there's five commercial buildings to the right, as well as the South Austin Courthouse and then the community center, the Paraclete Center for the City of Boston. There's no residential abutters in any direction in the rear or to the right. I respect Councilor Flynn's position. I know he opposes all roof decks. We don't disagree with that, but this particular Project is recommended by approval by the planning department. We've completed the community process, and again, As far as noise, I don't disagree with the Councillor. If there is noise, it's sometimes with rental units. This is an owner-occupied property. Mr. Collins had no agreement. And it's a great use of open space. The property has no additional open space. and those are two of the reasons the planning department did recommend approval for this. So hopefully that addressed the question, Madam Chair. Thank you.

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

Madam Chair, I'm in agreement with the Boston Planning Department and I make a motion of approval.

Is there a second?

Second. Second.

Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Mr. Langham?

Yes, yes.

Ms. Whewell?

Yes. Ms. Turner? No.

Mr. Bernal?

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Thank you. Thank you, board. Appreciate it.

Next, we have case BOA-181-8358 with the address of 165 Tudor Street. If the applicant and or their representative are present, will the police explain to the board?

Good morning, Madam Chair. My name is Charlie Tevin. I'm an attorney of 15 Barraza Street, Boston. I'm appearing on behalf of the applicant 162 West 7th Street, LLC, Darren McGuire and Phillip Keene as co-managers. Mr. Keene is also available on this hearing to answer any questions. The proposal is seeking a conditional use permit to make the long-standing use of this 819 square foot parcel for parking zoning compliant. This 15 feet by 52 feet, 15 feet wide by 52 feet wide, a long rather, parcel is part of a larger parcel which was conveyed to the Director Butters in 1995. by the city of Boston as part of the abutter lots program with the restriction running with the land that no structure could be erected on the property and that the premises would remain open for uses including

but not limited to off-street parking. The proponent has completed the neighborhood process and the about our process. There is no opposition to this as of which we are aware. We've also been in close communication with the office of District Councilor Ed Flynn and regarding this project and finally we understand that the planning department has recommended approval and has concluded that the requested relief is appropriate. And with that, I'm available or able to answer any questions that the board may have. Thank you. Thank you.

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

Madam Chair and members, Siggy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This applicant completed the community process. Our office hosted an abutters meeting on January 14th. at which no abutters chose to speak. Cityside Neighborhood Association was made aware of this application and has taken no position or office unaware of any other concerns. That background judgment is deferred to the board. Thank you.

Next we have Ashley from Consular Flynn's office.

Thank you. Councilor Firm would like to go on record and support based on a good community process. We respectfully request that the proponent continue to work closely with neighbors on quality of life issues that may arise during the construction phase. Thank you. Thank you.

Thanks. Next, we have Phillip Keane.

Mr. Keane is a co-owner, Madam Chair. Okay.

It does not need to be a, of course, thank you. Any other raised hands?

Madame Chair, there are no additional raised hands.

Okay. With that, may I have a motion?

Second.

Thank you. Mr. Stembridge?

Yeah.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Mr. Langham?

Yes.

Ms. Weevil? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Bernal? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck.

Thank you Madam Chair and members of the board.

Next we have case BOA 179. 8127 with the address of 16 Chilcot Place. If the applicant and or their representative present, will they please explain the case to the board?

How you doing? My name is Cole Chapari. I'm a project manager for Cone Construction. I'm here representing 16 Chilcot and Jesus Martinez. I can share my screen if you just give me one second.

So you need to present with what the ambassador is scrolling here.

Oh, OK. So this is existing proposed plot plan. We and Jesus Martinez are looking to add a 20 by 20 to third floor addition. with a new full bathroom, NHVAC, and plumbing with cedar shingles. We have received approval in the past from the Englehood, Carol Royce, and the Engleston Square Neighborhood Association. We originally were denied or there was a denial for non-conforming in certain variances, but as you can see from the proposed plot plans, we're making more space for more housing options. Jesus has been a great landlord and made multiple affordable housing locations available for residents of the city of Boston.

So this is basically extending and adding an addition on top of the existing building itself and not expanding it or going out on the roadway to block any neighbors or We have received support from the neighbors and the neighborhood association as well.

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

Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Bembry. I am the... Jamaica Plain Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process which consisted of an abutters meeting facilitated on January 8th that was lightly attended. Abutters voiced inquiries regarding the construction time frame and the aesthetics of the to approve the proposal, specifically the painting and the shingles. Two of voters voiced support for the proposal. Next, a proponent presented to Eggleston Square Neighborhood Association and Jamaica Plain Neighborhood Council. Eggleston Square Neighborhood Association supports the proposal. Jamaica Plain Neighborhood Council zoning voted to approve the proposal. To date, our office has received two letters of support, one from Eggleston Square Neighborhood Association and one from Jamaica Plain Neighborhood Council recommending the proposal's approval. Thank you for your time. And the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services would like to defer to the Board for the judgment.

Madam Chair, there are no additional comments.

I have a question from the board.

May I have a motion? I put forward a motion of approval. There's a second.

