Zoning Board of Appeal Hearings 9/22/26
2026-09-22

[1:48] Recording in progress.
[1:57] Good morning. The City of Boston Zoning
[2:00] Board of Appeal hearing for September
[2:02] 22, 2026 is now in session. This hearing
[2:06] is being conducted in accordance with
[2:08] the applicable provisions of the open
[2:09] meeting law, including the updated
[2:11] provisions enacted by the legislature
[2:13] this year. The new law allows the board
[2:16] to continue its practice of holding
[2:17] virtual hearings through June 2027.
[2:20] This hearing of the board is being held
[2:22] remotely via the Zoom webinar event
[2:24] platform and it's also being livereamed.
[2:29] As with our in-person meetings, comments
[2:31] and support will be followed by comments
[2:33] in opposition. The order of comments is
[2:35] as follows. Elected officials,
[2:37] representatives of elected officials,
[2:39] and members of the public. The chair may
[2:41] limit the number of people called upon
[2:43] to offer a comment and the time for
[2:44] commenting as time constraints require.
[2:47] For that reason, the board prefers to
[2:48] hear from members of the public who are
[2:50] most impacted by a project. That is
[2:52] those individuals who live closest to
[2:53] the project.
[2:57] Okay.
[2:58] If you wish to comment on an appeal,
[3:00] please click the raise hand button along
[3:02] the bottom of your screen in the Zoom
[3:04] webinar platform. Click it again and
[3:07] your hand should go down. When the host
[3:08] sees your hand, you will receive a
[3:10] request to unmute yourself. Select yes
[3:13] and you should be able to talk. If you
[3:14] are connected to the hearing by
[3:16] telephone, please press star 9 to raise
[3:18] and lower your hand. You must press star
[3:21] six to unmute yourself after you receive
[3:23] the request from the host. Those called
[3:25] upon to comment will be asked to state
[3:27] their name and address first and then
[3:29] can provide their comment.
[3:34] In the interest of time and to ensure
[3:35] that you have enough time to do so,
[3:37] please raise and lower uh please raise
[3:39] your hand as soon as Mr. Stebridge reads
[3:41] the address into the record. Do not
[3:43] raise your hand before the relevant
[3:45] address is called or the meeting host
[3:47] will not know to call on you at the
[3:48] appropriate time. We ask that you keep
[3:50] your comments brief and all public
[3:52] testimony will be limited to 90 seconds
[3:54] per speaker. Okay, Mr. Sambridge.
[4:02] Good morning,
[4:04] Mr. Valencia.
[4:08] More chair present. just made it.
[4:11] Good morning, uh, Miss Turner.
[4:19] Good morning, Madam Chair.
[4:21] Good morning.
[4:22] Can you hear me?
[4:23] I can hear you now. Thank you. Uh, Miss
[4:25] Panado.
[4:27] Good morning, Madam Chair. Present.
[4:29] Good morning, Mr. Collins.
[4:31] Morning, Madam Chair. Present.
[4:33] Good morning, Mr. Bernell.
[4:35] Good morning, Madam Chair. Present.
[4:39] Good morning. All right, the floor is
[4:41] yours, Mr. Stebridge.
[4:44] Thank you, Madam Chair. To begin, we
[4:47] will go go with the approval of the
[4:50] hearing minutes scheduled for 9:30 a.m.
[4:53] These are the hearing minutes from
[4:56] September 8th of this year. Uh, with
[5:00] that, I'll make a motion of approval for
[5:04] these minutes.
[5:06] May I have a second? May I have a
[5:07] second?
[5:09] Second. Second.
[5:10] Okay. Someone's echoing.
[5:12] Someone's echoing.
[5:14] Mr. Stebridge.
[5:17] Yes.
[5:18] Mr. Valencia.
[5:19] Yes.
[5:21] Miss Turner.
[5:27] You're on mute. Miss Turner.
[5:29] Yes. Can you hear me?
[5:31] Yes. Uh, Miss Ponado?
[5:34] Yes.
[5:36] Mr. Collins,
[5:37] yes.
[5:39] Mr. Bernell,
[5:40] yes.
[5:42] Thank you. The chair votes yes. The
[5:43] motion carries.
[5:47] Next, we'll move on to the extension
[5:49] scheduled for 9:30 a.m. There are seven
[5:53] cases. U all all of these requests
[5:57] appear to be reasonable. Uh I'll read
[6:00] them all in one after the other and
[6:04] uh turn it over if you have any we have
[6:06] any questions we can address madam chair
[6:08] and then go from there.
[6:11] First we have case BOA563599
[6:17] with the address of 9 Geneva Street.
[6:21] Next we have case BOA1649869
[6:27] with the address of 1020 to 1022
[6:31] Bennington Street.
[6:33] Next we have case BO8590922
[6:39] with the address of 131 Devon Street.
[6:44] Next we have case BOA
[6:47] 12110 1 31 with the address of 134
[6:52] Terrace Street.
[6:55] Next we have case BOA
[6:57] 158 9704
[7:01] with the address of 117 Addison Street.
[7:06] Next we have case BOA 146 0666
[7:12] with the address of 61 Brook Street. And
[7:17] final extension case is case BOA 119
[7:22] 3863
[7:24] with the address of 683 Columbia Road.
[7:28] Those are the extension cases that are
[7:30] for this morning.
[7:33] I have a question on um on 134 Terrace
[7:36] Street.
[7:39] Is the applicant for 137 uh 134 Terra
[7:43] Street on or
[7:50] well you can ask the question and we can
[7:51] see.
[7:52] Yes. So my question is given that it's
[7:54] the fourth extension and the the site
[7:57] actually appears to be on the market. My
[8:00] question is if uh this applicant is
[8:02] pursuing development, actively pursuing
[8:05] the development or um simply trying to
[8:08] sell the site and um
[8:12] that's my question
[8:14] and I think after four extensions we
[8:16] ought to be limiting extensions to one
[8:18] year.
[8:25] Well, is the applicant on to address
[8:27] that question? If not, then I I'll
[8:29] encourage uh Caroline or Stephanie to
[8:32] reach out to them just to inquire. But
[8:34] in the meantime, uh I think we can uh
[8:37] answer that question at this time.
[8:39] Can you hear me now?
[8:42] Are you the applicant for this?
[8:44] Uh yes, I represent Kirby Lube um on
[8:46] behalf of Terrace Charlie LLC.
[8:50] Great. Then address that question.
[8:52] Yes. So uh the property will be um the
[8:58] the idea is to develop the property
[9:00] whether um we are able to develop it or
[9:03] because it has been on the market um it
[9:06] it would be advantageous for the
[9:10] extension to be uh considered again so
[9:12] that another developer will be able to
[9:15] um proceed with the project and bring it
[9:17] to the community. um if it were to
[9:20] expire, another developer would have to
[9:22] start over uh with the process and uh
[9:25] further extend the period in which um
[9:28] improvements to the street would occur.
[9:34] Yeah. I guess my concern is that it's
[9:36] it's been on the market a long time,
[9:38] hasn't sold, and it's, you know, holding
[9:40] up development. So my u so madam chair,
[9:44] my motion would be an extension for one
[9:46] year on this one.
[9:52] Caroline, question on that because
[9:54] obviously we usually vote as a bundle.
[9:58] Um, yes. So, you're definitely welcome
[9:59] to vote. Just um just keep in mind the
[10:02] permanent extension act is still valid.
[10:05] Um, so the applicant would still get an
[10:08] automatic two years from the time it
[10:10] expired as long as the permit was active
[10:12] between 23 and 25. Um but after that the
[10:17] two years after that date is granted
[10:20] then the permanent extension act
[10:21] wouldn't apply.
[10:23] Okay. Well if it if it applies anyway
[10:25] then that's fine.
[10:28] So it sounds like we're going to vote
[10:30] them as presented.
[10:33] Okay. We have a motion
[10:35] to grant the extensions as requested.
[10:40] Motion to grant these extensions as
[10:42] requested.
[10:44] Is there a second?
[10:46] Second,
[10:48] Mr. Ste?
[10:51] Yes,
[10:53] Mr. Valencia.
[10:55] Yes,
[10:58] Miss Turner.
[11:01] Yes.
[11:03] Yes. Can you hear me,
[11:04] Miss Panado?
[11:06] Yes.
[11:07] Thank you, Mr. Collins.
[11:09] Yes.
[11:11] Mr. Bernell.
[11:13] Yes,
[11:14] chair votes yes. The motion carries.
[11:21] Next, we'll move on to the
[11:23] recommendation scheduled for 9:30 a.m.
[11:26] The recommendations were brought forth
[11:28] from this recent subcommittee meeting.
[11:31] Um, there are six cases.
[11:35] Uh, five of them were approved and the
[11:38] sixth one I'll explain once we get to
[11:41] that. the last case. But in the
[11:44] meantime,
[11:46] we have case BOA 1855
[11:51] 87, the address of 34 to 36 Cohass
[11:56] Street. This was approved.
[11:59] Next we have case BOA 1825484
[12:05] with the address of 188 road which was
[12:09] approved.
[12:11] Next we have case BOA 18295
[12:17] with the address of 257 Portell Street
[12:21] 12.
[12:23] Next we have case BOA
[12:26] 182784
[12:29] with the address 615 to 619 Center
[12:33] Street which was approved.
[12:36] Next we have case BOA 1857490
[12:42] with the address of 24 Roseport Street
[12:46] which was approved. And finally, we have
[12:49] case BOA178
[12:52] 3948,
[12:55] the address number of 1117
[12:57] to 11:25 Blue Hill Avenue. This case was
[13:03] deferred by the subcommittee until
[13:06] November the 10th. Madam Chair, case
[13:11] from the sub.
[13:13] Thank you. Any questions from the board?
[13:17] May I have a motion?
[13:23] Motion forward a motion to
[13:25] Oh, go ahead.
[13:28] Sorry. I um put forward a motion to
[13:30] approve.
[13:32] Thank you. May I have a second?
[13:33] Second.
[13:35] Mr. Stebridge?
[13:38] Yeah.
[13:39] Mr. Valencia?
[13:40] Yes.
[13:42] Miss Turner?
[13:43] Yes.
[13:45] Mrs. Ponado,
[13:47] yes.
[13:48] Mr. Collins,
[13:50] yes.
[13:51] Mr. Bernell,
[13:52] yes.
[13:54] Chair votes yes. The motion carries.
[14:01] Next, we'll move on to the hearing
[14:04] scheduled today for 9:30 a.m.
[14:08] Uh before we begin with these, we'll ask
[14:10] if there are any request for withdrawals
[14:13] with deferrals from the 9:30 a.m.
[14:16] hearing.
[14:17] Yes, Mr. Stambridge, 196 Maverick
[14:20] Street, please.
[14:21] Uh bear with me.
[14:25] It's towards the end of the agenda of
[14:27] the 9:30.
[14:31] Uh
[14:33] um so that would be for Kate Boa
[14:37] 1862710
[14:41] with the address of 196
[14:44] Street. Would you go ahead and explain
[14:47] attorney?
