[2:35] Recording in progress.

[2:43] Good morning the City of Boston

[2:44] Zoning Board of Appeal hearing

[2:47] for SEPTEMBER 8th, 2026 is now

[2:48] in session.

[2:50] This hearing is being conducted

[2:51] in accordance with the

[2:52] applicable provisions of the

[2:54] Open Meeting Law, including the

[2:55] updated provisions enacted by

[2:56] the legislature this year.

[2:58] The new law allows the board to

[3:00] continue its practice

[3:01] of holding virtual hearings

[3:02] through JUNE 2027.

[3:04] This hearing of the board is

[3:05] being held remotely via the

[3:07] zoom webinar event platform and

[3:08] is also being live streamed.

[3:12] In order to ensure this hearing

[3:13] of the board is open to the

[3:13] public.

[3:15] Members of the public MAY

[3:17] access this hearing through

[3:18] telephone and video

[3:18] conferencing.

[3:20] The information for connecting

[3:21] to this hearing is listed on

[3:23] today's hearing agenda, which

[3:25] is posted on the Public notices

[3:27] page of the city's website

[3:27] boston.Gov.

[3:29] Members of the public will

[3:31] enter the virtual hearing as

[3:32] attendees, which means you will

[3:34] not see yourself on the screen

[3:35] and you will be muted

[3:36] throughout unless

[3:36] administratively unmuted.

[3:38] When asked to comment for

[3:39] members, applicants and their

[3:41] attorneys or representatives

[3:42] will participate in the hearing

[3:44] as panels and they will appear

[3:45] alongside the presentation

[3:46] materials when speaking.

[3:48] Panelists are strongly

[3:49] encouraged to keep video on

[3:51] while presenting to the board.

[3:54] As with our in-person meetings

[3:56] ,comments and support will be

[3:57] followed by comments and

[3:57] opposition.

[3:59] The order of comments is as

[4:00] follows.

[4:02] Elected officials,

[4:02] representatives of elected

[4:04] officials and members of the

[4:04] public.

[4:06] The chair MAY limit the number

[4:08] of people called upon to offer

[4:09] comment at the time for

[4:11] commenting as time constraints

[4:11] require.

[4:13] That reason the board prefers

[4:14] to hear from members of the

[4:16] public who are most impacted by

[4:17] a project that is those

[4:19] individuals who live closest to

[4:19] the project.

[4:23] If you wish to comment on an

[4:25] appeal, please click the Raise

[4:26] Hand button along the bottom

[4:27] of your screen in the Zoom

[4:28] webinar platform.

[4:30] Click it again and your hand

[4:31] should go down.

[4:32] When the host sees your hand

[4:33] you will receive the request to

[4:34] unmute yourself.

[4:36] So yes and you should be able

[4:37] to talk if you are connected to

[4:39] the hearing by telephone please

[4:40] press star nine to raise and

[4:41] lower your hand.

[4:43] You must press star six to

[4:44] unmute yourself after you

[4:45] receive the request from the

[4:46] host.

[4:47] Those called upon to comment

[4:49] will be asked to state their

[4:51] name and address first and then

[4:51] provide can provide for

[4:52] comment.

[4:56] In the interest of time and to

[4:57] ensure that you have enough

[4:59] time to do so, please raise

[5:00] your hand as soon as MR.

[5:01] Stonebridge reads the address

[5:02] into the record.

[5:03] Do not raise your hand before

[5:05] the relevant address is called

[5:06] or the meeting host will not

[5:07] know to call on you at the

[5:08] appropriate time.

[5:09] We ask that you keep your

[5:11] comments brief and all public

[5:12] testimony will be limited to

[5:13] 90s per speaker.

[5:17] Okay MR. Bridge.

[5:25] Are you here, MR. Stonebridge?

[5:28] Okay, I'll keep going.

[5:32] Uh, MR. Valencia with more of a

[5:34] ship presence this morning,

[5:35] MISS Turner.

[5:37] MADAM Chair present.

[5:40] Good morning, MISS Barbosa.

[5:41] Good morning, MADAM Chair.

[5:42] PRESIDENT.

[5:44] Good morning as we will.

[5:46] Good morning, MADAM Chair.

[5:46] Present.

[5:49] Good morning, MR. Langham.

[5:51] Good morning, MADAM Chair

[5:52] PRESIDENT.

[5:53] Good morning.

[5:56] I'm going to circle back to MR.

[5:56] Stonebridge because I.

[5:58] I know they're here.

[6:02] Are you here with technical

[6:02] difficulty?

[6:04] Okay.

[6:05] We have a note that says MR.

[6:07] Stonebridge is present.

[6:09] So I hope we can hear you in a

[6:10] second because the floor is

[6:11] yours.

[6:13] All right.

[6:14] Waiting on it for sound.

[6:15] Okay.

[6:18] We have to resolve that city

[6:19] hall it issue.

[6:23] All right, so let's wait

[6:25] patiently because we need MR.

[6:25] Sandwich.

[6:41] MADAM Chair, just before I, um

[6:44] ,people are returning to the

[6:48] to consult uh, sometimes if you

[6:50] call them, they will be not

[6:53] allowed to get themselves right

[6:53] .

[6:55] So once again if you are in

[6:57] that in this section please

[6:59] make sure that you you are on

[7:00] the panel section if not if you

[7:02] are in that section then and

[7:06] also into the request yourself.

[7:13] Okay so thanks for everyone's

[7:13] patience again.

[7:15] There seems to be a technical

[7:15] issue.

[7:20] Uh at see that were better is

[7:20] being addressed.

[7:44] Yes MADAM Chair.

[7:47] My name is Craig Martin from

[7:47] Hyde Park.

[7:49] I thought a gentleman I think

[7:50] he was a board member just

[7:51] spoke something about if you

[7:55] call in be sure to do this or

[7:58] uh that is uh he's just there

[8:00] was just just a little advices

[8:02] gentleman just gave I didn't I

[8:03] didn't hear who was.

[8:06] I think there are some people

[8:07] who are trying yeah I you go

[8:08] ahead.

[8:08] Yeah.

[8:09] Sorry.

[8:11] MADAM Chair yes.

[8:13] No you have are you allowed to

[8:16] unmute yourself because I think

[8:18] the phone so is no allow me to

[8:18] promote.

[8:20] But you're.

[8:23] Saying it's my cellphone is you

[8:23] turn.

[8:25] I thank you for, um, playing

[8:28] that um problem.

[8:40] Are you able to hear me?

[8:43] Yes.

[8:45] Okay.

[8:48] Sorry, I I I seem to have had

[8:49] an audio problem.

[8:50] Okay.

[8:52] This is going to be a rough

[8:52] day.

[8:53] Okay.

[8:54] Yeah.

[9:54] MADAM Chair, can you hear me?

[10:01] Uh, yes I can.

[10:02] Here we go.

[10:05] Um, bear with us.

[10:07] We're trying to move forward,

[10:08] but, um.

[10:09] Yes, I am present.

[10:10] Yes.

[10:11] I'm here.

[10:11] Okay.

[10:16] Well, uh, if you if you want to

[10:17] proceed without video, the

[10:18] floor is yours.

[10:20] If you want to wait, let us

[10:20] know.

[10:24] Uh, well, we'll, um we'll

[10:26] proceed with the video for the

[10:30] moment and then I will try and

[10:34] get ourselves, um, together

[10:36] again to get help from my team.

[10:36] Sure.

[10:37] Okay.

[10:38] That sounds okay.

[10:41] So bear with me, please.

[10:42] Uh.

[10:58] I'm still here.

[10:59] I'm just trying to get in the

[11:00] right place.

[11:00] Sure.

[11:07] All right.

[11:10] Um, we will begin today's

[11:11] meeting with the approval

[11:13] of hearing minutes scheduled

[11:14] for 9:30 A.M..

[11:18] These minutes are from AUGUST

[11:18] 11th.

[11:21] And with that I will put forth

[11:23] the motion of approval.

[11:26] Thank you.

[11:27] MAY I have a second?

[11:27] Second.

[11:29] MISTER Stonebridge.

[11:31] Yes.

[11:33] MISTER Valencia.

[11:34] Yes.

[11:34] MISS Turner?

[11:36] Yes.

[11:37] Could there's been a browser?

[11:38] Yes.

[11:39] As we well.

[11:40] Yeah.

[11:42] This is the Langham.

[11:43] Yes.

[11:46] Chair votes.

[11:46] Yes.

[11:46] The motion carries.

[11:55] Next we have.

[11:58] Next we have the extensions

[12:00] scheduled for 9:30 A.M..

[12:04] Here are 12 cases scheduled.

[12:09] Um, I will read I will read

[12:12] through all of them and then,

[12:15] um, be a building volunteer.

[12:18] Uh, I'll read through if there

[12:19] are any questions.

[12:21] Uh, we can address those.

[12:23] Um, that's our first reading.

[12:23] Sure.

[12:32] Uh, first we have case voa

[12:32] 1349675.

[12:35] The address of for Street.

[12:43] Next we have case voa 1599560.

[12:46] The address of 7 to 9 Park

[12:46] Street.

[12:49] Next we have.

[12:59] Uh, case voa 1304433 with the

[13:01] address of ten Thompson Square.

[13:10] Next we have case voa 1153496

[13:12] with the address of 59 two Ox

[13:13] Street.

[13:22] Next we have case voa 1625948

[13:26] with the address of 116 to 121

[13:26] Washington Street.

[13:34] Next we have case voa 667111

[13:37] with the address of 151

[13:38] Liverpool Street.

[13:43] Next we have case voa 136.

[13:52] 1369555 with the address

[13:54] of 2207 Dorchester Avenue.

[14:02] Next we have case voa 1626437

[14:05] with the address of 58 Cedras

[14:06] Avenue.

[14:14] Next we have case voa 1348765

[14:17] with the address of 155 Port

[14:17] Street.

[14:26] Next we have case voa 1552342

[14:29] with the address of 43 Hudgins

[14:30] Street.

[14:37] Next we have case voa 1552344

[14:39] with the address of 43 are

[14:40] watching Street.

[14:47] And finally we have case voa

[14:49] 1398736 with the address

[14:51] of five Warren Avenue.

[14:55] MADAM Chair those are the

[14:57] extensions scheduled for today

[14:57] .

[14:58] Thank you.

[14:59] Are there any questions from

[15:00] the board?

[15:02] Yeah.

[15:04] I have a question for, uh,

[15:07] Caroline in also I wanted to

[15:09] ask board members if they have

[15:12] an opinion about this case for,

[15:14] uh, the island is 151 Liverpool

[15:15] Street.

[15:18] This is the eighth request for

[15:19] an extension.

[15:21] So I understand that this case

[15:25] had been extended over a period

[15:25] of 6 or 7 years.

[15:29] And for the record, they wanted

[15:32] to ask, uh, Caroline how many

[15:34] times a proponent or when a

[15:36] project can be, uh, extended

[15:38] and then ask my colleague board

[15:40] members if they have an opinion

[15:40] out loud.

[15:43] Um, how many down?

[15:44] We can't just keep extending

[15:45] cases.

[15:47] What about the other question

[15:49] for Caroline is what's what's

[15:53] the alternative if it's just

[15:54] for a separation?

[15:55] I know this case.

[15:57] They have their motives with

[15:59] extension of that thing that is

[16:01] seems compelling but just for

[16:03] general understanding of the

[16:04] process I wanted to ask again a

[16:05] clarification about this.

[16:06] Thank you.

[16:08] Of course.

[16:09] So it's at the board's

[16:11] discretion to grant as many

[16:12] extensions as you would like.

[16:14] Um, in terms of the Permanent

[16:16] Extension Act, um, under

[16:19] Governor Healy, um, any permit

[16:23] active from 23 to 25 um has an

[16:24] additional two years

[16:25] automatically.

[16:27] Um, so this would technically

[16:29] be like a formality.

[16:33] Um, but after 2027, um the

[16:35] board if for some reason the

[16:37] work they still need an

[16:38] extension the board can grant

[16:40] it or deny it and then and in

[16:42] that case the board to deny the

[16:42] extension.

[16:45] Um, the permit would then be

[16:46] abandoned and they would have

[16:47] to reapply.

[16:51] They could away of course.

[16:52] Okay.

[16:53] Any other questions?

[16:54] Yep.

[16:55] It's got a question.

[16:58] Okay.

[17:00] If there are no other questions

[17:03] or discussion, MAY I have a

[17:04] motion to grant the extensions

[17:05] as requested?

[17:08] Motion to put the extensions

[17:10] except for questions.

[17:11] Is there a second?

[17:14] Back in MISTER Savage?

[17:16] Yes.

[17:18] MISTER Valencia?

[17:18] Yes.

[17:20] MISS Turner?

[17:21] Yes.

[17:23] MISS Better.

[17:23] Brazeau.

[17:24] Yes.

[17:26] As we will.

[17:26] Yes.

[17:29] MISTER Langham.

[17:30] Yes.

[17:31] Chair votes.

[17:31] Yes.

[17:32] The motion carries.

[17:36] Thank you.

[17:41] That next will move on to the

[17:43] recommendations schedule from

[17:46] the, uh from this subject from

[17:47] the subcommittee.

[17:51] Um, I'll read them all in if

[17:53] there are any questions, we can

[17:55] entertain those at that time.

[17:57] And then go from there.

[18:02] Um, now we'll begin with case

[18:08] voa wanting to 2390 with the

[18:13] address of two 276 278

[18:15] Washington Street and I'll hold

[18:15] on.

[18:18] Um and please let me interject

[18:20] that all of these cases, uh,

[18:22] were approved by the

[18:22] subcommittee.

[18:27] Um, as was this one.

[18:35] Next we have case voa 1839200

[18:38] with the address of 587 587

[18:42] eight East Broadway which was

[18:42] approved.

[18:49] Next we have case voa 1807140

[18:52] with the address of 269 Silver

[18:53] Street which was approved.

[19:01] Next we have case voa 1829 9000

[19:05] with the address of 141 to 113

[19:08] North Chester revenue which was

[19:08] approved.

[19:17] Next we have case voa 1833903

[19:21] with the address of 107 Russell

[19:25] Street which was approved with

[19:28] um with planning department

[19:31] design review and MADAM Chair,

[19:32] those are the recommendations

[19:33] from the subcommittee.

[19:35] We see you guys.

[19:36] Nice to see you.

[19:38] We're getting there.

[19:41] Any questions from the board?

[19:45] MAY I have a motion to approve?

[19:49] Or censure about you?

[19:53] MAY I have a second?

[19:55] Second.

[19:57] MISTER Stonebridge.

[19:58] Yes.

[20:00] MISTER Valencia.

[20:01] Yes.

[20:02] MISS Turner?

[20:03] Yes.

[20:05] Is better.

[20:06] Barraza.

[20:06] Yes.

[20:08] MISS.

[20:08] We will.

[20:10] Yes.

[20:11] MISTER Langham.

[20:12] Yes.

[20:14] Chair votes.

[20:14] Yes.

[20:15] The motion carried.

[20:23] Next we'll move on to the

[20:23] building.

[20:25] To a building case building

[20:28] code case scheduled for 9:30

[20:28] A.M..

[20:36] This is case voa 187795.

[20:38] They put the address on for

[20:39] Haynes Street.

[20:42] If the applicant and their

[20:43] representative present would

[20:45] they please explain to the

[20:45] board.

[20:46] Thank you.

[20:49] MR. Bridge thank you, MADAM

[20:49] Chair.

[20:51] Members of the board attorney

[20:52] Jeff Drago of a Dre going to

[20:55] scowl here on behalf of the

[20:57] applicant developer for Haynes

[20:57] Street.

[21:00] I also have David Freed from

[21:00] Troy.

[21:00] Uh.

[21:01] Who's here?

[21:03] We design the plans.

[21:05] Uh, we it's pretty

[21:06] straightforward.

[21:08] Uh, the case we're seeking

[21:09] building code relief.

[21:11] Uh, because this project when

[21:13] it was originally approved uh

[21:16] was approved for, uh, two

[21:19] private exclusive rooftop decks

[21:20] to be accessed by hatch and

[21:22] that was something.

[21:24] Uh zoning board as well as the

[21:24] community.

[21:26] I had supported to keep the

[21:28] height uh, at a reasonable

[21:29] level and they frowned upon

[21:32] having uh, additional bulky

[21:33] penthouses on top.

[21:36] Uh, this project was originally

[21:36] approved by a different

[21:38] developer and architectural

[21:38] team.

[21:40] Project was then sold.

[21:43] Uh upon uh after the project

[21:45] had already been granted uh, a

[21:48] at risk permit uh, to start

[21:48] construction.

[21:52] Uh, it was uh re reviewed a new

[21:53] plans examiner the old plans

[21:55] examiner had left found

[21:57] additional the zoning

[21:58] violations that we actually had

[22:00] to come back to this board to

[22:00] grant relief.

[22:04] However, um, this building code

[22:05] variance uh, request was missed

[22:06] .

[22:08] It was only brought up after a

[22:10] full permit was actually issued

[22:10] .

[22:12] So the permit was issued

[22:14] contingent now upon coming back

[22:16] to the board uh, to grant that

[22:17] relief.

[22:19] Um and so to prevent a hardship

[22:21] this building is is already

[22:21] constructed.

[22:23] These are going to be sold as

[22:24] as condos.

[22:26] This is something that, uh, the

[22:28] community had asked for uh, as

[22:30] well uh, to keep to not have

[22:31] the penthouse.

[22:34] The proposed alternative which

[22:36] are shown in the the plans is a

[22:38] low profile roof hatch access

[22:40] rather than full penthouse.

[22:43] Uh, the roof hatches bulkheads

[22:45] would be limited to

[22:47] approximately 30in above the

[22:48] roof deck, which is consistent

[22:50] with zoning limitations.

[22:52] Uh, proposed three foot by

[22:55] seven foot roof hatches would

[22:56] have assisted opening hold

[22:59] hardware and all required a

[23:00] guard rails as well.

[23:02] Um, this project was approved.

[23:04] It was a foreign unit building

[23:06] and the top units.

[23:07] Uh, these are exclusive roof

[23:08] decks as I mentioned only for

[23:10] those top floor units.

[23:13] Uh, normally this could have

[23:15] been resolved uh, at the board

[23:15] prior.

[23:16] I understand.

[23:18] Um, but this was only brought

[23:21] to our attention and um, it was

[23:22] issued and we're hoping relief

[23:23] could be granted.

[23:25] I can pause the architects on

[23:26] the call as well.

[23:27] Uh.

[23:27] Thank you.

[23:28] Thank you.

[23:30] Are there questions from the

[23:30] board?

[23:33] Uh, one question, MADAM Chair.

[23:34] Can you hear me now?

[23:35] Yes, sir.

[23:36] Thank.

[23:41] Sorry.

[23:42] What was your question?

[23:45] I'm sorry I hot but my question

[23:47] is just to make sure we're back

[23:48] on track here.

[23:48] Oh, okay.

[23:49] Sorry.

[23:51] I thought it was a question for

[23:51] turn.

[23:52] Okay.

[23:52] Sorry.

[23:53] Uh.

[23:54] Any questions?

[23:55] Any other questions from the

[23:55] board?

[23:58] Um, MADAM Chair, I had a chance

[23:59] to review the plans and the

[24:00] request seems pretty

[24:01] straightforward.

[24:02] Thank you.

[24:05] Okay.

[24:07] If there are no other questions

[24:08] or comments, is there a motion?

[24:10] MADAM Chair, I like to go

[24:12] forward a motion of approval to

[24:14] approve, um, a building code

[24:16] relief to to allow for the

[24:18] hatches as opposed to the

[24:18] penthouse.

[24:20] MAY I have a second?

[24:23] Back in this is Enbridge.

[24:26] Yes, MR. Valencia.

[24:29] Yes, MISS Turner?

[24:30] Yes.

[24:31] Is better.

[24:32] Barraza.

[24:33] Yes.

[24:35] As we well.

[24:36] Yeah.

[24:38] That MR. Langham.

[24:39] Yes.

[24:41] Chair votes yes.

[24:42] The motion carries.

[24:42] Good luck.

[24:43] Thank you very much.

[24:44] Members of the board.

[24:48] That will move on to the

[24:50] hearings scheduled for 9:30

[24:51] A.M..

[24:53] At this time we'll ask if there

[24:56] are any requests for withdrawal

[24:57] or deferral of the night.

[24:58] There.

[25:04] MR. Greer.

[25:07] Good morning, MR. Standridge.

[25:09] Good morning, MADAM Chair.

[25:10] Members of the board.

[25:11] My name is Brian screw up here

[25:12] and on behalf of the applicant

[25:16] for 26 Dash 30 Birch Street.

[25:18] Uh, with the consent of the

[25:20] board, I'd like to ask for a

[25:20] brief continuance.

[25:22] MADAM Chair, you MAY remember

[25:23] this matter.

[25:23] Sorry.

[25:25] Can MR. Number do read the case

[25:26] into the record?

[25:27] I'm sorry.

[25:29] And actually I'm sorry you're

[25:29] asking for what?

[25:30] 26 Birch Street.

[25:32] 26 Bird Street?

[25:33] Yes.

[25:35] So you'll have to wait until

[25:37] MR. Stonebridge, uh, asks about

[25:39] deferrals at the 1130 timeframe

[25:40] .

[25:42] Uh, we're asking about the 930

[25:43] time frame right now.

[25:46] I believe it was scheduled for

[25:47] 930, MADAM Chair, but at the.

[25:54] You know, work that I, um as

[25:57] MADAM Chair the that is

[26:00] scheduled for 11:00 here.

[26:03] I'm sorry though.

[26:04] Oh, yeah.

[26:08] Um, if you if I could find it

[26:09] up, I'm sure.

[26:11] Okay.

[26:14] So are there any any deferrals

[26:16] or withdrawals for the 930?

[26:21] With that I'll turn I'll turn

[26:22] it back over to you this

[26:23] DECEMBER.

[26:27] The hearing none on to the

[26:30] first case would be 930 which

[26:37] is case voa 1873156 with the

[26:38] address of eight Bar Street.

[26:42] If the applicant is or their

[26:44] representative present who then

[26:45] please explain to the board.

[26:56] Um you good morning.

[26:59] Uh, am I coming through?

[27:00] Uh.

[27:00] Yes, sir.

[27:02] Thank you.

[27:03] I just hit the panel.

[27:03] It.

[27:09] Well thank you.

[27:10] Member MADAM CHAIRMAN, members

[27:11] of the board Nestor Lemus,

[27:14] owner of Lawrence Street as per

[27:16] the refusal letter.

[27:18] Uh, this is a restricted area

[27:21] for roof deck and I am seeking

[27:22] relief where proposed roof deck

[27:23] a flat pitched roof.

[27:26] We submitted the the plans as

[27:28] pursuant to what we're seeing

[27:31] here with the survey and we uh

[27:33] according to the analysis

[27:35] conducted by the architect our,

[27:37] um, David Choi, we meet all the

[27:38] dimensional patrols by way

[27:41] of height setbacks in the front

[27:43] and the total building.

[27:46] And so we're seeking relief

[27:48] of the restricted area house is

[27:50] located in Charlestown, mass.

[27:55] When we talk about this, the

[27:56] size and the visibility from

[27:59] the street, how far is it

[28:00] setback that particular if we

[28:01] can go back one slide please.

[28:03] That particular picture is a

[28:05] good dimension.

[28:07] On the bottom is the abutters

[28:08] side.

[28:11] On the right side is the main

[28:12] street and it has a setback.

[28:14] I can't read that right now but

[28:15] it looks like it's about ten

[28:17] plus feet from the front which

[28:19] is large street and in the rear

[28:21] it also has a set setback.

[28:25] A total square footage is

[28:27] 250ft2 which remains within the

[28:29] for about 192.

[28:31] Thank you.

[28:33] Other questions from the board.

[28:37] Hearing none MAY have a public

[28:38] discussion.

[28:40] I do have our question.

[28:43] Um and it might be for bpd um

[28:45] our roof hatches allowed or

[28:48] they need a relief as well for

[28:48] building code.

[28:54] This is just the last case and

[28:55] there was missed.

[29:00] That's what we're concerned

[29:01] with.

[29:02] Yes.

[29:03] Hamptons on are you on MR.

[29:04] Hampton?

[29:08] I I've seen you.

[29:12] It's my understanding if I MAY

[29:15] input from my architect because

[29:17] if we look at the same slide if

[29:19] we go upward this two air

[29:20] conditioning system the

[29:22] condensers and if you stay

[29:25] within the height we have the

[29:26] roof hatch that's already

[29:28] installed as a means

[29:30] of accessing the hvac systems

[29:31] that are up in the roof.

[29:35] If you stay within it certain

[29:36] height requirements which we

[29:38] are but right I'm ready for the

[29:40] new program is proposed

[29:40] correct.

[29:42] It's you know it's it's

[29:44] existing it's existing okay yes

[29:45] I don't have any further

[29:48] questions okay with that matter

[29:50] public testimony MADAM Chair

[29:52] and board members good morning

[29:52] .

[29:53] Also with the Office

[29:54] of Neighborhood Services this

[29:56] petitioner completed the

[29:56] community process.

[29:58] Our office hosted an Abutters

[30:00] meeting on JUNE 22nd at which

[30:01] no public comments were made.

[30:03] With that background onus to

[30:04] affirm his judgment to the

[30:04] board.

[30:05] Thank you.

[30:09] Next we have Ashley from

[30:10] Councilors Flynn.

[30:12] Thank you.

[30:13] My name is actually from

[30:14] Counselor Friends Office.

[30:15] Councilor Flynn would like to

[30:16] go on record in support.

[30:17] Thank you.

[30:20] To any additional comments.

[30:23] Thank without MAY I have a

[30:24] motion?

[30:30] MADAM Chair I like to put

[30:31] forward motion of approval

[30:34] there a second back in MR.

[30:35] Semaj.

[30:36] Yeah.

[30:41] MR. Valencia yes, MISS Turner

[30:42] yes.

[30:46] MISS Barbarossa yes, as we will

[30:49] MISS MR. Langham.

[30:51] Yes, chair.

[30:52] Yes, the motion carries.

[30:53] Good luck.

[30:54] Thank you very much.

[30:56] Have a good afternoon everyone.

[30:59] There.

[31:01] Good.

[31:02] Next.

[31:08] We have case voa 1849569 with

[31:12] the address of 560 to 562 trim

[31:15] off street if the applicant and

[31:16] or the representative not

[31:18] present they please explain to

[31:18] the board.

[31:20] Good morning.

[31:22] Um my name is Chloe Nicholas.

[31:23] I'm the applicant.

[31:25] Um, and first off I just wanted

[31:26] to thank the Zoning Board

[31:28] of Appeals members for being

[31:28] here today.

[31:31] Um, I believe this will be

[31:33] brief as I received an email on

[31:36] Friday that my isd permit

[31:37] denial which I spent the past

[31:39] five months appealing was given

[31:39] an error.

[31:42] Um, so my permit never should

[31:43] have been denied.

[31:44] Um, I was asked to withdraw

[31:47] from the hearing but I reached

[31:49] out to isd to ask to make sure

[31:51] that my process could be dealt

[31:53] with in a time sensitive manner

[31:54] and I haven't received any

[31:55] communication from their

[31:56] offices.

[31:57] So I let the zoning office know

[31:59] that I didn't want to withdraw

[32:01] until I heard anything from isd

[32:01] .

[32:04] Um and so just wanted that on

[32:04] the record.

[32:06] But I don't think I'm going to

[32:07] need a ruling today.

[32:09] Um, because I'll be going back

[32:10] to isd but I just wanted to say

[32:12] thank you again for your time.

[32:13] Okay.

[32:15] Caroline, can you confirm for

[32:17] the applicant is correct.

[32:19] We did not need to ensure we

[32:20] use a letter.

[32:23] Okay, well then do we need any

[32:24] motions here today?

[32:25] Nope.

[32:25] Okay.

[32:27] Well, thank you for your time

[32:29] and, uh, I'm glad it worked

[32:29] out.

[32:30] Thank you as well.

[32:36] With that we'll move on to case

[32:37] voa.

[32:42] What a search for 808 with the

[32:44] address of 460 West Broadway.

[32:49] This is an article 80 case that

[32:50] have been proposed if the

[32:52] applicant and though they

[32:53] represent a present well, they

[32:54] put the plan.

[32:55] Yes.

[32:56] Thank you.

[32:57] Uh, MR. Stonebridge, good

[32:58] morning, MADAM Chair and

[32:59] members of the board.

[33:00] My name is George Morante.

[33:01] I'm an attorney with the

[33:03] business address of 350 West

[33:04] Broadway in South Boston.

[33:07] I represent the petitioner,

[33:08] Cedar Wood Development llc and

[33:10] its principal is David when it

[33:11] and David Mateo in connection

[33:13] with the redevelopment of 460

[33:14] West Broadway.

[33:16] Also joining today is the

[33:17] project architect Shane Losey.

[33:21] This project is the adaptive

[33:23] reuse uh and construction of a

[33:25] two story addition to the

[33:27] former South Boston Savings

[33:29] Bank building at 460 West

[33:31] Broadway in South Boston.

[33:33] This is a 1948 Classical

[33:35] Revival structure that is

[33:36] listed in the state's Makris

[33:37] inventory.

[33:39] The renovated and expanded

[33:40] building will become the new

[33:42] home of the South Boston

[33:43] Division of the Boston

[33:45] Municipal Court, together with

[33:46] office and administrative space

[33:48] for the Suffolk County District

[33:49] Attorney and the Office

[33:50] of Community Corrections under

[33:52] a long term lease with the

[33:52] Commonwealth.

[33:55] This will replace the aging and

[33:56] outdated South Boston Court

[33:57] facility currently located at

[33:59] 55 East Broadway a short

[34:03] distance from this location on

[34:05] APRIL 26th of this year the bda

[34:07] board approved this project

[34:10] under article 84 Project Review

[34:11] uh the board memorandum that

[34:13] board members have uh in front

[34:14] of them sets out the

[34:15] development team design and

[34:17] community benefits in fall two.

[34:19] I won't repeat those here but I

[34:20] do incorporate them by

[34:20] reference.