Second. Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Mr. Langham? Yes. Ms. Whewell? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Mr. Bernal? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members. Thank you very much. Good luck.

Next, we have case BOA-180-4462 with the address of 203 Clare Avenue. If the applicant and or their representative are present, would they please explain to the board?

Madam Chair, members of the board, good morning and thank you for your time. This is Kyle Smith of Statara Law, business address of 359 Newbury Street in Boston's Back Bay, here to present on behalf of the owner. I believe the owner's on the line as well and does have some language related complications being primarily Spanish speaking. If there's any translator available that would, in the event that he has questions that the board would like for him to answer, if that could be provided to him. but otherwise happy to proceed and speak on behalf of the owner.

Please do so. Did you request interpretation in advance?

It was only known to me last minute that he would be able to attend so I had not previously requested it.

Okay, so just please keep that in mind in the future.

Understood. Thank you. Madam Chair, members of the board, if you proceed to the site plan, if you enlarge that small right portion of the corner, you'll see that this is an adjacent parcel to the former church site, the All Grace Harvest Church. We have an approximate 12,500 square foot lot that is largely clear-cut and macadam. This is a prior parking lot servicing the prior church site. On the leftmost portion of this kind of You know, multi-shaped parcel we have on the rightmost and leftmost side on Collins Street and also on Claire Avenue. We have two existing curb cuts. and the plan is to utilize those curb cuts for access for parking so we don't need to obtain any new curb cuts to service the site. The proposal is to basically erect housing in a single family sub-district adjacent to some larger zoned

Portions of this immediate community for a proposed four-story. First floor is partially subsurface. We have about four to five feet of exposure between grade height and the ceiling of the proposed basement level unit. with appropriate window wells and the like for that unit and then three units above. So a total of four units in this stacked quadruple decker. Again, we have an approximate 12,500 square foot lot size. We're seeking relief for multi, several dimensional regulations for FAR. For exceeding the number of stories where two and a half is allowed, we're proposing three with partially subsurface basement unit. 35 feet of maximum height is permitted in the sub-district. The proposal is for a building height of just sub-37 feet. We have 40 feet of required setback from the rear.

The proposal at the pinch point is 34.78 feet, so just slightly under the requirement. Parking requirements for this area are two per unit. We're proposing four in aggregate, one per unit. We also need relief for the number of units in a single family sub-district. And then there's also just general concerns about basement dwelling units. But again, we do have approximately four to five feet of exposure from grave to ceiling height of the proposed lower level living. I guess with that I can turn it over to the board for follow-up questions or concerns. Thank you.

Are there questions from the board?

Yes, how many cut cups do you have?

There are pre-existing two. The intent is to maintain and utilize those two.

Okay, now I saw that the planning department is recommending to close one of those. Have you had conversations with the planning department about that?

I mean, ideally, I would say existing infrastructure, curb cuts is a value. So I think for the ability to enter and exit Thank you for watching. Thank you.

Thank you. Other questions from the Board? May I have public testimony?

Madam Chair and members of the Board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Benberry. I'm the Hyde Park Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process which consisted of an abutters meeting facilitated on October 23rd, very lightly attended with two immediate abutters and one abutter who expressed a concern for the foundation, stating there is a ledge They are aware of that runs below and across the street. Abutters were concerned for the impact the project will have on the foundation and inquired how the dig will be done safely, including the removal of the ledge. Next, the proposal was presented to Hyde Park Neighborhood Association, where they voted in support of the proposal. To date, our office has received one letter of support, again, from the Hyde Park Neighborhood Association. 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.

Any feedback from the applicant?

So two things. I did fail to mention the proposed blend of beds and baths in the units. They're all kind of stacked with the same footprint, but the proposal is for three bed, two and a half baths per unit. With an approximate building footprint of 1,800 square feet, so nice sized, generally family-oriented type units. As far as the concern, I mean, there is no ledge on site. I've worked with other communities, specifically, you know, Rockview Street in Jamaica Plain, where that was also a concern. There's an ability to maintain and take existing kind of conditions of other neighboring structures. So, you know, in building in the city, building close to other structures, there is an ability for engineers to take existing conditions and monitor that. So we're confident in the ability to build the site while also maintaining and respecting a budding structure.

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

Madam Chair, I'll put forward a motion of approval with a proviso. that plans are submitted to the planning department for design review to ensure the adequate design of the basement dwelling unit. I also agree with Mr. Valencia's comment about the two curb cuts that was also raised in the planning memo. I don't think four units warrants two curb cuts, so I would also add design review to review closing the curb cut and eliminating the driveway off Collins Street.

Is there a second? Second. Second. Mr. Stembridge? Yeah. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Mr. Langham? Yes. Ms. Whewell? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Mr. Bernal? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Thank you.

Next, we have case BOA 1796654 with the address of 41 Spoken Word. If the applicant and or their representative present, would they please explain the case to the board? Yes.

Is the applicant present? Right here, yep. Okay, can you identify yourself and please proceed?