[14:48] Thank you, Mr. Demer. Thank you, Madam
[14:50] Chair, members of the board. Attorney
[14:52] Jeff Drago at Drago Tusano on behalf of
[14:55] the applicant of 196 Maverick Street. Uh
[14:58] we went through a uh what we thought was
[15:00] a complete community process. Uh we were
[15:03] provided uh by the mayor's office the
[15:06] appropriate or which we thought
[15:08] neighborhood association. We had an
[15:10] abutter meeting also collected letters
[15:12] of support and we were able to get a
[15:15] hearing date after almost a year of
[15:17] going through process. It was just
[15:19] brought to our attention that due to an
[15:21] administrative error, uh the boundary
[15:24] lines of the civic associations are very
[15:26] very close and it was actually the
[15:29] incorrect group. Um there is a meeting
[15:31] at the end of this month which we're
[15:34] going to get on and present. Um and so
[15:37] we're asking for a very short deferral.
[15:40] We really need if we can get the October
[15:42] date. I know the board is only meeting
[15:44] once in October just because of the
[15:46] circumstances which were out of our
[15:48] control if that's possible.
[15:51] Caroline,
[15:53] yeah, we could do October 6 at 9:30.
[15:56] Great. Thank you.
[15:58] Okay, with that, may I have a motion?
[16:01] Defer motion to defer this case until
[16:04] October 6th.
[16:06] Second.
[16:07] Second. Thank you, Mr. Stebridge.
[16:10] Yes,
[16:12] Mr. Valencia.
[16:13] Yes,
[16:14] Miss Turner.
[16:16] Yes,
[16:17] Miss Ponado.
[16:19] Yes,
[16:20] Mr. Collins.
[16:25] Are you on mute, Mr. Collins?
[16:28] I am on mute. Sorry. Yes.
[16:30] Okay, Mr. Brenell.
[16:32] Yes.
[16:33] Chair votes yes. The motion carries. You
[16:35] then?
[16:35] Thank you very much.
[16:38] Any
[16:40] further request for a withdrawal or
[16:43] deferral from the 9:30 hearing?
[16:49] If not, move ahead and go to the first
[16:53] case, which is case BOA 186 0757
[17:00] with the address of 1200 Sville Road.
[17:05] This it this is an article 80 case and
[17:09] with that we'll ask if the applicants
[17:11] and the representative are present.
[17:14] Morning Mr. Sber uh Joe Hanley uh on
[17:18] behalf of the applicant attorney
[17:19] McDermaculty Miller and Hanley. Um good
[17:22] morning madam chair members of the
[17:24] board. Uh I believe we do have a
[17:26] presentation uh titled 1200 Soldersfield
[17:29] Road. Uh there you have it. If I will
[17:32] take you through this very quickly. Next
[17:34] slide, please. Uh, with me, uh, is the
[17:37] developer from Plunderdome LLC, Jeff
[17:39] Ferman, who, uh, is a very experienced
[17:43] developer, property owner in the Austin
[17:45] Brighton neighborhoods. Uh, also working
[17:47] with O Sullivan architect Jonathan
[17:49] Stone, who's, uh, on with us, and we'll
[17:51] take you through the plans. Next slide.
[17:57] So, uh, 1200 Soldiersfield Road uh, in
[18:00] Alustin, uh, unique location. uh great
[18:04] opportunity to introduce both some uh
[18:06] streetscape and public realm
[18:08] improvements, improved connectivity, but
[18:10] more importantly uh much needed housing.
[18:13] You can see the site in uh the red
[18:16] hashline um land uh top across from us
[18:20] is Artisani playground uh in the DCR
[18:24] vast parklands in Sturo uh Sturo Drive,
[18:29] I'm sorry. Um across from Soldiers Field
[18:32] Road uh and the uh and the river uh
[18:37] you'll see at the intersection uh
[18:40] Everett Street. Uh Everett Street goes
[18:42] up to this is the base of Everett Street
[18:45] goes up to Western A. Uh and there is a
[18:48] new crosswalk that has since been put in
[18:50] by DCR that can get people across the
[18:52] street. Next slide, please.
[18:58] Um just to let you know the amenities I
[19:00] again I spoke about the Western Avenue
[19:02] corridor which is obviously under uh
[19:04] revitalization
[19:06] uh but within uh transit and services
[19:09] and um public uses grocery stores and
[19:12] the like and you'll see that within this
[19:14] proximity uh of this area. Next slide
[19:17] please.
[19:20] So, uh, existing conditions, plan,
[19:22] right? This, uh, site was once was part
[19:25] of, uh, uh, WBC's campus. Uh, it's a
[19:29] two-story nondescript annex building
[19:31] that was used for office purposes. Um,
[19:34] and it'll be raised and replaced uh,
[19:37] with the residential development, which
[19:40] we'll show you. Next slide, please.
[19:43] Um, just project overview quickly. Uh,
[19:46] the site is 18 1,800 square ft. Uh the
[19:49] proposal is for a little over 85,000
[19:53] uh gross square feet of floor area would
[19:55] provide 58 new residential units, 10 of
[19:58] which will be designated as affordable.
[20:01] I think what's important to note here
[20:02] too is uh these are all full familysized
[20:06] units um as you'll see uh about half
[20:10] onebedrooms uh and a little less than
[20:13] half on two bedrooms. Again, all ones
[20:15] and twos, no studios,
[20:18] and a total of 70 B bike parking spaces
[20:22] and 37 residential spaces and an
[20:25] interior garage. Plan right shows you
[20:28] the vast amount of public benefits that
[20:30] uh are derived from this and were part
[20:32] of the article 80 approval process with
[20:34] the BPDA. Next slide, please.
[20:40] So uh just in support of variance uh
[20:43] obviously we have an existing uh
[20:45] commercial structure that um isn't
[20:48] easily adaptable that really doesn't
[20:50] contribute in its current use in
[20:52] architecture. Um, we also have a site
[20:55] that you'll see here that runs on uh
[20:57] three streets.
[21:21] accessibility
[21:33] just starting. Heat. Heat.
[22:17] by the city and we are compliant with
[22:22] that uh if not a little less or
[22:24] substantially compliant but need relief
[22:28] uh under the base zoning uh principally
[22:31] relief in the areas of F building height
[22:35] rear yard uh we're also within a green
[22:38] belt and that was processed through the
[22:40] article 80 process uh and we need a
[22:43] conditional use permit or the
[22:45] residential use on the ground floor uh
[22:48] which we would suggest is appropriate
[22:50] and allows for the scale of housing with
[22:52] the affordability F um base zoning is
[22:55] one wacker Z is 35 and 37 again
[22:59] substantially uh consistent um the
[23:03] building height allows base 35 uh 135 ft
[23:08] in the Western Avenue in Wacer Z and
[23:10] we're a little under 80 79 uh10 for a
[23:15] sixtory above uh parking and finally uh
[23:20] the rear yard We're about six and a half
[23:22] feet. 20 is required. Uh again, what
[23:25] mitigates this variance and supports it
[23:27] is that uh we front on three streets and
[23:30] the relief is uh on McDonald again,
[23:34] which is a private way that my client
[23:36] has rights to. Uh so we would suggest
[23:38] that that supports the grant of that
[23:40] variance as well. Next slide shows you
[23:42] how this all comes together uh in the
[23:45] refusal letter. And the next slide, I'll
[23:47] hand it off really quickly to Jonathan
[23:50] Stone to take you through uh the plans.
[23:52] Jonathan,
[23:53] I I will encourage you to be piffy. We
[23:55] have four other article 80 cases on top
[23:58] of our agenda. So, please be kind.
[24:02] Yes, ma'am.
[24:03] Thanks, Joe. Uh good morning, Madam
[24:05] Chair, members of the board. Uh Jonathan
[24:06] Stone with Sullivan Architects. Just
[24:07] running you through the plans quickly.
[24:09] You can see here's a site plan. As Joe
[24:10] mentioned, we're increasing the um the
[24:12] public realm around around the whole
[24:14] site. side. We're going to have streets
[24:15] on three sides. No soldier builds to the
[24:17] left here, ever on the lower side.
[24:20] McDonald to have the private way on the
[24:22] right. Um we uh improve green sidewalk
[24:24] conditions as well as landscaping around
[24:26] the site providing new trees along um
[24:28] Everett as well as Soldiersfield Road.
[24:31] Next slide, please.
[24:34] These are the plans as you walk through
[24:35] the building. The first floor bottom
[24:37] plan on the right shows that there's
[24:39] parking at that level. There is parking
[24:40] below this which is below grade. Three
[24:42] residential units. This is where our
[24:43] main entrance for our vehicular access
[24:45] off the private street on the right
[24:46] would be McDonald A and the main
[24:49] residential entrance located off of
[24:50] Everett towards the bottom of the page.
[24:52] As you move up through the building, as
[24:53] you can see, we have a even fairly even
[24:55] split of units. The darker blue is the
[24:57] one bedrooms. There's six on each floor
[25:00] and the lighter blue is the two
[25:02] bedrooms. There are five on each floor.
[25:04] As you move up through the building,
[25:05] they are similar in shape and size as we
[25:07] get from this the first floor to the
[25:09] sixth floor. Slide, please.
[25:14] Thank you. These are elevations.
[25:16] Walk around the building. V Soldierfield
[25:18] Road is the top left. Um we have a mix
[25:20] of materials here. Full brick veneer
[25:22] metal panel in lighter and darker colors
[25:24] as well as uh wood composite look around
[25:27] some key entry points as well as
[25:30] balconies. It's similar material as we
[25:32] as we go around. We have a angular bay,
[25:35] this white portion towards the corner of
[25:37] Everett and Soldiersfield Road with the
[25:39] building is shaped to kind of accent the
[25:41] shape of the site. We have this lower
[25:44] canopy piece that is more of a
[25:45] pedestrian scale that will lead people
[25:47] in from Soldiersfield Road down towards
[25:48] Western A.
[25:50] Slide, please. These ones give you a
[25:53] better idea of what it looks like for
[25:54] the renderings. As you can see, this is
[25:56] the corner of Everett and Soldiersfield
[25:58] Road. Our main entrance was down here on
[26:01] the ever side of it towards that white
[26:03] piece that touches the ground and the
[26:05] river will be across the street to our
[26:07] left. Next slide, please.
[26:12] Directly across Soldierfield Road here.
[26:14] As you can see, we get these angular
[26:15] shapes just portraying what the shape of
[26:17] the site is.
[26:20] Next slide.
[26:22] This is towards the back. We're looking
[26:23] up up Everett down um McDonald Avenue,
[26:26] the private way. Our vehicular entrance
[26:29] is off of the private way to the right.
[26:30] Similar details around the building.
[26:32] Brick veneers and light and dark metal
[26:34] panel as well as a pedestrian realm. And
[26:36] this is just a closer shot of the entry,
[26:39] the residential entry with a accessible
[26:40] ramp. And the bike was off of this as
[26:43] well.
[26:44] Great job, Jonathan. Back to you, Madam
[26:46] Chair.
[26:46] Thank you. Questions from the board.
[26:51] Hearing none, may I have public
[26:52] testimony?
