[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.