Tim Bailey from Bailey Deval Studio Build. I'm the general contractor on this project. and it's basically a basement renovation. We actually thought it had heating in the basement until everything was moved out of it. So basically it's just adding HVAC system to the basement, enhancing the existing space, creating a bathroom and a bar underneath the Basement Stairs. It's not going outside the existing basement footprint at all and no changes to the exterior of the home. Thank you.

Questions from the board? May I public testimony?

Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Bembry. I am the Jamaica Plain Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process which consisted of an abutters meeting facilitated on December 15th with one abutter in attendance that voiced support as they saw nothing. that raised concerns. Next, the proposal was presented to Jamaica Hills Association on January 14th and Jamaica Plain Neighborhood Council Zoning on January 21st. where both associations approved the proposal. Today, our office has received one letter of support from Jamaica Plain Neighborhood Council recommending approval. Thank you for your time in the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services.

Madam Chair, there are no additional comments.

With that, may I have a motion? Motion to approve.

Is there a second? Mr. Stembridge. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Mr. Langham? Yes. Ms. Whewell? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Mr. Bernal? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck.

Thank you. Thank you. Madam Chair, since we passed the 11.30 hour, we'll ask at this point if there are any requests for withdrawals or deferrals from the 11.30 AM hour. Hearing none, we'll return to 11 o'clock and we'll go to case BOA, 1903365.

57, Beacon Street.

If the applicant and their representative present, would they please explain to the board? Yes, thank you. Cameron Merrill, I apologize. When I was promoted as a panelist, my video shut off and I'm having trouble turning it back on. I didn't want to restart my computer right on the Cuspo presenting, so I apologize for the fact that the video is not on. Aaron Steeves is present as well, but my name is Cameron Maryland Council for the association, the Inverness. Condominium Association, 100 State Street Boston, Massachusetts. This project comes before you after about two years of Attempting an elevator modernization after the elevator in this five-story building failed about two years ago. This project has been presented to the AAB, the elevator,

Commission before the state and it was before that elevator commission that they did request the head house be enlarged and a stair be built To the head house for the elevator equipment. This is shown on page A6 is the best page to see this. So we did previously have a building permit But it was based on that request, as you can see there, that the plans had to be amended to account for additional head height. So ultimately the structure is going to be about three feet six inches taller than it had been We're expecting little to no visibility from the street and the unit owners are in desperate need of this. As you can see, it's a stair walk-up. You have a letter, I believe, from a unit owner upstairs. We have attempted to work this every single possible way without a full-fledged modernization.

Engineers, specialists, architects, consultants, but unfortunately a 1.2 million dollar modernization is This has been approved by the board. Funding is in place. This was just a last-minute hiccup that we did not anticipate given the amendment that the state board requested for the elevator head house. And again, I apologize for the video. Typically, I have it on, as you know. I'm not sure what happened there.

No problem. Any questions from the board? Hearing none, Mayor, public testimony.

Madam Chair and members, Siggy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This petitioner completed the community process. Our office hosted an abutters meeting on January 13th at which no concerns were raised. Office received one letter of support from an abutter and another letter of support from the Autobahn Circle Neighborhood Association. With that background, our office defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Hello Madam Chair, Tony Baez again from Councilor Sharon Durkan's office. She'd just like to go on record and support.

Thank you. And we have somebody from the public, Brian McWright. If you can unmute yourself. Good day. Yes.

Are you here to speak in support or opposition of this project 857 Beacon Street?

No, I'm in support of 378, 380.

Okay, we're not there yet. That's next. Thank you.

Okay. I think we have Maynard Perez.

Thank you, Mr. Ambassador. Madam Chair, members of the board, Maynard Perez representing the Carpenters Union. We'd like to go in regular support of this project proposal.

Madam Chair, there are no additional comments.

May I have a motion?

Motion to approve.

May I have a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge. Are you on mute, Mr. Stembridge?

Sorry about that, Madam Chair. Yes.

Thank you. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Mr. Ryan? Yes. Ms. Whewell? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Mr. Ronell? Yes. Chair votes yes, motion carries. Good luck.

Thank you Madam Chair, members of the board.

And next we have case VOA 179-9257 with the address of 378-380 Washington Street. If the applicant and the representative, I believe, are present, will they please explain to the board?

Chair, good morning Madam Chair and to the board. My name is Derek Rubinoff from Derek Rubinoff Architecture, 84 Spring Street in West Roxbury. I'll be presenting on the architect for the project and With me online here are the owners Jonas Safar and Brian Johnson. This is a simple project. It's a 3,037 square foot tenancy. Mayor of Brighton City Council From what was previously a temp agency office to a puzzle room. And we need zoning relief for a couple of things. There isn't really a puzzle room category in the Brighton Zoning article in terms of uses.

The use most closely relates to amusement game machines in a commercial establishment. which is a conditional use. And then the second thing that we need relief for is parking, 12 spaces are required. Like I said, it's a simple, pretty simple fit out. We'll be upgrading the tenancy to be a 521C mark compliant. We've presented both the Butters meeting on December 16th and met with the BAIA on January 18th and we have at least 10 letters of support.