[26:54] Yes, madam chair, members of the board.
[26:56] Connor Newman with the mayor's office of
[26:58] neighborhood services. This time the
[27:00] mayor's office deferred to the judge
[27:01] from this board. Some background
[27:03] information the community process. Uh
[27:04] this went through a Boston planning le
[27:06] community process involving multiple IEG
[27:08] meetings as well as a public meeting. Uh
[27:10] the public comments were overwhelmingly
[27:12] in support of this proposal. Uh feeling
[27:14] that this was the appropriate site for
[27:16] this type of density. Um many residents
[27:18] were also pleased uh with the
[27:20] configuration of uh the number of rooms
[27:23] uh for the units. Uh they also connected
[27:26] uh with the two civic associations for
[27:28] the Austin Brighton area. The Brighton
[27:29] Austin Improvement Association which was
[27:31] in support as well as the Austin Civic
[27:33] Association that was in support. You
[27:35] should have a letter from the ACA that
[27:36] came in uh this morning. Uh they support
[27:39] on the conditions of no building code
[27:41] relief. Uh with that information
[27:42] deferred to the board. Thank you so
[27:44] much.
[27:46] Thank you.
[27:48] Next we have Mo.
[27:51] Good morning. This is Laura McCrae from
[27:53] Council Braden's office. The council
[27:55] would like to go on record in support of
[27:56] this project. Project will bring much
[27:58] neededed housing units, uh 58 housing
[28:00] units, and also um 10 on-site IDP units
[28:04] to the neighborhood. Um thank you.
[28:09] Thank you.
[28:10] Next, we have Jack Gilman.
[28:15] Morning, Madam Chair, members of the
[28:17] board. Uh my name is Jack Gilman. I'm a
[28:19] project assistant with the development
[28:20] review team at the planning department.
[28:23] Um I just I'm here to speak to the in
[28:25] regards to the 1200 soldiers field road
[28:27] project um in the article 80 process. Um
[28:30] just quickly I want to note that uh you
[28:33] know on March 27th 2026 Thunderdome LLC
[28:36] filed their PNF with the uh planning
[28:38] department. Um, following that, the PPDA
[28:42] hosted their virtual public meeting on
[28:43] April 14th, 2026 and an impact advisory
[28:47] group meeting on April 29th, 2026 and
[28:50] then one last joint ING public meeting
[28:52] on July 9th, 2026. Uh, these meetings
[28:54] were well attended and wellreceived uh
[28:56] by the public and these events were
[28:59] noticed on the BPDA's events calendar
[29:00] and sent to the Ala neighborhood
[29:02] distribution list. And then ultimately
[29:04] on July 16th, 2026, uh the project was
[29:08] approved at the BPDA board. Thank you.
[29:11] Thank you.
[29:13] Next, we have um Michael with the iPhone
[29:17] 2.
[29:23] Hi, Michael. I see that you have you
[29:25] raised
[29:29] Michael on iPhone 2. Are you here to
[29:30] speak on this project? Well, not on this
[29:33] project.
[29:34] Okay, then. So, let's keep going. Any
[29:37] other raised hands?
[29:38] Okay. Yes. Next, we have Annabella
[29:41] Gomez.
[29:43] Madam Chair, members of the board,
[29:44] Annabelle Gomes from the Brighton Alson
[29:46] Improvement Association. The Brighton
[29:47] Alsson Improvement Association voted to
[29:49] support this project. Thank you.
[29:52] Thank you,
[29:53] Madam Chair. We don't have additional
[29:55] comments.
[29:56] Thank you. Any questions from the board?
[30:00] May I have a motion?
[30:05] I'll make a motion of approval.
[30:07] Is there a second?
[30:08] Second.
[30:10] Mr. Stbridge?
[30:12] Yeah.
[30:14] Mr. Valencia?
[30:15] Yes.
[30:16] Miss Turner?
[30:18] Yes.
[30:19] Miss Panado?
[30:21] Yes.
[30:22] Mr. Collins?
[30:24] Yes.
[30:25] Mr. Bernell?
[30:26] Yes.
[30:27] Chair votes? Yes. The motion carries.
[30:29] Good luck,
[30:30] Adam. Thank you.
[30:34] Next, we have case BOA
[30:37] 1836965
[30:40] with the address of 25A Alabama Street.
[30:44] If the applicants end with their
[30:46] representative or present, will they
[30:48] please explain the case to the board?
[30:54] Hi, good morning. My name is Dexter Koy.
[30:58] I am the owner of 25 Alabama Street. I
[31:02] also live at 25 Alabama Street. I am
[31:06] proposing to build a two family house.
[31:09] Um I have the space and I will also be
[31:15] contributing to one apartment to the
[31:18] housing situation we have here in
[31:21] Boston. Um, I'm just asking for
[31:26] the okay to go ahead with this project.
[31:29] So, can you walk us through the
[31:30] violations?
[31:32] Is the lot coverage excessive and
[31:33] permeable area insufficient?
[31:36] That's that's what um the CD was saying.
[31:40] But um I believe my lot my lots are big
[31:43] enough. And I could also to make this
[31:47] problem go away. I could also do my
[31:50] parking area in gravel. That way I will
[31:53] have more areas for water to be absorbed
[31:57] in the soil
[31:59] if if is necessary.
[32:05] Okay. Are there questions from the
[32:07] board?
[32:08] I mean, I think he needs to walk us
[32:10] through the plans and we need to see
[32:14] exactly what the violations are.
[32:22] So, can the applicant walk us through
[32:23] the plans that are being shown? What
[32:25] page should matter ambassador?
[32:28] This is this is my existing property. Um
[32:32] I have a two family house right now on
[32:35] the property and on the other side is
[32:40] the other lot is lot 14 and 15.
[32:45] Um I had it divided
[32:48] and
[32:50] the next
[32:52] this is what I'm proposing to do. This
[32:55] is the specs I have off the street
[32:57] parking.
[33:00] um is the same size as the existing
[33:03] house right now. Um
[33:07] so this is what I'm proposing right now.
[33:10] Um it's a two family. The first floor is
[33:12] three bedrooms.
[33:15] The second the second floor is two
[33:17] bedrooms and I got a attic with a master
[33:21] bedroom.
[33:24] Yeah, we we typically see a chart that
[33:27] shows the violations
[33:30] um which it doesn't appear to be on the
[33:32] set of plans. So
[33:36] I think it's hard for us to make a
[33:37] decision without the information.
[33:42] Well,
[33:44] go ahead. Who was speaking? Mr. Sners.
[33:46] that madam chair is um is someone on
[33:50] from the if I'm jumping ahead uh some
[33:53] someone on from the planning department
[33:57] Mr. Hampton, are you with us? Can you
[33:59] uh Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair, members
[34:01] of the board, Jeff Hampton, City of
[34:03] Boston Planning Department. Uh, as you
[34:05] saw in our recommendation, we're not
[34:07] opposed to the two family, per se, but
[34:10] it it did raise questions on exactly how
[34:13] much of this lot was being covered and
[34:16] what materials were going to be used for
[34:19] the parking area. Uh, one of the things
[34:21] that we noticed that was in the proposed
[34:24] new site plan there
[34:28] uh adding parking spaces to 25 Alabama.
[34:33] Uh we didn't know if this was part of
[34:34] the same project uh or whether or not uh
[34:38] there would be a new violation on 25
[34:41] Alabama in addition to 25A. Um
[34:45] our concerns really are with the
[34:47] coverage of the lot and whether or not
[34:48] the the material that's going to be used
[34:50] for the parking area is going to be
[34:53] permeable.
[34:56] But based on the plans, we couldn't make
[34:58] that decision. So that's why we
[35:00] recommended to not without prejudice.
[35:03] So there's not sufficient level of
[35:04] detail in their plans. Correct.
[35:06] Yeah. I mean, I think I I would agree
[35:08] with that. I mean, um there's two things
[35:12] missing. There's not enough information
[35:13] in the site plan as you're looking
[35:16] looking at the plans and then we also
[35:18] don't have the denial information in
[35:20] this presentation.
[35:24] Okay. Um,
[35:27] let's have a public testimony and circle
[35:29] back with a motion.
[35:31] Madam Chair and members of the board,
[35:32] for the record, my name is Jeremy
[35:34] Bereie. I am the Madapan community
[35:36] engagement specialist for the Office of
[35:37] Neighborhood Services. The applicant has
[35:39] completed the community process which
[35:40] consisted of an Abuas meeting held in
[35:42] person uh where Abuas inquiries were
[35:44] addressed during the meeting. Following
[35:46] the Abuas meeting, no further community
[35:47] process was required today. DAW office
[35:49] has not received any further community
[35:51] feedback at this time. Thank you for
[35:52] your time and the mayor's office of
[35:53] neighborhood services would like to
[35:54] defer to the board for their judgment.
[35:57] Thank you,
[35:59] Madame Chair. I don't see additional
[36:01] hands raised at the moment.
[36:02] Okay, with that, may I have a motion?
[36:09] Um, I'd like to make a motion of um
[36:15] uh deferral
[36:17] um prejudice.
[36:20] deny our predators. Uh we just need more
[36:23] detail, I believe, um in terms of what
[36:27] what's going to be we hear was going to
[36:29] be done. Um I for one just can't see it.
[36:32] So um
[36:35] Okay, thank you. May I have a second?
[36:38] Sorry. We've got a deferral or
[36:41] are you asking for a denial without
[36:43] prejudice or deferral?
[36:44] Denial without prejudice.
[36:48] Well, the denial without prejudice,
[36:51] right?
[36:54] You can do either, by the way. You can
[36:56] do a deferral and give him the time to
[36:58] buckle back.
[36:59] Excellent. Right. Yeah.
[37:03] Let's go with the deferral, though. I'll
[37:07] second that.
[37:09] May I May I be excused? May I ask what
[37:12] what could I um
[37:14] so let us finish voting and then I think
[37:16] you you should circle back to the staff
[37:18] for what's missing.
[37:19] Okay.
[37:20] So we're giving you an opportunity to
[37:21] come back with that information. So I
[37:23] heard a a motion and a second. Uh Mr.
[37:26] Stembridge.
[37:28] Yes.
[37:29] Mr. Valencia.
[37:31] Yes. Uh but do we have a date for the
[37:34] deferral?
[37:36] We could do November 10th if that's
[37:38] enough time or November 17th.
[37:42] Mr. Point, does that give you enough
[37:43] time to circle back with
[37:45] whatever you guys need. Um, ma'am,
[37:48] yes.
[37:49] Okay. Um, Mr. Valencia.
[37:52] Yes.
[37:53] Miss Turner?
[37:56] Yes.
[37:58] Miss Ponado?
[37:59] Yes.
[38:01] Mr. Collins?
[38:02] Yes.
[38:03] Mr. Brunell? Yes,
[38:06] chair votes yes. The motion carries.
[38:08] We'll see you on November 10th. And if
[38:10] you can circle back to the staff uh to
[38:11] ensure that uh you fill out what's
[38:15] missing from what you've submitted.
[38:16] Thank you.