[34:22] Uh, as I said, the project

[34:23] architect Shane Loci is here

[34:24] and he'll make a brief

[34:26] presentation on the design

[34:27] directly to the board and I'll

[34:29] therefore limit my testimony to

[34:31] the zoning relief the project

[34:31] requires.

[34:34] The project citizen and mfr ils

[34:36] multifamily residential local

[34:37] service sub district within the

[34:38] South Boston neighborhood under

[34:41] article 68 it is on West

[34:42] Broadway near Perkins Square.

[34:44] This is the neighborhood's

[34:45] principal commercial corridor

[34:47] where ground floor commercial

[34:48] uses an upper floor.

[34:51] Residential uses predominate uh

[34:53] courthouse and the accessory

[34:54] office space that comes with it

[34:58] is a forbidden use uh, in the

[34:59] uh in this neighborhood.

[35:01] Uh, so the project does require

[35:04] a use variance preserving and

[35:06] reusing the historic bank

[35:07] building together with the two

[35:09] storey additions needed to

[35:11] accommodate the court and the

[35:12] office program also requires

[35:15] relief from the sub districts

[35:17] uh height limitation, uh floor

[35:20] area ratio limitation and yard

[35:21] depth requirements.

[35:22] Specifically, variants are

[35:25] needed for violations

[35:27] attributable to insufficient

[35:29] side yard setback exceeding

[35:31] maximum building height and

[35:32] excessive floor area ratio.

[35:35] The side yard setbacks are zero

[35:37] which is an existing condition

[35:39] whereas a three foot side

[35:40] setback is required.

[35:44] The mfr lz subdistrict maximum

[35:46] building height is 35ft, which

[35:49] I MAY say is almost entirely

[35:50] inconsistent with the existing

[35:51] conditions on West Broadway.

[35:53] The proposed building height is

[35:55] approximately 49ft which is

[35:57] highly consistent with

[35:57] surrounding conditions.

[36:00] Likewise, the proposed tfr

[36:01] of 2.85 is far more

[36:03] representative of the

[36:05] surrounding density than the

[36:06] 1.5 if they are allowed by

[36:07] code.

[36:09] Finally, the refusal letter

[36:10] cites a violation under article

[36:13] nine section two for increasing

[36:16] by more than 25% the size of a

[36:17] building containing a

[36:19] non-conforming use here the

[36:21] proposed courthouse use is the

[36:21] non-conforming use.

[36:24] The site sits directly on West

[36:25] Broadway, where civic and

[36:27] institutional uses are already

[36:28] compatible with the surrounding

[36:30] commercial and residential mix

[36:31] and the project preserves

[36:34] rather than demolishes uh

[36:35] historic structure and

[36:36] development team worked

[36:38] diligently with the Planning

[36:39] Department the Landmarks

[36:40] Commission staff during article

[36:43] aid review to ensure that the

[36:45] building's dimensions and

[36:47] design are contextually

[36:49] appropriate to the block and

[36:50] sensitively respond to the

[36:51] building's architecture.

[36:53] And a chair of the board, uh,

[36:54] would like a presentation on

[36:54] the design.

[36:56] I would turn the presentation

[36:57] over to Shane Loci.

[36:59] Uh, that is uh obviously the

[37:00] call of the chair and the

[37:00] board.

[37:02] Absolutely.

[37:04] So let me see if there are

[37:05] questions from the board.

[37:09] I don't hear any questions from

[37:10] the board.

[37:12] So let's move on to public

[37:13] testimony.

[37:16] MADAM Chair, members of the

[37:18] board Connor Newman with the

[37:19] Mayor's Office of Neighborhood

[37:20] Services this time of year I

[37:22] seem to defer to the judgment

[37:23] this board some backer space in

[37:24] the community process.

[37:25] Uh, just went through a

[37:26] lengthy, uh, committee process

[37:28] overseen by the Boston Planning

[37:28] Board.

[37:31] Um, it's involved four public

[37:31] meetings.

[37:33] Uh, last year, um, there were

[37:34] significant changes made after

[37:35] community feedback regarding

[37:36] the design of the proposal.

[37:38] At one point there was a uh

[37:40] residential component uh, as

[37:42] well as concerns related to um

[37:44] what residents want to see more

[37:46] parking uh on site uh, the

[37:48] outcome made those changes uh

[37:49] they worked extensively with uh

[37:51] kind of having which is in non

[37:52] opposition to this proposal uh

[37:54] as well as meeting the Saint

[37:55] Vincent Lower and Neighborhood

[37:56] Association which is very

[37:57] pleased with the existing

[37:59] facade was incorporated into

[38:01] the project uh presently uh we

[38:03] are we understand the community

[38:05] is very pleased with the

[38:05] direction of this project.

[38:07] I would refer to the board.

[38:07] Thank you.

[38:12] Thank you.

[38:15] The insurance we have actually

[38:16] from council offering.

[38:18] Thank you.

[38:19] My name is actually from

[38:20] Councilor Flynn's office.

[38:21] Council would like to go on

[38:23] record in support not only from

[38:24] the critical need for

[38:26] maintaining a presence for the

[38:27] trial court of the Commonwealth

[38:29] in our criminal justice system

[38:31] in South Boston but also a

[38:32] community process with

[38:33] neighbors in Abutters that

[38:34] resulted in a number of good

[38:36] faith compromises.

[38:38] This included removing the

[38:39] entire residential element

[38:42] of the proposal and 22 units

[38:44] originally proposed reducing

[38:45] the height from six storeys

[38:47] down to four storeys, changing

[38:48] the design of the building in

[38:50] attention to other key quality

[38:53] of life concerns in the

[38:53] neighborhood.

[38:54] Thank you thank you.

[39:01] And next the realm of good

[39:04] morning um board the um I'm

[39:05] from the Office of Historic

[39:06] Preservation.

[39:08] The proposed scope of work at

[39:09] 460 West Broadway in South

[39:11] Boston includes adaptive reuse

[39:12] of an existing historic

[39:13] structure.

[39:14] The Boston Landmarks Commission

[39:15] would like to state our full

[39:17] support for this project, which

[39:18] preserves an important historic

[39:20] building while providing a much

[39:22] needed new space for the Boston

[39:23] Municipal Court system.

[39:24] The applicant worked very

[39:25] closely with the landmarks

[39:26] staff throughout their design

[39:28] process, resulting in an

[39:29] adaptive reuse project which

[39:32] will serve as an important

[39:32] precedent for Boston's future

[39:33] development.

[39:35] Thank you.

[39:38] Okay, chair, we don't have

[39:39] additional accounts.

[39:40] Okay.

[39:42] Uh, any other questions from

[39:43] the board?

[39:46] MAY I have a motion?

[39:51] Um, can I make a motion to

[39:52] approve one?

[39:53] Is there a second?

[39:54] Beckett.

[39:58] MR. Bridge?

[39:59] Yeah.

[40:03] MR. Valencia yes, MISS Turner?

[40:04] Yes.

[40:05] Is better.

[40:06] Barraza.

[40:08] Yes, MISS.

[40:08] We will.

[40:11] Yes, MR. Langham?

[40:12] Yes.

[40:13] Your votes?

[40:14] Yes.

[40:15] The motion carries.

[40:15] Good luck.

[40:16] Thank you.

[40:25] Next we have Kate voa 1838044

[40:27] with the address of 42

[40:28] Lamberton Street.

[40:32] If the applicant and their

[40:35] representative will please put

[40:36] um.

[40:37] Thank you, MR. Stonebridge.

[40:39] Good morning, MADAM Chair and

[40:40] members of the board, uh, Gary

[40:42] j Webster junior Toys

[40:43] Development Company llc.

[40:46] Um, also joined today by Daniel

[40:48] Gary, senior associate at Stack

[40:49] Architecture and Development.

[40:52] Uh the proposed project before

[40:53] you is to combine the existing

[40:56] vacant lots at 40 and 42

[40:58] Lambert street and Roxbury, uh,

[41:00] and to construct the new uh

[41:02] residential building with two

[41:03] townhomes and one off street

[41:07] parking space on a combined 30

[41:10] 366 square foot lot in a 3 to

[41:10] 4000 zone.

[41:12] Um the violations on the

[41:13] consideration include

[41:15] insufficient off street parking

[41:17] lot area and additional lot

[41:17] area.

[41:19] The floor area the floor area

[41:21] ratio is excessive um and

[41:23] insufficient usable open space

[41:25] front yard and one of the side

[41:27] yard setbacks um at this time I

[41:29] will turn things over to Dan to

[41:30] discuss the design elements as

[41:31] they relate to the zoning

[41:32] violations.

[41:34] Um but I'm happy to answer any

[41:35] questions you MAY have related

[41:37] to the project or community

[41:38] process at the conclusion

[41:38] of the presentation.

[41:52] Was your architect on?

[41:55] Yes he is on.

[41:59] His view since he uh panels.

[42:05] Sorry he said he's in uh in the

[42:06] room waiting to be able what is

[42:09] the name and sorry again Daniel

[42:09] for Gary.

[42:19] Daniel I think I know him

[42:25] unmute um so we still hear me.

[42:28] There we go yes we can sorry

[42:28] about that.

[42:29] Um.

[42:31] Yeah.

[42:35] So this is uh, two family

[42:38] townhome um on the parcel here

[42:40] and there's a lot of back and

[42:44] forth with neighbors and um,

[42:45] the neighborhood group before

[42:47] coming to this meeting on on

[42:47] setbacks.

[42:50] Um, and so we've revised the

[42:53] project a couple of times to

[42:55] appease our neighborhood group

[42:59] and abutters we can go to.

[43:02] Continue scrolling.

[43:14] So that yeah, this is the site

[43:14] site plan.

[43:16] We have the main entry.

[43:21] We can keep uh, if you go back

[43:23] one or go into the ground floor

[43:24] plan which is two slides

[43:25] forward.

[43:31] Yeah right here.

[43:33] So this is the ground floor

[43:35] plan with um entries to the

[43:36] units in the middle here with

[43:39] uh recessed front stoops.

[43:40] Um when you get to the ground

[43:43] floor we have a uh bedroom

[43:46] office space on the uh towards

[43:48] the street with a primary

[43:51] shared bathroom and then on the

[43:52] back uh, the next floor up.

[43:57] The on the right side as well

[43:59] as the existing curb cut which

[44:01] is going to remain with the

[44:02] parking on the right side

[44:03] of the park property.

[44:06] Um, on the second floor is the

[44:08] primary living space with uh

[44:10] powder room as you go up the

[44:11] stairs, the dining kitchen in

[44:13] the middle living towards the

[44:16] back with a small deck for each

[44:17] unit off the back.

[44:23] Um the top floor we have the

[44:26] primary bedrooms with the

[44:27] primary suite towards the rear

[44:30] of the home and a en suite

[44:32] bathroom and then a secondary

[44:34] bedroom facing the street with

[44:36] a recessed deck.

[44:44] So the street wall elevation um

[44:47] we the although the unit itself

[44:50] is mirrored the top floor is uh

[44:52] is not mirrors so that to

[44:53] provide a little more variation

[44:56] along the facade and to uh

[45:00] reduce the casting shadow um on

[45:01] the neighbor on the left hand

[45:02] side.

[45:13] Yeah.

[45:15] And this is the typical

[45:16] building sections.

[45:18] Okay.

[45:21] Are there questions from the

[45:21] board?

[45:26] Hearing?

[45:26] None, ma'am.

[45:28] Public testimony, MADAM Chair

[45:30] and members of the board for

[45:31] the record, my name is Jeremy

[45:31] Bembry.

[45:33] I serve as the Roxbury

[45:34] community engagement specialist

[45:35] for the Office of Neighborhood

[45:35] Services.

[45:36] The applicant has completed the

[45:37] community process which

[45:38] consisted of an abundance

[45:40] meeting facilitated on MAY 11th

[45:42] with no opposition video but as

[45:44] voices concerns such as parking

[45:44] .

[45:46] The proposal does not provide

[45:47] parking about is probably what

[45:48] to the congestion they

[45:49] currently experience.

[45:51] Another concern it was the

[45:52] shadow buildings they create

[45:53] the building they create for

[45:54] link.

[45:55] The size and scale is out

[45:56] of character for the

[45:57] neighborhood as well as the

[45:59] designing Abutters pointed out

[46:00] the designs the location of the

[46:01] first and second floor porches

[46:03] that are adjacent to the

[46:05] properties bedroom windows as

[46:07] well as the appearance of the

[46:08] front of the building that

[46:09] looks more suitable as the rear

[46:11] and vice versa becoming more

[46:12] out of character for the

[46:13] neighborhood.

[46:14] Lastly and I put a question

[46:16] about the fewer units would be

[46:17] more suitable and if two units

[46:18] would be more aligned with the

[46:19] neighborhood.

[46:20] Next the proposal was presented

[46:21] that are about council who

[46:23] voted in support of the

[46:23] proposal.

[46:25] To date our office has received

[46:26] three letters of support

[46:27] including one from Hyde Park

[46:28] Neighborhood Council.

[46:31] Thank you for your time and the

[46:31] Moon's Office of Neighborhood

[46:32] Services would like to defer to

[46:33] the board for their judgment.

[46:36] Thank you, MADAM Chair.

[46:39] I don't see any hands anymore.

[46:41] Okay.

[46:42] Whereas the applicant to

[46:44] address any of those concerns.

[46:46] Um hi, MADAM Chair.

[46:48] Those concerns um, um

[46:50] articulated by Jeremy um our

[46:51] design was in response to that

[46:53] Abutters meeting so that

[46:54] Abutters meeting took place

[46:55] prior to this revision.

[46:56] Uh, we were originally

[46:59] proposing a 3d family building,

[47:00] um, with no parking.

[47:02] Um, and we then adjusted the

[47:04] plans to be a two townhome

[47:05] building with one parking

[47:05] space.

[47:06] Um, as a result of that

[47:08] abutters meeting of which then

[47:10] the community group um issued a

[47:11] unanimous support letter.

[47:12] Thank you.

[47:14] Any other questions from the

[47:14] board?

[47:17] MAY I have a motion?

[47:22] MADAM Chair?

[47:24] I'll put forward a motion

[47:24] of approval.

[47:26] Um, provides a plan to be

[47:28] submitted to the Highland Park

[47:30] Architectural Conservation

[47:31] District Commission uh, for

[47:32] design review.

[47:35] Thank you MADAM, a second

[47:38] second MR. Semaj.

[47:39] Yes.

[47:45] MR. Valencia yes, MISS Turner

[47:48] yes, MISS Better Barraza.

[47:51] Yes, as we will yes.

[47:53] MR. Langham.

[47:54] Yes.

[47:56] Chair votes yes.

[47:57] The motion carries.

[47:57] Good luck.

[48:10] That we have a voa 1856279 with

[48:12] the address of 66 Rutland

[48:12] Street.

[48:16] If the applicant has possession

[48:17] of a present that please

[48:18] provide support.

[48:20] Yes.

[48:21] Uh, thank you, MR. Stone

[48:22] bridge.

[48:23] Uh, MADAM Chair, members of the

[48:24] board.

[48:25] My name is Timothy Burke.

[48:27] I'm the architect for the

[48:30] project and with me at the

[48:31] hearing today are the owners,

[48:33] uh, Gaurav and I Mittal.

[48:35] Um, they have purchased this,

[48:37] uh, single family house as

[48:39] their primary residence and

[48:41] have, uh, embarked on a

[48:43] wonderful restoration of the

[48:44] house, bringing it back to its,

[48:45] uh, original beauty.

[48:48] It had suffered some decline as

[48:49] part of the work.

[48:52] Um, we are seeking permission

[48:54] to add a, uh, projecting

[48:56] balcony at the kitchen level on

[48:58] the back of the house that

[49:00] would be uh, six foot deep and

[49:03] uh, supported on brackets and

[49:06] then also to add a dormer and a

[49:08] small roof deck at the roof

[49:11] level that would be um very

[49:13] similar to uh our next door

[49:15] neighbor at 68 uh Rutland

[49:17] Street and this uh, space would

[49:19] provide some much needed

[49:21] outdoor uh, living space and

[49:23] some living space on the fourth

[49:25] floor due to the, you know, the

[49:27] of the roof and it provides

[49:29] some much better bedroom space.

[49:32] Um, we can go through the

[49:34] drawings if you would like to

[49:35] show on the screen the, uh,

[49:38] that's these are the floor

[49:40] plans with the balcony on the

[49:43] left and then um, the next page

[49:45] is the, uh, the upper level

[49:47] that shows the roof deck and

[49:49] dormer for the fourth floor.

[49:53] Uh, this is an elevation of the

[49:55] rear that you see on the left

[49:56] hand side of the screen that

[49:58] shows the again the balcony and

[49:59] then the proposed dormer and

[50:01] roof deck which um that would

[50:03] have to be reviewed by the

[50:05] South and uh Landmarks District

[50:06] Commission as well.

[50:10] Uh with that I'd be happy to

[50:11] answer any questions that you

[50:12] MAY have.

[50:13] Thank you.

[50:16] The questions from the board um

[50:17] I do have one question.

[50:21] Can you please remind us, uh,

[50:24] what's the setback is for the

[50:26] roof deck railing?

[50:27] Um, from the building's edge.

[50:30] Uh, five feet is required.

[50:30] Yes.

[50:31] Okay, great.

[50:32] Thank you.

[50:35] You any other questions from

[50:35] the board?

[50:38] MAY we have public testimony?

[50:40] So, MADAM Chair, members of the

[50:42] board, my name is David Jones

[50:43] representing the mayor's office

[50:45] to Neighborhood Services

[50:46] regarding 66 Rutland Street

[50:48] office to receive the court's

[50:49] judgment the community process

[50:50] was conducted including an

[50:51] abutters meeting held on six

[50:53] 3026 that was well attended by

[50:55] self and community members and

[50:56] feedback from this meeting was

[50:57] overwhelming support by their

[50:59] neighbors who felt that they

[51:00] were happy for the applicants

[51:01] and felt that the project was a

[51:02] good fit for the neighborhood.

[51:04] Additionally, we did receive

[51:05] two letters in support

[51:07] expressing the proposal was a

[51:08] good fit for the neighborhood

[51:10] and the proposal was not in the

[51:11] catchment area of any civic

[51:13] associations and was not

[51:14] required to meet with any

[51:15] organizations at this time.

[51:16] The Mayor's Office

[51:17] of Neighborhood Services

[51:18] different to the court's

[51:19] judgment on this matter.

[51:20] Thank you everyone for your

[51:21] time and consideration.

[51:22] Thank you.

[51:25] MADAM.

[51:26] There will have additional

[51:28] comments with that ma'am

[51:28] motion.

[51:35] I put forward a motion

[51:38] of approval their second

[51:40] whereas the second MISTER

[51:42] Stonebridge.

[51:46] Yes, MISTER Valencia yes, MISS

[51:47] Turner yes.

[51:52] Is better browser yes yes we

[51:57] will yes MR. Lane them.

[51:57] Yes.

[51:59] Chair votes yes the motion

[51:59] carries.

[52:00] Good luck.

[52:01] Thank you very much.

[52:11] Next we have case vote 1827453

[52:13] with the address of 11 Ashley

[52:13] Street.

[52:17] If the applicant and or their

[52:18] representative present they

[52:19] please explain to the board.

[52:23] Good morning, MADAM Chair.

[52:24] Members of the board.

[52:25] Uh, my name is Michael Chavis

[52:26] um, the architect and

[52:28] co-founder of Social Impact

[52:28] Collective.

[52:30] Uh, just 26 Mill Park in

[52:31] Dorchester.

[52:34] Uh, this project is uh, owned

[52:35] by uh, Julia Silva.

[52:37] Um, she it's a single family

[52:38] home and it's a

[52:39] multigenerational household.

[52:40] So they're looking for an

[52:41] additional bedroom in the in

[52:42] the existing single family

[52:44] that's there now, uh, I think

[52:46] the next slide the second side

[52:47] really sums it up there.

[52:50] Um, there's three variances

[52:51] that are um being requested.

[52:53] Two of them are existing

[52:54] nonconformity which is the loft

[52:56] area minimum and the front yard

[52:56] minimum.

[52:58] Uh, our addition of the bedroom

[53:00] uh, makes the bar go up from

[53:03] point five 8 to 0.67 when the

[53:05] at the hours of 0.6 uh and then

[53:06] the bottom left corner you can

[53:07] see that the uh where

[53:08] essentially what we're doing is

[53:09] we're filling that little back

[53:11] third floor area above the

[53:13] existing footprint, um, to fill

[53:14] in that space for that

[53:16] additional bedroom as well as

[53:17] converting that existing small

[53:19] porch on the right hand side

[53:20] there into a little bit of a

[53:21] larger mudroom with some

[53:22] balconies for the existing

[53:23] bedrooms up above that.

[53:24] Um, and you know, again

[53:26] updating the porch and proper

[53:27] landing and entrance on that

[53:29] side uh, the proposal does not

[53:31] impact the existing driveway

[53:33] existing off street parking uh

[53:35] or uh any of the other, you

[53:36] know, heights or negative kind

[53:37] of zoning variances that would

[53:39] be um required of the of this

[53:39] space.

[53:41] Um and then the subsequent

[53:43] drawings just kind of show the

[53:44] um, you know, the floor plans

[53:45] that we're adding there with

[53:46] the first floor on the right

[53:47] hand side, that mudroom space

[53:49] with the door um, moving into

[53:51] that kitchen in the rear um and

[53:53] then the upper floors uh

[53:54] essentially just getting a

[53:56] balcony on the second floor and

[53:57] then a uh, new bedroom on the

[53:59] third floor, uh, of that up to

[54:00] that rear side which is right

[54:02] above that existing bedroom on

[54:03] the second floor.

[54:06] Um and then we're just matching

[54:09] exterior finishes siding trim

[54:11] um everything is kind

[54:13] of matched to to match to

[54:15] existing and I'll pause there.

[54:17] Thank you.

[54:19] Are there questions from the

[54:19] board?

[54:22] Hearing?

[54:23] None, ma'am.

[54:24] Public testimony.

[54:25] MADAM Chair and members of the

[54:27] board for the my name is Joe

[54:29] Arbery and the Jamaica Plain

[54:30] community engagement specialist

[54:31] for the Office of Naval

[54:32] Resources.

[54:33] The applicant has completed the

[54:34] community process which

[54:35] consisted of an appearance

[54:36] meeting facilitated on APRIL

[54:38] 14th with the work What is

[54:38] Present Next?

[54:40] The proposal was presented to

[54:41] Jamaica Plain Neighborhood

[54:42] Council who voted in support

[54:43] of this proposal.

[54:45] To date our office has received

[54:46] approval from the Jamaica Plain

[54:47] Neighborhood Council.

[54:49] Thank you for your time and the

[54:50] Mayor's Office of Neighborhood

[54:51] Services would like to defer to

[54:52] the board for their judgment.

[54:55] Thank you, MADAM Chair.

[54:56] We don't have a.

[54:59] Okay with that.

[55:02] We have a motion motion to

[55:02] approve.

[55:06] We have a second second, MR.

[55:07] Tunbridge.

[55:08] Yes.

[55:13] MR. Valencia yes, MISS Turner?

[55:14] Yes, MISS.

[55:16] Better browser?

[55:18] Yes, as we will.

[55:24] Yes MR. Langham yes that's the

[55:24] motion carries.

[55:27] Thank you all very much.

[55:28] I'm doing.

[55:33] There.

[55:40] We have board 1868487 with the

[55:42] address with 388 approval.

[55:46] If the applicant and the

[55:47] members of the present.

[55:49] What?

[55:51] Thank you, MR. Bridge.

[55:53] Thank you, MADAM Chair.

[55:54] Members of the board attorney

[55:56] Jeff Drago with Dre going to

[55:58] Chicago with the business

[56:00] address of 11 Beacon Street

[56:02] here on behalf of the applicant

[56:04] petitioner um Paul Bell.

[56:07] Uh and with me we also have

[56:08] David o'Sullivan from

[56:10] o'Sullivan architects who was

[56:12] the architect on the proposal

[56:14] uh, pretty straightforward

[56:16] project in Jamaica Plain at 388

[56:17] Arbor Way.

[56:19] Uh, we're proposing to change

[56:22] the occupancy from its existing

[56:23] form, which is a two family

[56:25] dwelling to a three family

[56:28] dwelling, uh, by way

[56:30] of legalizing, legalizing and

[56:33] expanding the um, basement

[56:34] unit.

[56:35] It's actually a garden level

[56:36] because it is elevated.

[56:38] The back of this building is a

[56:39] very steep decline.

[56:40] It goes in the rear.

[56:43] Um, and then uh, add some

[56:44] additional space into the

[56:47] unfinished uh, basement area

[56:49] basically combining those spots

[56:51] um, to create habitable living

[56:53] space and also improving egress

[56:55] with some minor uh, interior

[56:56] renovations.

[56:58] No changes are proposed to the

[56:59] contours of the building.

[57:01] So building uh will remain the

[57:03] envelope and structure will

[57:05] remain in terms of height and

[57:06] the boundary lines.

[57:08] Uh, the project also has to

[57:10] note off of the Arbor Way, uh,

[57:12] three off street parking spaces

[57:14] that can be utilized um, by the

[57:15] residents of the building.

[57:18] My client recently purchased

[57:19] this property.

[57:21] Um, and this particular unit

[57:24] was already built out uh, on

[57:25] that garden level.

[57:29] Uh, it's 840ft2 currently with

[57:32] the proposed expansion uh, that

[57:33] would go up uh, slightly over

[57:36] 1200 about 1200 and 40ft2.

[57:39] Um I'm sorry, 1400 and seven

[57:42] square feet, uh, which would

[57:44] add two bedrooms, two baths

[57:46] unit um to the bill for

[57:47] legalize that space and add

[57:48] some additional space.

[57:50] Uh, if you go to the next slide

[57:52] please these are just the

[57:54] layouts of existing uh, plans.

[57:57] If uh, MR. Ambassador, if you

[57:58] could go through the plans.

[57:59] Thank you.

[58:01] Uh, you can keep sliding

[58:02] through and this just shows

[58:04] this is actually if you go back

[58:07] one um this just shows the site

[58:09] plans you can see off of um,

[58:11] the side of Arbor Way is where

[58:13] there is a shared easement

[58:15] access for parking in the back

[58:18] of the property for those three

[58:18] spaces.

[58:20] Uh, the new legalized unit uh

[58:23] would have 1400 and seven

[58:25] square feet that would combine

[58:28] 840 existing plus 570 uh, in

[58:29] the basement.

[58:31] Uh the unit will have seven

[58:33] foot eight inch uh ceiling

[58:35] height above and seven foot six

[58:37] uh below in the basement it

[58:40] will be a sprinkler unit uh 13

[58:42] d fire suppression system and

[58:44] completely code compliant with

[58:47] two ingresses as well.

[58:50] Uh the uh bpa recommendation as

[58:52] you know was to support this

[58:54] fits right in their guidelines

[58:55] of keeping existing buildings

[58:57] but also adding residential

[58:59] housing uh where available.

[59:02] This location is 500ft from

[59:04] Forest Hill Station so it makes

[59:06] it ideal for for commuters.

[59:07] There's actually a lot

[59:08] of existing green space and the

[59:09] front and sides of this

[59:11] property as well.

[59:13] Uh, just to quickly go over the

[59:16] variances needed the use

[59:17] because it is a two out

[59:19] of district would be required

[59:21] for a variance for use uh, if

[59:24] they are goes up uh slightly uh

[59:27] existing as.92 would be

[59:31] proposing 1.02 and then um the

[59:34] minimum lot size 7000 required

[59:38] or at 6000 167 so those who're

[59:40] uh were hit with for violations

[59:43] it also mentioned Greenbelt

[59:44] protection overlay district

[59:46] because it does fall next to

[59:47] the Arbor Way.

[59:49] However when you look in the

[59:51] code uh because we're not

[59:53] adding uh a certain number

[59:55] of additional square footage or

[59:56] a new building mass that

[59:57] actually we believe was

[1:00:00] incorrectly cited uh, for that

[1:00:02] one uh, variance but we can

[1:00:04] deal with isg on that as well.

[1:00:07] Um, we uh did get the Jamaica

[1:00:08] Plain Neighborhood Council

[1:00:10] support that subcommittee.

[1:00:13] Um and with that, uh, we can

[1:00:14] answer any questions that the

[1:00:15] board MAY have.

[1:00:16] Thank you.

[1:00:18] Thank you questions from the

[1:00:19] board.

[1:00:23] During my public testimony,

[1:00:25] MADAM Chair and members of the

[1:00:26] board for the record, my name

[1:00:27] is Jeremy Bembry.

[1:00:28] I'm the Jacob Lane community

[1:00:29] engagement specialist for the

[1:00:31] office services.

[1:00:32] The applicant has completed the

[1:00:33] community process which

[1:00:35] consisted of a abutters meeting

[1:00:37] facilitated on JUNE 17th with

[1:00:38] one concern and addressed in

[1:00:39] the opposition.

[1:00:40] The proposal to move forward

[1:00:41] have met with the Jamaica Plain

[1:00:42] Neighborhood Council who voted

[1:00:43] to approve the proposal.

[1:00:45] To date our office had one

[1:00:46] letter of approval from the

[1:00:47] Jamaica Plain Neighborhood

[1:00:48] Council.

[1:00:49] Thank you for your time and the

[1:00:50] Mayor's Office of Labor would

[1:00:51] like to defer to the board for

[1:00:52] the judgment.

[1:00:57] If you MADAM Chair, we should

[1:00:57] not comment.

[1:00:58] Okay.

[1:01:01] With that we have a motion.

[1:01:04] We'll send up approval.

[1:01:06] I have a second.

[1:01:09] Second, MR. Pembridge.

[1:01:10] Yeah.

[1:01:16] MR. Valencia yes, MISS Turner?

[1:01:19] Yes, MISS Barbarossa?

[1:01:21] Yes, MISS.

[1:01:22] We will.

[1:01:26] Yes, MR. Langham.

[1:01:27] Yes.

[1:01:29] Chair votes yes.

[1:01:30] The motion carries.

[1:01:31] Good luck.

[1:01:32] Thank you very much.

[1:01:41] Next we have case voa 1837050

[1:01:43] with the address of 17 Copley

[1:01:44] Street.