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

Madam Chair and members, C. Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This application completed the community process. Our office hosted an abutters meeting on December 16th, 2025, at which no concerns were raised. The applicants met with the Brighton Alston Improvement Association, which is in support of this application. That background, our office defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Chair, there are no additional hands raised at the moment.

Okay. May I have a motion?

Madam Chair, I make a motion of approval.

Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge?

Yeah.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Mr. Langham?

Yes.

Ms. Whewell? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Mr. Bernal?

Yes.

Chair votes yes, the motion carries.

Thank you very much.

At this point,

At this time, we'll go to the rediscussion cases scheduled for 1130 a.m. We'll ask again if there are any requests for withdrawals or deferrals. And hearing none, We will go to case BOA 1787097 with the address of 128 Bennington Street.

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

Yes, thank you, Mr. Stembridge, and good morning again, Madam Chair, members of the board, Richard Lins, 245 Sumner Street, on behalf of the petitioner. If we can jump down to slide four, just to get a little bit of a quick view of the context here. So Madam Chair, members of the board, this is an existing two-story building on Bennington Street, which is the main thoroughfare in East Boston. Newly amended zoning has changed the zoning district to EBR 4, which allows buildings up to four stories, 50 feet in height, along with multi-family use to be allowed as a matter of right. Our proposal would demolish the existing structure that is on the site and rebuild to four stories with four residential units. There's an existing curb cut to the right of our property currently. Our proposal would maintain that. I'll talk a little bit about that when we get into the discussion about the relief that's necessary.

And that setback on the right side that's used for a driveway is also an easement for the property located immediately to our right. So it is necessary that we maintain that setback. If we can go to the next slide, please. It shows our street view. Very common type of design. The building itself was probably lower level commercial use. The upper level was residential. It's currently used as a two-family building and that would, as I said, would be completely demolished and rebuilt to four residential units. As you can see, the existing structure currently sits on the front property line, and that is a very typical condition for buildings along this side of Benefit Street, which we'll discuss when we get to the front yard setback requirement. Next slide, please. It's a different view here and you can see the context of Bennington Street as we go down. Next slide, please.

And then looking back up Bennington Street towards the main intersection with Brooks, you can see the building at the corner, which is reflective of the new zoning and the new height that is permitted in the district. So four stories up to 50 feet in height is permissible. If we can jump down to slide, yeah, let's go to slide nine. So by way of site plan, as you can see, our existing building, the existing building sits at the zero lot line on the left-hand side. We proposed to build our building to that same setback on the left. As you can see that we do maintain to the right the paved driveway which would allow access for up to three vehicles. The relief that would be necessary for this particular proposal as cited by ISD throughout this project has been rear yard, side yard, and front yard.

With respect to the front yard, as I mentioned, we aren't able to meet the modal setback, so the alignment of the block on that side of Benton Street is pretty much at a zero. We would continue to align the building with the zero setback. With respect to the left setback, we would set that up a property line as well as the building is currently set. We would just be expanding it back towards the rear. and on the right side we remain as the driveway with that easement in conjunction with our neighbor to our right. With respect to the rear, so we do set our building back 36 feet, which is sufficient under EBR 4 zoning. For this depth of this lot, however, the stairs do go into the Muir lot slightly, and then we share the parking spaces to the Muir as well. Next slide, please. Next slide. So this is just showing the basement level. And one of the things that we were informed about was that because we are relatively close on elevation-wise,

Based upon C-FRAD, the family room that was proposed in the basement would be eliminated in order to comply with the C-FRAD requirements. So that basement area that does show a family room would be eliminated entirely. We would just utilize this for storage and then obviously CFROD compliant utilities that meet the requirements of Article 25A. Next slide, please. This is the main level, Unit 1. You can scroll through these relatively quickly. Level 2, Level 3, pretty similar to Level 4. We do show a roof deck. The roof deck will be exclusive to Unit 4, the uppermost level. We are accessing that by head house, which is permissible under the requirements for head houses and and for roof decks in the district. With that, I will pause and answer any questions from the board.

Thank you. Questions from the board?

Yeah, I have one quick question. I might have missed it. What is the height of this building? If we can zoom in, I believe we're below the 50-foot limit. If I could be able to zoom in here, I'm going to better look at that. If we could scroll down just a little bit, you want to see what the lowest level is. Yeah, so it shows first grade at 9, 18, I think just under 40 feet total.

Okay, thank you.

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

Hello Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is Evan Jones representing the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services. Regarding 128 Bennington Street, our office defers to the board's judgment A community process was conducted including an abutters meeting on 10-26-25 that was attended by one community member there direct abutter where some productive conversation was had regarding the easement shared by both properties and no other concerns were expressed. The proposal was also reviewed by the Eagle Hill Civic Association at their meeting on 11-19-25. The association expressed support and voted 8 yes and 5 no about the proposal. At this time, the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services defers to the Board's judgment on this matter. Thank you, everyone, for your time and consideration.

Thank you.

Next, we have Christy Simonelli. 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.

Madam Chair, there are no additional comments.

Okay. Any other questions from the board?

Yes, Madam Chair. I'd actually like to hear from Mr. Hampton about the recommendation.