[38:21] Next we have case BOA 1837747
[38:27] with the address of 98 M Street. if the
[38:32] applicants and or their representative
[38:34] from they please join to the board.
[38:38] Good morning madam chair, members of the
[38:39] board. My name is Eileen Rosa and this
[38:42] opportunity I'm representing the owner
[38:44] Mr. Alfred Motor for this proposal. Um
[38:47] this project uh is consists of a new
[38:50] construction for a two family dwelling
[38:53] uh with a garage at 98 Mount Hope
[38:55] Street. Um and we uh the violations we
[39:00] are facing it's about 10 of them. Uh the
[39:02] first one consisted of green belt
[39:05] protection overlay um area sufficient to
[39:09] width insufficient road area ratio
[39:11] excessive building height excessive
[39:14] terms of storage
[39:16] um open usable space front yard rear
[39:19] yard and lotage insufficient. So, if we
[39:22] can scroll down to the next page, we'll
[39:25] see the table with the um proposed um
[39:31] setbacks and um also what's required in
[39:34] this area. It's uh this this this is a
[39:37] two family zone and a 5,000 square ft um
[39:40] area, but however, the lot here is uh
[39:43] 2,297
[39:45] square ft. Yeah,
[39:48] in regards to the lot width, um the
[39:51] requirement is 50 feet. Ours is 32.90
[39:56] um as well as the front lot frontage. Um
[39:58] open usable space requirement per unit
[40:00] is 1,750
[40:03] ft and our we're proposing um 500 square
[40:08] ft per unit. For front yard, uh the
[40:11] minimum is 20 ft. Our proposal is five
[40:14] feet which is relatively consistent with
[40:17] what's with the model alignment in the
[40:19] area. Um as far as site yard the
[40:22] requirement is 10 ft. Our proposal at
[40:25] the shorter uh spot here is uh 3 and a
[40:28] half. Uh for the rear yard the prop the
[40:31] requirement is 40 ft. We're proposing uh
[40:34] 15 16 around 16 ft. Uh for building
[40:38] height in terms of um feet the
[40:42] requirement is 35 feet. We're proposing
[40:45] 20 about 30 feet and in terms of uh
[40:48] stories is 2 and 1/2 uh and we're
[40:50] proposing three because of the square
[40:52] footage even though the house does look
[40:54] as a two and a half story. Um and for
[40:58] Florida ratio the requirement is.5 and
[41:00] we're proposing one uh.7.
[41:04] Uh the proposal is intended to fit a um
[41:08] in to fit in the area naturally within
[41:11] the surrounding neighborhood. Um the
[41:13] building has a traditional residential
[41:15] appearance with a front porch, pitch
[41:18] roof, residential scale windows, siding,
[41:21] trim, and architectural shingles. Um
[41:24] here we are also committed to quality
[41:27] and durable construction uh materials
[41:30] and the plans call for durable exterior
[41:33] materials and a properly detailed wall
[41:36] assembly including sheeping, insulation,
[41:39] air filtration protection and vapor
[41:41] barrier. Um each unit it's about 2,000
[41:44] square ft. The first unit uh it's
[41:47] throughout the first floor and lower
[41:49] level with three bedrooms, two bathrooms
[41:51] and the second unit is on the second
[41:54] floor in um that third upper floor uh
[41:58] which we call the attic but because of
[42:00] the square footage um it's considered a
[42:02] third floor with a total of four
[42:05] bedrooms and two bathrooms. Overall, the
[42:08] intent is to create a well-maintained,
[42:10] attractive residential property that
[42:12] blends into the existing neighborhood
[42:14] and provides functional housing while
[42:17] respecting the surrounding residential
[42:19] character. Um, that's all I have for
[42:21] now. Thank you for your time and
[42:23] consideration and I'm happy to answer
[42:24] any questions.
[42:26] Thank you. Are there questions from the
[42:27] board?
[42:28] Yeah.
[42:29] Do you know do you go ahead?
[42:32] I was just going to ask about uh the the
[42:35] curb cut. And it looks like you have a a
[42:38] garage
[42:40] uh sort of a you know right right there.
[42:44] And uh just uh do you have um any do you
[42:49] know what the intentions on how to deal
[42:51] with the curb cut?
[42:52] The intention is to apply for a curb cut
[42:55] uh while during the process for
[42:56] accessibility to the garage. That is
[42:58] correct.
[43:01] Okay. So okay that's just not in the
[43:02] drawings at this moment.
[43:06] That's good.
[43:07] Okay.
[43:08] And and do you have any landscaping
[43:10] plan? Do you have a site plan that shows
[43:12] landscaping or existing trees?
[43:15] Uh we don't have anyone. There is an
[43:17] existing tree that we understand is
[43:19] right at the uh but it's not part of
[43:21] this uh lot. It belongs to the neighbor,
[43:24] but it's very it's technically aligned
[43:27] with the property line, but there's no
[43:30] landscape per se.
[43:33] Can you speak to what you do with
[43:35] landscaping?
[43:36] For landscaping, uh the the the open
[43:40] space, it's it's honestly like pretty
[43:42] limited as you as you saw on the open
[43:45] usable space. Uh but for now, the
[43:48] intention is to deal with some arbor
[43:51] vidies for privacy purposes and grass
[43:55] overall and maybe some evergreens
[43:57] throughout as needed.
[44:00] Thank you. Thank you.
[44:03] May I have public testimony?
[44:06] Madam Chair and members of the board,
[44:07] for the record, my name is Jeremy
[44:08] Bereie. I'm the Roslandale community
[44:10] engagement specialist for the Office of
[44:11] Neighborhood Services. The applicant has
[44:13] completed the community process which
[44:15] consisted of a voters meeting
[44:16] facilitated on May 26th with two guests
[44:18] in attendance and concern for preserving
[44:20] green space was voiced. Next, the
[44:22] proponent was encouraged to present to
[44:23] the civic association Mount Hope
[44:25] Canterbury Neighborhood Association on
[44:26] May 14th, which completed the community
[44:28] process. To date, our office has
[44:30] received four letters of support for the
[44:32] proposal. Thank you for your time and
[44:33] the mayor's office of neighborhood
[44:34] services would like to defer to the
[44:36] board for their judgment.
[44:38] Thank
[44:40] we have you here.
[44:43] Uh you from council rail's office. The
[44:45] council would like to go on record
[44:46] supporting this project increases
[44:48] housing opportunities. They did their
[44:50] job receiving community input and keep
[44:53] the character of the neighborhood in
[44:54] this project.
[44:57] Thank you.
[44:58] Madam Chair, we don't have additional
[45:00] comments.
[45:02] With that, may I have a motion?
[45:07] Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion
[45:08] of approval with a provisor to submit
[45:11] plans to the planning department with a
[45:14] special attention to the site plan and
[45:17] tree canopy.
[45:19] Have a second.
[45:21] Mr. Spebridge.
[45:23] Yeah.
[45:24] Mr. Valencia.
[45:26] Yes. Miss Turner,
[45:28] yes.
[45:30] Miss Ponado,
[45:31] yes.
[45:33] Mr. Collins,
[45:34] yes.
[45:36] Mr. Bernell,
[45:38] yes.
[45:40] Chair votes, yes. The motion carries.
[45:41] Good luck.
[45:42] Thank you.
[45:46] Next we have case BO81851272
[45:52] with the address of 1519 to 1521 High
[45:56] Park Avenue. If the applicant andor
[45:59] their representative are present, would
[46:01] they please respond?
[46:05] This is Charles Lour. I'm the uh
[46:08] representative for the owner. Um we are
[46:12] here
[46:15] looking to receive uh relief for this
[46:18] project. The project uh breakdown is
[46:25] uh attic renovation as well as an
[46:28] addition. Um in regards to the refusal
[46:32] letter, uh
[46:36] the project does not expand outwardly.
[46:39] it's going up and some of the uh the
[46:43] issues were existing
[46:45] um part of the existing footprint
[46:47] already and um
[46:52] I'm here to answer any questions that
[46:53] you may have.
[46:57] Okay. Are there questions from the
[46:58] board?
[47:03] We have public testimony.
[47:05] Madam chair and members of the board,
[47:06] for the record, my name is Jeremy
[47:08] Member. and the hide park community
[47:09] engagement specialist for the office of
[47:11] neighborhood services. The applicant has
[47:12] completed the community process which
[47:14] consisted of an abutters meeting held on
[47:15] June 18th with no abutters present.
[47:18] Next, the proposal was presented to High
[47:19] Park Neighborhood Association on July
[47:21] 9th where they voted in support of the
[47:23] proposal. To date, our office has
[47:24] received one letter of support from the
[47:26] Hide Park Neighborhood Association.
[47:27] Thank you for your time and the mayor's
[47:29] office of neighborhood services would
[47:30] like to defer to the board with their
[47:31] judgment.
[47:34] Thank you.
[47:35] Anyone have any comments?
[47:39] May I have a motion?
[47:42] Motion to approve.
[47:43] May I have a second?
[47:44] Second.
[47:46] Mr. Stebridge.
[47:48] Yeah,
[47:54] Mr. Valencia.
[47:55] Yes,
[48:01] Miss Turner. S
[48:05] Miss Ponado.
[48:06] Yes.
[48:14] Mr. Collins.
[48:15] Yes.
[48:17] Mr. Bernell.
[48:19] Yes.
[48:24] Chair votes yes. The motion carries.
[48:25] Good luck.
[48:27] Thank you.
[48:30] Next we have case BOA 1870785
[48:36] with the address of 1702 High Park
[48:40] Avenue.
[48:41] This is an article 80 case. If the
[48:45] applicant andor their representative
[48:47] present, would they please explain to
[48:49] the board?
[48:51] Thank you, Mr. Stembridge. Good morning,
[48:53] Madam Chair, members of the board. Uh,
[48:55] attorney John Puini here on behalf of
[48:57] developer Thomas Gerity with respect to
[48:59] this article 80 lodge project located at
[49:03] 1702 High Park Avenue in the rebuilt
[49:05] section of High Park. With me this
[49:07] morning is David Frerieded the project
[49:09] architect from Chew and Company. Um,
[49:12] thank you for the opportunity to present
[49:13] this proposal. 72702
[49:16] High Park A is located in a LI2 zoning
[49:19] subdist. Uh the lot size is 22,030
[49:22] square feet. And this is an area of high
[49:24] park in between Clary Square and Walcott
[49:27] and High Park Clary Square, excuse me,
[49:30] Log um and then Walcott Square in
[49:33] Reedville. So it's kind of an an
[49:35] industrial area that has been identified
[49:37] as a high growth area uh in plan 2030 as
[49:40] well as the Phantom Fan Indigo planning
[49:43] study. Some background on this project,
[49:45] you may look familiar. It was originally
[49:47] filed with the planning department uh
[49:49] under small project back in 2021. Uh and
[49:52] it was approved at that date in 2023 for
[49:55] a fivetory mixeduse building, 44 uh
[49:59] units and ground floor commercial space.