[1:01:46] If the applicant and what they

[1:01:49] represent up for what they put

[1:01:50] to the board.

[1:01:52] Yes.

[1:01:53] Thank you, MR. Sturbridge and

[1:01:55] good morning, MADAM Chair.

[1:01:56] Members of the board.

[1:01:57] Uh, for the record, my name is

[1:01:59] Matt Eichel and I'm an attorney

[1:02:00] with Fletcher Tilton here on

[1:02:01] behalf of the applicant with me

[1:02:03] this morning I have Jennifer

[1:02:05] Hoff from q architecture.

[1:02:07] We're here this morning seeking

[1:02:09] relief to renovate the existing

[1:02:11] structure, including erecting a

[1:02:13] rear addition and new dormers

[1:02:15] as well as the change the

[1:02:16] occupancy from the existing two

[1:02:18] family dwelling to a three

[1:02:19] family dwelling.

[1:02:21] The project also includes

[1:02:22] extending the driveway for a

[1:02:24] second parking space.

[1:02:27] The zoning district is a2f 4000

[1:02:30] and the lot size is 4000ft2.

[1:02:32] Now the property as you can see

[1:02:34] here on the on the plan is

[1:02:35] located at the corner of Copley

[1:02:37] Street and Atherton Street with

[1:02:39] the front door on Copley there

[1:02:41] to kind of the top right where

[1:02:42] the street dead ends.

[1:02:44] Uh the existing structure has

[1:02:46] many unique uh, features and

[1:02:47] architectural detail so we'll

[1:02:49] be preserving most of that uh,

[1:02:50] and maintaining it as part

[1:02:51] of the project.

[1:02:53] However, the renovations will

[1:02:55] allow for a more functional

[1:02:56] interior layout and the

[1:02:58] addition will allow for the

[1:03:00] existing cantilevered second

[1:03:02] floor porch to be squared off

[1:03:04] and provide more living space

[1:03:05] for all three proposed units.

[1:03:09] Uh, the proposed third floor

[1:03:11] unit uh will be done with very

[1:03:12] little changes to the

[1:03:13] footprint.

[1:03:14] Again, there's a cantilevered

[1:03:16] porch that extends beyond the

[1:03:17] first and third floor

[1:03:17] currently.

[1:03:19] So we'll be squaring that off

[1:03:21] and it'll look uh, not very

[1:03:22] different than what it is today

[1:03:24] other than being squared off uh

[1:03:25] at the at the lower level and

[1:03:27] the third floor level.

[1:03:29] Uh, the project also includes a

[1:03:31] new sprinkler system to make

[1:03:32] the building and neighborhood

[1:03:34] safer as well as energy

[1:03:36] efficiency upgrades in terms

[1:03:37] of zoning violations, the

[1:03:39] majority of the violations for

[1:03:41] floor area ratio, side yard and

[1:03:43] parking are all preexisting.

[1:03:45] We are also seeking relief for

[1:03:47] the use as this is a to us

[1:03:48] district and we're seeking a

[1:03:49] third unit.

[1:03:52] All three of the units are

[1:03:54] proposed to be three bedroom

[1:03:55] units with two bathrooms.

[1:03:57] The basement will contain uh

[1:03:59] common mechanical and storage

[1:03:59] area.

[1:04:01] The first floor will house unit

[1:04:04] one which is 11,000ft2 and

[1:04:05] again contains three bedrooms

[1:04:06] two baths.

[1:04:08] The second floor will have unit

[1:04:11] two which is 1061ft2 and the

[1:04:13] third floor will house unit

[1:04:15] three which is 1024ft2.

[1:04:18] Uh the this project did go

[1:04:20] through uh a community process

[1:04:22] including an abutters meeting

[1:04:24] as well as meeting with the

[1:04:25] Jaypee anc, the Jamaica Plain

[1:04:27] Neighborhood Council who voted

[1:04:29] unanimously to support the

[1:04:29] project.

[1:04:31] Uh, with that I'll pause and

[1:04:32] uh, Jennifer, the project

[1:04:33] architect and I will happily

[1:04:35] take any questions the board

[1:04:35] might have.

[1:04:37] Thank you.

[1:04:38] Go ahead.

[1:04:40] Good morning, MADAM Chair.

[1:04:41] Board members.

[1:04:42] Um, my name is Jennifer.

[1:04:42] Hi.

[1:04:44] I am the principal architect

[1:04:45] Goodhue Architecture located at

[1:04:46] 53 Harvard Street in

[1:04:47] Dorchester.

[1:04:48] There are some technical

[1:04:50] problems on the platform this

[1:04:51] morning so that's why I'm not a

[1:04:51] panelist.

[1:04:53] Um, but um, let me know if you

[1:04:54] have trouble hearing me.

[1:04:56] Um, so 17 Copley Street is an

[1:04:57] existing two family building

[1:05:00] built in 1900 and designed and

[1:05:01] classic Queen and Victorian

[1:05:02] style um.

[1:05:04] The project is to convert the

[1:05:05] existing two family into three

[1:05:07] while strictly respecting the

[1:05:08] historical character to home um

[1:05:10] and so to achieve the design we

[1:05:12] add strategic dormers and the

[1:05:13] rear addition that squares off

[1:05:15] an efficient rear section

[1:05:16] of the building.

[1:05:18] So the priority is to preserve

[1:05:19] the signature hallmarks of the

[1:05:20] beautiful architectural style

[1:05:22] um and create much needed

[1:05:23] housing.

[1:05:24] Uh one of the best features

[1:05:26] of the property is the large

[1:05:27] beautiful green space and the

[1:05:29] front and side yards and so to

[1:05:31] to emphasize the project will

[1:05:32] entirely be contained within

[1:05:33] these existing setbacks and

[1:05:35] does not exceed the existing

[1:05:36] building footprint.

[1:05:38] Um, if you go towards the floor

[1:05:39] plans but the basement level

[1:05:41] will be dedicated entirely to

[1:05:43] mechanical systems, utilities,

[1:05:45] fire sprinkler and storage.

[1:05:47] The first floor uh which is

[1:05:48] centered is similar to the

[1:05:50] current existing condition

[1:05:51] where the residents will enter

[1:05:53] from the main front porch from

[1:05:54] directly into a three bedroom

[1:05:56] two bathroom unit and on the

[1:05:57] second floor, which is accessed

[1:06:00] by a common stairwell will

[1:06:03] also, um have a bright open

[1:06:04] concept three bedroom two

[1:06:06] bathroom unit and third floor

[1:06:07] is from the same common

[1:06:10] stairwell um and and it's

[1:06:10] unique.

[1:06:22] I I I think we're losing you,

[1:06:22] Jennifer.

[1:06:28] Tony, go.

[1:06:30] Do you want to pause here since

[1:06:33] we yes, MADAM Chair, I think,

[1:06:34] uh, I was getting to the

[1:06:35] conclusion of her presentation

[1:06:37] so if she comes back and must

[1:06:38] have more.

[1:06:39] But I think we can pause here

[1:06:40] and see if there's any

[1:06:41] questions from the board.

[1:06:42] Thank you.

[1:06:43] Any questions from the board?

[1:06:47] Hearing?

[1:06:47] None.

[1:06:50] We have public testimony, MADAM

[1:06:51] Chair and members of the board.

[1:06:52] For the record my name is

[1:06:52] Jeremy Bembry.

[1:06:54] I'm the Roxbury engagement

[1:06:55] specialist with the Office

[1:06:56] of Neighborhood Services.

[1:06:57] The applicant has completed the

[1:06:58] community process which

[1:07:00] consisted of an Abutters we

[1:07:01] take facilitated on MAY 18th

[1:07:03] was very well attended.

[1:07:04] A director Berto voiced

[1:07:05] concerns for parking

[1:07:06] specifically with their

[1:07:07] driveway maintaining

[1:07:09] accessibility during

[1:07:09] construction.

[1:07:11] The construction timeline and

[1:07:12] noise were also a concern for

[1:07:13] voters.

[1:07:14] Lastly, the current residents

[1:07:15] with their concern for

[1:07:16] displacement stated they were

[1:07:18] not notified of the proposal.

[1:07:19] There you are you on your phone

[1:07:21] number and we mute MISS Thank

[1:07:22] you.

[1:07:25] Got to proceed.

[1:07:26] Last update our resident with

[1:07:28] the concern for displacement

[1:07:29] stated that they were not

[1:07:30] notified of the proposed so I

[1:07:31] would not have taken the

[1:07:32] property if they were aware

[1:07:33] of the upcoming construction.

[1:07:35] The residents stated they would

[1:07:36] need more time with the

[1:07:37] proposal was approved to move a

[1:07:38] second time at least one year

[1:07:40] to date our office has received

[1:07:41] one letter of support from

[1:07:42] Kristen Square and Neighborhood

[1:07:43] Association and one letter

[1:07:45] of approval from Jamaica Plain

[1:07:45] Council.

[1:07:46] Thank you for your time and the

[1:07:48] Mayor's Office of Neighborhood

[1:07:48] Services would like to defer to

[1:07:49] the board for their judgment.

[1:07:51] If.

[1:07:55] MADAM Chair, we do have

[1:07:56] additional comments.

[1:07:59] Okay, but I'm sorry.

[1:08:02] Go ahead I don't somebody

[1:08:05] raising their hand so probably

[1:08:09] not this case okay.

[1:08:10] Any other questions from the

[1:08:13] board I have a motion.

[1:08:18] Um, Charlie to perform a motion

[1:08:19] of approval.

[1:08:20] MAY I have a second?

[1:08:21] Second?

[1:08:24] MR. Stonebridge?

[1:08:25] Yes.

[1:08:28] MR. Valencia?

[1:08:32] Yes, MISS Turner yes.

[1:08:35] Is better.

[1:08:35] Barraza.

[1:08:36] Yep.

[1:08:39] As we well, yeah.

[1:08:41] MR. Langham.

[1:08:42] Yes.

[1:08:44] Chair votes yes.

[1:08:45] The motion carries.

[1:08:46] Thank you very much.

[1:08:56] Next we have is after we have a

[1:09:00] vote 1747507 with the address

[1:09:01] of 32 White Street.

[1:09:04] If the applicant and what they

[1:09:06] represent present or they

[1:09:08] please one yes.

[1:09:10] Thank you, MR. Stone rich good

[1:09:10] morning, MADAM Chair.

[1:09:12] Members of the board attorney

[1:09:14] Derek Small of a business 51

[1:09:16] Thompson Road in Braintree.

[1:09:17] I'm sad we're here today

[1:09:19] seeking relief to change the

[1:09:20] legal occupancy of the building

[1:09:21] from seven residential units to

[1:09:23] eight residential units.

[1:09:25] Actually, MADAM Chair, to

[1:09:27] confirm, um, the eight

[1:09:29] residential units um, we went

[1:09:31] to pull permits to do work on

[1:09:33] the building and there was an

[1:09:36] erroneous date, uh, with regard

[1:09:37] to the occupancy of the

[1:09:37] building.

[1:09:39] So we are here to square away

[1:09:41] the, uh, records that is the

[1:09:43] adult legalize the basement

[1:09:46] unit if you scroll down one uh

[1:09:49] ,slide or maybe two you can

[1:09:51] see from the picture on the

[1:09:54] left um down one more please.

[1:09:58] On the on the top left.

[1:10:00] Um it is a walkout.

[1:10:02] The building sits on a on the

[1:10:04] hill and the topography is such

[1:10:07] that the rear um means

[1:10:09] of egress and the most of the

[1:10:11] basement units are above grade

[1:10:11] .

[1:10:15] And so we are here again to

[1:10:17] legalize um, the unit um, with

[1:10:19] regard to the violations, about

[1:10:21] chair of the violations are

[1:10:22] preexisting nonconforming again

[1:10:25] as the units do exist currently

[1:10:27] and we are not proposing any

[1:10:29] work outside of the scope or

[1:10:31] the mass of the building.

[1:10:34] Um, just to note the uh, um,

[1:10:36] violations that would probably

[1:10:38] be most interested in the board

[1:10:39] would be the faa which

[1:10:41] requirement is point eight and

[1:10:45] we are proposing.16.

[1:10:48] Um again it's a are existing

[1:10:50] and um with the city to

[1:10:52] legalize that do it I'll stop

[1:10:53] there and answer any questions

[1:10:54] that the board MAY have.

[1:10:55] Thank you.

[1:10:57] Any questions from the board?

[1:11:00] Hearing none ma'am.

[1:11:03] Public testimony MADAM Chair

[1:11:05] and members of the board be

[1:11:06] Bambury and the Roxbury

[1:11:07] Community Engagement Specialist

[1:11:08] through the Office

[1:11:09] of Neighborhood Services.

[1:11:11] The applicant has completed a

[1:11:12] community process which

[1:11:13] consisted of an ombudsman

[1:11:15] facilitated on MARCH 11th and

[1:11:16] was lightly attended and a

[1:11:17] voter expressed concerns

[1:11:18] regarding the current

[1:11:19] maintenance of the property,

[1:11:21] noting that they thought the

[1:11:22] property could do better could

[1:11:23] be better maintained.

[1:11:25] Additional concerns were raised

[1:11:26] regarding the proposed

[1:11:27] occupancy and whether eight

[1:11:28] units would be excessive for

[1:11:29] the property.

[1:11:30] Parking and traffic congestion

[1:11:31] were also concerns,

[1:11:32] particularly given the number

[1:11:33] of development projects

[1:11:35] currently taking place in the

[1:11:36] surrounding area and the

[1:11:37] potential overall impact on the

[1:11:38] neighborhood.

[1:11:39] Next, the reporter was

[1:11:40] encouraged to reach out to

[1:11:42] Roxbury Path forward for a few

[1:11:43] inquiries were made and

[1:11:44] addressed to date our office

[1:11:46] of two letters of support one

[1:11:49] from Roxbury path forward and

[1:11:49] get second.

[1:11:51] It's there but also adding an

[1:11:52] additional unit would

[1:11:53] exacerbate that.

[1:11:56] Tenants living off the property

[1:11:58] loud noises after hours no

[1:12:00] snow, trash or property

[1:12:01] maintenance complaints that go

[1:12:02] unaddressed without a no

[1:12:03] property management.

[1:12:04] Thank you for your time in the

[1:12:05] mayor's office neighborhood

[1:12:07] services would like excuse me.

[1:12:09] Thank you for your time with

[1:12:10] the Mayor's Office

[1:12:10] of Neighborhood Services.

[1:12:11] Would like to defer to the

[1:12:12] board for.

[1:12:14] Thank you.

[1:12:17] We do have additional comments.

[1:12:19] Okay.

[1:12:21] Well that MAY I have a motion?

[1:12:29] Um, MADAM Chair, before I make

[1:12:31] a motion, I, um, wanted to see

[1:12:33] if applicant had be anything to

[1:12:35] say around some of the concerns

[1:12:37] that, um, Banbury just had a

[1:12:38] stroke or not.

[1:12:40] MADAM CHAIRMAN of the board,

[1:12:42] most of those issues were

[1:12:42] addressed.

[1:12:44] They came up at the Abutters

[1:12:45] meeting and subsequently we met

[1:12:47] with um the local neighborhood

[1:12:48] group which is Roxbury Path

[1:12:49] forward.

[1:12:51] And I know that uh Lorraine

[1:12:54] Wheeler and the group had um

[1:12:55] submitted a letter of support

[1:12:57] for the project as most of the

[1:12:59] issues that were brought up by

[1:13:01] MR. Bembry were addressed later

[1:13:03] on we met several times um,

[1:13:06] with Roxbury Path forward and

[1:13:08] some of the direct abutters um

[1:13:10] addressing such issues as to

[1:13:13] trash and we removed the uh

[1:13:14] satellite dishes that were on

[1:13:15] the front of the building and

[1:13:17] we also did uh a number

[1:13:18] of repairs to the exterior

[1:13:19] of the building.

[1:13:21] So work is ongoing and uh, we

[1:13:23] will continue to work with the

[1:13:24] neighborhood group and the

[1:13:25] Abutters on any outstanding

[1:13:26] issues.

[1:13:28] Thank you.

[1:13:29] Um, with that I'll put forward

[1:13:30] a motion of approval.

[1:13:31] Thank you.

[1:13:35] I was second second, MR.

[1:13:35] SkyBridge.

[1:13:37] Yeah.

[1:13:40] MR. Rhodes you yes.

[1:13:42] He's Turner.

[1:13:43] Yes.

[1:13:44] Is better.

[1:13:45] Barraza.

[1:13:47] Yes, MISS.

[1:13:48] We will.

[1:13:51] MR. Langham.

[1:13:53] Yes or votes?

[1:13:55] Yes, the motion carries.

[1:13:57] Thank you, MADAM Chair of the

[1:13:58] board.

[1:13:58] Have a good day.

[1:14:07] Next we have case voa 1863175

[1:14:11] with the address of 772 to 778

[1:14:15] as street if the applicant and

[1:14:17] or they represent a proposal

[1:14:18] what they please explain to the

[1:14:19] board.

[1:14:20] Yes.

[1:14:20] Thank you.

[1:14:22] Uh good morning, MADAM Chair

[1:14:23] and members of the board.

[1:14:25] Uh, my name is Edward Brooks

[1:14:27] and on the property owner at

[1:14:29] 772 Adam Street and also the

[1:14:30] owner and operator of the

[1:14:32] business at 772 Adams Street

[1:14:33] landmark public house.

[1:14:35] I'm here today respectfully

[1:14:36] requesting the board's approval

[1:14:37] to continue operating our

[1:14:38] outdoor patio at landmark

[1:14:40] located on private land at the

[1:14:41] rear of our building.

[1:14:42] I think it's important for the

[1:14:44] board to know that this patio

[1:14:44] is not new.

[1:14:46] We've been operating at

[1:14:47] approximately for five years um

[1:14:49] during Covid when outdoor

[1:14:51] dining became an important part

[1:14:52] of keeping restaurants

[1:14:54] operating, we successfully

[1:14:55] operated this patio for the

[1:14:56] past five years without any

[1:14:57] issues or problems with our

[1:14:58] neighbors.

[1:15:00] Um this year we went to applied

[1:15:02] uh we were informed that we

[1:15:03] needed to come before the

[1:15:05] zoning board because the patio

[1:15:06] was determined to be not uh,

[1:15:07] non non conforming use.

[1:15:09] Uh, since then I've worked

[1:15:10] closely with the City

[1:15:11] of Boston's outdoor dining

[1:15:13] program led by Adam Lesko to

[1:15:14] make sure we follow the proper

[1:15:16] processes and uh, did

[1:15:17] everything that was required to

[1:15:19] get us to this point today

[1:15:20] we've also gone through a

[1:15:21] neighborhood process which I'm

[1:15:22] very proud of support oversees

[1:15:25] um, from uh our direct abutters

[1:15:27] as well as uh mayor's Office

[1:15:28] Neighborhood services and City

[1:15:29] Councilor John Fitzgerald's

[1:15:31] office landmarks that pop up a

[1:15:33] part of this neighborhood for

[1:15:34] ten years now and a responsible

[1:15:35] neighbor.

[1:15:36] And this patio is extremely

[1:15:37] important to us.

[1:15:38] It's simply an extension of our

[1:15:40] existing restaurant and

[1:15:41] provides the customers with a

[1:15:43] great outdoor dining option

[1:15:45] when business is, uh, somewhat

[1:15:47] tough in the summertime I

[1:15:49] believe our five year track

[1:15:50] record of operating the patio

[1:15:51] without issue is the best

[1:15:53] demonstration of um that this

[1:15:54] works well at this location um,

[1:15:56] we can coexist with the

[1:15:57] surrounding neighborhood and I

[1:15:59] respectfully ask that we be

[1:16:00] granted the relief as needed by

[1:16:01] the board.

[1:16:02] Um.

[1:16:02] That's it.

[1:16:03] I'll stop there.

[1:16:04] Thank you very much for your

[1:16:05] time and consideration.

[1:16:06] I'd be happy to answer any

[1:16:07] questions uh, anyone MAY have.

[1:16:10] Thank you.

[1:16:11] And the questions from the

[1:16:11] board?

[1:16:13] Hearing none.

[1:16:14] The public testimony.

[1:16:16] Hello, MADAM Chair, members

[1:16:17] of the board.

[1:16:18] My name is David Jones

[1:16:19] representing the mayor's office

[1:16:20] and Neighborhood Services

[1:16:23] regarding 770 seven me and Adam

[1:16:24] Street office defers to the

[1:16:26] board's judgment as our office

[1:16:27] does not conduct the community

[1:16:28] process on this type

[1:16:29] of proposal and we were

[1:16:31] informed that the patio is

[1:16:32] existing and we are unaware

[1:16:34] of any concerns related to this

[1:16:34] proposal.

[1:16:36] Our office is aware of support

[1:16:37] from the local neighborhood and

[1:16:38] the Cedar Grove Civic

[1:16:40] Association, who are all eager

[1:16:41] to see the applicant continue

[1:16:42] through with the process and

[1:16:44] have the patio open again.

[1:16:45] At this time, the Mayor's

[1:16:47] Office of Neighborhood Services

[1:16:48] differences Board statement on

[1:16:48] this matter.

[1:16:49] Thank you everyone for your

[1:16:50] time and consideration.

[1:16:53] Thank you.

[1:16:55] Next we have Liam Dreamers.

[1:16:58] Well uh, MADAM Chair, members

[1:16:59] of the Board of Regents and

[1:17:00] Counselor Fitzgerald's office.

[1:17:01] The counselor let go and record

[1:17:03] strong support uh, for this

[1:17:05] proposal it's landmarks, uh,

[1:17:06] strong community partner in the

[1:17:07] neighborhood.

[1:17:07] Thank you.

[1:17:10] MADAM Chair.

[1:17:11] There are no additional

[1:17:12] comments.

[1:17:13] Uh, okay with that?

[1:17:14] MAY I have a motion?

[1:17:18] MADAM Chair?

[1:17:20] I'll put forward a motion

[1:17:20] of approval.

[1:17:24] I have a second back in the

[1:17:25] system.

[1:17:25] Bridge?

[1:17:28] Yes, MR. Valencia?

[1:17:31] Yes, MISS Turner?

[1:17:32] Yeah.

[1:17:34] It's by the plaza.

[1:17:35] Yes.

[1:17:39] As we well as MR. Langham.

[1:17:41] Yes.

[1:17:42] Chair votes?

[1:17:43] Yes, the motion carries.

[1:17:44] Good luck.

[1:17:45] Thank you.

[1:17:55] Next we have case 1847298.

[1:17:58] With the address of 97 Mill

[1:17:58] Street.

[1:18:02] Is the applicant and or their

[1:18:03] represent the present will they

[1:18:04] put plans to both.

[1:18:07] Uh hello, this is Christopher

[1:18:08] McEachin and I'm the owner

[1:18:09] of the property.

[1:18:11] It's a single family home.

[1:18:14] What the proposal is to do is

[1:18:16] there's existing structures on

[1:18:17] the property from the kitchen

[1:18:19] on the first floor and it's a

[1:18:21] walkway and on the second floor

[1:18:23] right above this walkway is a

[1:18:24] balcony attached to the

[1:18:24] bedroom.

[1:18:27] The proposal is just to enclose

[1:18:29] the structure so it would

[1:18:31] create additional living area.

[1:18:36] Okay questions from the board.

[1:18:40] And public testimony MADAM

[1:18:42] Chair and members of the board.

[1:18:43] For the record my name is

[1:18:43] Jeremy Bembry.

[1:18:45] I'm the community engagement

[1:18:46] specialist for the Office

[1:18:47] of Neighborhood Services.

[1:18:48] The applicant has completed the

[1:18:50] due process which consisted

[1:18:51] of an abundance meeting

[1:18:53] facilitated on JUNE 8th with

[1:18:53] two supporting a Buddhist

[1:18:55] person who saw no issues with

[1:18:55] the record.

[1:18:57] So next up for the presented to

[1:18:59] Greater Codman Square and

[1:19:00] Neighborhood Association

[1:19:01] completing the community

[1:19:02] process.

[1:19:04] Thank you for your time in the

[1:19:04] mayor's office services will

[1:19:05] let you defer to the board with

[1:19:06] interim.

[1:19:11] MADAM Chair, I don't okay,

[1:19:11] right.

[1:19:16] MAY I have a motion?

[1:19:18] Motion to approve.

[1:19:20] Uh, second second.

[1:19:22] MR. Stonebridge?

[1:19:24] Yes.

[1:19:29] MR. Valencia yes, MISS Turner?

[1:19:30] Yes.

[1:19:33] Is that a browser?

[1:19:38] Yes we will, yes, MR. Langham.

[1:19:39] Yes.

[1:19:41] Chair votes?

[1:19:41] Yes.

[1:19:43] The motion carries with us.

[1:19:49] MADAM Chair.

[1:19:52] Um, I have a question for the

[1:19:53] applicant.

[1:19:56] Oh, for what I believe are the

[1:19:59] next three companion cases that

[1:20:00] should be read together are

[1:20:01] that is good.

[1:20:03] Yes, that's correct, MR.

[1:20:03] Danvers.

[1:20:06] Thank that poetry.

[1:20:08] Uh, so with that then we will

[1:20:15] go to case voa 1834435 with the

[1:20:18] address of 72 Greenville

[1:20:18] Street.

[1:20:22] Along with that we have please

[1:20:27] voa 1834445 with the address

[1:20:31] of 74 374 Beeville Street and

[1:20:32] along with those two we have

[1:20:38] case voa 1834452 with the

[1:20:40] address and five one for Street

[1:20:40] .

[1:20:46] Um if the applicant and or the

[1:20:47] opportunity uh.

[1:20:51] Well to explain to the ballpark

[1:20:52] thank you, MR. Stonebridge.

[1:20:54] Um, uh good morning, MADAM

[1:20:54] Chair.

[1:20:55] Members of the board, uh,

[1:20:56] attorney John Paul.

[1:20:58] Jeannie, I'm here on behalf

[1:21:00] of the, uh, three properties 72

[1:21:02] and 74 Regal Street as well as

[1:21:03] five Waterloo Student High Park

[1:21:04] .

[1:21:06] Um, the zoning in this

[1:21:07] neighborhood is two family

[1:21:08] 5000.

[1:21:10] Uh, with me this morning is

[1:21:12] Michael Bannon who is the owner

[1:21:12] of the property.

[1:21:14] Michael is a lifelong Hyde Park

[1:21:15] resident as well as apparently

[1:21:17] a Boston fireman and he

[1:21:19] actually lives in five the

[1:21:19] Street.

[1:21:22] Um, the proposal before you is

[1:21:23] to combine the two existing

[1:21:27] lots of 74 rebuilt street and

[1:21:30] five Waterloo Street and then

[1:21:31] subdivide those into three lots

[1:21:31] .

[1:21:34] Each of the new lots will be

[1:21:36] approximately 4130ft2.

[1:21:39] Uh, of these new lots the five

[1:21:40] Waterloo two family home will

[1:21:42] remain as it is with no work.

[1:21:44] Um contemplated on that on the

[1:21:46] other two new lots both would

[1:21:48] you front rebuilt street two.

[1:21:49] These new single family homes

[1:21:51] will be constructed.

[1:21:52] They will be addressed as 72

[1:21:55] and 74 rebuilt Street is a

[1:21:56] small single family house.

[1:21:58] Uh it's one bed one bath

[1:21:59] currently there that will be

[1:22:00] taken down.

[1:22:01] Both of these new single

[1:22:03] families will be two and a half

[1:22:03] stories.

[1:22:04] They will include four

[1:22:05] bedrooms.

[1:22:07] They are approximately 20

[1:22:09] 100ft2 each will have garage at

[1:22:10] the ground level of the

[1:22:10] building.

[1:22:12] These new homes will provide

[1:22:13] homeownership, homeownership

[1:22:15] opportunity to high park and

[1:22:16] will also serve to improve and

[1:22:18] better utilize this lot.

[1:22:20] Happy to answer any questions.

[1:22:21] Appreciate your time.

[1:22:22] Thank you.

[1:22:24] Are there questions from the

[1:22:24] board?

[1:22:27] Hearing none.

[1:22:27] Mayor.

[1:22:29] Public testimony MADAM Chair

[1:22:30] and members of the board.

[1:22:31] For the record my name is

[1:22:32] Jeremy Bembry.

[1:22:33] I am the Hyde Park Community

[1:22:35] Engagement Specialist with

[1:22:35] services.

[1:22:37] The applicant has completed the

[1:22:38] community process which

[1:22:39] consisted of an about as

[1:22:40] meeting facilitator on MAY 4th

[1:22:42] during which the majority

[1:22:43] of attendees expressed

[1:22:44] opposition to the proposal.

[1:22:46] Primary concern centered on the

[1:22:48] scale of the project which MAY

[1:22:50] which many felt was too large

[1:22:51] for the lot and surrounding

[1:22:53] area above it is also raise

[1:22:54] significant concerns regarding

[1:22:55] parking and traffic congestion

[1:22:58] ,noting existing vehicles

[1:22:59] obstructing driveways

[1:23:01] particularly near 72 and 74

[1:23:03] refill making an egress

[1:23:04] challenging the street was

[1:23:06] described as already congested

[1:23:07] and further impacted by the

[1:23:09] designation as a bus route.

[1:23:10] Additional concerns were raised

[1:23:12] about the introduction of two

[1:23:14] new driveways onto Revere

[1:23:15] Street which in about a believe

[1:23:16] would reduce available on

[1:23:18] street parking and exacerbate

[1:23:20] traffic conditions overall, the

[1:23:21] proposal was viewed by several

[1:23:22] attendees as an over

[1:23:23] development of a relatively

[1:23:24] small site.

[1:23:26] One attendee expressed support

[1:23:27] for the project, noting that it

[1:23:29] presents a positive opportunity

[1:23:30] to accommodate more families in

[1:23:31] the neighborhood next to the

[1:23:32] property presented to Redevelop

[1:23:33] Watch, a neighborhood

[1:23:34] association where we step

[1:23:36] through Grace plate with a

[1:23:38] third opposed to the entire

[1:23:40] project, a third recommending a

[1:23:41] duplex as opposed to two family

[1:23:43] homes and a third okay with two

[1:23:45] homes provide the curb cut off

[1:23:47] reverse street the design would

[1:23:48] need to be reworked to have the

[1:23:49] curb cuts on Waterloo where

[1:23:51] they currently are for access

[1:23:51] to the property.