No, you don't. You really don't. I really don't? No, thank you Madam Chair, members of the board, Jeff Anton, City of Boston Planning Department. Our recommendation Denial was based on our interpretation of the plans, but after, you know, Attorney Lins' presentation explaining the stairs are the only thing going into the Rio setback, the elimination of the basement. I cannot change our recommendation, but I believe that Attorney Lins explained The violations clearly and succinctly so we do stand by our recommendation but in light of the presentation it I can't say. You can stop there. I'm going to stop there. Thank you. Okay.

All right. And I see Councilor Coletta's office raised their hand. So if Stefan wants to speak.

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair and members of the board. At this time, the office wanted to go in support of this project. Thank you so much.

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

I make a motion of approval. Is there a second?

Second.

Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Mr. Langham? Yes. Ms. Whewell?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Mr. Bernal? Yes. Chair votes yes, motion carries.

Thank you very much.

Nothing.

Next, we have case VOA 1783703 with the address of 198 Marion Street.

If the applicant and or their representative are present, would they please explain the case to the board? Thank you, Ms. Stembridge. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board, Attorney Jeff Drago with Drago & Toscano with the business address of 11 Beacon Street. Thank you for joining us. In East Boston. The proposal, this building, just as you can see it right there with the brick sort of storefront look to it, has sat idle for a number of years, half renovated and half just left unrenovated. and the proposal is to change the occupancy from a two-family with storefronts to a four-unit building via interior renovations and a vertical addition in the rear on levels two and three. You can go to the next slide.

So that's just what the renovated rendering would look like after if approved and construction was completed. There's also an existing head house which we're proposing to leave on the building and then building an exclusive roof deck to the top floor unit as part of the proposal. That roof deck would be pulled in 10 feet so as you can see in this rendering it's not visible by the naked eye. The proposal last time we actually deferred and the reason we deferred is based on the recommendation from BPDA It had mentioned this falls within a sea fraud district and it is in a flood hazard district as well as GCOD. We raised the elevation to meet all of the requirements of sea fraud, which was 19.5 feet or 19.5 feet from elevation. The new plans that were submitted and reviewed by ISD now meet.

Those requirements as well. The proposal is straightforward. So it's four units. Unit one and two would be on the front. You can see that, right? Right here in this picture where it says 196, that's actually our building. So it goes back, there's already an existing First floor that goes out all the way back. So we're just simply building which is allowed under the plan East Boston on top of that existing structure. So the building height will remain at three stories. We're not going any higher. We're just infilling that back area. Currently it's laid out as two separate retail storefronts, one in the back with its own side entrance and then one on the front. Again, those haven't been used in years.

and so the proposal and working with the Maverick Central Group was to make two smaller units which they preferred on the first floor and then two larger units above on the second and third floor so Unit 1 would be a studio, one bath. Unit 2 would be a one-bedroom, two-bath of 690 square feet. and then units three and four both would be three bedroom, two bath, 1,050 and 1,120 square feet. and so in working with the group we were able to get their strong support for the proposal and this just shows you some of the side views and the roof deck on top that we're adding. The roof deck, as I mentioned, would be exclusive to Unit 4 via that Existing Head House.

It will be pulled back 10 feet and its dimensions are 9 foot 7 by 24 inches. This location is directly across from the airport T station bus stop right on the corner so it makes it A very ideal location for commuters even though we're not able to create parking because we're keeping the existing structure and with that we can answer any questions that the board may have.

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

Hello Madam Chair, members of the board, my name is Elva Jones representing the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services. Regarding 198 Marion Street, our office defers to the board's judgment A community process was conducted including an abutters meeting on 9-22-25 that was lightly attended by the East Boston community. The proposal was also reviewed by the Maverick Central Neighborhood Association at their meeting in October of 2025. The Association expressed support. At this time, the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services defers the Board's judgment on this matter. Thank you, everyone, for your time and consideration.

Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have Stephen Murray. from Consular Coletta.

Hello, Madam Chair, members of the board. At this time, the Councilor Coletta Zapata's office would like to go in support of the project. Thank you so much.

Next, we have Kristen Simonelli. Good morning, Madam Chair and Members of the Board, Christian Seminari, Boston Grower Trust, and we have both G-card letters from the applicant. Thank you. Thank you.

There are no additional comments.

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

I'm just going to make a motion of approval with Planet Department Review.

Is there a second?

Second.

Mr. Stembridge. Young. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Mr. Langham? Yes. Ms. Whewell?

Yes.

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

Thank you very much. Next, we have case BOA 1760013 with the address of 110 West Concord Street.

The applicant and other representative present, would they please point to the board?

Thank you, Secretary Stembridge, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Marcus Springer, architect representing the owner, Cass Comstock, who is here as well. The earlier presentation there was confusion about where the The proposed roof deck was on the existing building so we have done additional drawings to illustrate that. This is our Zoinkov refusal. These are photographs of the site of the proposed deck itself. On the living room. And then this was from the meeting with Landmarks on site doing a mock-up. They gave us a letter of exemption, which you can see there. So this is the plan showing where the roof deck is.