[50:02] After that approval, there were two
[50:03] abuing neighbors of ours who actually
[50:05] went through the process as well and
[50:06] increased the height of their building
[50:08] significantly over this one. As a
[50:10] result, the planning department worked
[50:12] with the developer to redesign this
[50:14] building to conform to the heights of
[50:15] the abuing properties and which would
[50:18] also add more housing stock and increase
[50:20] the number of muchneeded home ownership
[50:22] opportunities in High Park. Uh a notice
[50:25] of project change was filed with the
[50:26] planning department early this year. Um
[50:29] and that proposal is before you. It's a
[50:31] sevenstory mixeduse building, 2500
[50:33] square ft of ground floor retail space
[50:37] and there will be 68 residential home
[50:40] ownership condominiums. 12 of those will
[50:43] be affordable. 34 um parking spaces will
[50:47] also be included and it received the
[50:50] approval from the BPA board this past
[50:51] April. In addition to the development,
[50:54] the development team worked extensively
[50:55] with the planning department's
[50:56] transportation personnel as well as the
[50:58] Bostonon uh transportation department
[51:00] and the enhancement of the pedestrian
[51:02] experience by granting an easement to
[51:04] the city that will allow for an
[51:06] increased sidewalk width, street trees,
[51:08] street lighting and furnishing zones.
[51:11] This design was coordinated with the
[51:12] abuing uh development proposals which
[51:14] have already been approved with a goal
[51:16] of widening High Park A as future
[51:19] development occurs on this high growth
[51:21] corridor. As I stated, it's it's
[51:23] basically industrial now, but there's
[51:24] not many new businesses going into that
[51:27] area. Uh, this pro project is directly
[51:32] proximate to the Greenville Community
[51:34] Rail Station as well as uh they have bus
[51:37] uh transportation in front of the
[51:38] building to Forest Hills and beyond. I
[51:41] will now pass it off to David Freed who
[51:42] will go through the plans and we'll be
[51:44] happy to answer any questions once he's
[51:45] completed. Appreciate it, David.
[52:01] Do you guys see a David Freed on the
[52:03] call? Um, he may be muted.
[52:05] I'm sorry. I'm muted. I apologize. Um,
[52:09] John, you you you really took us through
[52:11] the project pretty thoroughly. Um the
[52:14] the as John described the building as a
[52:16] a new sevenstory multif family building
[52:19] with um one commercial space of about
[52:22] 2500 square ft um 68 units and 34
[52:26] parking spaces. The front end of the
[52:27] building will be brick. Um will be brick
[52:30] facade. And as the building turns the
[52:32] corners facing uh the railard, uh the
[52:36] cladding will be more industrial such as
[52:38] um textured metal panels and fiber
[52:41] cement panels. Um we widen the sidewalk
[52:44] substantially to create a really nice
[52:46] pedestrian experience for people to um u
[52:51] walk directly to the u commuter rail
[52:53] station. Um, that's really it in a
[52:58] nutshell.
[53:00] Thank you. Are there questions from the
[53:02] board?
[53:06] Hearing none, may I have public
[53:07] testimony?
[53:08] Yes, madam chair, members of the board,
[53:10] Connor Newman with the mayor's office of
[53:11] neighborhood services. At this time, the
[53:13] mayor's office deferred to the judgment
[53:14] of this board. Uh, some background
[53:16] information, the community process. This
[53:18] went through a Boston planning community
[53:19] process. Um most recently with the the
[53:22] notice of project change, two public
[53:24] meetings were held. Um the applicant
[53:26] also presented to the Reedville Watch uh
[53:29] neighborhood association uh which
[53:30] expressed opposition to this proposal. I
[53:33] understand that their chief concern was
[53:34] they felt that there should be more
[53:35] parking uh for this particular uh
[53:38] proposed development. That information
[53:39] will defer to the board. Thank you.
[53:43] Thank you.
[53:44] Next we have Jack.
[53:47] Uh good morning again madam chair and
[53:49] members of the board. Uh my name is Jack
[53:51] Gilman. I'm a project assistant with the
[53:52] development uh review team at the
[53:54] planning department. Um I also just want
[53:56] to speak to the 1702 hide park a project
[53:59] in the article 80 process. Um John
[54:02] covered some of this but I just want to
[54:03] reiterate um again this project filed
[54:06] their SP originally in December 8th of
[54:08] 2021. uh that went through the community
[54:11] process having public meetings on
[54:12] January 19th of 2022
[54:15] and May 3rd of 2023 which was then uh
[54:18] ultimately voted on at the BPDA board on
[54:20] August 17th, 2023. And then like John
[54:23] said, following a a project update um an
[54:26] NPC was filed switching this project
[54:28] into a large project uh review process
[54:30] and then again joint IIG and public uh
[54:33] meetings were held on March 3rd, 2026
[54:36] and March 25th, 2026. And then
[54:39] ultimately again, this project was
[54:40] approved at the BPDA board on April
[54:42] 16th, 2026. Uh, thank you.
[54:48] We have
[54:50] Mr. Yman, can you speak to that concern?
[54:53] I'm sorry. I just have a Can I ask a
[54:55] question to Mr. Go?
[54:57] So So can I ask if you can respond to
[54:59] the feedback on the parking? What was
[55:01] the what was the thought behind that? Is
[55:04] there not space for it or is there
[55:06] because it looks like a
[55:10] half half the parking for the units.
[55:12] So just to know I I I I was not the
[55:15] project manager at the time uh for this
[55:17] project. Um so I don't necessarily
[55:19] recall the details of the parking uh
[55:22] issue. Um I was really here to speak to
[55:25] the to the overall article process for
[55:28] it. Um since I wasn't the project
[55:29] manager. Um, but maybe John uh would be
[55:32] able to recall more of the parking
[55:34] detail.
[55:35] Yeah, we'll keep going. We'll keep going
[55:38] with public comments and then I'll I'll
[55:40] Mr. Him can answer that later.
[55:42] Thank you.
[55:45] Yeah, we have a Jose Colon.
[55:50] Thank you, Madame Chair and members of
[55:52] the board. My name is Jose, business
[55:55] representative of the North Atlantic
[55:56] States Regional Council of Carpenters,
[55:59] and we want to go on record as being in
[56:01] full support of this proposal. Thank you
[56:03] very much.
[56:05] Thank you, Madam Chair. We don't have
[56:07] additional comments.
[56:10] Okay, Mr. Pini.
[56:12] Um, yes, Madam Chair. So as this was a
[56:14] large project, the uh parking ratios are
[56:17] determined by the planning department
[56:19] and the planning department because of
[56:20] its location where it literally is the
[56:22] back of this project is the rebuilt uh
[56:25] commuter rail station. They felt that
[56:27] the the maximum amount of parking spaces
[56:29] would be half of what the amount of
[56:31] units are. So 68 units, 34 off street
[56:33] parking spaces. So the whole parking was
[56:35] dictated through the planning uh office.
[56:40] We don't have any. We don't have any
[56:42] residential letters. If any of you, I'm
[56:44] sure many of you are familiar with this
[56:45] area. This stretch of land, it's, you
[56:47] know, probably about a mile in length
[56:49] that runs from um kind of a bend in High
[56:52] Park Avenue as you come out of come out
[56:54] of Clary Square and it's all industrial
[56:57] properties. There are several approvals
[56:59] as I stated in my presentation. Um and
[57:03] it is again because of its location it
[57:06] was identified through plan 2030 as well
[57:08] as the uh Fairmont Indigo planning study
[57:11] for uh exactly this type of development.
[57:15] Thank you. Any other questions from the
[57:17] board?
[57:19] Yes, I uh read the memo and I believe
[57:22] that your project is is planting about
[57:25] five trees.
[57:26] Correct.
[57:27] Three. The question is is there is there
[57:29] any possibility to increase the number
[57:32] of trees that you are planting because
[57:33] this is a an industrial area and clearly
[57:37] more trees and more green space will be
[57:39] welcome. So, it's just a question about
[57:41] No, it's it's a very it's a very
[57:43] important question because um together
[57:45] with the project to our left and to our
[57:47] right, we've worked together with I mean
[57:49] it's obviously we'll have a extensive um
[57:52] public improvements commission pro
[57:54] process, but that was the goal to as you
[57:56] stated, you know, it's a heat island
[57:58] area because it's all asphalt down
[57:59] there, concrete. And by the other
[58:02] projects putting in street trees, we're
[58:03] putting in street trees. And as this
[58:05] area gets developed, we're not only
[58:07] widening the streets, but we're also
[58:09] providing much more wider sidewalks,
[58:11] street trees, street lighting, and all
[58:13] these things that will make get, you
[58:15] know, a a cooler um area uh with the,
[58:19] you know, oncoming global warming as
[58:22] well as a much easier pedestrian
[58:24] experience for people. They're walking
[58:25] from you know, Reedville to Clary Square
[58:28] or vice versa.
[58:30] Thank you. And about the parking, this
[58:32] is uh I believe this is a transit
[58:34] oriented location, right?
[58:36] Correct. We are literally a two-minute
[58:38] walk to the Rebuild train station.
[58:40] And the training station has plenty of
[58:43] parking spaces for the riders.
[58:45] It does.
[58:46] Yeah.
[58:47] Okay. Thank you.
[58:49] You're welcome. Okay.
[58:50] Any other questions from the board?
[58:53] May I have a motion?
[58:56] Ma'am,
[58:56] should I like to put forward a motion of
[58:58] approval?
[59:00] Second.
[59:01] Second. Thank you, Mr. Stebridge.
[59:04] Yes,
[59:06] Mr.
[59:07] Valencia.
[59:08] Yes.
[59:11] Turner.
[59:12] Yes.
[59:19] Thank you, Miss Panado.
[59:22] Yes.
[59:27] Okay, Miss Panado. Okay, Mr. Collins.
[59:31] I said yes. I think there might be a
[59:33] delay on yours. On your end, Sherry,
[59:36] on my end. Okay, that's I was trying to
[59:38] figure out if it was me or others. So,
[59:39] let me let me see what I can do.
[59:42] Mr. Bernell,
[59:44] yes.
[59:45] Chair votes yes. The motion carries.
[59:48] Thank you everybody. Thank you.
[59:52] Next we have case BOA
[59:55] 1879797
[59:58] with the address of 12 Pendal Road. If
[1:00:02] the applicant andor their representative
[1:00:04] are present, would they please explain
[1:00:06] to the board?
[1:00:08] Yes, Mr. Steambridge. Good morning,
[1:00:10] Madam Chair, members of the board,
[1:00:11] Attorney Derek Small of a business
[1:00:13] address on 51 Doppson Road, and with me
[1:00:16] today is the architect for the project,
[1:00:18] Mr. Tim Sheen.
[1:00:20] Madam Chair, we're here today seeking
[1:00:22] relief to erect a building for six
[1:00:24] residential units with six parking
[1:00:26] spaces on a vacant lot. Uh the zoning
[1:00:29] subdist here is a 2F5,000.
[1:00:32] Now lot size is approximately 6,400
[1:00:34] square ft. The violations are um F. The
[1:00:40] required F is.5. We are proposing three
[1:00:44] building height with regard to stories.