[1:23:53] To date our office has just

[1:23:54] received two letters of support

[1:23:54] .

[1:23:55] Thank you for your time and the

[1:23:56] Mayor's Office of Papers says

[1:23:58] we'd like to defer to the board

[1:23:58] for their judgment.

[1:24:00] Thank you.

[1:24:04] Any other raised hands?

[1:24:05] Yes.

[1:24:07] Next we have Laura.

[1:24:09] Good morning.

[1:24:11] Uh, good morning, MADAM Chair

[1:24:13] and members of the board.

[1:24:16] My name is Laura a Sims.

[1:24:19] I live at 75 Greenville Street

[1:24:22] and Hyde Park directly across

[1:24:25] from the proposed new

[1:24:25] construction.

[1:24:29] I oppose this construction

[1:24:30] there mainly.

[1:24:33] Um, I've lived here all my life

[1:24:36] and this home construction, uh

[1:24:40] ,would be detrimental to the

[1:24:41] Maple Street area.

[1:24:44] Uh, we would lose parking on

[1:24:46] the street for the residents

[1:24:50] who do not have a driveway.

[1:24:53] The curb cuts would be directly

[1:24:55] across from my property at 75

[1:24:59] Greenville Street as well as

[1:25:02] the property at 73 Riffle

[1:25:02] Street.

[1:25:06] This new construction is in a

[1:25:08] corner lot of Greenville Street

[1:25:11] and what a lose street so far

[1:25:13] this summer there have been two

[1:25:17] car accidents directly in front

[1:25:19] of 74 Greenville Street and

[1:25:20] Waterloo Street.

[1:25:23] One was a car that was parked

[1:25:26] on Greenville Street going the

[1:25:29] wrong way parking and a car

[1:25:31] rammed into his front end and

[1:25:34] another was parked on Waterloo

[1:25:36] Street in which a u-Haul truck

[1:25:38] could not make the turn

[1:25:38] correctly.

[1:25:41] Greenville Street is a cut

[1:25:44] through street to a state road.

[1:25:46] The Box Valley Parkway is not

[1:25:47] but new.

[1:25:48] Yes.

[1:25:48] Thank you.

[1:25:52] Um two car accidents busses and

[1:25:54] school busses use this property

[1:25:56] and this street constantly.

[1:25:58] We are opposed again thank you.

[1:25:59] Thank you for your time.

[1:26:03] Okay next week for the person

[1:26:06] with a number that ends on 445.

[1:26:08] Yes.

[1:26:10] Good morning that Craig Martin

[1:26:15] a b Bill Hyde Park um it's just

[1:26:16] not the practice and support to

[1:26:18] take to appropriate site

[1:26:21] parcels combine subdivide into

[1:26:23] three undersized parcels that

[1:26:25] was suggested to the proponent

[1:26:28] the neighborhood meeting but to

[1:26:31] get closer to allow for a what

[1:26:34] size let's do a nice duplex on

[1:26:37] this so at the 7374 location so

[1:26:39] the two single family home you

[1:26:42] get the two units and you can

[1:26:44] engineer to have one curb cut

[1:26:46] to Regional Street that are the

[1:26:48] two that accompany proposed

[1:26:51] which would Sorento parking

[1:26:52] spaces which are very limited

[1:26:55] at this location in the prior

[1:26:56] call it just said this is a cut

[1:26:57] to the street to a state

[1:26:59] roadway um to parts of Billy

[1:26:59] Parkway.

[1:27:02] Um and we should do the best we

[1:27:03] can to maintain the street to

[1:27:04] make it doable.

[1:27:08] And so like I suggested that we

[1:27:09] be against and this work I

[1:27:13] approved of a duplex

[1:27:14] development which will be more

[1:27:17] open space and what and and

[1:27:18] this is much more manageable

[1:27:21] that this resident subdividing

[1:27:22] this lot to three undersized

[1:27:26] lot let's do it to two more but

[1:27:28] not legal but at least closer

[1:27:30] to legal and I think that's the

[1:27:31] best interest um for the

[1:27:35] neighborhood more in harmony um

[1:27:35] current construction.

[1:27:38] Thank you, thank you.

[1:27:43] Next we have Beth.

[1:27:48] My name is Mary Beth Benson.

[1:27:50] I live at 73 Revill Street

[1:27:52] directly across from the, um,

[1:27:52] property.

[1:27:56] I while we feel that tearing

[1:27:57] down the existing house and

[1:27:59] building something new would be

[1:28:01] an improvement to what is there

[1:28:04] right now, we feel that the, um

[1:28:07] plan to cram in as much um,

[1:28:10] building on the um, two lots

[1:28:11] and make it three lots out

[1:28:14] of it is is not is excessive

[1:28:15] and not in the best interests

[1:28:16] of the community.

[1:28:18] Um in addition to the driveways

[1:28:21] and the this bus and the

[1:28:22] traffic patterns on our

[1:28:24] Renville Street, I just think

[1:28:26] that it's um it doesn't do

[1:28:27] anything to add to our

[1:28:29] community of Greenville to have

[1:28:30] two big houses crammed on that

[1:28:31] property.

[1:28:35] Thank you, thank you, thank

[1:28:36] you.

[1:28:37] Um, we have one more person.

[1:28:38] Jeremy.

[1:28:39] Oh, hi.

[1:28:41] Yes, uh, my name is Jeremy.

[1:28:43] I live at 71 Reed Mill Street.

[1:28:45] Um, I'm actually in favor

[1:28:46] of this proposal.

[1:28:52] Um, I'd like to say that, uh,

[1:28:54] turning this lot into two

[1:28:55] houses and tearing down the

[1:28:56] existing one is only netting

[1:28:58] the street positive one house.

[1:29:01] Um, so I think this is a great

[1:29:02] idea.

[1:29:03] Uh, be great for this, uh,

[1:29:05] neighborhood to have two new

[1:29:05] single families.

[1:29:06] Uh.

[1:29:09] Thank you, thank you, thank

[1:29:11] you, MADAM Chair.

[1:29:12] There are no additional

[1:29:12] comments.

[1:29:16] And the applicant addressed the

[1:29:18] concerns about curb cuts or

[1:29:20] loss of parking and supplies,

[1:29:23] etc. That's to, uh first

[1:29:24] of all, the current single

[1:29:25] family that we are talking

[1:29:27] about is is a one bed one bath

[1:29:29] is a tiny little bungalow that

[1:29:30] is not habitable for a family

[1:29:31] or anybody more than 2 or 3

[1:29:32] people.

[1:29:34] We have to ask you parking

[1:29:35] spaces with garage parking.

[1:29:37] So when we did the community

[1:29:38] minimum was talking about how

[1:29:39] Revill street to heavily

[1:29:40] traveled street.

[1:29:41] It's not a heavily traveled

[1:29:41] street.

[1:29:42] You can look it up on your

[1:29:43] tablet.

[1:29:44] You'll see that it's basically

[1:29:46] there's Park Street parking

[1:29:46] everywhere.

[1:29:47] In addition to that we're

[1:29:48] providing off street parking.

[1:29:52] The um uh if you look at the

[1:29:54] bpd recommendation for approval

[1:29:56] it states clearly that is

[1:29:57] consistent with the several

[1:29:58] buildings on this lot has

[1:30:00] several houses on the street

[1:30:02] that are sub 5000ft.

[1:30:04] Additionally we have a 16 unit

[1:30:06] building basically to our left

[1:30:07] if you were looking at the

[1:30:11] building um and you know, if

[1:30:12] there's any issue with respect

[1:30:14] to access off of Revell Street

[1:30:16] ,I would just say that you

[1:30:17] know, any sort of proviso to

[1:30:18] continue working with the

[1:30:19] Boston Planning Department with

[1:30:21] respect to access would be um,

[1:30:23] uh, warranted.

[1:30:25] But in all like that last

[1:30:27] gentleman stated you're

[1:30:28] building two single family

[1:30:28] houses.

[1:30:30] You know we're not cramming

[1:30:31] anything on the lot.

[1:30:32] If you look at the what the

[1:30:33] violations are we have a point

[1:30:35] five fa requirement.

[1:30:37] We are at a.52 that is

[1:30:38] certainly not cramming anything

[1:30:40] onto the lot and again rely

[1:30:41] back on the bpa recommendation.

[1:30:44] We're in state that this is

[1:30:45] extremely consistent and

[1:30:46] recommends approval.

[1:30:48] Happy to answer any questions

[1:30:50] board man thank you.

[1:30:52] Questions from the board.

[1:30:57] Hearing none yeah oh okay.

[1:30:58] Go.

[1:31:04] Um, just um, kind of an

[1:31:04] observation.

[1:31:07] I do feel that, um, with the

[1:31:12] amount of land, uh, the density

[1:31:13] seems pretty appropriate.

[1:31:17] Um, in terms of the size of the

[1:31:20] two single family residence,

[1:31:23] it's literally underneath 35ft

[1:31:25] in height is two and a half

[1:31:25] story.

[1:31:28] The construction seems pretty

[1:31:28] conventional.

[1:31:32] Um, so I just wanted to

[1:31:34] address, uh, is this the

[1:31:36] appropriate type of density?

[1:31:37] I think it is.

[1:31:39] Uh, so it's just kind of some

[1:31:39] observations.

[1:31:43] Thank you, thank you.

[1:31:44] Any other questions or

[1:31:44] comments?

[1:31:49] No, I have a motion.

[1:31:52] MADAM Chair.

[1:31:56] I'm going to put forward a

[1:31:58] motion of approval.

[1:32:00] Um, and that the project

[1:32:03] undergoes ppd design review to

[1:32:06] take a look uh, um, ways

[1:32:07] of enhancing.

[1:32:12] Um, access to car in terms

[1:32:14] of the site planning, I do

[1:32:17] believe that two separate

[1:32:18] stories I mean two separate

[1:32:20] structures is there is the

[1:32:22] appropriate kind of urban use

[1:32:23] of the lot.

[1:32:26] Um, but I do think if there's a

[1:32:31] way that the garage access and

[1:32:32] site planning can just be

[1:32:36] reviewed by dpd to minimize any

[1:32:40] um, issues with maneuverability

[1:32:41] being close to that corner lot.

[1:32:42] Thank you.

[1:32:47] You, uh is there a second?

[1:32:52] Council I hate the, uh, board

[1:32:55] member but a baraza that the,

[1:32:59] um extra with the other uh,

[1:33:00] dwellings in the area as well

[1:33:03] as lots I said okay, MR.

[1:33:04] Pembridge.

[1:33:06] Yeah.

[1:33:11] MR. Valencia yes, MISS Turner?

[1:33:14] Yes, it's brought a browser.

[1:33:16] Yes, MISS.

[1:33:17] We will.

[1:33:17] Yes.

[1:33:19] MR. Langham.

[1:33:20] Yes.

[1:33:21] Chair votes?

[1:33:23] Yes, the motion carries.

[1:33:24] Good luck.

[1:33:24] Thank you everybody.

[1:33:34] And next we have case voa.

[1:33:36] Do you want to ask?

[1:33:38] Sorry to interrupt, Secretary

[1:33:39] Stonebridge, do you want to ask

[1:33:41] about, um, 11 clocks?

[1:33:46] Uh, that people wanted to here,

[1:33:48] um, as we have passed the love

[1:33:52] for our are there any requests

[1:33:55] for withdrawals or deferrals

[1:33:56] from the 11 A.M. There?

[1:34:01] Yes MR. Standridge.

[1:34:08] Um, so for MR. Gore yours is at

[1:34:10] 12 at 1130 it's part of the

[1:34:12] 1130 discussion so we just need

[1:34:13] to wait 30 more minutes.

[1:34:14] No problem.

[1:34:16] Um again my apologies, MADAM

[1:34:16] Chair.

[1:34:17] That is okay.

[1:34:20] MR. Elton speaks MR.

[1:34:21] Stonebridge, uh, 350 Adam

[1:34:22] Street, please.

[1:34:30] Uh, so this request is for case

[1:34:35] voa 1827083 with the address

[1:34:36] of 350 Apple Street.

[1:34:38] Would you go ahead and change

[1:34:39] challenge?

[1:34:39] But yes.

[1:34:40] Thank you, MR. Stonebridge.

[1:34:42] MADAM Chair members the board

[1:34:44] attorney Ryan Spitz with the

[1:34:46] Amazon Meranti business address

[1:34:47] of 168 eighth Street first

[1:34:48] floor.

[1:34:48] Uh.

[1:34:49] We're here.

[1:34:51] We just became informed of the

[1:34:52] planning department

[1:34:53] recommendations, so we'd like

[1:34:55] to make changes, uh, based upon

[1:34:55] their recommendation.

[1:34:57] So we're looking for a short

[1:34:58] deferral, please.

[1:35:03] Okay, Marlon, we can do

[1:35:05] OCTOBER 6th, OCTOBER 27th,

[1:35:07] NOVEMBER 10th OCTOBER 6th would

[1:35:08] work perfect.

[1:35:08] Please.

[1:35:11] Okay with that, MAY I have a

[1:35:14] motion motion to defer this

[1:35:17] case so until OCTOBER 6th we

[1:35:22] have a second back in MR. Semaj

[1:35:23] yeah.

[1:35:29] MR. Valencia yes, MISS Turner?

[1:35:31] Yes, I'm out of Barraza.

[1:35:32] Yes.

[1:35:34] Is we well?

[1:35:35] Yes.

[1:35:36] MR. Langham?

[1:35:38] Yes.

[1:35:40] Your votes?

[1:35:40] Yes.

[1:35:41] The motion carries you then.

[1:35:41] Thank you.

[1:35:48] If there are no further

[1:35:50] requests for drawing Moretti's

[1:35:50] special.

[1:35:52] Oh, yes.

[1:35:53] Correct.

[1:35:54] Uh, yes.

[1:35:55] Good morning.

[1:35:56] Thank you, MR. Stonebridge.

[1:35:57] Thank you, MADAM Chair.

[1:35:59] Uh, MADAM Chair, members

[1:36:00] of George Burns here.

[1:36:01] I'm an attorney with the

[1:36:02] business address of 350 West

[1:36:04] Broadway in South Boston.

[1:36:05] I represent the petitioner in

[1:36:08] the matter of 336 e Street, uh

[1:36:10] ,which unfortunately was, uh,

[1:36:13] advertised as 336 East Street.

[1:36:14] Uh Inspectional services

[1:36:16] Department is aware of that zba

[1:36:18] staff I believe that a new

[1:36:20] hearing date has already been

[1:36:21] assigned on SEPTEMBER 29th.

[1:36:23] Uh, I guess we could let

[1:36:23] Caroline speak to that.

[1:36:25] Okay, well, can we read the

[1:36:28] address incorporated into the

[1:36:29] record?

[1:36:33] Uh, this request is for what's

[1:36:38] listed as case voa 1833 to not

[1:36:44] to put the address of 336 East

[1:36:44] Street.

[1:36:48] So yes, MADAM Chair.

[1:36:50] Um, George is correct.

[1:36:52] So we did schedule it.

[1:36:54] It is already advertised for

[1:36:55] SEPTEMBER 22nd.

[1:36:57] Okay.

[1:36:59] So uh with that MAY I have a

[1:37:03] motion to um motion to defer

[1:37:06] this case until SEPTEMBER 22nd?

[1:37:07] MAY I have a second?

[1:37:10] Second, MR. Pembridge?

[1:37:12] Yeah.

[1:37:15] MR. Valencia yes.

[1:37:17] This term yes.

[1:37:19] MISS Barbarossa yes.

[1:37:21] As we will.

[1:37:24] MR. Langham.

[1:37:25] Yes.

[1:37:28] Chair votes yes, the motion

[1:37:29] carries.

[1:37:29] Thank you.

[1:37:36] And a further request for

[1:37:37] withdrawal the deferral from

[1:37:38] the 11:00 hearing.

[1:37:45] And then in that case we will

[1:37:50] return to the 930 here going to

[1:37:57] case voa 1830082 with the

[1:37:59] address of the 21 Computer

[1:38:04] Street if the applicant and the

[1:38:05] directors of a present work.

[1:38:07] Yes.

[1:38:09] Thank you MR. Stonebridge and

[1:38:11] good morning once again, MADAM

[1:38:13] Chair, members of the board uh

[1:38:15] ,for the record, attorney

[1:38:17] medical with Fletcher Tilton on

[1:38:18] behalf of the applicant and

[1:38:20] business address of 100

[1:38:22] Franklin Street in Boston.

[1:38:24] Uh, we're here this morning

[1:38:25] seeking approval to a new

[1:38:27] single family home at 21 Cotuit

[1:38:29] Street in West Roxbury.

[1:38:31] Uh, 22 a street is currently a

[1:38:33] vacant lot which contains just

[1:38:36] under 4000ft2 approximately 30

[1:38:37] 800ft2.

[1:38:39] Uh, Cotuit Street itself is a

[1:38:41] small side street which

[1:38:42] intersects with Baker Street on

[1:38:44] one side and overlooks vfw

[1:38:46] Parkway as a dead ends on the

[1:38:47] other side.

[1:38:49] Uh the street is predominantly

[1:38:51] made up of similar sized lots,

[1:38:53] all with single family homes

[1:38:54] located on them.

[1:38:56] Uh, and this is kind of the one

[1:38:57] missing tooth left in the

[1:38:57] street.

[1:39:00] Uh, we're proposing a new two

[1:39:01] story single family home with

[1:39:03] two parking spaces in terms

[1:39:05] of the floor plans just to run

[1:39:06] through them briefly, we're

[1:39:07] proposing an unfinished

[1:39:09] basement for storage and

[1:39:09] mechanicals.

[1:39:11] Uh, the first floor will have a

[1:39:13] garage at grade which will

[1:39:15] contain two parking spaces as

[1:39:17] well as living space which

[1:39:18] includes the kitchen, living

[1:39:20] room, dining area, a half bath

[1:39:22] and a laundry area.

[1:39:24] On the second floor will have

[1:39:26] the primary bedroom and

[1:39:28] bathroom suite located above

[1:39:30] the garage and then towards the

[1:39:31] rear of the proposed building

[1:39:32] there'll be three additional

[1:39:34] bedrooms as well as a uh

[1:39:35] playroom.

[1:39:37] This project went through a

[1:39:38] community process which

[1:39:39] included meeting with uh direct

[1:39:41] abutters uh several times as

[1:39:42] well as a formal official about

[1:39:43] our meeting.

[1:39:44] Uh we also presented twice

[1:39:46] before the West Roxbury

[1:39:47] Neighborhood Council.

[1:39:49] Uh, we did implement some

[1:39:51] changes to the project

[1:39:52] including that second parking

[1:39:53] space as well as reducing the

[1:39:55] overall size of the structure

[1:39:57] which increased the side and

[1:39:58] rear yard setbacks.

[1:40:00] Uh, based on these changes, the

[1:40:00] West Roxbury Neighborhood

[1:40:02] Council did vote unanimously to

[1:40:05] support the project but without

[1:40:07] uh, pause and I'll be happy to

[1:40:07] take any questions the board

[1:40:08] MAY have.

[1:40:09] Thank you.

[1:40:10] Any questions from the board?

[1:40:12] All right.

[1:40:19] Um, I am curious as to why are

[1:40:20] elevations missing of the

[1:40:20] project?

[1:40:23] Um, part of our job on the

[1:40:25] zoning board is to review kind

[1:40:27] of the character of the

[1:40:29] proposed structure relative to

[1:40:31] the neighboring context and I

[1:40:34] find it, um, the application

[1:40:36] of incomplete for me to even

[1:40:40] begin to, um, provide feedback

[1:40:42] in regards to whether I find it

[1:40:45] to be appropriate to its

[1:40:45] neighborhood.

[1:40:46] Or.

[1:40:51] Any other comments or questions

[1:40:52] .

[1:40:56] Do you want to respond to that

[1:41:00] technical Toria, apologies for

[1:41:01] any confusion or oversight.

[1:41:03] Um, this is a proposed two

[1:41:05] story structure.

[1:41:06] The majority of the structures

[1:41:08] along Cotuit are similar in two

[1:41:10] stories with kind of a similar

[1:41:11] um, you know, couple steps

[1:41:13] entry, gradual entry into the

[1:41:13] first floor.

[1:41:16] i'm not sure exactly why those

[1:41:17] elevations are not included

[1:41:18] within the set.

[1:41:20] Um, but it is a fairly standard

[1:41:22] two story building that, you

[1:41:23] know, aligns with the current

[1:41:24] streetscape.

[1:41:29] You will that MAY have public

[1:41:29] testimony.

[1:41:31] MADAM Chair and board member

[1:41:32] Sigi Johnson with the Office

[1:41:33] of Neighborhood Services.

[1:41:35] This petitioner completed the

[1:41:35] community process.

[1:41:37] Our office hosted an Abutters

[1:41:38] meeting on APRIL 16th at which

[1:41:40] there was some discussion but

[1:41:41] no opposition was stated.

[1:41:42] The West Roxbury Neighborhood

[1:41:43] Council is supporting this

[1:41:44] application.

[1:41:46] With that background one has

[1:41:48] deferred judgment to the board.

[1:41:48] Thank you.

[1:41:51] All right.

[1:41:52] Um, we do have additional

[1:41:53] comments.

[1:41:55] Okay.

[1:41:58] Any other questions or feedback

[1:41:58] from the board?

[1:42:02] I'm sure the project has merit

[1:42:02] .

[1:42:05] I would like to go forward that

[1:42:08] the project be deferred to the

[1:42:10] most to the next hearing until

[1:42:11] we are able to see the project

[1:42:12] and as for.

[1:42:16] The second that my colleagues

[1:42:18] might disagree with that no

[1:42:22] I'll ask MADAM I don't think we

[1:42:23] want to unnecessarily delay any

[1:42:24] .

[1:42:26] It's really important that we,

[1:42:29] uh the patient make our

[1:42:30] decisions that are pretty.

[1:42:35] I also want to make a comment

[1:42:36] about that.

[1:42:37] I'm reviewing the

[1:42:38] recommendation from the

[1:42:40] planning department and that

[1:42:43] that is a to about facilitation

[1:42:47] to um elevations with what I

[1:42:48] mean elevation.

[1:42:50] So I I'm wondering if maybe

[1:42:51] Jeff Hamilton chair can you

[1:42:52] hear me?

[1:42:55] Yes I yeah but I think Jovani I

[1:42:56] think that sets of that

[1:42:58] precedent because we're going

[1:43:00] to be always getting incomplete

[1:43:01] drawings in front of the board

[1:43:02] and it's a lot of it.

[1:43:02] Yeah.

[1:43:03] I'm sorry.

[1:43:03] Go ahead.

[1:43:04] It's fine.

[1:43:05] I love to hear from you, MR.

[1:43:06] Hampton.

[1:43:08] So our recommendation was based

[1:43:10] on the fact that it was a one

[1:43:13] family right to one family and

[1:43:13] one family district.

[1:43:16] We we went back and forth here

[1:43:18] uh, in the department and I

[1:43:21] would completely understand and

[1:43:22] agree with you if you want to

[1:43:24] defer this to see, uh, the

[1:43:26] elevations but because it was a

[1:43:29] one family um, that's why we

[1:43:31] put that uh, specific proviso

[1:43:31] in there.

[1:43:36] Uh, but I I will agree with you

[1:43:40] that it's rare that we never

[1:43:41] see elevations.

[1:43:44] Um, so that's I just wanted to

[1:43:46] explain why we put it in there

[1:43:47] because it was a one family.

[1:43:48] Thank you.

[1:43:49] That is helpful.

[1:43:51] Okay, so there is a motion and

[1:43:52] a second.

[1:43:54] Uh, I will proceed and you

[1:43:56] know, you can decide if, uh, uh

[1:43:59] ,the recommendation from ppd

[1:44:01] stands or you want a deferral.

[1:44:03] Uh, MADAM, I think there was a

[1:44:03] motion forward.

[1:44:04] I was just printing an

[1:44:05] observation.

[1:44:05] Oh.

[1:44:06] i'm sorry, I thought that was a

[1:44:07] motion.

[1:44:09] Okay, well, let's try again.

[1:44:10] Is there a motion?

[1:44:13] I would like to.

[1:44:14] Um.

[1:44:15] MADAM Chair, I'd like to call

[1:44:17] for a motion to defer the

[1:44:18] project to, um, the next

[1:44:20] hearing, uh, so that we can

[1:44:22] review the project as a whole.

[1:44:23] Is there a second?

[1:44:24] Second?

[1:44:27] Okay, MR. Stonebridge?

[1:44:31] Yes.

[1:44:38] MR. Valencia yes, MISS Turner?

[1:44:38] Yes.

[1:44:40] Is better.

[1:44:41] Barraza.

[1:44:43] Yes, MISS.

[1:44:45] We will.

[1:44:45] Yes.

[1:44:49] MR. Langham yes.

[1:44:52] Chair votes yes.

[1:44:53] The motion carries.

[1:44:55] Caroline, is there a yes?

[1:44:57] We have the next hearing.

[1:45:02] Um, would SEPTEMBER 20th 2nd or

[1:45:05] OCTOBER 6th for best in terms

[1:45:06] of timing to get the

[1:45:07] elevations?

[1:45:09] I guess that's a question for

[1:45:10] Matt.

[1:45:11] Yeah.

[1:45:12] I'm confident we can get them

[1:45:14] submitted by SEPTEMBER 22nd.

[1:45:16] Obviously that's two weeks away

[1:45:18] so as long as Inspectional

[1:45:19] services okay we're very it's

[1:45:20] not going to be a change

[1:45:21] of study.

[1:45:21] Advertisement.

[1:45:23] So let's go with SEPTEMBER 22nd

[1:45:24] please okay.

[1:45:26] We'll see that if possible

[1:45:27] could you send those directly

[1:45:29] to me as well so that we can

[1:45:30] take a look at them?

[1:45:31] Of course.

[1:45:32] Thank you.

[1:45:36] Thank you see you then.

[1:45:36] Thank you.

[1:45:46] Next we have case voa 1848753

[1:45:50] with the address of 24 Stimpson

[1:45:53] Street with the applicant and

[1:45:54] the other representative were

[1:45:54] present.

[1:45:57] They would like from the board

[1:45:59] uh thank you, MR. Stonebridge.

[1:46:00] Um good morning, MADAM Chair.

[1:46:01] Members of the board attorney

[1:46:04] John Jeannie here on behalf

[1:46:05] of the, uh, owner of this

[1:46:06] property, Andre Funk.

[1:46:08] Um, uh, thank you for having us

[1:46:09] here this morning.

[1:46:14] Uh, 24 Simpson Street, lot size

[1:46:14] 20,097ft2 zoning.

[1:46:15] It's neighborhood shopping.

[1:46:18] Um, originally it was a three

[1:46:19] storey condominium building

[1:46:21] with 13 residential units and a

[1:46:23] first floor with 21 free

[1:46:24] parking spaces and a first

[1:46:25] floor commercial space.

[1:46:27] It was designated as a daycare

[1:46:29] center as it went forward, the

[1:46:30] daycare center pulled out and

[1:46:33] the lender uh was concerned

[1:46:34] because uh this area Stimpson

[1:46:36] Streets kind of really not a

[1:46:38] business district it's more

[1:46:38] residential.

[1:46:40] We're kind of on the the edge

[1:46:41] of the residential and they

[1:46:43] thought it would be um make

[1:46:44] more sense as a residential

[1:46:44] unit.

[1:46:46] Uh, the plans were uh,

[1:46:49] submitted to I-s-d uh again uh,

[1:46:51] to convert the first floor

[1:46:52] commercial into a residential

[1:46:54] space of a two bed two bath uh

[1:46:55] unit.

[1:46:57] Um, it satisfies the parking

[1:46:57] requirements.

[1:46:59] However, as you all know, uh,

[1:47:00] in a neighborhood shopping

[1:47:01] district, uh, residential on

[1:47:02] the first floor is a

[1:47:03] commercial.

[1:47:05] Uh uh excuse me conditional use

[1:47:05] .

[1:47:07] Uh, the neighbor when we went

[1:47:08] to the community meeting as

[1:47:09] well as the West Rashmi

[1:47:10] Neighborhood Council, the

[1:47:12] neighborhood was very

[1:47:13] supportive with that because

[1:47:15] you can imagine, uh, a single

[1:47:17] family or a single unit, um,

[1:47:19] you know, two bedroom, uh,

[1:47:21] condominium unit would be a lot

[1:47:22] less traffic in the

[1:47:24] neighborhood than, you know, to

[1:47:26] say 15 children in the morning,

[1:47:27] 50 parents dropping off,

[1:47:29] picking up whatever, leaving,

[1:47:30] coming back, picking up and

[1:47:31] leaving.

[1:47:33] Um, and then when we presented

[1:47:34] to the West Rashmi Neighborhood

[1:47:35] Council because it was just a

[1:47:36] change of use and it made sense

[1:47:38] to them, we received their

[1:47:38] unanimous support.

[1:47:40] Happy to answer any questions.

[1:47:43] Thank you.

[1:47:44] Are there any questions from

[1:47:45] the board?

[1:47:48] Hearing none.

[1:47:49] The public testimony MADAM

[1:47:51] Chair and Board member Ziggy

[1:47:52] Johnson with the Office

[1:47:53] of Neighborhood Services is

[1:47:54] petitioner complete the

[1:47:56] community process or office

[1:47:57] hosted and abutters meeting on

[1:47:59] JUNE 2nd at which no public

[1:48:00] comments were made.

[1:48:01] The West Roxbury Neighborhood

[1:48:02] Council is supporting this

[1:48:03] application with that

[1:48:04] background on us defers

[1:48:05] judgment to the board.

[1:48:06] Thank you.

[1:48:09] Thank you.

[1:48:13] Um chair I don't know the okay

[1:48:13] with that.

[1:48:14] MAY I have a motion?

[1:48:18] Madam chair put forward a

[1:48:22] motion of approval for a second

[1:48:24] by the MR. Sandbridge.

[1:48:26] Yes.

[1:48:28] Experiencia.

[1:48:29] Yes.