So it's on the second floor. Over top of the living room of Unit 110. So this plan view shows the second floor of Unit 110 and 112. So the comments in the last hearing were the fire escape where they were and just to show that they were not impacted. So this shows that. The deck doesn't impact the fire escape from the shared fire escape of 112 and 110. on both the front and back of the building. The next drawing shows a section of the existing condition of a section through 110. The solarium on the back is the structure to be demolished and replaced with the project. If you go to the next slide.

So this is the proposed unit. The owner's unit makes up the first and second floor. There is a unit in the basement and then further units on the top. So the project is a staircase which accesses the roof deck which is designed on top of the first floor living room. And these are just the drawings that you've already seen of the staircase, how that rises up if you keep going. That's the living room. This is onto the deck itself. and these are elevations, more large scale elevations of the project. One of the concerns of the, and also the board asked us to reach out to the abutter who

He is the owner of the adjoining unit in 112. This is a photograph showing his unit in 112. This angled window in the back Looking directly at the chimney is where the project is. So it doesn't really impact His view, and then the next picture. is showing a view looking out of the living room. That view remains unobstructed. The next picture.

is one showing where you would have to be to see the project, actually sitting in the bay window, looking out the window. and you can see the other window in the kitchen is the fire escape window which you saw in the earlier plan so it's not obstructed. One of the other issues was sunlight and sunset. So we did a number of sunset views showing that the deck would not impede Sunset at any time during the year. As the building is is situated southeast of 112, so it's impossible for it to impact the sunset views. We did reach out to the abutter.

We had a virtual meeting via Zoom with he and his wife, as well as a site visit. where we installed a mock-up. They voiced their concerns of privacy, natural light, Those are the main things and they feel and I think they still feel that the deck next door will lower their Thank you very much. Their primary residence is in the seaport where they live. So they don't rent this place out. So the impact, I think, would be negligible to an empty event.

But I hope these drawings do show the extent of the project so it's not on the roof, it's over the second floor. and the impact one of privacy and light has been mitigated by the design by the head house sloping away from their windows. As well as the largest impact to their windows would be the existing chimney, which you can see in this plan is that kind of M-shaped thing. It's five feet wide and 13 feet tall. It sits directly in front of the window. And with that, I will take any questions from the board. Thank you.

Thank you. Can you remind us why Why a hatch is not feasible?

So a hatch isn't feasible. We want to keep the integrity of this copper roof on the living room below. which is a pretty much intact 19th century room. And as well, we don't want to access Out of the windows because that would then impact the fire escape between 110 and 112. We did look at creating a stair up beside the building, but it would have had too many kind of structural gymnastics. to make that viable. And that's when we landed on the idea of replacing the solarium with stair access to the deck. The solarium currently is the owner's office. She's a real estate agent.

So the office is also in the new plans. And we found that was the easiest way to access the deck was to just go up a normal staircase.

Other questions from the board?

Madam Chair, could we hear from Jeff Hampton?

That would be great. Mr. Hampton?

Thank you Madam Chair, members of the board, Jeff Hampton, City of Boston Planning Department. We didn't see these new documents, which is why our recommendation hasn't changed. So I would have to leave it to the to the board to make the decision on this, but we just didn't have anything to review to make any determination whether or not to change our recommendation.

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

Hello, Madam Chairman, members of the board. My name is Eva Jones. I'm representing the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services. Regarding 110 West Concord Street, our office defers to the board's judgment A community process was conducted, including in a Butters meeting held on 8-26-25 that was lightly attended by two South End community members who did not provide any questions or feedback. My office has also received 14 letters of support from the applicant that were submitted to the board. The proposal was not in the catchment of an 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 the Neighborhood Services defers to the Board's judgment on this matter. Thank you, everyone, for your time and consideration.

Thank you. Thank you. We have Mo Tameni, please. You have 90 seconds.

Yes, hi, thank you. I'll lower my hand now. So good morning. My name is Mohamed Hamidi. I live at unit number 2, 112 West Concord Street, immediately adjacent to the proposed project and 110 West Concord Street. where our living room is adjacent and at the same level as the proposed deck. Just to clarify, because this issue was raised, the reason we haven't been staying there is because I got a very bad injury. In September, I was on crutches for a long time and I'm finally back to health. So going up and down the stairs were difficult. That's why we weren't staying in this unit. However, now we plan to fully use it. Onto the topic, the project that's currently designed creates significant impact and should not be approved in its current format. Moreover, we only received partial plans for the proposed deck and received the full plans on the evening of March 7th this past Saturday.

We object to the height component of the project and the closeness of the deck to our living room window, not the entire project. Our living room has a bay window space which provides most of the natural light for our living room and will be most directly affected by this project. and there's also a separate window in our kitchen area which will also be impacted by the project. Because of the projection of the bay window, the proposed deck would come as close as about two to two and a half feet from the left side of our bay window in our living room area. The deck floor would also sit above the bottom of our bay windows, meaning that people standing on the deck would have a direct line of sight into our living room. Because of that proximity and elevation, the project would significantly affect privacy, light, and view from our main living space.