[1:00:47] Our building proposal is three stories
[1:00:49] at 31 feet. Um but the zoning subdist
[1:00:53] requires a two and a half story
[1:00:55] building. Um with regard to sideyard the
[1:00:58] requirement is 10. On the right hand
[1:01:01] side we have five and on the lefth hand
[1:01:03] side we have 15 which is where the
[1:01:05] driveway will be. Rear yard uh
[1:01:08] requirement is 20 ft and we have 11 12
[1:01:11] ft. Um and with regard to off street
[1:01:14] parking madam chair off street parking
[1:01:16] requirement is 12. We are providing six
[1:01:18] as stated. The units madam chair are
[1:01:21] twobedroom two bath and uh range in size
[1:01:26] from 850 square ft to about 950 ft.
[1:01:31] the um it is important to note too that
[1:01:35] uh new draft zoning for this area um was
[1:01:38] released uh this past summer um and they
[1:01:42] will make this project or project of
[1:01:44] this magnitude an as of right project. I
[1:01:48] can stop there and answer Tim and I can
[1:01:50] answer any questions that the board may
[1:01:52] have at this time.
[1:01:53] Thank you. Are there questions from the
[1:01:55] board?
[1:01:59] May I have public testimony? Madame
[1:02:01] chair and members of the board, for the
[1:02:02] record, my name is Jeremy Bereber. I'm
[1:02:04] the Rosenddale community engagement
[1:02:05] specialist for the Office of
[1:02:06] Neighborhood Services. The applicant has
[1:02:08] completed the community process which
[1:02:10] consisted of an aboters meeting held on
[1:02:11] June 10th. Uh the primary concern raised
[1:02:14] by voters was the potential impact of
[1:02:16] the proposal on neighborhood parking
[1:02:18] availability. While the proposal
[1:02:20] includes off- streetet parking
[1:02:21] accommodations, several attendees
[1:02:23] expressed concern that future residents
[1:02:24] may choose not to utilize the provided
[1:02:26] parking spaces or may own multiple
[1:02:29] vehicles, resulting in increased demand
[1:02:30] for on street parking. Abunders noted
[1:02:32] that parking on Pinedale Street is
[1:02:34] already limited, particularly due to a
[1:02:36] nearby school where parents frequently
[1:02:38] park during student drop off and pickup
[1:02:40] times. Residents stated that the
[1:02:43] existing parking congestion can make it
[1:02:45] difficult to find available street
[1:02:46] parking and expressed concern that the
[1:02:48] proposed development could further
[1:02:49] exacerbate these conditions. Attendees
[1:02:51] also noted that parking challenges
[1:02:53] become more pronounced during the winter
[1:02:54] months when snow accumulation reduces
[1:02:56] the number of susable on street parking
[1:02:59] spaces. Overall parking availability and
[1:03:01] traffic congestion were the primary
[1:03:03] issues discussed during the meeting. To
[1:03:05] date, our office has received one letter
[1:03:07] of opposition again regarding the
[1:03:08] parking. Thank you for your time in the
[1:03:10] mayor's office of neighborhood services
[1:03:11] would like to defer to the board for
[1:03:12] their judgment.
[1:03:14] Thank you.
[1:03:15] With with regard to the parking, madam
[1:03:17] chair, um again we are having these are
[1:03:19] home ownership opportunities
[1:03:22] and then we're one parking space per
[1:03:24] unit.
[1:03:26] Are there any other comments, public
[1:03:28] comments?
[1:03:29] Madam Chair, we don't have additional
[1:03:31] comments.
[1:03:32] Okay. Are there any other questions from
[1:03:34] the board?
[1:03:36] Um I think that the the planning
[1:03:38] department was concerned about the curb
[1:03:40] cut dimensions. Do you have that today?
[1:03:44] Um I think on the left hand side where
[1:03:46] the driveway is proposed, we are
[1:03:48] proposing a um and we will be applying
[1:03:51] for a curb cut with a width of uh 10 ft.
[1:03:59] I don't know if it showed it on the
[1:04:00] plans.
[1:04:01] It does.
[1:04:11] 10. Does it show on the plan? It
[1:04:13] Yeah, sorry. Yes, it does show 10 ft.
[1:04:15] Okay, thank you. Okay, any other
[1:04:18] questions from the board?
[1:04:20] We have a motion.
[1:04:26] I'll make a motion of approval with the
[1:04:28] proviso that the plans be submitted to
[1:04:30] the planning department for design
[1:04:32] review.
[1:04:34] um paying attention to maneuverability
[1:04:36] and curb cut dimension.
[1:04:40] Okay. Is there a second?
[1:04:42] Second.
[1:04:44] Mr. Stebridge.
[1:04:47] Yeah.
[1:04:48] Mr. Valencia.
[1:04:50] Yes.
[1:04:52] Miss Turner.
[1:04:53] Yes.
[1:04:55] Miss Pra.
[1:04:57] Yes.
[1:04:58] Mr. Collins.
[1:05:00] Yes.
[1:05:01] Mr. Bernell.
[1:05:03] Yes.
[1:05:04] Chair votes yes. The motion carries.
[1:05:06] Thank you, Madam Chair. Members of the
[1:05:08] board, have a good day.
[1:05:09] Thank you, everyone.
[1:05:12] Next, we have case BO873760
[1:05:19] with the address of 157 Granite Avenue.
[1:05:23] This is also an article 80 case. And if
[1:05:27] the applicants and or their
[1:05:28] representative are present, would they
[1:05:30] please explain the case to the board?
[1:05:32] Yes. Thank you, Mr. Dembridge. Good
[1:05:34] morning, Madam Chair and members. My
[1:05:35] name is George Morancey. I'm an attorney
[1:05:38] representing the owner and developer
[1:05:40] Dennis Cohane, trustee of Cohane
[1:05:42] Development Realy Trust. Madam Chair,
[1:05:44] members, the proposed project consists
[1:05:46] of a five-story residential condominium
[1:05:48] building at 157 Granite Avenue, which is
[1:05:52] a vacant approximately 24,000 square ft
[1:05:56] parcel in Dorchester with prominent rock
[1:05:59] ledge across the site. The parcel abuts
[1:06:02] a residential condominium building with
[1:06:05] surface parking at 135 Granite Avenue to
[1:06:08] the north. Cedar Grove Cemetery to the
[1:06:11] west. uh commercial buildings including
[1:06:13] a medical MRI facility to the south and
[1:06:17] Granite Avenue to the east with direct
[1:06:20] access to I93 and Galliban Boulevard.
[1:06:24] I will speak to the zoning relief being
[1:06:26] sought before turning the presentation
[1:06:28] over to Cheryl Das, the project
[1:06:30] architect, who will briefly take the
[1:06:32] board through the slides. Also joining
[1:06:34] us today is Ian McKinnon, the project's
[1:06:36] traffic and transportation engineer and
[1:06:39] technical leader at Howard Stein Hudson.
[1:06:41] This site, Madam Chair, members, sits
[1:06:43] within a 1F5000
[1:06:45] single family zoning subdist under
[1:06:47] article 65, the Dorchester neighborhood
[1:06:50] district. The proposed multif family use
[1:06:52] requires a variance. Uh, but as can be
[1:06:55] seen from an aerial view of the site,
[1:06:57] the only two active nearby uses on this
[1:06:59] side of Granite Avenue are multif family
[1:07:01] dwelling and the previously mentioned
[1:07:04] business uses. As to the dimensional
[1:07:06] requirements of the code, the lot is
[1:07:08] oversized and overperforms with respect
[1:07:11] to lot area and lot frontage
[1:07:13] requirements. The zoning relief being
[1:07:16] sought is a floor area ratio variance.
[1:07:20] Uh with an F 1.3, I'm sorry, 1.83 here
[1:07:24] being proposed uh versus.5 allowed by
[1:07:27] code. Building height would be in
[1:07:29] violation uh at 55 ft where 35 ft is
[1:07:33] allowed by code. uh building height in
[1:07:35] stories as well requires relief. Five
[1:07:38] stories here are being proposed whereas
[1:07:39] two and a half stories are allowed by
[1:07:41] code. The rear yard setback measures 5.2
[1:07:45] ft while 30 ft are required by code. I'd
[1:07:48] point out that the 5.2 ft setback occurs
[1:07:52] along just under half of the rear width
[1:07:54] of the building, but it does increase
[1:07:56] significantly as the rear lot line jogs
[1:07:58] outward at a diagonal as it bears
[1:08:00] suddenly. There's a sideyard setback
[1:08:03] violation. Uh this is a minor violation
[1:08:06] uh on the left side where where a 9.7
[1:08:10] foot setback is provided. That's about 8
[1:08:12] in less than the 10- foot uh requirement
[1:08:15] by code. The right side of the lot and
[1:08:18] it set back is compliant. And finally,
[1:08:20] off- streetet parking. Uh 25 spaces are
[1:08:23] being proposed for the 24 units. These
[1:08:25] are garage spaces, not surface parking.
[1:08:28] Code requires 34 spaces uh in this area.
[1:08:32] As the board will see during the brief
[1:08:34] architectural presentation, the site is
[1:08:37] highly irregular in shape with boundary
[1:08:39] lines running at multiple non-parallel
[1:08:42] bearings rather than the regular
[1:08:44] rectangular configuration typical of the
[1:08:47] surrounding uh parcels. More
[1:08:50] significantly, more than half of the
[1:08:51] site is burdened by exposed and shallow
[1:08:53] rock ledge. uh mapped onto the site is a
[1:08:56] substantial ledge outcrop running
[1:08:58] diagonally across a significant amount
[1:09:00] of the lot's footprint. With that, Madam
[1:09:03] Chair, I'll turn the presentation over
[1:09:04] to our project architect, Cheryl Tagas.
[1:09:07] Uh and then we'll of course pause and
[1:09:09] take any questions that the board may
[1:09:11] have.
[1:09:14] Thank you, George. And thank you, Madam
[1:09:17] Chair, members of the board. Could we go
[1:09:19] back to the beginning of the slide deck,
[1:09:21] please?
[1:09:25] The uh view at the top left of the
[1:09:28] screen uh shows our Granite Avenue view.
[1:09:31] This site, as George mentioned, is quite
[1:09:33] unique with the ledge outcropping. We
[1:09:36] worked extensively with the design
[1:09:38] review staff at the planning department
[1:09:40] uh to address how the building would uh
[1:09:42] fit between the two neighboring
[1:09:44] buildings that George mentioned and to
[1:09:46] also give expression to the ledge. Uh
[1:09:49] behind the site is the Cedar Grove
[1:09:51] Cemetery and we've addressed the
[1:09:53] building from that side as well. And now
[1:09:56] if you go to the next slide,
[1:09:59] this area with the darkest shading area
[1:10:02] is the portion that is the ledge that's
[1:10:04] rising out of the grade. Next slide.
[1:10:12] This is a different orientation, but the
[1:10:15] Grandon Avenue is to the right and the
[1:10:16] building footprint went with the
[1:10:18] setbacks that George described are shown
[1:10:20] here. Next, please.