[1:48:31] His term?

[1:48:34] Yeah is better.

[1:48:35] Browser.

[1:48:38] Yes, as we will.

[1:48:39] Yes.

[1:48:41] MR. Langham.

[1:48:42] Yes.

[1:48:44] Chair votes yes, the motion

[1:48:44] carries.

[1:48:47] Thank you everybody.

[1:48:51] Next we will move on to the

[1:48:53] hearing is scheduled for 11

[1:49:02] A.M. Will begin with case boe

[1:49:05] 1840166 with the address

[1:49:06] of 9292 Elm Street.

[1:49:11] If the applicant and or their

[1:49:12] representative a present that

[1:49:13] they please explain to the

[1:49:14] board.

[1:49:27] Hello?

[1:49:28] Can you hear me?

[1:49:30] We can hear you now.

[1:49:32] Oh perfect that was Muted all

[1:49:35] right so oh and it's someone

[1:49:37] else I'm working with the owner

[1:49:40] uh to present uh the project is

[1:49:42] what it used to be an existing

[1:49:44] laundromat that the owner would

[1:49:47] like to turn into uh, ice cream

[1:49:48] .

[1:49:50] Uh, and ice cream.

[1:49:52] So you actually to be more

[1:49:54] exact of froyo shop.

[1:49:57] Uh, so as you can see here he's

[1:50:00] going to be using me uh, you're

[1:50:02] utilizing the existing space to

[1:50:04] create the produce shop.

[1:50:06] The business hours are going to

[1:50:11] be from uh and uh, sorry, 11 to

[1:50:11] 10.

[1:50:14] Uh, the reason why we're here,

[1:50:19] uh, mercantile is it's not an

[1:50:20] allowed use.

[1:50:22] So we would like to to do that

[1:50:25] change of use for this project

[1:50:25] .

[1:50:27] Uh, I don't know if there's a

[1:50:28] way I can share it.

[1:50:30] I also managed to get, uh, a

[1:50:34] couple some, uh, rent, uh,

[1:50:36] ideation for for this project.

[1:50:38] But this project has been a

[1:50:39] work on the on the inside.

[1:50:41] I don't know if there's a way

[1:50:42] for me to share that I can

[1:50:45] share that if you like as

[1:50:46] additional information.

[1:50:50] Or there questions from the

[1:50:50] board.

[1:50:54] Hearing none.

[1:50:54] Mayor.

[1:50:55] Public testimony.

[1:50:57] MADAM Chair and board member

[1:50:58] Ziggy Johnson with the Office

[1:50:59] of Neighborhood Services this

[1:51:00] petitioner completed the

[1:51:01] community process.

[1:51:03] Our office hosted an Abutters

[1:51:04] meeting at which comments were

[1:51:05] made supporting the concept.

[1:51:07] Some Abutters raised concerns

[1:51:08] about traffic in the area

[1:51:10] caused by other food pickup

[1:51:11] businesses, concern about

[1:51:13] whether mitigation is needed

[1:51:14] due to the former use of this

[1:51:16] site as a dry cleaner and a

[1:51:17] concern about the possibility

[1:51:19] of street tables congesting the

[1:51:19] sidewalk.

[1:51:21] The City Point Neighborhood

[1:51:22] Association voted to support

[1:51:24] this application with that

[1:51:25] background and has deferred

[1:51:26] judgment to the board.

[1:51:26] Thank you.

[1:51:29] Thank you.

[1:51:31] Next we have Ashley from

[1:51:33] Council of Office.

[1:51:34] Thank you.

[1:51:35] Councilor Flynn would like to

[1:51:36] go on record in support.

[1:51:38] Thank you thank you.

[1:51:43] Next we have one yes.

[1:51:45] Good morning board uh, Luann

[1:51:47] o'Connor PRESIDENT Of the City

[1:51:48] Point Neighborhood Association

[1:51:49] .

[1:51:51] This is exactly the type

[1:51:52] of business that we want in our

[1:51:53] neighborhood.

[1:51:55] Um, it's something for

[1:51:56] everybody all ages.

[1:51:58] It doesn't contain alcohol.

[1:52:01] Um, the seating on the

[1:52:03] sidewalk, um, was taken off the

[1:52:03] table.

[1:52:06] So the owner committed to no

[1:52:07] outdoor seating.

[1:52:10] And in so far as parking this

[1:52:13] is on the l Street corridor and

[1:52:14] there are more businesses in

[1:52:16] this particular section.

[1:52:18] Uh, because it's very close to

[1:52:19] our business district of East

[1:52:19] Broadway.

[1:52:21] So this is a perfect, uh,

[1:52:23] business for the community and

[1:52:26] we fully support this type of,

[1:52:27] um, establishment in our

[1:52:27] neighborhood.

[1:52:28] Thank you.

[1:52:32] Thank you, MADAM Chair.

[1:52:33] There are no additional

[1:52:33] comments.

[1:52:35] With that.

[1:52:36] MAY I have a motion?

[1:52:42] Uh, put forward a motion

[1:52:42] of approval.

[1:52:47] Is there a second that MR.

[1:52:47] Stonebridge?

[1:52:49] Yes.

[1:52:52] MR. LaMacchia yes.

[1:52:57] MR. Turner yes, I browser yes.

[1:52:58] We roll.

[1:53:02] Yes so I am yes.

[1:53:05] Chair votes yes the motion

[1:53:05] carries.

[1:53:06] Good luck.

[1:53:08] Thank you.

[1:53:15] The next two cases have been

[1:53:18] deferred so that will take us

[1:53:25] to case vote 1857851 with the

[1:53:29] address so 368 Athens Street.

[1:53:33] Um you if the applicant and so

[1:53:34] they represent a person what

[1:53:36] they please explain to the

[1:53:36] board.

[1:53:38] Thank you MR. Stonebridge.

[1:53:39] Good morning, MADAM Chair.

[1:53:40] Members of the board.

[1:53:41] My name is George Morante.

[1:53:43] I'm an attorney with the

[1:53:44] business aggressive 350 West

[1:53:45] Broadway in South Boston.

[1:53:47] I represent the petitioner,

[1:53:49] David Winnick, the owner and

[1:53:52] developer of 360 4-3 68 Athens

[1:53:52] Street.

[1:53:55] This property is located one

[1:53:57] block northeast of West

[1:53:57] Broadway.

[1:53:59] It is currently used as

[1:54:00] employee parking for a local

[1:54:00] bank.

[1:54:03] My client proposes to legally

[1:54:05] combine the two parcels

[1:54:07] constituting the site into a

[1:54:09] single site of approximately

[1:54:13] 4325ft square feet and to

[1:54:14] replace the existing surface

[1:54:16] parking with the four story six

[1:54:18] unit building there would be

[1:54:20] three two bedroom units ranging

[1:54:25] in size from 980ft2, 2044ft2

[1:54:28] and three three bedroom units

[1:54:32] uh two at 1241ft2 and one at

[1:54:33] 1600 and 60ft2.

[1:54:35] The surrounding area is

[1:54:37] developed with a number

[1:54:38] of parking lots serving West

[1:54:40] Broadway commercial uses as

[1:54:42] well as numerous dwelling

[1:54:43] buildings ranging from 2 to 4

[1:54:46] stories with a five story mixed

[1:54:48] use building located directly

[1:54:49] across Athens Street from the

[1:54:50] site.

[1:54:52] As to zoning, the proposed

[1:54:54] project requires variances for

[1:54:56] insufficient site in rear yard

[1:54:58] setbacks, insufficient lot area

[1:55:01] and insufficient parking with

[1:55:04] respect to setbacks, the mfr

[1:55:05] subdistrict here requires a

[1:55:08] minimum side yard of three feet

[1:55:09] and a minimum rear yard

[1:55:11] of 20ft, which is reduced to

[1:55:13] 15ft pursuant to the provisions

[1:55:15] of the shallow lot exception on

[1:55:17] the right side of the lot near

[1:55:19] zero first floor side setback

[1:55:21] is proposed with the upper

[1:55:23] storey setback approximately

[1:55:23] two feet.

[1:55:25] The left side setback is

[1:55:28] compliant because this lot is

[1:55:30] l-shaped there are effectively

[1:55:32] two rear yards and two at

[1:55:33] setbacks a five foot setback

[1:55:34] along the majority of the

[1:55:36] property and a ten foot setback

[1:55:37] to the rear.

[1:55:38] The deepest portion of the

[1:55:41] building where the setback area

[1:55:42] accommodates a patio and a

[1:55:43] small rear yard.

[1:55:45] The upper stories are also

[1:55:47] stepped back in the rear uh as

[1:55:49] the planning recommendation

[1:55:51] notes near zero a lot line

[1:55:52] conditions are prevalent in

[1:55:54] this area and the majority

[1:55:56] of this lot is in fact only

[1:55:57] 45ft deep.

[1:55:58] With respect to minimum lot

[1:56:00] size, article 68 requires a

[1:56:03] minimum lot size of 7000ft2 in

[1:56:05] this mft district for six unit

[1:56:07] residential building uh there

[1:56:10] are not many 7000 square foot

[1:56:12] lots in the neighborhood

[1:56:14] including um those on which

[1:56:16] multifamily of six or more

[1:56:16] units currently sit.

[1:56:19] These combined parcels total

[1:56:23] approximately 4325ft2 um with

[1:56:26] lot sizes in the neighborhood

[1:56:28] ranging or averaging about

[1:56:30] 2000ft2 as the planning

[1:56:30] recommendation notes.

[1:56:33] Finally, with respect to

[1:56:34] parking, uh, there are two

[1:56:35] violations arising under

[1:56:37] article 68 section 22.

[1:56:40] First, the uh project will

[1:56:42] provide uh six ground floor

[1:56:43] parking spaces beneath the

[1:56:45] residential units three fewer

[1:56:49] than required and a second, um,

[1:56:50] violation with respect to

[1:56:52] parking is that each space is

[1:56:55] proposed at nine by 18ft, which

[1:56:57] is less than the 20 foot

[1:56:58] standard depth required under

[1:57:01] section 33 uh, which permits up

[1:57:02] to 50% of the spaces to be

[1:57:04] built as compact here the

[1:57:06] proposed design and parking

[1:57:08] counter calibrated to allow for

[1:57:10] new housing creation with

[1:57:11] adequate off street parking uh

[1:57:14] in this case set at 1 to 1

[1:57:16] which conforms with city

[1:57:18] residential parking policy and

[1:57:19] I would even suggest with the

[1:57:22] um uh with the desires of this

[1:57:24] board in terms of previous

[1:57:26] cases with that MADAM Chair,

[1:57:28] I'll pause and be happy to

[1:57:29] answer any questions that

[1:57:30] members MAY have.

[1:57:31] Thank you.

[1:57:32] Are there questions from the

[1:57:33] board?

[1:57:36] Hearing?

[1:57:38] None were public testimony.

[1:57:40] MADAM Chair and board members

[1:57:41] Ziggy Johnson with the Office

[1:57:42] of Neighborhood Services.

[1:57:43] This petitioner completed the

[1:57:44] community process.

[1:57:46] Our office hosted an Abutters

[1:57:47] meeting on JUNE 29th at which

[1:57:49] two a better supported the

[1:57:49] proposal.

[1:57:50] The Saint Vincent's

[1:57:51] Neighborhood Association is

[1:57:53] supporting this proposal with

[1:57:54] that background awareness defer

[1:57:55] judgment to the board.

[1:57:57] Thank you thank you.

[1:58:01] Next we have Ashley from

[1:58:02] Council of Friends office.

[1:58:04] Thank you.

[1:58:05] Councilor Flynn supports based

[1:58:07] on a good community process you

[1:58:09] respectfully ask that the

[1:58:10] proponent continue working

[1:58:11] closely with the community

[1:58:12] during the construction phase.

[1:58:13] Thank you thank you.

[1:58:19] Next we have Damien Nagel.

[1:58:21] David.

[1:58:30] He's muted you are you able to

[1:58:33] unmute him yeah I allow him to

[1:58:38] unmute um David um if you can

[1:58:40] unmute yourself please.

[1:58:49] Hello this is David Lenhart but

[1:58:52] of course any stores uh I, I

[1:58:55] think I just heard for uh that

[1:58:58] I should be unmuted am I is is

[1:58:59] the right David there are more

[1:59:00] Davids in the world.

[1:59:02] No it was for another person

[1:59:05] another person with open this

[1:59:07] up for public comment for 368

[1:59:10] Athens is there are there

[1:59:11] anyone is there anyone else

[1:59:13] MADAM Chair and no no the.

[1:59:19] Okay any other questions or

[1:59:20] feedback from the board?

[1:59:26] Is there a motion?

[1:59:27] MADAM Chair I like to put

[1:59:30] forward a motion of approval um

[1:59:32] where the proviso that the

[1:59:35] project goes through the bpd

[1:59:37] design review just paying

[1:59:40] special attention to, um the

[1:59:42] extra material on the first

[1:59:44] story and then the continuation

[1:59:46] to the top story so that it

[1:59:48] works with the neighboring

[1:59:49] context.

[1:59:50] Is there a second?

[1:59:56] Back to that MR. Sandwich?

[1:59:58] Yes.

[2:00:01] MR. Valencia yes.

[2:00:07] His term yes is better browser

[2:00:08] yes MISS We will.

[2:00:09] Yes.

[2:00:13] MR. Langham yes.

[2:00:14] Fair votes.

[2:00:15] Yes.

[2:00:16] The motion carries.

[2:00:17] Good luck.

[2:00:29] Next we have case voa 1855511

[2:00:33] but the address of 555 to 567

[2:00:35] East Broadway.

[2:00:38] If the applicant and all their

[2:00:39] representative present will

[2:00:41] okay, please talk to the board.

[2:00:43] Good afternoon, MADAM Chair.

[2:00:44] Members of the board.

[2:00:46] My name is, uh, Francis Adams.

[2:00:47] I'm an attorney with the

[2:00:49] business address at 350 West

[2:00:50] Broadway in South Boston.

[2:00:52] I represent the owners of the

[2:00:53] property, Eric Fitzgerald in

[2:00:56] name of the current owner

[2:00:57] of the property.

[2:00:59] Uh, this property is a six

[2:01:01] unit, uh, townhouse condominium

[2:01:02] that was approved by this board

[2:01:03] about three years ago.

[2:01:05] Um, I represent the owner

[2:01:06] of this last particular unit

[2:01:06] here.

[2:01:09] Um, the it shows a, uh, roof

[2:01:10] deck.

[2:01:12] Um, we are seeking relief, uh,

[2:01:13] for a variance for excessive

[2:01:14] building height which this

[2:01:16] board has previously granted

[2:01:17] and a conditional use permit

[2:01:18] for the roof deck.

[2:01:20] As you can see from the plans,

[2:01:21] this is an existing roof hatch.

[2:01:24] Uh, the deck is proposed here.

[2:01:26] Um, there are no rear

[2:01:28] staircases or any other access

[2:01:29] to the roof.

[2:01:30] It's exclusive news to the unit

[2:01:32] owners used by the two people

[2:01:34] that live there right now.

[2:01:36] Um, it's we will not be shared.

[2:01:38] As I said, it's not a common

[2:01:38] deck.

[2:01:40] Um, it will provide valuable

[2:01:41] open space to the homeowners.

[2:01:43] Uh, just it's a rather it's not

[2:01:44] a large deck.

[2:01:46] It's ten ten feet wide by 16

[2:01:48] not including the walkway right

[2:01:50] here and it's setback, uh, from

[2:01:52] Broadway about five feet, as

[2:01:53] you can see from the

[2:01:53] dimensions.

[2:01:55] And on this side it's setback a

[2:01:55] little over a foot.

[2:01:57] Um, as shown on the plans.

[2:01:59] Uh, as I said, we're seeking,

[2:02:01] uh, a variance as well as a

[2:02:02] conditional use permit for the

[2:02:02] project.

[2:02:04] Uh, we are aware of the

[2:02:06] planning, uh, department's

[2:02:07] recommendation for approval as

[2:02:10] well as, uh, to add a guardrail

[2:02:11] .

[2:02:12] The setback a little closer to

[2:02:14] the deck and, uh, project

[2:02:16] architect is committed to, uh,

[2:02:18] when he if approved.

[2:02:20] I'm sorry for submitting uh,

[2:02:21] plans to showing the guardrail

[2:02:24] in the appropriate um, location

[2:02:26] in accordance with article 68

[2:02:27] of the zoning code.

[2:02:30] Um, with that, uh, I will open

[2:02:32] it up to any questions the

[2:02:32] board MAY have.

[2:02:37] Are there questions from the

[2:02:37] board?

[2:02:40] Hearing?

[2:02:41] None, ma'am.

[2:02:41] Public testimony.

[2:02:43] MADAM Chair and board members

[2:02:45] Ziggy Johnson with the Office

[2:02:45] of Neighborhood Services.

[2:02:47] This petitioner completed the

[2:02:48] community process.

[2:02:49] Our office hosted an Abutters

[2:02:51] meeting on JUNE 17th at which

[2:02:52] to redirect Abutters were

[2:02:54] opposed to the application due

[2:02:55] to quality of life concerns

[2:02:57] negative have a neighborhood

[2:02:58] association does not support

[2:03:00] roof decks in their catchment

[2:03:01] area with that background on us

[2:03:03] defers judgment to the board.

[2:03:03] Thank you.

[2:03:08] Next we have Ashley from

[2:03:09] Counselor Francis.

[2:03:10] Thank you.

[2:03:12] My name is Ashley and Councilor

[2:03:14] Flynn's office over the weekend

[2:03:15] Councilor Flynn sent a letter

[2:03:17] to the cpa in the city

[2:03:19] requesting a deferral due to,

[2:03:21] uh, no Abutters meeting or

[2:03:23] community process in recent

[2:03:24] weeks, the city informed

[2:03:26] Councilor Flynn's office that

[2:03:27] the Office of Neighborhood

[2:03:29] Services will now decide what

[2:03:30] requires community process with

[2:03:31] the Abutters meeting and what

[2:03:33] is not respectfully with the

[2:03:35] presence of zoning violations

[2:03:38] and article 68 updated as

[2:03:39] of 2019, Councilor Flynn

[2:03:40] believes owners should not be

[2:03:41] making subjective

[2:03:42] determinations on what deserves

[2:03:43] public process for his

[2:03:45] neighbors and taxpaying

[2:03:45] residents.

[2:03:47] Similarly, this past spring the

[2:03:48] city disregarded the concerns

[2:03:50] of City Point residents and

[2:03:52] Councilor Flynn on having an

[2:03:53] abutters meeting.

[2:03:54] The zba both deferred and

[2:03:55] denied that project over the

[2:03:57] course of two hearings due to

[2:03:58] the very same issues

[2:03:59] of community process.

[2:04:00] This is not about Councilor

[2:04:02] Flynn's concerns on roof decks

[2:04:03] it's about what's always been

[2:04:05] traditionally shared values are

[2:04:07] respect for transparency,

[2:04:09] public process and residents

[2:04:10] of a neighborhood serving

[2:04:11] of say what takes place there.

[2:04:13] Councilor firm will be filing

[2:04:15] legislation to require abutters

[2:04:16] meetings for all proposals

[2:04:18] seeking zoning relief so that

[2:04:19] neighbors are able to provide

[2:04:20] feedback to the city.

[2:04:22] He believes we cannot leave the

[2:04:24] door open for human error or

[2:04:25] questions regarding whether all

[2:04:27] proposals are being held to the

[2:04:29] same standard thank you, thank

[2:04:29] you.

[2:04:33] Uh MADAM Chair, an additional

[2:04:36] comment and someone from Owens

[2:04:40] respond to the uh yes MADAM

[2:04:41] Chair, I'm somewhat confused by

[2:04:43] the commentary as an Abutters

[2:04:44] meeting was hosted which was

[2:04:47] attended by myself and the

[2:04:48] petitioners attorney at which

[2:04:50] the proposal was discussed with

[2:04:51] the community.

[2:04:52] I'm not sure if the testimony

[2:04:53] was intended for a different

[2:04:56] case or I would also like to

[2:04:58] add um MADAM Chair, when we

[2:05:00] have an email and a letter from

[2:05:02] the Civic Association who

[2:05:04] declined to have a meeting on

[2:05:05] this particular project.

[2:05:07] So in accordance with the uh

[2:05:08] current practices of the

[2:05:09] mayor's office, we did complete

[2:05:11] all all parts of the process.

[2:05:13] We had the parties meeting as

[2:05:15] well as a request like to have

[2:05:16] a neighborhood civic

[2:05:18] association and they declined

[2:05:19] to have a meeting on this

[2:05:20] project as stated they oppose

[2:05:23] every move get in in the uh,

[2:05:23] City Point game.

[2:05:24] I mean, they're good having

[2:05:26] civic associations so they

[2:05:28] don't they don't believe it was

[2:05:29] important to have a meeting on

[2:05:29] this particular project.

[2:05:31] So I respectfully declined with

[2:05:32] statement made by Councilor

[2:05:33] Clinton's office.

[2:05:35] Okay.

[2:05:37] Any other public testimony?

[2:05:42] Um look what but she law and

[2:05:46] order can so no other comments

[2:05:46] okay.

[2:05:48] Any other questions or comments

[2:05:49] from the board?

[2:05:53] Is there a motion?

[2:06:04] Motion I make a motion with a

[2:06:06] pro license that big upgrade b

[2:06:08] setback from the roof case and

[2:06:11] in accordance with article 68

[2:06:12] section 39.

[2:06:15] Is there a second second?

[2:06:21] MR. Bridge yeah.

[2:06:23] MR. Valencia yes.

[2:06:29] MISS Turner yes is better.

[2:06:36] Barraza yes, MISS We will s MR.

[2:06:37] Langham yes.

[2:06:38] Yes.

[2:06:40] Chair votes yes.

[2:06:41] The motion carries.

[2:06:43] Thank you very much I

[2:06:44] appreciate.

[2:06:54] And as we have now passed the

[2:06:55] 11:30 A.M. Bond.

[2:06:55] Right.

[2:06:59] Will I ask if there are any

[2:07:00] request for withdrawal or

[2:07:03] deferral from the 11:30 A.M.

[2:07:03] Here?

[2:07:08] Uh, good morning again, MR.

[2:07:08] Standridge.

[2:07:09] MADAM Chair.

[2:07:11] And your third time would be

[2:07:13] the charm um, Ernst Garcia when

[2:07:15] an office address of 299

[2:07:16] Gallivan Boulevard I represent

[2:07:20] the applicants for 2630 first

[2:07:20] Street.

[2:07:22] MADAM Chair, if you remember

[2:07:23] the last time you have approved

[2:07:25] a short continuance to allow us

[2:07:28] to have an opportunity to meet

[2:07:28] with the neighborhood

[2:07:30] association regarding them,

[2:07:32] please let MR. Stonebridge just

[2:07:34] read this piece into the

[2:07:34] record.

[2:07:36] Good to talk to you again

[2:07:40] during your um this is this

[2:07:47] request is for case voa 1749423

[2:07:50] with the address of 26 first

[2:07:54] Street go ahead and 30.

[2:07:55] Good morning again MADAM Chair

[2:07:58] and Gloria uh, with an office

[2:07:59] address of 299 Gallivan

[2:08:01] Boulevard appear before you on

[2:08:03] behalf of the applicant for 26

[2:08:05] Broad Street I would like to

[2:08:07] ask for a short continuance to

[2:08:09] allow us to have further

[2:08:10] communication with the

[2:08:11] neighborhood association.

[2:08:14] Uh, I received a letter from

[2:08:16] the, uh, co-chair who has

[2:08:18] granted us an opportunity to

[2:08:19] meet with them this afternoon

[2:08:21] this evening at 7:00.

[2:08:24] Um, and then we ask for a out

[2:08:26] of respect for them we'd like

[2:08:27] for ask for a short

[2:08:28] continuance, MADAM Chair.

[2:08:29] Thank you.

[2:08:31] Uh, do we have, uh, a date?

[2:08:32] Caroline?

[2:08:35] We could do OCTOBER 6th or

[2:08:39] toward 27th OCTOBER six would

[2:08:39] be fine.

[2:08:43] Okay with that?

[2:08:44] MAY I have a motion?

[2:08:48] Motion to defer this case until

[2:08:48] OCTOBER 6th?

[2:08:52] I have a second back in MR.

[2:08:53] Stonebridge.

[2:08:57] Yes, MR. Valencia?

[2:08:59] Yes, MISS Turner?

[2:09:00] Yes.

[2:09:01] Better.

[2:09:02] Barraza.

[2:09:05] Yes, as we will yes.

[2:09:08] MR. Langham.

[2:09:09] Yes.

[2:09:10] Chair votes yes.

[2:09:12] The motion carries you then.

[2:09:13] Thank you, MADAM Chair.

[2:09:18] MADAM Chair believe there's

[2:09:22] also a request on 151 Lennox

[2:09:25] Street with district.

[2:09:26] Can you hear me?

[2:09:27] Yes, sir.

[2:09:29] Excellent.

[2:09:30] Jacob Taylor Brian Hornick 101

[2:09:31] Arch Street.

[2:09:33] Uh, I'd like to request a

[2:09:35] deferral for the 151 Manic

[2:09:36] Street matter.

[2:09:37] Okay, let's have MR.

[2:09:38] Stonebridge read it into the

[2:09:40] record and then we'll hear from

[2:09:40] you.

[2:09:43] So this request is for a

[2:09:46] deferral for case voa one

[2:09:50] expires 7003 six with the

[2:09:53] address of 151 Lennox Street.

[2:09:56] Uh, would you go ahead and

[2:09:58] explain for sure the applicant

[2:10:00] is working with the Boston

[2:10:02] planning department on, uh,

[2:10:04] revising plans and revisiting

[2:10:05] some details of the project and

[2:10:08] we'd like to request a deferral

[2:10:09] until OCTOBER 6th.

[2:10:13] Okay.

[2:10:16] Uh, Caroline, is that date

[2:10:17] still available?

[2:10:18] Yes.

[2:10:19] Okay.

[2:10:23] Uh, with that I have a motion a

[2:10:26] motion to defer this, uh,

[2:10:29] referred to case until

[2:10:29] OCTOBER 6th.

[2:10:33] I have second exactly.

[2:10:34] MR. Sandridge.

[2:10:36] Yes.

[2:10:41] MR. Valencia yes, MISS Turner?

[2:10:43] Yes, it's been a Barraza.

[2:10:44] Yes.

[2:10:49] As we well, yes, MR. Langham.

[2:10:51] Yes, chair.

[2:10:51] Rhoads.

[2:10:51] Yes.

[2:10:52] The motion carries.

[2:10:53] See you then.

[2:11:01] Any further or withdrawals or

[2:11:02] deferrals from the 1130 hearing

[2:11:02] ?

[2:11:07] Yeah, hearing.

[2:11:07] None.

[2:11:11] Um, there MAY be one, uh,

[2:11:12] members of the board.

[2:11:15] Uh, this is item on 44 Granger

[2:11:16] Street.

[2:11:17] I just received some

[2:11:18] communications from MISS Hayes

[2:11:20] that they were, um, wishing to,

[2:11:22] uh, reschedule to OCTOBER 6th

[2:11:23] because of the, uh, notice that

[2:11:24] went out.

[2:11:25] I didn't know if that was going

[2:11:26] to be done on a deferral, but

[2:11:28] I'm happy to move for the day.

[2:11:31] It's been one year which is

[2:11:35] left uh, this is voa 1836 44

[2:11:37] Granger Street 44.

[2:11:40] Caroline, can you confirm that

[2:11:40] ?

[2:11:43] Yes you are okay, so let's read

[2:11:44] that into the record.

[2:11:50] Uh, got no this request is for

[2:11:58] case voa 1836310 with the

[2:12:00] address of 44 Granger Street.

[2:12:03] The right thing else you'd like

[2:12:04] to say but, uh.

[2:12:05] Don't that doesn't.

[2:12:05] Thank you.

[2:12:08] Okay, so MAY I have a motion

[2:12:10] for the full cost of six?

[2:12:15] Motion to defer this case until

[2:12:17] OCTOBER OCTOBER 2nd I would

[2:12:20] second that MR. Stonebridge.

[2:12:21] Yes.

[2:12:24] MR. Valencia yes.

[2:12:26] Let's turn.

[2:12:30] Yes, MISS Federalism.

[2:12:33] Yes, MISS.

[2:12:33] We will.

[2:12:36] MR. Langham.

[2:12:37] Yes.

[2:12:38] Chair votes yes.

[2:12:41] Motion carries you then I

[2:12:41] appreciate it.

[2:12:42] Thank you all.

[2:12:42] Good day.

[2:12:48] And again any further requests

[2:12:50] for withdrawals of the pro from

[2:12:51] the 1130 Europe?

[2:12:54] Hearing?

[2:12:55] None.

[2:12:58] We'll return to the 11:00 cases

[2:13:01] and we will go through the case

[2:13:07] voa 1850688 with the address

[2:13:09] of 442 East Street.

[2:13:14] If the applicant is your

[2:13:15] representative are present for

[2:13:17] their part to the board.

[2:13:19] Thank you, MR. Stonebridge.

[2:13:21] MADAM Chair members long

[2:13:23] journey Ryan Smith to put down

[2:13:24] Meranti business address of 168

[2:13:26] eighth street first floor with

[2:13:28] me today are the owners Michael

[2:13:30] Regan, Joe Santoro and Andrew

[2:13:33] Langone as well as the project

[2:13:34] architects Peterson Dorsey and

[2:13:37] Steven Do for this proposal

[2:13:38] seeks to convert from a tree

[2:13:39] family to a four family by

[2:13:41] converting the basement into a

[2:13:42] new residential unit.

[2:13:44] No additions to the building

[2:13:45] footprint or height as

[2:13:46] proposed.

[2:13:47] The exterior envelope

[2:13:48] essentially stays the same.

[2:13:50] The fourth unit is allowed as

[2:13:51] we are within a mfr sub

[2:13:53] district, but we will need

[2:13:54] relief for the use as a

[2:13:55] basement units are forbidden.

[2:13:57] This is essentially aligned

[2:13:59] with the Bi-rite edu policy in

[2:14:01] the city of Boston, except that

[2:14:02] the properties that have been

[2:14:04] subject to the condominium

[2:14:05] statute are ineligible.