This is confirmed because our architect prepared a section drawing and an existing versus proposed shadow study on the bay window area close to the proposed deck, which were submitted to the board. These illustrations clearly show the reduction of natural light entering our living space and substantial reduction in privacy under proposed design. For these reasons, and given the height and closeness of the proposed deck to our living room windows, and the impact on privacy and light, we respectfully ask the board to take a careful look at whether this design represents the minimum relief necessary under the new design. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Next, we have Kim Damokosh.

Hi, I am an abutter. I live directly across the street at 119 West Concord. I've seen the plans and designs and I wanted to join today to express my support for the project. The structure is going to be in the rear of the building so it won't be visible but I think the design is not only beautiful but it's also low impact and it's cohesive to the existing aesthetic For those reasons, I strongly support this project. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have the person with the iPhone.

Ingrid Evans. Can you hear me? Yes, ma'am. Yes, I live at 110 West Concord on the third floor, so I'd be right above the deck, and I support this project. I've seen the plans. I do think that it would be a beautiful addition to the neighborhood and 112, which is next to us, that goes out the back. A little bit of an eyesore, so I think that this, what their proposed project would add a lot of beauty to the back alley.

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

Yes, Brian Nevins, also at 110 West Concord Street, right next to 112. Nice to meet you, neighbor. I've been here three years, so nice to meet you. And I can attest that I've seen the plans. They look great. and I could also attest to the sunset which we see every day and we know the way the sun moves over the course of the day and I can't imagine it would compromise any sunlight and fully support the project.

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

Thank you. Other questions from the Board? Anything else the applicant must add regarding the concerns expressed?

We did offer to make a portion of the rail like a frosted glass to mitigate light issues. However, we didn't hear anything back about that. So we'd rather just keep it as it is.

May I respond to that? No, you cannot. We are deliberating at this time. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions from the board? May I have a motion?

Madam Chair, I'll put in a motion of approval.

Second?

Second.

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

Thank you.

Madam Chair, we have an interpretation case scheduled for noon time. So I'll read that into the record and go from there. This is case BOA 1689794 with the address of 62 to 66 Condor Street.

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

Yes, thank you, Mrs. Stembridge. Madam Chair, members of the board, Richard Lins, 245 Sumner Street, East Boston, on behalf of the petitioner, as I indicated to the board through staff that we are deferring this matter should be one final time. As you can see, there are a number of violations that are cited. We've had a number of them removed by ISD. However, that particular examiner is no longer with ISD, so we're just working on a reassignment so that we can address the last item. I think a brief deferral should help us get that completed and hopefully we can withdraw this on the next hearing.

Okay. What dates are we looking at? We can do April 28th May 5th, May 19th, June 2nd.

People's 20th should be fine. Thank you, Carol.

Okay. May I have a motion?

Motion to defer to April the 20th.

Was that 20th or 20th?

28.

Okay, thank you. May I have a second? Second. To Stembridge.

Yeah.

Mr. Valencia.

Yes.

Mr. Langham.

Yes.

Ms. Whewell? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Mr. Bernal? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Thank you.

Have a great day.

Thank you.

and with that we will turn to the last case from the 1130 time frame and that would this would be case BOA 179

0972 with the address of 567 to 577 Adams Street.

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

Thank you, Mr. Stembridge. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the board. This is Mike Ross with the law firm of Prince Lobel. I'm here with the owners of the property, Brian and Jason Chavez. Two brothers who grew up in Dorchester within a couple of miles from this location and still live there today. I'm also here with the architect Tim Sheehan, who's on the call. This property is an 11,754 double lot consisting of two parcels, as you can see here, one in front of the other. The plan is to renovate the existing structure from a two-family to include three units, and then given the length, We can sit on the first one. Thank you, Mr. Ambassador. Given the length of the lot to build five connecting townhouses that descend toward the back, these eight units total will be sold for homeownership.

and there will also be one affordable unit available to someone at 80% of median income. Next slide, please, Mr. Ambassador. So this is the architect's site plan and it shows how the units will layout. Adams Street is on the right side of the screen. That first rectangle there is approximately where the existing property sits and will now become the three floor-through units. Each will be a three bedroom, two bath. with approximately 1,375 square feet. And then behind the existing structure will be the five townhouses units with parking. They are two bedroom, two bath, and they're approximately 1276 square feet. There's also here shown four parking spaces along the side of the lot. In that area that juts out for a total of nine parking spaces for the eight units, which is one less than is required by zoning.

Ten would be required by zoning. And then on the zoning chart that you see just in the upper right hand corner, these are the dimensional variances that are needed to reasonably develop this long linear lot. particularly to use that second lot in rare. And according to the Boston Planning Memo, which supported this project, the dimensional variances are, quote, similar to the neighboring structures. Here the FAR is just slightly over 1 at 1.1. The height is compliant at 34, though the number of stories for the building is F3, which is above the 2.5 requirement, but consistent with many of the three-story properties on this side of the road and to the north. The additional dimensional variances would be front yard, which is an existing violation on the existing structure, but more consistent now with the building alignment of the street, the side yard on the right side only, is a violation.