[1:10:23] Again, another orientation, but the
[1:10:26] granite app to the top of the sheet
[1:10:29] access with the driveways to the left
[1:10:31] near the intersection. And Ian McKinnon,
[1:10:34] our engineer, can describe what we're
[1:10:36] doing with this access and the
[1:10:38] intersection after me. Next, please.
[1:10:44] The architectural site plan shows this
[1:10:47] uh building in context with the two
[1:10:50] buildings, the condominium building to
[1:10:52] the north to the top and the commercial
[1:10:54] building to the south to the bottom. And
[1:10:56] our ground floor is consists primarily
[1:10:59] of parking which you can see on the left
[1:11:02] uh image. And then a the front facing or
[1:11:05] street facing portion of the ground
[1:11:06] floor is the lobby and the bicycle
[1:11:09] storage room. The pedestrian entrance is
[1:11:12] near the intersection with Hilltop
[1:11:14] Street and the access to the bike room
[1:11:16] is further to the south. Due to the
[1:11:18] topographic change, the ramps are
[1:11:21] required in some locations here. Next,
[1:11:24] please.
[1:11:26] This shows uh an enlargement of that uh
[1:11:29] street facing portion of the first floor
[1:11:31] as well as the building section. The
[1:11:33] height is mitigated by having the
[1:11:36] building stepped back at at various
[1:11:39] places as can be seen in these sections
[1:11:42] as well as with sloping roofs. Next,
[1:11:44] please.
[1:11:47] Typical residential floor plans can be
[1:11:50] seen here. There's a mix of one, two,
[1:11:53] and one three-bedroom unit. There are
[1:11:54] six onebedrooms, 17 twobedrooms, and the
[1:11:58] one threebedroom. The range and sizes
[1:12:01] are 670 square ft to,300 square ft. We
[1:12:05] have access uh accessible area at the
[1:12:08] rooftop for solar panels that we intend
[1:12:10] to have installed. There's private
[1:12:14] outdoor green space for each of the
[1:12:16] units in the form of a balcony or a roof
[1:12:18] deck. Next, please.
[1:12:23] building elevations. You can see the
[1:12:24] ledge at various portions rising up in
[1:12:27] some places and in other places where we
[1:12:30] are having our first floor set to meet
[1:12:33] that existing grade. Next, please.
[1:12:37] There's a photograph of the site. So,
[1:12:38] the top right photo is the condominium
[1:12:41] building on the right and the commercial
[1:12:42] building on the left. That left
[1:12:44] photograph shows the ledge rising up
[1:12:46] which would be near that building.
[1:12:58] I feel
[1:13:12] safe.
[1:13:17] Very
[1:13:27] little
[1:13:31] early morning.
[1:14:09] However,
[1:14:11] Heat. Heat.
[1:15:07] Thank you.
[1:15:40] referred to the judgment board back
[1:15:42] information community process
[1:15:45] planning by community process um where
[1:15:47] the board ultimately BPD board approved
[1:15:49] on November 13th 2025 uh for that were
[1:15:53] two public meetings. During those public
[1:15:55] meetings, there were a number of
[1:15:55] comments in opposition to this proposal
[1:15:58] uh citing concerns related to uh
[1:16:00] heightened density, the parking ratio,
[1:16:03] as well as the potential impact of
[1:16:05] traffic on the intersection of Granite
[1:16:07] and Hilltop. Uh these concerns were
[1:16:09] echoed by the Cedar Grove Neighbor
[1:16:11] Association, which ultimately uh was in
[1:16:13] opposition to the proposal, but that
[1:16:15] information to the board. Thank you.
[1:16:19] Next do we have remas?
[1:16:23] Hello madam chair members of the board
[1:16:25] councelor fit sales office the council
[1:16:27] would like to go on record in opposition
[1:16:28] this proposal due to strong drawing
[1:16:31] opposition our office has received from
[1:16:33] both the Cedar Grove Civic Association
[1:16:34] and the neighboring condo building.
[1:16:36] Thank you.
[1:16:40] Next we have Lindsay Snider.
[1:16:45] Hi my name is Lindsay Snider. I just
[1:16:48] bought um a unit at the Cedar Grove
[1:16:51] condominium and I would just like to
[1:16:55] express some concerns about privacy. I
[1:16:57] appreciate you providing the shadow
[1:16:59] study, but my unit would face this
[1:17:02] proposed development and I think that
[1:17:04] I'm very concerned about privacy and
[1:17:07] maintaining at least some of the trees
[1:17:10] that would abut the the two parcels. And
[1:17:14] I think that I would probably like to
[1:17:16] see some more trees being maintained
[1:17:19] alongside that if that is an appropriate
[1:17:21] comment. Thank you.
[1:17:23] Thank you.
[1:17:25] Next we have John.
[1:17:29] Good morning. Thank you. Uh my name is
[1:17:31] Jon. I'm a Georgia resident and I just
[1:17:33] wanted to express my full support for
[1:17:35] this project. It's really undergone a
[1:17:37] remarkably thoughtful and comprehensive
[1:17:39] process and there's really been no less
[1:17:42] than six community meetings with butters
[1:17:45] local business owners and the cemetery
[1:17:47] and I think the result of of all these
[1:17:50] efforts have really made a substantial
[1:17:52] improvement to the project itself which
[1:17:54] is really a currently a vacant
[1:17:56] underutilized uh parcel. He's reduced
[1:17:59] the building size, the footprint,
[1:18:01] stepping back the top floor, adding, you
[1:18:03] know, uh, high quality fencing and
[1:18:05] buffering along to respect the views of
[1:18:08] the the neighbors and the cemetery. I
[1:18:10] think the traffic studies that have been
[1:18:12] done ensure that safer pedestrian
[1:18:14] crossings and and flow of traffic. In
[1:18:17] addition to that, I just think it adds,
[1:18:19] you know, much needed housing in in in
[1:18:21] an area and I just full fully support
[1:18:24] this project. Thank you.
[1:18:26] Thank you.
[1:18:28] Thank you. Next we have Charlie.
[1:18:31] Good morning members of the board. My
[1:18:32] name is Charlie Teman. I reside at
[1:18:34] Fairfax Street in Dorchester. I'm a
[1:18:37] longtime trustee, volunteer trustee of
[1:18:40] the Cedar Grove Cemetery.
[1:18:43] Uh and I will just comment as a trustee
[1:18:46] that we actively participated in the
[1:18:48] public process. We expressed numerous
[1:18:51] times uh concern
[1:18:55] Secondary.
[1:19:42] Very small.
[1:20:00] Smile
[1:20:11] finish.
[1:20:47] shadow. Thank you.
[1:21:22] service.
[1:21:54] allows
[1:22:21] building site move south. So that's up
[1:22:23] to the board if uh if they would like to
[1:22:25] see those two.
[1:22:26] The question about the setback and
[1:22:28] proximity to actual brave sites I mean
[1:22:31] what what are you able to do to mitigate
[1:22:34] concerns around you know any
[1:22:38] maybe if we could look at the at this
[1:22:40] slide that shows the site plan. Uh my uh
[1:22:43] my client during this process did did
[1:22:46] make some adjustments to the building uh
[1:22:48] pulling it back in terms of its
[1:22:50] footprint and then also stepping it
[1:22:51] back. Uh there is a section there uh
[1:22:54] where there are graves. Uh this this
[1:22:56] site was actually u part of Cedar Grove
[1:22:59] Cemetery. It was in fact sold to my
[1:23:02] client for development purposes. Um so I
[1:23:05] I don't think it's a surprise that it's
[1:23:07] being developed. and uh the you know the
[1:23:10] majority of the building is farther away
[1:23:12] from the uh boundary line of the
[1:23:14] cemetery than that 5.2 ft.
[1:23:18] Madam Chair, if you'd like to see that
[1:23:20] plan, that's the architectural site plan
[1:23:22] sheet A1. It shows an aerial photograph
[1:23:25] and with the building footprint and you
[1:23:27] can see I think fairly clearly where the
[1:23:30] cemetery boundaries are and the building
[1:23:32] footprint is.
[1:23:35] Okay. Are there other questions from the
[1:23:37] board?
[1:23:40] Now, I just note in the chat that John
[1:23:42] Oul um states that he's a member of the
[1:23:46] a former president of the Civic Cedar
[1:23:48] Grove Civic and and and the cemetery and
[1:23:53] offering support. So, he's been involved
[1:23:55] in the cemetery and and the civic
[1:23:57] association.
[1:24:00] Thank you. And he also he he provided
[1:24:02] public testimony. Thank you. Uh, any
[1:24:04] other comments or questions from the
[1:24:05] board?
[1:24:08] May I have a motion?
[1:24:12] I'll make a motion of approval.
[1:24:16] Is there a second?
[1:24:17] Second.
[1:24:21] Mr. Stumbbridge.
[1:24:23] Yes.
[1:24:26] Mr. Valencia.
[1:24:27] Yes.
[1:24:29] Miss Turner.
[1:24:30] Yes.
[1:24:32] Miss Pado,
[1:24:33] yes.
[1:24:35] Mr. Collins,
[1:24:36] yes.
[1:24:37] Mr. Bernell,
[1:24:39] yes.
[1:24:40] Chair votes yes. The motion carries.
[1:24:43] Thank you, Madam Chair. Members.
[1:24:49] Next, we have two companion cases.
[1:24:53] The first is located
[1:24:56] 18886824
[1:24:59] with the address of 372
[1:25:02] Neponsson Avenue.
[1:25:04] Along with that we have case BOA 1886827
[1:25:18] representative present will they please
[1:25:20] explain the cases to the board.
[1:25:22] Yes. Thank you.
[1:25:25] My name is George Morancey. I'm an
[1:25:26] attorney with the business address of
[1:25:28] 350 West Broadway in South Boston. Madam
[1:25:31] Chair, if you please first address the
[1:25:33] lesser, for lack of a better word, of
[1:25:35] the two cases, which is 367 to 371
[1:25:38] Neponet Avenue, because that will help
[1:25:41] frame the 372 Neponet Avenue proposal.
[1:25:46] 367-371
[1:25:48] is the location of um my client's former
[1:25:51] restaurant. It was once Dorset Hall. is
[1:25:54] now Mcgonogal's 372 Neponet A was the
[1:25:58] parking lot uh dedicated to that
[1:26:01] restaurant. My client sold the
[1:26:02] restaurant business in 2024. At that
[1:26:06] time, all surface parking at 372 for
[1:26:09] McGonagals was discontinued. So, there's
[1:26:11] been no parking there for well over 2
[1:26:13] years. The proposal here is to develop
[1:26:16] that form of parking lot at 372.
[1:26:19] It triggered a separate refusal letter
[1:26:22] for 367371
[1:26:24] because parking for the restaurant when
[1:26:28] that building at 367371 was approved was
[1:26:31] located on the 372 parcel. My client
[1:26:34] still owns the real estate at 367 371
[1:26:38] does not own or operate the restaurant.
[1:26:40] So again, uh the uh the development at
[1:26:44] 372 causes that violation at 367 371
[1:26:48] because the parking is being removed.
[1:26:50] With respect to 372, as I say, it was a
[1:26:54] fir former surface parking lot uh and
[1:26:56] it's been uh um vacant and not used for
[1:27:00] parking in over two years. The the
[1:27:01] applicant whom I represent, his name is
[1:27:04] Paul Adamson, and he owns both sites.