[2:14:07] Despite that all the units are

[2:14:07] occupied.

[2:14:09] Uh, the basement will be

[2:14:11] approximately 825ft2, three

[2:14:13] bedrooms, a full bathroom

[2:14:15] kitchen living area with a

[2:14:17] proposed recessed stairwell

[2:14:18] patio cut into the rear yard

[2:14:19] for egress light.

[2:14:21] The front elevation is

[2:14:22] virtually unchanged.

[2:14:24] The normal exterior work is

[2:14:25] that is that the rear end to

[2:14:27] side with the proposed recessed

[2:14:29] stairwell patio is cut into the

[2:14:31] rail yard at grade level to

[2:14:32] serve the basement unit.

[2:14:33] That's what drives the rear

[2:14:35] yard setback reduction, which

[2:14:36] requires relief against

[2:14:38] sufficient rear yard.

[2:14:39] Despite being a preexisting

[2:14:40] nonconformity, window wells

[2:14:42] will also be proposed on the

[2:14:43] front facade at the basement

[2:14:44] level to bring it more light

[2:14:46] into the new unit.

[2:14:47] We have additional violations

[2:14:49] by far the required after the

[2:14:50] hours of 2.0 and the proposal

[2:14:53] calls for a 2.71 open space

[2:14:55] insufficiency 800ft2 of open

[2:14:56] space would be required and the

[2:14:59] proposal calls for 429 total

[2:14:59] square feet.

[2:15:02] Additional lot area is

[2:15:03] insufficient as we would need

[2:15:05] an additional 1000ft2 of lot

[2:15:05] size.

[2:15:07] But again this is a preexisting

[2:15:07] condition of the lot.

[2:15:09] Our street parking code

[2:15:11] requires 1.5 parking spaces for

[2:15:13] any new unit of housing, and

[2:15:14] the proposal doesn't have the

[2:15:16] ability to provide any parking.

[2:15:18] In concluding, we feel that the

[2:15:19] proposal would not create any

[2:15:20] adverse impacts to the

[2:15:22] neighborhood and is aligned

[2:15:23] with the planning Department

[2:15:24] recommendation of approval at

[2:15:25] this point, MADAM Chair, I'm

[2:15:27] going to turn it back over to

[2:15:28] the board for any questions or

[2:15:28] comments.

[2:15:29] Thank you.

[2:15:32] Are there questions or comments

[2:15:32] from the board?

[2:15:37] I have public testimony MADAM

[2:15:38] Chair and board members Cindy

[2:15:39] Johnson with the Office

[2:15:40] of Neighborhood Services.

[2:15:42] Our office hosted an Abutters

[2:15:44] meeting on JUNE 10th at which

[2:15:45] one a butter was concerned

[2:15:47] about a precedent in the area

[2:15:48] for basement conversions.

[2:15:49] The gate of Heaven Neighborhood

[2:15:51] Association chose to take no

[2:15:52] position on this proposal.

[2:15:54] Our office is aware of one

[2:15:55] letter of support that has been

[2:15:56] submitted to the board from

[2:15:57] just outside the 300 foot motor

[2:15:59] radius with that background and

[2:16:00] has deferred judgment to the

[2:16:01] board.

[2:16:01] Thank you.

[2:16:08] Next we have a different

[2:16:08] surface.

[2:16:09] Thank you councilor friend.

[2:16:11] Let's go on record in support

[2:16:12] due to a good community

[2:16:13] process, we respectfully

[2:16:14] request that the proponent

[2:16:15] continue to work closely with

[2:16:16] neighbors on any quality

[2:16:18] of life issues during the

[2:16:19] construction phase.

[2:16:20] Thank you.

[2:16:23] Thank you MADAM Chair will have

[2:16:26] additional comments that MAY I

[2:16:27] have a motion?

[2:16:32] I'd like to make a motion for

[2:16:34] approval MADAM.

[2:16:34] Second.

[2:16:39] Second MR. Bridge?

[2:16:40] Yes.

[2:16:41] Valencia.

[2:16:43] Yes.

[2:16:44] MISS Turner?

[2:16:45] Yes.

[2:16:46] MISS Barbarossa?

[2:16:49] Yes, as we will.

[2:16:52] Yes, MR. Langham.

[2:16:52] Yes.

[2:16:54] Chair votes yes.

[2:16:57] The motion carries.

[2:16:57] Thank you.

[2:17:07] Next we have case voa 1854862

[2:17:10] with the address of 120 to 120

[2:17:12] d Old Harbor Street.

[2:17:16] If the applicant and what the

[2:17:17] one over there they represent

[2:17:19] the present with employment

[2:17:22] space and for yes thank you MR.

[2:17:22] Stonebridge.

[2:17:24] Good morning, MADAM Chair.

[2:17:24] Members of the board.

[2:17:26] My name is George Morante.

[2:17:27] I'm an attorney with the

[2:17:28] business address of 350 West

[2:17:30] Broadway in South Boston.

[2:17:32] I represent the petitioner,

[2:17:33] David Murphy, the owner and

[2:17:36] developer of one 2122 Harbor

[2:17:36] Street.

[2:17:39] Tim Johnson, the project

[2:17:40] architect is also present.

[2:17:43] The lot here is a 35 foot wide

[2:17:46] ,127 foot deep parcel

[2:17:49] containing approximately

[2:17:51] 4445ft2 in the South Boston

[2:17:51] neighborhood.

[2:17:52] Districts.

[2:17:54] Multifamily residential zoning.

[2:17:55] Subdistrict.

[2:17:56] It is currently improved with

[2:17:58] the two storey residential

[2:18:00] building with accessory parking

[2:18:02] office side driveway and a

[2:18:03] large rear yard.

[2:18:05] My client purchased this

[2:18:07] building on tenanted unoccupied

[2:18:09] uh the petitioner my client

[2:18:11] wishes to um demolish the

[2:18:13] existing building and construct

[2:18:15] a four story five unit

[2:18:16] residential structure with an

[2:18:18] a-grade parking garage serving

[2:18:20] each townhouse style unit

[2:18:21] individually as well as a

[2:18:23] modest private roof deck for

[2:18:24] each townhouse unit.

[2:18:25] Each unit will be an

[2:18:27] independent four story, three

[2:18:28] bedroom, two and a half bath

[2:18:30] unit each with a two car garage

[2:18:34] ,a small front balcony and 168

[2:18:35] square foot private roof deck.

[2:18:38] The proposed project requires a

[2:18:39] variance for insufficient

[2:18:41] additional lot area, two

[2:18:42] variances for insufficient side

[2:18:45] yard and insufficient rear yard

[2:18:47] setbacks and conditional use

[2:18:49] approval owing to the main

[2:18:51] entrance configuration and also

[2:18:53] for the building's height in

[2:18:55] both of those last two uh

[2:18:57] relief requirements owed to the

[2:18:58] property's presence within a

[2:19:01] restricted roof district with

[2:19:03] respect to law dimensions and

[2:19:04] the required additional lot

[2:19:06] area the mfa sub district

[2:19:09] requires um uh with respect to

[2:19:12] the side yard, a three foot

[2:19:16] minimum uh side yard and a 20

[2:19:17] foot uh minimum rear yard.

[2:19:20] The project proposes a left

[2:19:21] side yard setback of a half

[2:19:23] foot, but it should be noted

[2:19:25] that that side of the lot in

[2:19:27] the building is bordered by a

[2:19:29] driveway serving the abutting

[2:19:30] property, and that the

[2:19:32] separation distance between the

[2:19:34] two buildings will be over

[2:19:34] 14ft.

[2:19:37] The proposed rear yard setback

[2:19:40] is approximately four feet here

[2:19:40] .

[2:19:42] It also should be noted that

[2:19:44] the lot backs on to a large

[2:19:46] parking lot serving a townhouse

[2:19:48] style multifamily building that

[2:19:50] is addressed on East eighth

[2:19:50] Street.

[2:19:52] There's no residential

[2:19:53] of butter in the rear.

[2:19:55] Finally, with respect to the

[2:19:57] lot size it is approximately

[2:20:00] 1550 five square feet shy

[2:20:01] of the 6000ft2 the code

[2:20:03] requires for a five unit

[2:20:03] development.

[2:20:07] Uh these are dimensional

[2:20:09] constraints of what is a narrow

[2:20:11] preexisting lot uh, not

[2:20:13] deficiencies um, of design.

[2:20:15] In fact, the design was adapted

[2:20:17] to the size and dimensions

[2:20:17] of the lot.

[2:20:19] Each unit is provided prime and

[2:20:20] open space through balconies

[2:20:23] and roof decks the adjacent

[2:20:25] lots provide, as I noted,

[2:20:26] sufficient off site setbacks

[2:20:28] from the residential uses that

[2:20:30] would otherwise be effective

[2:20:32] uh, affected excuse me.

[2:20:33] The planning department review

[2:20:35] these same facts and reach the

[2:20:36] same conclusion that given the

[2:20:37] scale of surrounding

[2:20:39] development, the narrow lot to

[2:20:42] mention, uh, the on site open

[2:20:43] space provided and the setback

[2:20:45] conditions on adjacent lots uh

[2:20:47] ,we believe that relief here

[2:20:50] is justified and reasonable

[2:20:51] with respect to the location

[2:20:54] of the main entrances, the code

[2:20:55] requires that the main entrance

[2:20:56] of the dwelling face the front

[2:20:57] line line?

[2:21:00] Uh, but given the site's 35

[2:21:02] foot width and 127 foot depth,

[2:21:04] it is proposed here to access

[2:21:06] all five units from a drive

[2:21:09] aisle uh, with the sidewalk

[2:21:11] interior to the property um

[2:21:13] within the site with the unit

[2:21:14] entrances facing that drive

[2:21:16] aisle and private sidewalk.

[2:21:17] The front of the building will

[2:21:18] still present windows on all

[2:21:20] floors in the ground floor

[2:21:21] planter box on the street

[2:21:23] facing frontage will remain

[2:21:24] active and inviting even

[2:21:26] without a door opening on Old

[2:21:27] Arbor Street.

[2:21:29] This configuration is not

[2:21:30] unusual for the block.

[2:21:32] Other nearby buildings take

[2:21:33] their access off the side

[2:21:34] of the building in the same

[2:21:36] way, making this design

[2:21:38] consistent with this as built

[2:21:38] condition.

[2:21:40] This is a fact also noted in

[2:21:41] the planning recommendation and

[2:21:43] finally with respect to the

[2:21:44] building's height and the

[2:21:45] provisions of the restricted

[2:21:47] Roof District article 68

[2:21:50] section 29 uh limits allowable

[2:21:52] building height on any line to

[2:21:53] the height of an existing

[2:21:55] building subsequent to

[2:21:55] demolition.

[2:21:57] The existing vacant building is

[2:22:01] a 17 foot two story old wire on

[2:22:02] a block otherwise built up to

[2:22:03] three and four stories.

[2:22:05] This proposed 40 foot building

[2:22:07] is zoning compliant with

[2:22:09] respect to the actual table

[2:22:09] requirements for the

[2:22:12] subdistrict but for uh the

[2:22:13] restricted structure provisions

[2:22:15] even with the additional height

[2:22:17] um the site design places the

[2:22:19] driveway along the side closest

[2:22:21] to the adjacent building on the

[2:22:23] right there's a dry violence

[2:22:24] existing on the lot left.

[2:22:26] Uh, and both of these

[2:22:28] conditions to preserve access

[2:22:30] to light on air and both sides

[2:22:31] of the building um, satisfying

[2:22:33] the conditional use approval

[2:22:34] conditions under section 29.

[2:22:36] With that, MADAM Chair, I'll

[2:22:37] pause and I'd be happy to take

[2:22:38] any questions or comments from

[2:22:39] the board.

[2:22:40] Thank you.

[2:22:42] Are there questions from the

[2:22:42] board?

[2:22:45] Hearing none ma'am.

[2:22:48] Public testimony MADAM Chair

[2:22:49] and board members Ziggy Johnson

[2:22:50] with the Office of Neighborhood

[2:22:50] Services.

[2:22:52] This petitioner completed the

[2:22:53] community process.

[2:22:54] Our office hosted an Abutters

[2:22:56] meeting on JUNE 30th at which

[2:22:58] there was a mix of support and

[2:22:59] concerns from residents

[2:23:01] primarily at the 1306 Columbia

[2:23:03] Road the building concerns were

[2:23:04] raised by two Abutters

[2:23:05] residents of that building

[2:23:06] without water runoff, garage

[2:23:08] door noise, the number of decks

[2:23:09] and the insufficient setback.

[2:23:11] Two others were supportive

[2:23:12] of the design, stating a

[2:23:14] preference for townhouses and a

[2:23:15] need for this type of housing

[2:23:16] in the area.

[2:23:17] The Dorchester Heights

[2:23:19] Neighborhood Association is in

[2:23:21] opposition to this application.

[2:23:22] With that background on us

[2:23:24] defers judgment to the board.

[2:23:26] Thank you, thank you.

[2:23:30] Hi.

[2:23:31] My name is actually Councilor

[2:23:33] Flynn's office counselor

[2:23:34] Feldman normally wants to

[2:23:36] support a case like this due to

[2:23:38] two parking spaces per unit and

[2:23:40] attempting to solve Boston's

[2:23:41] existing parking crisis.

[2:23:43] However, he has a long standing

[2:23:45] policy of opposing roof decks

[2:23:46] due to the quality of life

[2:23:47] issues impacting our seniors,

[2:23:49] veterans, persons with

[2:23:50] disabilities and young

[2:23:50] families.

[2:23:54] Thank you thank you.

[2:23:59] And next we have uh um a tuna.

[2:24:04] Briley Turner.

[2:24:06] I live at the 1306 building and

[2:24:08] we're not opposed to the the

[2:24:10] building of this townhouse.

[2:24:12] It's how it's being built that

[2:24:14] we have an issue with the fact

[2:24:16] that the the garage doors are

[2:24:19] um, basically on the side

[2:24:23] of our building one um,

[2:24:24] basically where our bedrooms

[2:24:25] are going to be and that's

[2:24:27] something that is needs to be

[2:24:28] in concert, you know, like I

[2:24:29] pointed out.

[2:24:31] So the garage door the cars

[2:24:33] coming in and out um that

[2:24:36] definitely the the um the the

[2:24:38] side of you know the the side

[2:24:40] yards of three feet in the 20ft

[2:24:44] being drastically uh, reduced

[2:24:47] is not okay according to how we

[2:24:49] feel about this building and I

[2:24:52] know that um, uh, you mentioned

[2:24:54] the attorney mentioned that the

[2:24:58] uh the the back of the building

[2:24:59] actually, um, backs into East

[2:25:00] Aid.

[2:25:01] That's not true.

[2:25:03] It actually backs into our

[2:25:05] parking lot so I don't know.

[2:25:07] I mean, there seems to be a lot

[2:25:08] of misinformation that's being

[2:25:10] shared here and I want to make

[2:25:11] sure that we're on record

[2:25:14] saying that we don't um, we

[2:25:15] don't agree with some of the,

[2:25:18] uh, proposed designs that are

[2:25:19] being presented.

[2:25:20] Thank you.

[2:25:24] MADAM Chair.

[2:25:25] There are no additional

[2:25:26] comments or answers.

[2:25:27] Yes.

[2:25:28] Thank you, MADAM Chair.

[2:25:30] Uh, with respect to the rear

[2:25:32] of the building, uh, it does

[2:25:35] uh, as I indicated, um, back up

[2:25:37] into a garage a multi uh space

[2:25:39] garage I think through 22

[2:25:39] parking spaces.

[2:25:41] I know that's not true.

[2:25:42] That is not true.

[2:25:46] Please mute public comment.

[2:25:51] Um, I believe the previous

[2:25:53] speaker said that the building

[2:25:55] backs up onto the 1306 parking

[2:25:57] lot and I believe that's what

[2:25:59] the testimony was regardless

[2:26:00] of whether it's a parking lot

[2:26:03] serving 13 or 6 or the building

[2:26:04] on State Street is a townhouse

[2:26:05] style building.

[2:26:07] Uh, I MAY have misidentified

[2:26:08] the building for which the

[2:26:09] parking lot is being used, but

[2:26:11] it it does back up to that

[2:26:11] parking lot.

[2:26:14] Um, with respect to garage door

[2:26:16] opener is my understanding I'm

[2:26:17] not a builder but I believe

[2:26:19] that most garage door openers

[2:26:20] today, uh, operated something

[2:26:23] like 40 decibel levels of sound

[2:26:23] .

[2:26:25] They're much quieter than some

[2:26:26] of the older systems that

[2:26:27] people MAY be used to.

[2:26:29] Uh, as I said, there is

[2:26:31] separation distance on the

[2:26:33] right side owing to the fact

[2:26:34] that there is a drive by there

[2:26:37] uh, for uh for those garages

[2:26:41] and um, I think that addresses

[2:26:42] all of the comments.

[2:26:45] Any other questions or comments

[2:26:46] from the board?

[2:26:50] We have a motion.

[2:27:04] Is anyone prepared to make a

[2:27:05] motion or do you still have

[2:27:06] questions?

[2:27:09] MADAM Chair I'll make a motion

[2:27:10] to approve.

[2:27:13] Is there a second?

[2:27:16] Better browse a second, MR.

[2:27:16] Stonebridge.

[2:27:18] Yes.

[2:27:21] The Valencia yes.

[2:27:23] MISS Turner?

[2:27:26] Yes, it's been a browser.

[2:27:27] Yes.

[2:27:29] As we well yes.

[2:27:32] MR. Langham.

[2:27:34] Yes.

[2:27:36] Your votes?

[2:27:38] Yes, the motion carries.

[2:27:38] Thank you.

[2:27:39] Thank you, MADAM Chair.

[2:27:49] That's we have case voa 1861457

[2:27:50] with the address of one.

[2:27:58] 2073 to 2180 not Washington

[2:27:59] Street.

[2:28:01] If the applicant and the other

[2:28:05] resident representative are

[2:28:07] present would they point to the

[2:28:07] board?

[2:28:11] Good morning chair and members

[2:28:14] of the board uh I guess good

[2:28:15] morning for another four

[2:28:16] minutes.

[2:28:17] Uh, this is David Lenhart at

[2:28:19] Cool Sound Source one post

[2:28:21] office Square uh, Permanent

[2:28:23] Council for New England

[2:28:25] Culinary Arts training and

[2:28:26] thank you for the opportunity

[2:28:30] to present, uh, our zoning

[2:28:31] request in connection with a

[2:28:33] new location in Nubian Square

[2:28:35] for culinary training career

[2:28:36] readiness.

[2:28:38] I'm here with, uh, several team

[2:28:41] members Martin Hemsley, Badri

[2:28:41] good.

[2:28:43] Kevin Blair I'm going to pass

[2:28:46] it on to Martin to continue the

[2:28:48] presentation and I'll stick

[2:28:49] around for any questions.

[2:28:49] Thank you.

[2:29:01] Is this our is folks?

[2:29:03] Um yes.

[2:29:08] Uh, who needs a show that needs

[2:29:08] to be elevated?

[2:29:08] Yes.

[2:29:11] Martin Hemsley should be

[2:29:12] elevated to panelist and you

[2:29:15] will continue with that

[2:29:17] presentation now she's allowed

[2:29:19] to unmute itself.

[2:29:19] Yeah.

[2:29:21] Oh here we go.

[2:29:22] Thank you.

[2:29:23] You can hear me all right.

[2:29:24] Yes.

[2:29:26] Thank you, MADAM CHAIRMAN and

[2:29:28] members of the board Martin

[2:29:29] Hemsley I'm the founder

[2:29:30] of Kneecaps New England

[2:29:33] Culinary Arts training and I'd

[2:29:34] like to tailor with the first 2

[2:29:36] or 3 slides to moderate good.

[2:29:38] Who's our executive director?

[2:29:55] Uh uh, please let us know if

[2:29:56] you're having trouble locating

[2:29:58] the names in this.

[2:30:01] Can you please elevate

[2:30:02] moderate?

[2:30:02] Good.

[2:30:09] Um, um, I'm not sure if I

[2:30:11] should be, uh, but I'm great in

[2:30:13] the morning so I can hear you.

[2:30:14] All right.

[2:30:16] Good move to the next slide.

[2:30:17] My name is Matthew good.

[2:30:19] I'm the executive director.

[2:30:23] Here@carnegie.Com training.

[2:30:27] With advance.

[2:30:28] Can you advance the slides,

[2:30:29] ambassador?

[2:30:35] Can the ambassador advance the

[2:30:36] slides for him?

[2:30:40] Thank you thank you MADAM That

[2:30:40] podium.

[2:30:44] So, um, Nick, is the culinary

[2:30:45] training program really focused

[2:30:46] on folks who MAY have our

[2:30:48] barriers to employment?

[2:30:50] We have four three pillars.

[2:30:52] One is culinary arts the

[2:30:54] technical skills training as

[2:30:56] well as kitchen time.

[2:30:57] Wellness is really focused and

[2:30:59] centered around the folks in

[2:31:01] our program around financial

[2:31:02] literacy, wellness in mind is

[2:31:05] yoga um trauma informed

[2:31:07] practices from staff and

[2:31:09] students and then our career

[2:31:10] readiness is really focused on

[2:31:12] helping folks get into the

[2:31:14] culinary industry as well as

[2:31:15] progress within that pathway.

[2:31:17] Um, to have sustainability to

[2:31:19] they believe in themselves.

[2:31:21] Next slide please.

[2:31:25] All of our programs are tuition

[2:31:25] free.

[2:31:30] Our four programs our flagship

[2:31:31] which is currently at 23

[2:31:33] Radisson Street here in the

[2:31:36] South and um we do a Spanish

[2:31:38] bilingual is a little cohort as

[2:31:40] well as well as the Haitian

[2:31:41] Creole cohort.

[2:31:44] Um and we serve folks right

[2:31:46] behind the walls yet so House

[2:31:49] of correction uh, is is a 14

[2:31:50] year program as I stated

[2:31:50] before.

[2:31:52] And then we have a social

[2:31:54] enterprise that we provide

[2:31:56] catering and event space um,

[2:31:57] typically seven weeks for our

[2:31:59] students and they have access

[2:32:00] to real work experience as well

[2:32:02] as opportunity as well.

[2:32:04] Thank you for your time today.

[2:32:07] I will now turn it over to

[2:32:09] Martin and thanks madre.

[2:32:12] Um the building that you can

[2:32:15] see here is uh I'm sorry, could

[2:32:19] you go back to slide um, in

[2:32:20] square this represents a

[2:32:22] significant move for us.

[2:32:24] Uh, we're currently in on Brad

[2:32:26] some street, uh, in an area

[2:32:28] that's not easily accessed by

[2:32:30] our students and is, um, close

[2:32:32] to the master class

[2:32:32] intersection.

[2:32:34] We've been looking for new

[2:32:35] space for a couple of years

[2:32:37] because, uh, lease is up next

[2:32:40] year in our current space and

[2:32:41] we've identified this building

[2:32:43] as being perfect for our

[2:32:43] students.

[2:32:46] It's close to Nubian, uh,

[2:32:49] square transit station and, um,

[2:32:51] gives us a lot more space in

[2:32:52] which to operate.

[2:32:56] Uh, we have, uh, raised the

[2:32:57] acquisition financing and this

[2:32:59] week we expect to get approval

[2:33:01] from mass development with

[2:33:02] supportive financing to

[2:33:05] cover the purchase price of $9

[2:33:05] million.

[2:33:07] We're scheduled to close early

[2:33:09] in OCTOBER.

[2:33:11] Uh, next slide please.

[2:33:16] Uh, we have launched Capital

[2:33:18] Campaign which has been

[2:33:19] underway for some months.

[2:33:20] We expect to invest an

[2:33:22] additional $9 million to

[2:33:24] renovate the second and third

[2:33:25] floors in particular to put in

[2:33:28] a significantly larger kitchen.

[2:33:30] And we now have to support our

[2:33:32] teaching and also uh, social

[2:33:34] enterprise, uh, catering.

[2:33:37] The next slide uh, there are

[2:33:40] three zoning reliefs requested

[2:33:42] which I've outlined here.

[2:33:44] I can't describe them

[2:33:44] technically.

[2:33:45] Perhaps a lawyer can do that.

[2:33:49] Yes I can I can jump in

[2:33:51] although uh it's it's it's

[2:33:52] pretty straightforward in terms

[2:33:55] of uh the relief that's needed.

[2:33:56] Uh, again, this is moving into

[2:33:58] an existing building, uh, so

[2:34:00] that, you know, the request

[2:34:02] around parking has to do with

[2:34:04] with the existing building, uh,

[2:34:05] for loading as well.

[2:34:07] So, uh, conditional on a couple

[2:34:09] conditional use permit and a

[2:34:09] variance.

[2:34:11] Thank you.

[2:34:16] Thank you.

[2:34:18] Are there questions from the

[2:34:18] board?

[2:34:22] Hearing none, ma'am.

[2:34:25] Public testimony, MADAM Chair

[2:34:25] and members of the board.

[2:34:27] For the record, my name is

[2:34:27] Jeremy Banbury.

[2:34:29] I am the Roxbury community

[2:34:30] engagement specialist with the

[2:34:32] services the applicant has

[2:34:33] completed the community process

[2:34:34] which consisted of a

[2:34:35] Neighborhood Services

[2:34:36] subcommittee flier distributed

[2:34:38] to about escrow when this was

[2:34:39] completed the community process

[2:34:40] to date our office has not

[2:34:41] received any further community

[2:34:42] feedback at this time.

[2:34:44] Thank you for your time and the

[2:34:45] Mayor's Office of Services

[2:34:46] would like to defer to the

[2:34:47] board for their judgment.

[2:34:50] On video.

[2:34:54] Uh, next we I think is.

[2:35:01] Patrick but I think you can

[2:35:02] unmute yourself now.

[2:35:07] Uh oh hi.

[2:35:09] I was just trying to get back

[2:35:11] as a panelist on what the city,

[2:35:11] um, issues.

[2:35:13] I decided to jump off and jump

[2:35:14] back on the call.

[2:35:17] All right, so then I'm sure I

[2:35:19] don't see a different part

[2:35:19] of it, doesn't it?

[2:35:21] Thank you.

[2:35:23] Now with that, MAY I have a

[2:35:23] motion?

[2:35:23] Um.

[2:35:26] I like to put forward a motion

[2:35:26] of approval.

[2:35:27] I have a second.

[2:35:29] Second.

[2:35:31] Sorry on MR. Sandbridge.

[2:35:33] Yeah.

[2:35:36] Still on to you?

[2:35:37] Yes.

[2:35:39] MISS Turner?

[2:35:40] Yes.

[2:35:42] Is better also.

[2:35:43] Yes.

[2:35:48] As we well, yes MR. Langham.

[2:35:48] Yes.

[2:35:50] Chair votes yes.

[2:35:53] The motion carries uh with

[2:35:55] that, can we take a 15 minute

[2:35:55] break?

[2:35:58] Thank you.

[2:36:00] Yes, we've done.

[2:51:43] Analyst.

[2:51:50] Sorry.

[2:51:51] Yes.

[2:51:52] Uh.

[2:51:56] Yeah.

[2:51:57] We're ready to start recording

[2:51:57] .

[2:51:59] Thank you.

[2:52:03] Uh, MR. Stonebridge recording

[2:52:03] in progress.

[2:52:04] PRESIDENT.

[2:52:07] Thank you, MR. Valencia.

[2:52:08] PRESIDENT.

[2:52:14] MISS Turner, PRESIDENT Barraza

[2:52:17] just just so we're willing to

[2:52:17] right there.

[2:52:19] Thank you.

[2:52:19] MISS.

[2:52:20] We will.

[2:52:26] All in the morning warms up to

[2:52:28] where I see I see you, but you

[2:52:29] might still be having technical

[2:52:30] problems.

[2:52:31] Uh, MR. Like me.

[2:52:33] Uh I'm here, MADAM Chair.

[2:52:36] Sorry, I think I got cut but I

[2:52:38] even restarted my computer over

[2:52:40] the uh I guess it didn't help.

[2:52:42] It looks to me like everybody

[2:52:43] is having some kind of issue

[2:52:44] today.

[2:52:46] I can hear a lot of static.

[2:52:50] So it seems that this is the

[2:52:51] issue of the day, uh, MR.

[2:52:53] Langham PRESIDENT.

[2:52:55] MADAM Chair.

[2:52:55] All right.

[2:52:56] Excellent.

[2:52:57] The floor is yours, MR.

[2:52:58] Stonebridge.

[2:52:59] Thank you, MADAM Chair.

[2:53:07] We will return to the old 11 or

[2:53:12] return to the 11:00 hearing and

[2:53:14] we will go to the last two

[2:53:15] which are companion cases which

[2:53:16] ?

[2:53:24] About the voting age voa 16.100

[2:53:26] for the address of 18 are White

[2:53:34] Street along with is voa 186.7

[2:53:36] di Don also with the address

[2:53:40] of the White Street if the

[2:53:41] applicant and the with the.

[2:53:43] Represent a brother would they

[2:53:45] please come to the use cases

[2:53:48] and for good afternoon uh MADAM

[2:53:51] Chair members of the board uh

[2:53:52] my name is David Higgins with

[2:53:54] an address of 20 Plain Street

[2:53:55] in Dorchester.

[2:53:59] Uh, we are proposing to combine

[2:54:01] number 20 Plain Street and 18

[2:54:02] Plain Street today into a

[2:54:05] single lot resulting in a total

[2:54:10] square foot lot of 13,707ft2.

[2:54:13] Uh, the new house on the on the

[2:54:15] combined lot will which will

[2:54:17] now be number 18 Plain Street.

[2:54:20] Uh I'll have if Tim Sheehan

[2:54:22] would like to uh, just explain

[2:54:25] the plans of the of the house

[2:54:27] and then once he's finished I

[2:54:29] will I will, uh, continue.

[2:54:30] Thank you.

[2:54:32] Hello, everyone.

[2:54:33] Uh, I am Tim Chan.

[2:54:35] I'm the architect for the

[2:54:36] project number nine Wall Street

[2:54:37] in Charlestown.