Is that just over five and a 10? That's also an existing violation. And then the rear yard, we are providing 15 and a 20. So we can go to the next slide now. And so these were just some existing images of the property today. As you can see, there's an existing curb cut and driveway along the left side of the building. It will continue to be utilized, but the existing garage there will be removed and the driveway will be replaced with pervious pavers to allow groundwater to enter the land. Next slide, please. This layout here shows at the bottom the basement and then above the first floor plan.

Off the back of these five townhouses at the top of the screen are an exterior stairwell which ties the ground floor patio space to the second floor balcony in each unit. and then the front units also have outdoor space each with their own 180 square foot deck off the main bedroom. Next slide, please. This layout here shows the second floor at the bottom and the third floor where the bedrooms and the townhouses are. and then here you can see the individual second floor decks off the kitchens of the townhouses on the second floor. Next slide, please. And this shows the top of the building featuring roof decks for each of the five townhouses providing maximum use of open space. The lower drawing shows the elevation from the driveway side.

Next slide please. So these images show the front, rear, and side elevations for the building. I'll point out that the slanted head house on the roof is designed to minimize protrusions. Next slide please. Here I wanted to point out two other addresses that are within the same and the adjoining block of this property. Each has a similar characteristic in that the properties are linear. and the structures are set sideways like the proposed project. So it's something that's already in occurrence in this area. But unlike these two properties, 567 Adams Street does front the sidewalk with its original building so as to not face a blank wall toward the front of the street. Next slide and last slide.

So this here is the landscape plan and I'll point out that the existing oak trees at the right rear of the property will remain. The driveway will be converted to pervious pavers. There will be new plantings of three 20-foot American beech trees along the front of the property. And then along the side of the property, there will be plantings of five 10-foot birch trees, along with other plantings throughout the site. I'll pause there and see if there are any comments. Thank you.

Thank you. Questions from the board?

Yes, Mr. Ross, for how many units again do you have for this project? Eight units. So I understand that you need to have a housing agreement with MOH? Correct. For how many units?

Well, it comes out to about 1.3. So according to the ordinance, you would round down and you would pay the 0.37 access of what's to get to the 17th. So there will definitely be one unit, and then we'll probably have to make a payment to the Mayor's Office of Housing, but that will have to be negotiated through that agreement.

Thank you. The other thing is that I'm looking at your site plan and some parking is in a garage, but some of the parking is outdoors, and I'm wondering if You can have, you can switch the parking to have one space per unit. So you increase the open space, your sole open space for residents.

I understand the question. You know, so these will be, I mean, the board minimo kind of talks about this a little bit. These will be family-sized units, the townhouses. And so there is a... A minimum of one parking space per unit. The additional parking spaces might be used for visitors or might be in a case where there's someone in that and that building has in that set of buildings has a second car these will be condominiums so either the condominium association would You keep those or they'd be sold with the additional unit. Those will be, but definitely the townhouses each have their space. The front units, which are fourth through, don't have any parking in their building. So if they wanted to have parking They would have to use three of those four that are off to the side.

And like I said, there is a pattern of at least having one parking space, especially with condominiums, homeownership. in this area to be able to allow these family size units for grocery shopping and that kind of thing.

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

Hello Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Evan Jones, representing the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services. Regarding 567 to 577 Adams Street, our office differs to the board's judgment. A community process was conducted, including on a Butters meeting held on Tuesday, June 24, 2025, attended by several Dorchester community members. The feedback from this meeting was significant concerns about the parking in the neighborhood and the current issue already facing them being possibly exacerbated. and increasing density in the neighborhood. Additionally, we received one letter expressing opposition to the proposal, relaying similar concerns that were expressed in the abutters meeting. The proposal was also reviewed by the St. Mark's Area Civic Association at their meeting on 9-30-25. The association voted 2 in favor and 12 opposed and has expressed The increased density is too high and may be more amenable to members if there was a reduction of two units from eight to six units. A formal opposition email was submitted to the board.

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

Ms. Jones, can you clarify at the start, you mentioned concerns around parking, so what was the concern? That there was too much on the site or too little?

In Door Transfer, the concerns are often too little parking for most cases. Okay, thank you.

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

Thank you. Next, we have Andrew Galvin.

Hello Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Andrew Galvin representing Councilman Murphy's office. She would like to go on the record in support of this project. Thank you. Thank you. Madam Chair, there are no additional comments.

Okay.

Madam Chair, just for the record, we did submit upwards of 20 letters of support from bona fide residents near the project. I was hoping Ms. Jones received those. If not, I can forward them to him, but I know the board did receive those. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, with that, any other questions from the board? May I have a motion?

I make a motion approval. We approve that the housing agreement with the mayoral office of housing. Also the project review with the planning department. and special attention to reviewing and increasing the open space with the potential of reducing parking to one space per unit.

Is there a second?

Second.

Mr. Stembridge.

Yes.

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

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Thank you very much. Have a nice day. Thank you. Thank you, everyone.

Have a great day. Have a good day, folks.