[2:54:39] And yes, to David's point, we'd

[2:54:41] like to build, uh, a single

[2:54:43] family house on the site.

[2:54:44] As you see on the site plan it

[2:54:46] would be very similar to the

[2:54:48] last project we did uh, in the

[2:54:49] left corner of the site where

[2:54:50] you're looking at the lot

[2:54:52] except we would have a family

[2:54:54] room, uh, to a large living

[2:54:55] space on the first floor.

[2:54:56] I call it family room master

[2:54:58] bedroom because if somebody

[2:54:59] wanted that to be a master

[2:55:01] bedroom suite, uh, it would

[2:55:01] work well for that.

[2:55:03] And basically the first floor

[2:55:04] would be kitchen dining, living

[2:55:05] with a half bath and a

[2:55:07] forwardly justified set

[2:55:08] of switchback stairs.

[2:55:10] The middle floor you know, the

[2:55:11] upper floors would be identical

[2:55:12] to what we did next door.

[2:55:14] So uh, two bedrooms, a master

[2:55:15] and two bathrooms.

[2:55:17] Uh top floor we're calling a

[2:55:19] bonus round up in the attic on

[2:55:20] the third floor in the.

[2:55:22] Uh, we would have a playroom

[2:55:24] sort of another living space in

[2:55:24] the front right corner.

[2:55:25] You came up the stairs?

[2:55:28] Uh, a bathroom sort of for

[2:55:29] everybody and then, um, you

[2:55:30] know, to the left in the in the

[2:55:31] here, you know, with the small

[2:55:32] dormer we would have a bonus

[2:55:33] room.

[2:55:36] Um, and basically that's the

[2:55:39] house would be uh would come in

[2:55:43] at total uh 2525 gross square

[2:55:45] footage and which would result

[2:55:48] with a net of 2345 and that's

[2:55:49] that's the single family would

[2:55:49] like to build.

[2:55:51] Thank you.

[2:55:52] Thank you very much for

[2:55:54] representing that, Tim.

[2:55:56] Uh, members of my MADAM

[2:55:57] CHAIRMAN of the board, I would

[2:55:59] like to emphasize the, uh that

[2:56:03] uh, 13,700ft2 uh, which which

[2:56:06] is half of the lot uh, the

[2:56:07] Gordon combined lot uh, which

[2:56:11] is uh 21,000ft2 if I add all

[2:56:14] the properties together uh,

[2:56:16] again, this this house fits

[2:56:17] nicely on the log.

[2:56:19] Uh, it has good space.

[2:56:21] It has my side yard setbacks

[2:56:23] would be ten feet each side

[2:56:25] of the, uh of the of the house

[2:56:27] and I have a real setback.

[2:56:29] Uh, what that would be which is

[2:56:30] insufficient, but I would have

[2:56:33] a 20 year 20 20ft rear yard

[2:56:35] setback for the families.

[2:56:37] Uh, again, this house works

[2:56:40] nice beyond the laugh we we we

[2:56:41] did we did get approval from

[2:56:44] the board for the number 20

[2:56:47] yard plain Street and number 12

[2:56:48] our plain street on previous uh

[2:56:53] uh uh hearings uh I do have a

[2:56:55] number of of entrances to the

[2:56:57] to the to this particular house

[2:56:59] I have I have three entrances

[2:57:01] to the park to the to the to

[2:57:02] the house.

[2:57:04] Uh, one is on the very right

[2:57:06] hand side of the of the plan to

[2:57:07] solve the problem that you see

[2:57:09] right now I have one in the

[2:57:13] middle, uh, which hasn't been

[2:57:15] the Kirkwood code has not been

[2:57:17] cut yet because we MAY have

[2:57:21] some uh, issues with uh, ppd

[2:57:23] with the fire department in

[2:57:24] regards to access, but we will

[2:57:26] uh if you know if it's

[2:57:28] approved, we will we will we

[2:57:30] will move forward with that uh

[2:57:32] with that uh I'll open it to

[2:57:34] that to the to the board for

[2:57:34] questions.

[2:57:35] Thank you.

[2:57:43] And can you confirm so how many

[2:57:45] uh how many units or how many

[2:57:48] houses are on the site with

[2:57:49] this proposal?

[2:57:53] This proposal is this actually

[2:57:56] for houses on the site on this

[2:57:58] proposal with the combined with

[2:58:01] the combined with combining the

[2:58:02] two lots number 20 and 18 plans

[2:58:04] with those three on a right now

[2:58:06] and it was with this proposal

[2:58:10] there will be four on a total

[2:58:11] of 13,700ft2.

[2:58:15] Questions from the board.

[2:58:16] Um yes.

[2:58:18] I would like to know if you

[2:58:20] have had conversations with bpd

[2:58:23] on the overall site planning

[2:58:26] of um of your proposals.

[2:58:29] Um and you know what's kind

[2:58:30] of forthcoming have you had

[2:58:31] conversations with them?

[2:58:34] Uh, well we haven't had a lot

[2:58:34] of conversations.

[2:58:36] I mean, you know, as to get us

[2:58:38] to get as the as the houses get

[2:58:40] approved, you know, we're going

[2:58:41] through design review but other

[2:58:43] than that, you know, there's

[2:58:45] not much really that we talk

[2:58:45] about.

[2:58:48] I mean, I will obviously be

[2:58:49] willing to work with the money

[2:58:50] when I need anyone.

[2:58:50] Yeah.

[2:58:53] The just the only reason I I'm

[2:58:55] asking is because it looks like

[2:58:58] it's been um over time it's

[2:59:01] been that there is a vision or

[2:59:03] business of glee and then over

[2:59:05] time you've been approving

[2:59:11] project by project and so uh,

[2:59:12] internally where there's

[2:59:15] parking and open space it needs

[2:59:17] to be look at a holistic versus

[2:59:20] because you're you're all the

[2:59:23] properties are sharing a

[2:59:28] driveway and so um it's not

[2:59:29] necessarily it's being looked

[2:59:31] at as a project or project but

[2:59:33] if you look at the site plan

[2:59:34] there's a lot of shared

[2:59:36] amenities between each of the

[2:59:36] houses.

[2:59:37] So that's why I was asking.

[2:59:40] Yeah.

[2:59:41] Uh, thank you for that.

[2:59:43] Uh, we like this has been an

[2:59:45] ongoing and ongoing project

[2:59:48] going on since 2000 like 15 or

[2:59:48] 16.

[2:59:52] So in order for me to to get

[2:59:53] these houses built it just

[2:59:55] takes time and you know we go

[2:59:57] through them in phases but we

[3:00:00] we like to do share the

[3:00:01] driveways.

[3:00:03] Uh, there is one driveway in

[3:00:04] the middle there when we're not

[3:00:05] car is in the middle of the

[3:00:09] of the site that uh that is the

[3:00:10] main entrance that to the

[3:00:12] property but it is like 20ft

[3:00:13] wide and then on the right hand

[3:00:15] side you also have a driveway

[3:00:17] with access which is at 24

[3:00:19] driveways right wide way way

[3:00:20] driveway as well.

[3:00:25] Other questions or comments

[3:00:25] from the board?

[3:00:30] Now public testimony hello

[3:00:31] MADAM Chair members of the

[3:00:31] board.

[3:00:32] My name is Evan Jones

[3:00:34] representing the Mayor's Office

[3:00:35] of Neighborhood Services

[3:00:36] regarding 18 hour plan straight

[3:00:37] off this difference to the

[3:00:39] board's judgment a community

[3:00:40] process was conducted including

[3:00:42] an Abutters meeting held on

[3:00:44] Wednesday JANUARY 14th 2026

[3:00:45] that was well attended by the

[3:00:46] Dorchester community members

[3:00:48] where overwhelming opposition

[3:00:50] was expressed with concerns

[3:00:52] expressed regarding the quality

[3:00:53] of life, the applicant's

[3:00:55] ongoing proposals and community

[3:00:56] members concerns about the site

[3:00:58] storage for construction,

[3:01:00] construction trash that had not

[3:01:01] been cleaned up and what they

[3:01:02] felt to be excessive zoning

[3:01:04] violations as well as the

[3:01:05] increased stress on street

[3:01:06] parking that this property

[3:01:07] would amplify.

[3:01:09] Additionally, we received five

[3:01:11] letters in opposition citing

[3:01:12] many of the same concerns

[3:01:13] expressed in the Abutters

[3:01:15] meeting as well as concerns

[3:01:17] that the proposed changes to

[3:01:18] rear parcel access including

[3:01:20] the lack of a documented curb

[3:01:22] cut approval and the need for

[3:01:23] clarification regarding

[3:01:24] emergency access combined with

[3:01:26] the number of requested

[3:01:28] variances and the collective

[3:01:30] impact of prior approvals on

[3:01:31] this lot and the abutting lot

[3:01:33] weren't further review of the

[3:01:35] project's access scale and

[3:01:36] overall impact on the

[3:01:36] neighborhood.

[3:01:38] We have also received six

[3:01:39] letters in support from the two

[3:01:41] abutting parcels owned by the

[3:01:42] applicant and one from the

[3:01:44] parcel currently being reviewed

[3:01:45] at 18 Plain Street where

[3:01:46] community members indicated

[3:01:47] they had no issues with the

[3:01:48] proposal.

[3:01:49] The project was also reviewed

[3:01:51] by the Hill Civic Association

[3:01:53] where no significant concerns

[3:01:54] were shared at this time.

[3:01:55] The Mayor's Office

[3:01:56] of Neighborhood Services the

[3:01:57] first of the board's judgment

[3:01:57] on this matter.

[3:01:58] Thank you everyone for your

[3:01:59] time and consideration.

[3:02:05] Next, uh, we have William.

[3:02:08] William remarks from Council

[3:02:11] Officer hello MADAM CHAIRMAN

[3:02:12] of the board.

[3:02:13] They MAY MISS Some counselor

[3:02:14] Fitzgerald's office counselor

[3:02:15] would like to go on record in

[3:02:18] opposition to proposal due to

[3:02:19] concerns with our office from

[3:02:19] Abutters.

[3:02:19] Thank you.

[3:02:24] Okay, next we've got Zach.

[3:02:26] Hi.

[3:02:27] How are you doing?

[3:02:28] Uh, my name is Zach York Teen.

[3:02:30] Uh, I live at 16 Queen Street

[3:02:31] in Dorchester.

[3:02:33] I'm here to express my full

[3:02:34] support for Dave's proposal to,

[3:02:36] uh, build a new single family

[3:02:37] home on Plain Street.

[3:02:39] Uh, you know, Dave's given me

[3:02:40] and my wife the opportunity to

[3:02:42] ,uh, potentially have a family

[3:02:44] and remain in the city and we

[3:02:45] would love to see another young

[3:02:46] family get the same shot.

[3:02:48] Uh, you know, with that being

[3:02:50] said, I fully support Dave's

[3:02:52] project and respectfully, uh,

[3:02:53] ask the board to approve is

[3:02:53] proposed.

[3:02:54] Thank you.

[3:02:55] Thank you.

[3:02:58] And we have Maureen Sweeney.

[3:03:06] Martin it can you.

[3:03:10] There we go.

[3:03:11] Can you hear me?

[3:03:14] Yes, hi, I'm Martin Sweeney,

[3:03:15] airport director butter.

[3:03:17] Uh, directly behind the the

[3:03:18] development.

[3:03:20] Um, I'm in opposition to this.

[3:03:23] Uh, I know is tenants just came

[3:03:25] on and said you support that

[3:03:27] project, but that's kind

[3:03:27] of self-serving.

[3:03:28] He's already there.

[3:03:30] Um, when this project was

[3:03:32] originally started over ten

[3:03:34] years ago, there were, uh,

[3:03:37] proposals for three properties

[3:03:39] and green space in the back.

[3:03:41] Um, that's currently been

[3:03:44] chipped away at is now a fourth

[3:03:45] building back there.

[3:03:46] There's never been any green

[3:03:48] space and this one would be a

[3:03:51] fifth uh, thing on the

[3:03:51] property.

[3:03:54] There is no uh we've lost

[3:03:55] trees.

[3:03:56] We've lost tree cover.

[3:03:59] Uh, the first property was

[3:04:00] supposed to be geothermal that

[3:04:01] never materialized.

[3:04:04] Uh, there's been a lot

[3:04:05] of issues.

[3:04:07] It's been under constant

[3:04:08] traction for more than ten

[3:04:11] years with backhoes on piles

[3:04:13] of dirt looking over the fence

[3:04:15] at every neighbor's house and

[3:04:17] uh, I again I just can't say

[3:04:17] enough.

[3:04:19] He's been shipped off in a way

[3:04:21] at this from what the original

[3:04:23] proposal was and what everybody

[3:04:25] agreed to and it would be a

[3:04:27] crime to allow this to continue

[3:04:29] and to commit to abusing his

[3:04:32] neighbors and the Abutters I

[3:04:33] put something in the chat

[3:04:34] that's more concise and has

[3:04:37] some more, uh, issues in it,

[3:04:38] but I'm on the way to check in

[3:04:40] right now to the hospital.

[3:04:41] Thank you so much.

[3:04:48] Land here I don't know what's

[3:04:49] happening is I.

[3:04:51] Posted a, uh, additional

[3:04:56] comment and okay, can we people

[3:04:59] can respond to those concerns

[3:04:59] and feedback?

[3:05:01] Yes, MADAM Chair.

[3:05:05] Uh, we go through that that

[3:05:07] last uh, comment uh, wouldn't

[3:05:10] matter what I built that there

[3:05:13] it wouldn't be that that member

[3:05:14] wouldn't have been happy but

[3:05:16] uh, I just uh I've been I've

[3:05:17] been on the construction here.

[3:05:20] I've been for for three houses

[3:05:21] here in the back and that's why

[3:05:22] the excavator has been there

[3:05:24] and working for the for a

[3:05:26] number of number of years now

[3:05:27] hopefully we can we can finish

[3:05:29] up with this project and and

[3:05:31] move on and uh get this get

[3:05:33] this site back to the original

[3:05:35] and then the green space

[3:05:37] parking space.

[3:05:38] Uh and get finished.

[3:05:39] Thank you.

[3:05:43] Questions or comments from the

[3:05:43] board?

[3:05:46] Um yes.

[3:05:48] I have one other question from

[3:05:51] the site plan that you showed

[3:05:55] there's seven structures

[3:05:57] 1234567 structures and you

[3:06:00] currently um are the developer

[3:06:02] for those seven structures,

[3:06:03] correct for six and then what

[3:06:04] is being proposed correct?

[3:06:05] Correct.

[3:06:06] That is correct.

[3:06:06] Yes.

[3:06:07] Okay.

[3:06:11] Um and um the only thing that

[3:06:13] is different from what we're

[3:06:16] seeing in the site plan is that

[3:06:19] the the new curb cut that

[3:06:21] you're mentioning in between

[3:06:23] the properties on Plain Street

[3:06:26] um, is not is not being

[3:06:27] proposed yet.

[3:06:27] Correct.

[3:06:30] We only or so the the main

[3:06:33] access to 18 hour playing

[3:06:35] street is from the top right

[3:06:36] of the site plan.

[3:06:38] Uh that is not correct.

[3:06:40] I just have been pulling the

[3:06:43] permit for for the uh the curb

[3:06:46] yet because uh, I'm not sure

[3:06:48] where the fire department is,

[3:06:49] how large they're going to want

[3:06:50] the curb cuts.

[3:06:52] So the curb has been approved.

[3:06:55] Um, when I originally got

[3:06:57] number 18 Plan Street which was

[3:06:58] and as of right.

[3:06:58] How's that?

[3:07:00] The foot the front house, the

[3:07:02] houses in the front were all as

[3:07:02] of right.

[3:07:05] So I got to curb cut permit.

[3:07:07] Well, uh no approval I haven't

[3:07:09] I haven't got the permit today

[3:07:10] but I have it has been approved

[3:07:12] that at the Public Works I just

[3:07:14] have I haven't received yeah at

[3:07:16] the moment but it has been

[3:07:19] approved and you've had a fire

[3:07:22] department reviewed your plans

[3:07:24] for fire access trucks behind

[3:07:27] the properties it had that it

[3:07:28] is an application I guess that

[3:07:30] they don't fully review it

[3:07:32] until it's approved by you

[3:07:32] guys.

[3:07:34] Okay.

[3:07:36] Um.

[3:07:41] And so when you when you were

[3:07:42] proposing um.

[3:07:48] Your property you never

[3:07:50] proposed and I think you

[3:07:51] mentioned this an overall site

[3:07:53] plan to be pretty you've just

[3:07:56] been doing it probably smaller

[3:07:57] by increments.

[3:07:58] You never had a larger vision

[3:07:59] for the property.

[3:08:02] That is correct I okay great.

[3:08:03] Yeah okay.

[3:08:07] Thanks I don't have any um uh

[3:08:10] further questions okay.

[3:08:12] Any other questions or conduct

[3:08:12] from the board?

[3:08:13] Yes.

[3:08:15] Um it seems um.

[3:08:18] I'm sorry, as you said that

[3:08:20] there's, um, a large impact to

[3:08:22] the community with the ongoing

[3:08:23] construction.

[3:08:26] Um, and so I'd like to get a

[3:08:29] good sense of what, if any

[3:08:30] current construction is

[3:08:32] happening and then also, um,

[3:08:36] like a timeline or for these

[3:08:39] projects like when can the

[3:08:40] neighbors expect um, some

[3:08:41] of the current construction to

[3:08:43] be finished and then for this

[3:08:45] new proposal what is the

[3:08:46] timeline that you're

[3:08:47] considering?

[3:08:47] Thank you.

[3:08:50] Thank you uh as well I'm just

[3:08:51] finishing up number 20 Lane

[3:08:54] Street which is in the process

[3:08:55] of uh I just finished the

[3:08:56] landscaping plant a lot

[3:08:58] of trees out the back.

[3:09:00] Uh, so it I'm hoping to close

[3:09:02] out the particular permit

[3:09:04] within the next month and

[3:09:06] subject to this being approved

[3:09:08] ,you know, I would expect it

[3:09:11] takes 6 to 8 months to complete

[3:09:13] to finish out this get get the

[3:09:15] foundation token and get the

[3:09:18] house built and you know do the

[3:09:20] landscape and I've I've done a

[3:09:22] fence around the place nice

[3:09:24] fence and nice I've kept as

[3:09:25] many trees I could some of the

[3:09:27] trees will run at the back so

[3:09:28] we have to we did have to take

[3:09:30] some of them down but I have

[3:09:31] kept several big trees which

[3:09:33] will get trimmed again if

[3:09:35] needed but it's it's you know

[3:09:37] again this works on the but

[3:09:39] that's all I have to say okay

[3:09:40] thank you and one more follow

[3:09:40] up.

[3:09:42] Um are you considering building

[3:09:44] more in this area after um

[3:09:45] after this?

[3:09:48] No not this is this this is uh

[3:09:49] what you see in the site plan

[3:09:51] is is is that approximately

[3:09:52] what we're going to do?

[3:09:53] I don't plan to I don't plan

[3:09:54] it.

[3:09:55] i've had this property since

[3:09:57] 2007 been it's been a long

[3:09:58] drawn out process.

[3:10:00] I had proposed different

[3:10:02] different projects before um

[3:10:04] the previous administration but

[3:10:07] the never went anywhere so it

[3:10:08] just takes time and and I

[3:10:09] actually just wanted to I'd

[3:10:11] like to try to get it finished

[3:10:13] and you know get my daughter

[3:10:15] moved in here and finished up

[3:10:16] and thank you very much.

[3:10:17] Thank you.

[3:10:18] I have one question.

[3:10:19] There are the six other

[3:10:21] properties like uh single

[3:10:24] family condominiums as well.

[3:10:25] Yeah single families yep.

[3:10:26] There are two though actually

[3:10:27] there's one there's one that

[3:10:29] was originally a it was a it's

[3:10:30] a two family.

[3:10:31] The one on the very right hand

[3:10:33] side is a two family that I

[3:10:34] bought as a two family.

[3:10:36] And then I got the I got the

[3:10:37] carriage house at the rear

[3:10:38] converted to a single family

[3:10:39] okay.

[3:10:42] But all of this is under a

[3:10:44] condominium and yeah it will it

[3:10:46] based on the cost and and the

[3:10:48] and the improvements of the

[3:10:49] driveway it's all shared costs

[3:10:51] among the it will be among the

[3:10:53] seven will be yeah yeah because

[3:10:54] of because of the way it's been

[3:10:56] developed it got developed a

[3:10:58] single family but we want to

[3:10:59] know that it's all going to get

[3:11:00] done.

[3:11:02] It'll all be a one on the

[3:11:03] project on the right.

[3:11:06] And so the last one this eight

[3:11:10] this 18 ah is the last one that

[3:11:12] do you own or do you own any

[3:11:14] of the other condominiums are

[3:11:14] you.

[3:11:15] Well I want them all.

[3:11:17] i still don't I still on I

[3:11:19] still don't order on on the

[3:11:19] houses.

[3:11:21] Oh so you own all of these but

[3:11:23] yeah like the person that just

[3:11:26] came in and he's in favor is he

[3:11:27] a rental?

[3:11:29] Uh, he's he's a renter but he

[3:11:32] is he is he I I couldn't sell

[3:11:33] these until until everything

[3:11:35] gets done so it's not okay.

[3:11:37] So if you understand if you

[3:11:38] understand my situation.

[3:11:40] Yeah no I understand so you're

[3:11:43] you were um, building as you

[3:11:45] went along and then is your

[3:11:46] intention to sell these?

[3:11:46] Yeah.

[3:11:48] Oh yeah.

[3:11:48] Okay.

[3:11:49] I don't have any further

[3:11:50] questions.

[3:11:51] Thank you, thank you.

[3:11:53] Yeah okay.

[3:11:53] Yeah.

[3:11:55] They're not are there?

[3:11:56] Sounds like this we will do

[3:11:56] your question.

[3:11:59] Yeah MADAM Chair so though I

[3:12:00] said it's about the

[3:12:03] relationship of the proposed

[3:12:05] dwelling to the other buildings

[3:12:07] around it, you know, it's looks

[3:12:10] to be three storeys which

[3:12:11] exceeds the buy rate of two and

[3:12:12] a half by half.

[3:12:16] So I'm just wondering what that

[3:12:18] relationship is like to your

[3:12:19] properties but also the

[3:12:22] properties and um I think

[3:12:24] generally when something's so

[3:12:26] internal it's usually

[3:12:28] subordinate to its surrounding

[3:12:29] um buildings.

[3:12:31] So could you tell us about

[3:12:31] that?

[3:12:35] Yeah I mean if I'm happy to to

[3:12:37] work to make it a two and a

[3:12:38] half storeys it just it's

[3:12:40] there's a dormer if you if you

[3:12:42] look if you went to the the the

[3:12:44] plans there's a dormer and I

[3:12:45] think it's over eight feet so I

[3:12:48] think in a it qualifies as a

[3:12:51] three storey three storeys but

[3:12:53] it's uh I'm happy I mean if it

[3:12:55] gets goes to the you know

[3:12:56] design review and we can go to

[3:12:58] two and a half stories I'm I'm

[3:12:58] okay with that.

[3:13:01] It just it's very similar in

[3:13:02] design to the house that was

[3:13:03] just approved and that they

[3:13:05] just built between our place.

[3:13:07] So the only difference is it

[3:13:08] has a family room on the site.

[3:13:11] This new property um so I have

[3:13:14] a question no not sure if um

[3:13:15] I'm not sure if they can go

[3:13:17] back to that survey plot plan.

[3:13:22] Um and can the ambassador go to

[3:13:24] the survey plot plan?

[3:13:26] The survey plot plan?

[3:13:29] Okay here this one.

[3:13:33] So, um, you know, I just

[3:13:36] reviewed your what your overall

[3:13:39] site access and to the right if

[3:13:41] you if you have to you have to

[3:13:43] maintain a 20 foot with for

[3:13:46] fire trucks in one conflict

[3:13:48] with the three parking spaces

[3:13:51] right in front of unit five and

[3:13:52] then the only other

[3:13:54] observations I see that if you

[3:13:57] do move ahead and put a fire

[3:14:03] access uh in between unit three

[3:14:04] and the unit next to it, it

[3:14:07] will not provide clearance

[3:14:08] because you have some

[3:14:10] structures next to it a 20 foot

[3:14:11] clearance.

[3:14:14] So are the parking spaces in

[3:14:17] front of unit five flexible?

[3:14:20] Yeah I did actually I don't

[3:14:22] really I don't park in that way

[3:14:23] right now I pop them in tandem

[3:14:25] you know so I think what this

[3:14:29] is um suggesting and um just

[3:14:31] having observations to my

[3:14:34] colleagues is that your project

[3:14:35] almost needs to go through a

[3:14:39] site plan review um, that looks

[3:14:42] at fire access, that looks at

[3:14:45] overall parking, that looks at

[3:14:48] open space, um, that looks at

[3:14:53] safety sidewalk, um, pathways

[3:14:55] for the front entry or rear

[3:14:57] entries of your building.

[3:14:58] So I'm just making some

[3:15:00] observations now.

[3:15:02] Um, I don't have an issue with

[3:15:04] your proposed building, but I

[3:15:06] do have an issue with the

[3:15:08] location of that last building

[3:15:09] and then how everything kind

[3:15:11] of works together and you would

[3:15:13] probably need to make some

[3:15:15] modifications to um to allow

[3:15:15] that.

[3:15:17] So I'm just I don't know if

[3:15:19] others might want to comment

[3:15:20] there agree or they don't agree

[3:15:22] but I'm just talking out loud.

[3:15:23] Thank you.

[3:15:27] Thank you MISS Barbarossa.

[3:15:29] That that makes sense given

[3:15:32] this is uh get given the

[3:15:33] awesome properties belong to

[3:15:36] them and uh, they should be uh,

[3:15:38] effectively working with the

[3:15:38] neighborhood.

[3:15:40] Uh, MR. Hampton, do you have

[3:15:42] any comments on the suggestion

[3:15:42] ?

[3:15:45] Uh, especially as a potential

[3:15:46] proviso.

[3:15:48] No I don't okay.

[3:15:52] And what uh, with that is there

[3:15:52] a motion?

[3:15:54] Yes.

[3:15:57] Um, MADAM Chair, I would I

[3:16:00] would like to I'm sorry, was

[3:16:02] there another member comment?

[3:16:07] Okay if not then MISS Berger

[3:16:07] also.

[3:16:08] Okay.

[3:16:10] Um, MADAM Chair, I like to put

[3:16:13] forward, um, a motion

[3:16:15] of approval with the proviso

[3:16:17] that the project undergoes

[3:16:20] urban design site planning

[3:16:24] review with bpd um and

[3:16:28] potentially btd to review um

[3:16:31] car access to the development

[3:16:35] to ensure like safety fire

[3:16:38] department fire um truck access

[3:16:41] and maneuverability and to

[3:16:45] review the overall final

[3:16:47] location of the of the proposed

[3:16:52] building uh and to um promote

[3:16:54] uh a good balance of open and

[3:16:58] green space to that of um

[3:17:02] driveway area and also to allow

[3:17:04] for adequate vegetation to a

[3:17:08] butter the rear abutters to

[3:17:11] provide uh, privacy due to the

[3:17:12] proximity of the proposed

[3:17:13] project.

[3:17:16] So MR. Browser, just to clarify

[3:17:17] when you say site planning do

[3:17:19] you mean to encompass all seven

[3:17:21] properties or just correct to

[3:17:24] make to the site planning which

[3:17:28] is um to look at it as a as a

[3:17:30] completion of a development

[3:17:30] design?

[3:17:32] To be clear, we're referencing

[3:17:34] all uh seven properties.

[3:17:35] Uh is there a direct.

[3:17:39] Is there a second?

[3:17:45] Second I have MR. Stonebridge.

[3:17:46] Yeah.

[3:17:53] MR. Valencia just is Tara no.

[3:17:54] I personally like to see a

[3:17:56] better community process um,

[3:17:59] with the current projects and

[3:18:01] then maybe going like seeing

[3:18:03] where to go forward from there.

[3:18:05] But, um, depending on how this

[3:18:07] vote goes, I just really would

[3:18:08] like to ask the applicant to,

[3:18:10] um, have a better process with

[3:18:11] their neighbors.

[3:18:11] Thank you.

[3:18:13] This better Rasa?

[3:18:16] Yes.

[3:18:18] MISS.

[3:18:19] We will.

[3:18:19] Yes.

[3:18:22] MR. Langham?

[3:18:24] No.

[3:18:29] The chair also votes no, the

[3:18:30] motion does not carry.

[3:18:33] Is there a second motion?

[3:18:38] Um, I'd like to put forward a

[3:18:40] motion of the denial without

[3:18:42] prejudice so that the, um,

[3:18:44] applicant can go and talk to

[3:18:45] their neighbors and then come

[3:18:47] back to us with a better

[3:18:47] proposal.

[3:18:50] Is there a second?

[3:18:53] Yes a second, MR. Semaj.

[3:18:56] Yes.

[3:19:03] MR. Valencia yes, MISS Turner

[3:19:03] yes.

[3:19:07] Uh I'm sorry I keep the MISS

[3:19:08] Better browser.

[3:19:14] Uh, yes, and I would encourage

[3:19:14] that.

[3:19:16] Um, the revised proposal now

[3:19:19] looks at it holistically and

[3:19:22] has conversations with, um, bfd

[3:19:25] the Boston Fire Department, btd

[3:19:26] uh, Boston Transportation

[3:19:28] Transportation Department and

[3:19:30] it might also be helpful to

[3:19:35] have conversations with bpd uh

[3:19:36] to address some of the issues

[3:19:38] that was raised in this in this

[3:19:38] meeting.

[3:19:41] Thank you as well.

[3:19:42] Yes.

[3:19:45] MR. Langham yes.

[3:19:47] Chair votes yes.

[3:19:48] The motion carries.

[3:19:52] Thank you.

[3:19:58] Next we go to the read

[3:20:00] discussion case is scheduled

[3:20:01] for 11:30 A.M..

[3:20:06] We'll begin with the first case

[3:20:13] which is case voa 1826508 with

[3:20:17] the address of 4018401 Chelsea

[3:20:18] Street.

[3:20:22] And the applicant and those who

[3:20:24] are representing the PRESIDENT

[3:20:26] I told you we're going to

[3:20:27] report it.

[3:20:28] Yes.

[3:20:29] Thank you MRS. Beverage.

[3:20:30] Good afternoon, MADAM Chair.

[3:20:31] Members of the board for the

[3:20:32] record Richard lands the

[3:20:35] business address 245 Center

[3:20:36] Street East Boston here on

[3:20:38] behalf of petitioner which is

[3:20:40] the 348 Hamilton Street llc.

[3:20:42] Uh, I believe we MAY have a

[3:20:44] heart attack David Choi with us

[3:20:45] as well, but I'll run through

[3:20:46] the presentation.

[3:20:48] Um, and the very specific

[3:20:49] questions that require

[3:20:51] responsible I'll call them up.

[3:20:53] Um, we could probably jump down

[3:20:55] to slide three to start

[3:20:56] conversation.

[3:20:59] Um, this is a preexisting, uh,

[3:21:01] three story building both here

[3:21:01] .

[3:21:03] Day square neighborhood is

[3:21:03] Boston.

[3:21:08] Um, it sits on a roughly 1800

[3:21:09] to 890 square foot lot.

[3:21:13] Uh, currently occupied by uh,

[3:21:14] building that's mixed use with

[3:21:16] ground level retail facing

[3:21:18] Chelsea Street with two

[3:21:19] residential units above.

[3:21:22] Our proposal would involve the

[3:21:23] ,uh, renovation of the

[3:21:25] existing structure uh, a

[3:21:27] vertical and uh, rear addition

[3:21:29] to the building, a change

[3:21:31] of occupancy from the existing

[3:21:33] occupancy of two residential

[3:21:35] units a retail to retail with a

[3:21:38] total of nine residential units

[3:21:40] because this would be

[3:21:42] increasing the total number

[3:21:43] of units over the article 79

[3:21:45] threshold, the seven units that

[3:21:47] are being proposed uh would be

[3:21:49] subject to the idp requirements

[3:21:49] .

[3:21:52] Uh, that 70% would require the

[3:21:54] commitment of one idp unit

[3:21:56] which we will deal with uh with

[3:21:58] the Mayor's Office of Housing.

[3:22:00] Um, in connection with this

[3:22:02] application, uh, we want to

[3:22:04] jump down to slide five.

[3:22:12] Next slide please.

[3:22:16] Uh, so, uh, good overview here

[3:22:17] .

[3:22:18] Uh, MADAM CHAIRMAN is the board

[3:22:20] showing the surrounding media

[3:22:21] contacts?

[3:22:23] Uh, this section of the square

[3:22:25] uh, is where the former, uh,

[3:22:27] Giovanni's restaurant location

[3:22:27] used to be.

[3:22:29] This property was part of that

[3:22:31] ,uh, assemblage of properties

[3:22:33] that were recently sold, uh, in

[3:22:34] connection with each of these

[3:22:35] property.

[3:22:38] Um, this is not attached to the

[3:22:39] buildings adjacent to it, but

[3:22:41] uh, as you can see, we do have

[3:22:42] a little bit of space behind

[3:22:43] our building.

[3:22:45] Uh, most of the buildings uh,

[3:22:47] along this quarter, uh, do have

[3:22:49] front to back um, uh, built out

[3:22:50] conditions.

[3:22:52] Uh, you can see the

[3:22:54] relationship here which I think

[3:22:55] is relevant to the discussion

[3:22:57] about particular weeks of uh if

[3:22:59] we could jump down to slide um

[3:23:02] ,uh, it's for this slide is uh

[3:23:04] it's probably a better view for

[3:23:04] Street.

[3:23:06] Yeah.

[3:23:08] Instead of building here is the

[3:23:10] gray building, um, with the

[3:23:11] grandmother retail.

[3:23:13] As you can see, joining

[3:23:14] buildings are similar in

[3:23:14] height.

[3:23:16] Uh, the current condition our

[3:23:18] building would, uh, be in

[3:23:20] increasing uh, building two

[3:23:22] stories I would point out this

[3:23:24] is in the uh I'll use the term

[3:23:26] relatively newer zoning

[3:23:28] subdistrict uh, there is the

[3:23:31] mixed use district uh, that was

[3:23:33] part of um uh the change that

[3:23:35] was uh are they planning Boston

[3:23:36] zoning changes for the

[3:23:38] neighborhood which allows for

[3:23:40] up to five stories and 65ft the

[3:23:41] height?

[3:23:43] Uh, one thing I will point out

[3:23:45] is that because this property

[3:23:47] is located in relative close

[3:23:48] proximity to one way 15

[3:23:50] of Logan Airport, uh, we did a

[3:23:52] critical height evaluation for

[3:23:53] this property.

[3:23:54] Um, and the critical height

[3:23:56] limit for this area is 98ft

[3:23:58] above sea level.

[3:24:00] Uh, our building with its

[3:24:02] current site elevation of 18ft,

[3:24:04] uh, with the total building

[3:24:05] height of 48ft will still be

[3:24:07] below the critical height.

[3:24:09] But it, uh, we still are

[3:24:10] required to provide

[3:24:13] notification of the faa, uh, in

[3:24:14] connection with any rules that

[3:24:15] are received before building

[3:24:16] permit.

[3:24:17] Uh, these issues I just want to

[3:24:19] point out to the board that we

[3:24:20] are sensitive, uh, to its

[3:24:22] proximity to regulations, uh,

[3:24:23] especially anything in the

[3:24:24] eighth gray area.

[3:24:26] Uh, next slide please.

[3:24:31] Just a different view here and

[3:24:32] you can see again the

[3:24:32] surrounding context.

[3:24:34] It is uh generally mixed use in

[3:24:35] this area.

[3:24:37] So we do have a number of how

[3:24:39] dealt with uh upper level

[3:24:40] residential units.

[3:24:41] Uh next slide please.

[3:24:46] Uh it's the zoning refusal code

[3:24:47] for that in a moment we just to

[3:24:49] out of slide 14 uh, that will

[3:24:52] get us to uh probably what we

[3:24:53] need for purposes of the site

[3:24:55] plan to zoom in and look at

[3:24:56] that right side area.

[3:24:59] Uh, so you can see the, um,

[3:25:01] images here do, uh, illustrate

[3:25:03] how we propose to develop the

[3:25:05] site with the addition and what

[3:25:07] the context of the building

[3:25:08] would be the height uh, I know

[3:25:10] this came out of the community

[3:25:11] process that, you know, our

[3:25:12] building certainly will be

[3:25:14] taller than the buildings that

[3:25:15] are near it.

[3:25:17] Uh, but that is I guess one

[3:25:19] of the outcomes of planning

[3:25:21] Splost in areas like this.

[3:25:23] Uh, we're targeted for

[3:25:24] additional height density based

[3:25:26] upon, uh, the size of the

[3:25:27] streets.

[3:25:28] So these are main thoroughfares

[3:25:29] through Boston.

[3:25:31] Uh, and or something we will.

[3:25:34] And the city department in its

[3:25:36] wisdom, um, decided that these

[3:25:38] areas could accommodate more

[3:25:39] high density.

[3:25:40] Uh, and that has been the focus

[3:25:41] of a lot of that new

[3:25:42] development that's been

[3:25:43] happening around, uh, the the

[3:25:44] square neighborhood.

[3:25:46] As you can see on the right

[3:25:47] side we're able to zoom in.

[3:25:49] Uh, MR. Ambassador, we do show,

[3:25:51] uh, the area that we are

[3:25:53] filling in, um, and we can see

[3:25:55] the setback on the Pennington

[3:25:58] Street side is probably about

[3:25:59] 4.25ft, which directly

[3:26:01] addresses one of the violations

[3:26:02] that were cited that we

[3:26:04] referenced by the department's

[3:26:05] recommendation.

[3:26:07] Uh, we go down to the next

[3:26:07] slide.

[3:26:17] Uh, we have the refusal letter

[3:26:19] I think go further about maybe

[3:26:20] two more slides here.

[3:26:22] Slide 14 slide.

[3:26:26] Okay.

[3:26:29] Yeah we'd stop uh so again just

[3:26:30] a couple of different views

[3:26:32] images uh, to give an idea

[3:26:33] of what the finished product

[3:26:35] will also look like and what it

[3:26:38] looks like in context with the

[3:26:39] surrounding but next slide

[3:26:39] please.

[3:26:43] Existing condition floor plans

[3:26:45] uh just showing the existing

[3:26:47] retail on the ground level uh

[3:26:48] existing residential next

[3:26:49] slide.

[3:26:53] And then our proposed

[3:26:55] conditions the ground level is

[3:26:57] at the bottom portion of the

[3:26:57] screen.

[3:26:58] MADAM Chair members of the

[3:27:00] board we do show uh Ada

[3:27:02] accessible unit at the ground

[3:27:02] level.

[3:27:04] Uh we are not located in a

[3:27:06] flood zone so no issues with

[3:27:07] respect to our elevation.

[3:27:08] Uh, that was affect having

[3:27:09] cabinet believe that level.

[3:27:11] Uh, we do provide an

[3:27:13] appropriate means of access

[3:27:13] into the unit.

[3:27:16] Um, you can just jump back to

[3:27:16] that slide.

[3:27:17] Sorry.

[3:27:20] Uh, in the middle we can see

[3:27:22] the typical floor layout for

[3:27:24] the units, uh, that are maybe

[3:27:26] on levels two and five and then

[3:27:28] our roof plan uh, showing that

[3:27:31] we do incorporate uh, the

[3:27:33] mechanicals about the roof

[3:27:33] line.

[3:27:34] Next slide please.

[3:27:39] Uh, just our elevations showing

[3:27:40] that overall height.

[3:27:42] I think we indicated that just

[3:27:44] over 43 uh, total height.

[3:27:47] Um, and this would be

[3:27:48] preserving existing structure

[3:27:51] and um, doing these as uh,

[3:27:53] renovations and additions to

[3:27:54] the existing building.

[3:27:56] Obviously this will include an

[3:27:58] upgrade to all of the life

[3:27:58] safety.

[3:28:00] Uh, I'll turn quickly to just

[3:28:01] the relief that is cited.

[3:28:04] Um, first would be the roof

[3:28:05] structure restrictions on

[3:28:06] article 53, section 25.

[3:28:08] Uh, the Boston zoning code

[3:28:09] requires a conditional use

[3:28:11] permit any time you're altering

[3:28:13] the roof line is the same

[3:28:13] structure.

[3:28:15] Uh, my position is that this

[3:28:17] typically involves, uh, when

[3:28:19] you are proposing either a, uh

[3:28:20] ,had a house or roof deck or

[3:28:22] some other type of structure on

[3:28:23] an existing roof.

[3:28:25] Uh, because we are proposing,

[3:28:27] uh, complete renovation with

[3:28:29] the uh, vertical addition that

[3:28:30] is within the height limit.

[3:28:32] Uh, we believe that is all

[3:28:34] encompassing under the current

[3:28:36] version of article 53 that

[3:28:37] addresses the allowable height.

[3:28:38] So even though a conditional

[3:28:40] use permit is typically

[3:28:41] required for restructured

[3:28:42] restrictions, uh, this is an

[3:28:44] actual renovation of the

[3:28:45] building and should be

[3:28:47] permitted uh, without uh the

[3:28:48] need for even a conditional use

[3:28:49] permit.

[3:28:50] However we have applied for

[3:28:53] that to use that report 1820

[3:28:53] necessary.

[3:28:54] We're also cited for

[3:28:56] insufficient off street parking

[3:28:56] .

[3:28:58] Uh, this comes up regularly now

[3:28:59] uh, with the mixed use

[3:29:01] districts mixed use districts

[3:29:03] in the East, possibly a credit

[3:29:04] card lots of whether or not

[3:29:07] being subject to article 80,

[3:29:09] uh, are exempt from the minimum

[3:29:10] parking requirements.

[3:29:13] Uh footnote four to table l

[3:29:14] specifically spells that out.

[3:29:16] Uh, we did raise that with the

[3:29:16] examiner.

[3:29:17] Uh, was not removed.

[3:29:19] Uh, we do not believe this is a

[3:29:21] violation based on, uh, the

[3:29:23] plan reading table here forward

[3:29:24] ask that the board not

[3:29:27] requiring that we parking uh we

[3:29:29] were also cited for the

[3:29:31] conditional b through law uh,

[3:29:32] because we do have struggled to

[3:29:34] plug that into the street and

[3:29:35] Chelsea Street.

[3:29:37] Uh, the rear yard requirements

[3:29:39] are not applicable.

[3:29:40] The front yard requirements

[3:29:42] would be uh we have two options

[3:29:43] to achieve compliance.

[3:29:45] One would be the setback that

[3:29:46] we're currently showing for

[3:29:49] 125b uh we could also allow us

[3:29:50] to do a bold study and we're

[3:29:52] happy to deal with that within

[3:29:53] the design review component.

[3:29:55] Uh, should be uh uh should the

[3:29:58] board approve this uh, so we we

[3:29:59] feel that we can comply with

[3:30:01] the front yard requirement with

[3:30:02] the mall setback.

[3:30:04] Uh, in either instance for the

[3:30:07] the street um, uh, frontage um,

[3:30:09] the maximum lot coverage for

[3:30:10] this area is 75%.

[3:30:13] Um, I do believe we are in

[3:30:15] excess of a lot coverage but as

[3:30:17] I showed before, uh, the

[3:30:18] surrounding context

[3:30:19] of buildings both left and

[3:30:20] right, uh, and anything within

[3:30:22] that sort of island within this

[3:30:25] square, uh, pretty much

[3:30:27] occupies most of the lot um, is

[3:30:28] not uh, in excess well in

[3:30:30] excess of 75%.

[3:30:32] It would not be much different

[3:30:34] than any of the buildings are

[3:30:35] in the city.

[3:30:36] Uh, we therefore what we

[3:30:38] believe would be appropriate

[3:30:39] for this instance uh, we've

[3:30:41] also cited for the minimum

[3:30:43] permeable area and not being

[3:30:45] that it's a very low threshold

[3:30:46] for this site that we won't be

[3:30:49] developed 275ft2 of permeable

[3:30:51] area um, based upon where we're

[3:30:53] setback currently both side and

[3:30:55] from uh from I should say on

[3:30:57] the street side of the building

[3:30:58] uh I don't think we're that far

[3:31:00] off so, uh, compliance is

[3:31:00] necessary.

[3:31:02] I believe that is achievable

[3:31:03] and we can certainly again

[3:31:05] address that through any design

[3:31:05] review.

[3:31:07] We were cited also for

[3:31:08] insufficient side yard setback

[3:31:09] .

[3:31:11] Um, and that I believe in falls

[3:31:12] approval we have chosen street

[3:31:14] side the right side of the

[3:31:15] building which is already a

[3:31:16] preexisting condition.

[3:31:19] Uh, the addition that we're

[3:31:21] proposing uh, actually does

[3:31:23] setback on that right side line

[3:31:25] uh, we don't set it back on the

[3:31:27] left but again, that being a

[3:31:28] preexisting non-conforming

[3:31:30] condition, we are exempt from

[3:31:31] compliance provided that we

[3:31:35] don't increase the, uh, the

[3:31:36] nonconforming any more than it

[3:31:36] already is.

[3:31:38] Uh, and I believe in both

[3:31:39] instances we do not do that.

[3:31:41] Uh, so therefore we would be in

[3:31:43] compliance the exception for uh

[3:31:45] the expression side yard

[3:31:47] setback that was cited um,

[3:31:49] again uh cited for insufficient

[3:31:52] uh front yard which we already

[3:31:52] address.

[3:31:54] And then there is an additional

[3:31:56] uh citation for minimum grounds

[3:31:59] for ceiling height in two um in

[3:32:00] the new in the new five

[3:32:02] district any new constructions

[3:32:04] requires a minimum of 14ft for

[3:32:06] the ground level ceiling height

[3:32:06] .

[3:32:08] Uh, because we do have an

[3:32:09] existing conviction that would

[3:32:10] be a tremendous hardship to

[3:32:11] change that for a ceiling

[3:32:13] height, uh, especially since we

[3:32:14] are preserving upper levels

[3:32:16] of level two and level three.

[3:32:17] Uh, and therefore we think that

[3:32:19] a variance would be appropriate

[3:32:20] to the extent that that was

[3:32:20] helpful.

[3:32:23] Um, with that, MADAM Chair, I

[3:32:24] will pause to see if there are

[3:32:26] any questions the board uh,

[3:32:27] address any comments or we

[3:32:28] have.

[3:32:30] Thank you.

[3:32:33] Questions from the board.

[3:32:36] Yes.

[3:32:39] MR. Lyons, have you considered

[3:32:42] I mean, uh, and step back onto

[3:32:44] the floor from the street to

[3:32:46] reduce the massing and the

[3:32:48] appearance from the street just

[3:32:51] to make it I mean to make the

[3:32:53] perception less tall for the

[3:32:53] street?

[3:32:55] Yeah.

[3:32:57] MR. Muncie is a great question

[3:32:59] and, uh, that is actually

[3:33:01] required in certain areas uh, I

[3:33:03] mean mixed use districts uh,

[3:33:05] the new five district does

[3:33:07] require a step back to the

[3:33:09] extent that we are a a

[3:33:11] residential district because we

[3:33:13] are completely involved in the

[3:33:14] five district.

[3:33:16] Uh, we would be exempt from a

[3:33:17] step back requirement but

[3:33:20] something we can uh, certainly

[3:33:22] review as part of any design

[3:33:23] review if that's the desired

[3:33:23] point.

[3:33:24] All right.

[3:33:25] Thanks.

[3:33:26] Thank you.

[3:33:28] Other questions or comments

[3:33:29] from board?

[3:33:33] Um I think I think the biggest

[3:33:35] hurdle for this project is to

[3:33:41] really meet um the maximum um

[3:33:44] coverage uh the maximum

[3:33:48] coverage of 70% and the minimum

[3:33:49] permeable is 15.

[3:33:52] Um, because I don't really see

[3:33:53] I think it'll be great that

[3:33:55] this will be the first building

[3:33:59] that works with the new East

[3:34:02] Boston zoning to allow five

[3:34:02] stories.

[3:34:04] Um, I don't really see that as

[3:34:05] an issue.

[3:34:07] I think you the last story

[3:34:08] could be set back a little bit,

[3:34:09] you know, maybe three feet.

[3:34:13] Um, but I do see you know, I

[3:34:14] would be more than happy to

[3:34:17] approve the project if there

[3:34:19] was a proviso that you could

[3:34:22] work with the pd on the actual

[3:34:23] lot coverage.

[3:34:26] Um, and to work within the 70

[3:34:30] even 75% that that to me is the

[3:34:33] that the kind of zoning issue

[3:34:35] um that I that I see and that

[3:34:37] I've read from the bpu

[3:34:39] recommendation I if I MAY chair

[3:34:41] um it's better because I I

[3:34:42] agree I think that if we could

[3:34:44] do that we certainly um would

[3:34:46] have gotten there um but yeah

[3:34:48] in order to in order to make

[3:34:52] that um lower level uh unit uh

[3:34:54] at least on the ground level,

[3:34:54] um.

[3:34:59] A size that would be feasible

[3:35:00] especially for persons with

[3:35:01] disabilities inside, uh,

[3:35:02] especially with the access

[3:35:03] issues for the building.

[3:35:06] Um, it is going to be difficult

[3:35:08] to get to within 75%.

[3:35:10] Um, and I think that our total

[3:35:11] footprint in that instance

[3:35:13] would be about 1400 around a

[3:35:15] 1400 square feet.

[3:35:17] Uh, if we needed to comply with

[3:35:19] that, uh, that's going to trim

[3:35:21] that uh that additional um we

[3:35:24] are um significantly and I

[3:35:26] think it's going to create a

[3:35:27] condition that's going to make

[3:35:30] that a small so uh, happy to

[3:35:31] work with planning on some

[3:35:33] ideas to help soften that.

[3:35:34] But I don't know that we're

[3:35:36] going to get there um,

[3:35:37] otherwise and I don't think

[3:35:38] it's very viable.

[3:35:39] Wait, why did you say

[3:35:40] accessibility?

[3:35:41] Because there's no you're not

[3:35:42] changing.

[3:35:43] It was noted that you're

[3:35:46] leaving steps at the front that

[3:35:47] the front entrance is not

[3:35:47] accessible.

[3:35:49] That's for the that's for the

[3:35:52] retail the yeah the rear

[3:35:53] addition on the Madison Street

[3:35:54] side uh, does have a

[3:35:56] residential it has a

[3:35:57] residential where we're

[3:35:59] proposing a residential unit at

[3:36:01] grade and the at grade okay.

[3:36:02] That is accessible.

[3:36:02] Yep.

[3:36:03] Correct.

[3:36:03] Yeah.

[3:36:04] Um.

[3:36:09] Yeah I think something has to

[3:36:10] give right.

[3:36:13] And so then it takes you to is

[3:36:14] your client willing to reduce

[3:36:16] it from nine units because

[3:36:20] we're asking you to comply with

[3:36:21] the with the new zoning.

[3:36:26] Um the other issue is do you

[3:36:29] try to strategize and go to

[3:36:31] four story and try to get

[3:36:33] through with just one means

[3:36:35] of egress which you can now do

[3:36:35] ?

[3:36:37] So uh, because I know there's a

[3:36:42] financial um uh condition that

[3:36:44] you have to also review in

[3:36:46] regards to density and and

[3:36:47] construction costs.

[3:36:50] So um that's where I was

[3:36:53] wondering like how how flexible

[3:36:55] were you willing with the nine

[3:36:55] units?

[3:36:58] Um, because then the other way

[3:37:00] would be that the board says

[3:37:03] does not approve it has to redo

[3:37:07] you know, the room revised

[3:37:08] request for you to revise the

[3:37:09] whole project.

[3:37:12] So I was trying to get a gauge

[3:37:14] whether your client was willing

[3:37:15] to work with bpd on that

[3:37:18] massing um, concern always

[3:37:19] willing to work with planning.

[3:37:21] Um, the one thing I will point

[3:37:24] out is that um esd and in

[3:37:26] practice uh even though I don't

[3:37:28] disagree with you that you

[3:37:30] know, I have four stories one

[3:37:32] means of egress would be

[3:37:35] appropriate I think unless

[3:37:36] there's been something that's

[3:37:38] changed as of most recently.

[3:37:40] Um I think we just dealt with

[3:37:41] this in the last two weeks,

[3:37:43] which is to is that they are

[3:37:45] requiring you have a tune into

[3:37:46] egress requirements so

[3:37:50] regardless okay yeah so I I

[3:37:52] agree I would love them to you

[3:37:56] know um um review that um but

[3:37:57] we're we're still running into

[3:37:59] that issue depending who

[3:38:01] examined so uh even at four

[3:38:04] stories we're still going to

[3:38:05] require that um to address

[3:38:05] that.

[3:38:08] Great.

[3:38:09] Thank you I don't have any

[3:38:09] questions.

[3:38:12] Okay.

[3:38:13] Any other questions from the

[3:38:14] board?

[3:38:16] It's quick question how many

[3:38:20] idp idp units would you be um,

[3:38:21] providing to a cpa and what

[3:38:22] will be the income level?

[3:38:24] Yeah.

[3:38:26] Um I believe on this one.

[3:38:29] MR. Lindsay at the um,

[3:38:31] requirement is on a seven unit

[3:38:33] to seven additional units we

[3:38:36] were required to address at 17%

[3:38:39] ,uh, which comes to one unit

[3:38:45] plus fire at 0.19% and see um

[3:38:47] so b I believe this is a

[3:38:48] category rental uh, and

[3:38:50] therefore they would be at the

[3:38:52] maximum am I 60%?

[3:38:56] Thank you thank we could we

[3:38:58] could opt to go to a second

[3:39:00] unit or boy client but it all

[3:39:01] depends on what the numbers

[3:39:04] look like but maximum 60% on.

[3:39:06] Thank you.

[3:39:09] Uh with that uh, let's have

[3:39:10] public testimony.

[3:39:12] Oh, MADAM Chair, members of the

[3:39:13] board, my name is Aaron Jones

[3:39:14] representing the mayor's Office

[3:39:16] of Neighborhood Services

[3:39:17] regarding for one Chelsea

[3:39:18] street our office difference in

[3:39:19] the board's judgment a

[3:39:21] community process was conducted

[3:39:23] including an abutters meeting

[3:39:25] held on four 926 that was not

[3:39:26] attended by any East Boston

[3:39:27] community members.

[3:39:29] The proposal was also reviewed

[3:39:30] by the Eagle Hill Civic

[3:39:32] Association at their meeting on

[3:39:34] three 2526, and the association

[3:39:36] expressed support with a vote

[3:39:38] of nine in favor and two

[3:39:39] opposed at this time Mayor's

[3:39:40] office for Neighborhood

[3:39:41] Services refers to the court's

[3:39:42] judgment on this matter.

[3:39:43] Thank you everyone for your

[3:39:44] time and consideration.

[3:39:48] Thank you MADAM Chair.

[3:39:49] There are no additional

[3:39:49] comments.

[3:39:52] Okay.

[3:39:53] Any other questions or comments

[3:39:54] from the board?

[3:39:57] Is there a motion?

[3:40:03] And I'm ma'am I would like to

[3:40:04] put forward a motion with the

[3:40:08] proviso uh a motion of approval

[3:40:11] or sorry motion for the one

[3:40:14] with um proviso that the

[3:40:15] planning department works with

[3:40:17] this proponent to provide

[3:40:19] projects and special attention

[3:40:22] to consider and step back from

[3:40:24] the street on the floor and I'm

[3:40:26] open to any of my colleagues if

[3:40:27] they want to add another

[3:40:28] proviso.

[3:40:34] And if not that is the motion.

[3:40:39] Is there a second?

[3:40:40] That.

[3:40:45] MR. Stonebridge?

[3:40:47] Yes.

[3:40:55] MR. Valencia yes, MISS Turner

[3:40:57] yes it's better Barraza.

[3:41:00] Yes.

[3:41:04] MISS We will yes.

[3:41:08] MR. Langham yes.

[3:41:12] Chair votes yes, the motion

[3:41:12] carries.

[3:41:14] Thank you very much.

[3:41:15] Have a great day.

[3:41:22] The next case has been deferred

[3:41:25] so that takes us to following

[3:41:26] case.

[3:41:26] Which case?

[3:41:32] Boy 1820617.

[3:41:36] It's to the address of 722 ah

[3:41:37] East eighth Street.

[3:41:41] Is the applicant and do they

[3:41:43] represent a person they put in

[3:41:44] the case of the court?

[3:41:49] Good afternoon, MADAM Chair and

[3:41:49] the board.

[3:41:52] My name is Scott Simon and I am

[3:41:54] the owner and reside at 722

[3:41:55] East Street in South Boston.

[3:41:58] I am the fourth generation

[3:42:00] of my family to live here and I

[3:42:02] am respectfully requesting

[3:42:05] zoning relief to change the use

[3:42:07] of my existing detached

[3:42:08] carriage house to a single

[3:42:10] family under the Adu guidelines

[3:42:13] for my parents to move into.

[3:42:14] Um just a little background

[3:42:18] this would be the neighbors on

[3:42:20] each side of that rear uh,

[3:42:21] detached structures that have

[3:42:24] been converted into units

[3:42:24] 122123.

[3:42:28] We are requesting to change

[3:42:30] this to a one with parking

[3:42:30] underneath.

[3:42:35] Are there questions from the

[3:42:36] board?

[3:42:42] MAY I have a public testimony?

[3:42:43] MADAM Chair and board members

[3:42:45] Ziggy Johnson with the Office

[3:42:46] of Neighborhood Services.

[3:42:47] This petitioner completed the

[3:42:48] community process.

[3:42:50] Our office hosted an Abutters

[3:42:51] meeting on JUNE 1st at which

[3:42:53] Abutters were supportive and no

[3:42:54] concerns were raised.

[3:42:55] The City Pointe Neighborhood

[3:42:56] Association has taken no formal

[3:42:58] position on this proposal.

[3:43:00] With that background on the

[3:43:01] first judgment to the board.

[3:43:01] Thank you.

[3:43:05] Babe Ashley from consider clean

[3:43:08] office thank you Council I feel

[3:43:09] like to go on record in support

[3:43:10] based on a good community

[3:43:12] process your special request

[3:43:14] that the proponent continue to

[3:43:15] work closely with neighbors

[3:43:15] during the construction phase.

[3:43:16] Thank you.

[3:43:20] Thank you yeah and I'm sure

[3:43:21] there are no additional

[3:43:21] comments.

[3:43:24] Okay.

[3:43:28] Uh um sorry sorry are you

[3:43:30] commenting on this project?

[3:43:31] Yes, I'm I'm Director Butter

[3:43:36] and uh, I'm at 724 State Street

[3:43:36] .

[3:43:37] My name is Dan Lewis archery.

[3:43:38] My wife Jill and I have lived

[3:43:40] here for over 26 years and we

[3:43:42] fully support the idea

[3:43:44] of proposed next door.

[3:43:45] Thank you.

[3:43:50] Okay with that?

[3:43:50] MAY I have a motion?

[3:43:54] I'll put forward a motion or

[3:43:55] approval.

[3:43:57] MAY I have a second?

[3:43:58] Second?

[3:43:59] MR. Stonebridge?

[3:44:01] Yes.

[3:44:06] MR. Valencia yes, MISS Turner?

[3:44:12] Yes is better browser yes, as

[3:44:12] we will.

[3:44:15] Yes MR. Langham.

[3:44:15] Yes.

[3:44:17] Chair votes?

[3:44:18] Yes.

[3:44:19] The motion carries.

[3:44:20] Good luck.

[3:44:21] Thank you, MADAM Chair.

[3:44:26] And MADAM Chair that is all we

[3:44:26] have.

[3:44:27] Go through there.

[3:44:29] Okay well thank you everyone.

[3:44:31] Um, thank you for everyone's

[3:44:32] patience with everyone's

[3:44:33] technical issues.

[3:44:35] We will see you next time.

[3:44:36] Thank you, thank you.

[3:44:37] Have a good day.

Zoning Board of Appeal on 2026-09-08 9:30 AM

Agenda

Transcript