[1:27:07] Being proposed at 372 is a new fourstory
[1:27:10] 10-unit uh rental building with 13
[1:27:13] garage parking spaces. All of these
[1:27:15] units would be two-bedroom units and two
[1:27:17] of those would be designated as
[1:27:19] inclusionary zoning units. With respect
[1:27:21] to zoning, the site is zoned LC or local
[1:27:24] convenience. Uh despite this fact, there
[1:27:26] are um many residential buildings in the
[1:27:29] immediate area, particularly on this
[1:27:31] side of Deonet Avenue. Terms of zoning
[1:27:34] violations, uh there's an violation for
[1:27:36] excessive F. The code here permits a
[1:27:39] maximum F of one. Proposed building has
[1:27:42] a proposed F of 1.28.
[1:27:46] Terms of building height, uh while the
[1:27:48] code permits a maximum height of 40 ft,
[1:27:50] this proposed four-story building would
[1:27:52] be 42 1/2 ft. The planning
[1:27:55] recommendation uh from the planning
[1:27:57] department which I reviewed does refer
[1:27:58] to a building height of 46 feet but it
[1:28:00] is in fact 42 and a half feet to the
[1:28:02] roof line with the small elevator
[1:28:04] override. There's a sideyard setback
[1:28:07] violation u despite the fact that this
[1:28:09] is an LC district with no required
[1:28:12] sideyard setback. Uh, footnote 6D of the
[1:28:16] code requires a sideyard equal to that
[1:28:18] of an abuing residential subdist where
[1:28:21] the side lot line in question abuts a
[1:28:24] residential use. On the left side of
[1:28:26] this lot is a residential subdist which
[1:28:29] requires a sideyard setback of 10 ft.
[1:28:32] Um, the proposed sideyard setback here
[1:28:34] is approximately 1 ft. about mitigating
[1:28:36] this is the fact that there is on that
[1:28:39] site to the left a double wide driveway
[1:28:41] uh serving the multif family residential
[1:28:43] building to the left the right side uh
[1:28:46] is compliant uh and there's a violation
[1:28:49] for insufficient off- streetet parking
[1:28:51] the code here requires one and a half
[1:28:53] spaces per unit much like the previous
[1:28:55] case um or 15 spaces the applicant here
[1:28:59] is proposing 13 spaces these again are
[1:29:01] garage spaces they're not surface spaces
[1:29:04] there's one additional violation cited
[1:29:06] on the refusal letter and it owes to the
[1:29:08] situation which I described at the
[1:29:11] beginning of my presentation about
[1:29:13] removing that parking that hasn't been
[1:29:15] used in two years for the restaurant and
[1:29:17] the um the plans examiner cited that uh
[1:29:21] as a um u the fact that that parking
[1:29:26] which was part of the proviso of the 367
[1:29:29] 371 parking is a restaurant building was
[1:29:33] being removed. Finally, the residential
[1:29:35] use here is conditional in this local
[1:29:37] convenience subdist uh and is subject to
[1:29:40] approval under article 63. With that,
[1:29:43] Madam Chair, we do have Mike Del from
[1:29:44] Rode Architects. If the board would like
[1:29:46] to be walked through the plans, I'll
[1:29:49] leave that to the discretion of the
[1:29:50] chair.
[1:29:51] Okay. Thank you. Are there questions
[1:29:53] from the board?
[1:29:58] May have public testimony.
[1:30:02] Hello, Madam Chair, members of the
[1:30:03] board. My name is Eva Jones representing
[1:30:05] the mayor's office and neighborhood
[1:30:06] services regarding 372 Nepons app. Our
[1:30:09] office defers to the board's judgment. A
[1:30:11] community process was conducted
[1:30:13] including an abutters meeting held on
[1:30:14] Thursday, April 16th, 2026 attended by
[1:30:17] about four Dorchester community members.
[1:30:20] The feedback from this meeting was while
[1:30:21] the community supports development and
[1:30:23] building homes in their neighborhood,
[1:30:25] there were concerns surrounding the
[1:30:26] scale of the building in relation to
[1:30:28] neighboring buildings as well as in
[1:30:30] relation to the parcel itself parcel
[1:30:32] itself. Uh community members also
[1:30:34] expressed concern that the proposal was
[1:30:36] covering what used to be a parking lot
[1:30:38] for the restaurant across the street and
[1:30:40] pushing the increased stress onto the
[1:30:42] neighborhood. The proposal was also
[1:30:44] reviewed by the Popes Hill Neighborhood
[1:30:45] Association at their meeting in May of
[1:30:47] this year. The association expressed
[1:30:49] support and has expressed that the
[1:30:50] applicant makes the following changes.
[1:30:53] uh to reduce for uh from 14 to 10 units.
[1:30:56] There will also be no three bedrooms and
[1:30:58] to remove the roof deck which they feel
[1:30:59] that the applicant has made these
[1:31:01] changes in good faith and therefore has
[1:31:03] provided a formal letter of support. Uh
[1:31:05] at this time the mayor's office of
[1:31:06] neighborhood services defers to the
[1:31:08] board's judgment on this matter. Thank
[1:31:09] you everyone for your time and
[1:31:10] consideration.
[1:31:13] Thank you.
[1:31:14] Next we have Liam.
[1:31:18] Hello Madam Chair, members of board.
[1:31:20] Liam Remis from Council Fitzerald's
[1:31:22] office. The council would like to go on
[1:31:23] record support this proposal. Thank you,
[1:31:28] Madam Chair. We have additional
[1:31:29] comments.
[1:31:31] Okay. Any other comments or questions
[1:31:33] from the board?
[1:31:35] May I have a motion?
[1:31:43] Motion to approve.
[1:31:45] Is there a second? Second,
[1:31:49] Mrs. Stebridge.
[1:31:52] Yes,
[1:31:54] Mr. Valencia.
[1:31:55] Yes.
[1:31:58] Turner.
[1:32:00] Yes.
[1:32:02] Miss Ponado.
[1:32:04] Yes.
[1:32:05] Mr. Collins.
[1:32:07] Yes.
[1:32:08] Mr. Bernell,
[1:32:10] yes.
[1:32:12] Chair votes yes. The motion carries.
[1:32:13] Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, have a
[1:32:15] good day.
[1:32:20] Next we have case BOA 187 9206
[1:32:26] with the address of 24 Mount Everett
[1:32:29] Street.
[1:32:31] This is a this is another article 80
[1:32:34] case. So if the applicants andor their
[1:32:38] representative would explain the case to
[1:32:40] the board please.
[1:32:42] Uh thank you Mr. Stebridge. Morning
[1:32:44] again, Madam Chair, members of the
[1:32:46] board. Attorney John Paulini here on
[1:32:48] behalf of the owner and developer of
[1:32:50] this proposal, Dermit McGregor. With me
[1:32:52] today is Rick Schmidt, the project
[1:32:54] architect. 214 Mount Everest Street in
[1:32:57] Doorchester. The zoning is 206000. This
[1:33:00] lot size is 14,429
[1:33:02] square ft. For some background, this is
[1:33:05] an article 80 project uh uh that
[1:33:07] originally applied to the BP planning
[1:33:09] department in September 24 uh to
[1:33:12] completing a renovation and addition of
[1:33:14] an existing six threetory six family
[1:33:16] dwelling in 24 Mount Everett. The
[1:33:18] addition was to be the rear of the
[1:33:20] existing structure stepping up four
[1:33:22] stories and containing 16 additional
[1:33:24] rental units bringing the total count to
[1:33:26] 22.
[1:33:28] Uh and just one short-term parking space
[1:33:31] uh for deliveries was offered. no
[1:33:33] long-term parking. You know, I've been
[1:33:35] doing this for a long time. In the
[1:33:37] interest of full disclosure, we did a
[1:33:38] community meeting. It was one of the
[1:33:39] worst community meetings I ever
[1:33:41] participated in my life. It was
[1:33:42] terrible. So, that being the case, you
[1:33:45] know, I want to give the owner credit.
[1:33:48] After that, he went back. He engaged
[1:33:49] with the abutters individually in small
[1:33:52] groups. He worked extensively with
[1:33:54] councelor Brian Warell's and through
[1:33:56] that process reduced the project
[1:33:58] significantly because we heard obviously
[1:34:01] it was heightened density and parking.
[1:34:03] So he reduced the resulting in uh the
[1:34:06] addition just being three stories which
[1:34:08] matches what's there. Uh it will contain
[1:34:11] an additional 10 dwelling units. So
[1:34:13] there was six taken off. It's a whole
[1:34:14] floor for a total unit count of 16.
[1:34:17] Parking was the big deal which is
[1:34:19] community process. So the updated
[1:34:21] proposal will increase the parking so we
[1:34:23] have onetoone spaces for the number of
[1:34:25] units and we feel that this reduction in
[1:34:28] height and unit count as well as the
[1:34:29] inclusion of onetoone parking makes the
[1:34:31] proposal a far better fit within the
[1:34:32] neighborhood. After that we went back um
[1:34:35] as part of our community process the
[1:34:37] planning department and we had a meeting
[1:34:39] and we received full support and
[1:34:41] acknowledgement from the neighbors
[1:34:42] stating that this is how community
[1:34:44] process should work with respect and
[1:34:46] understanding of each party's uh goals
[1:34:48] and desires. I'll now pass it off to
[1:34:50] Rich Schmidt uh to take you through the
[1:34:52] plans and happy to answer any questions
[1:34:54] uh once his presentation is completed.
[1:34:56] Thank you.
[1:34:57] Thank you, John. Um thank you for having
[1:35:00] me. Uh this is a view of the existing
[1:35:03] condition at 20 at Mount Ever 24 Mount
[1:35:06] Ever Street. It's a wonderful uh Second
[1:35:10] Empire style home. the uh building the
[1:35:14] intent is to restore it uh and then use
[1:35:18] some of the wonderful architectural
[1:35:20] moves that exist in the building as cues
[1:35:22] for the new architecture. Uh next slide.
[1:35:29] Uh so this is our propo this was our
[1:35:32] original scheme when we proposed a 22
[1:35:34] unit addition or 22 unit total project
[1:35:38] and a fourstory edition in the rear. As
[1:35:41] John said, we went through several
[1:35:42] community meetings. The owner is engaged
[1:35:44] with the neighborhood extensively. Um,
[1:35:47] next slide.
[1:35:52] And you'll see in this view that the um
[1:35:56] existing building is really the star of
[1:35:58] this design that the addition uh is
[1:36:01] limited in view from the street. But as
[1:36:03] Darren went through the uh meetings with
[1:36:06] the neighborhood, it became clear that
[1:36:08] the four-story edition was not
[1:36:10] acceptable to the neighborhood. We went
[1:36:12] back next slide,
[1:36:16] you can see uh the architecture of the
[1:36:20] proposed fourstory edition. And if we go
[1:36:21] to the next slide, uh you'll see our
[1:36:24] current proposal, which is now more at
[1:36:27] scale with the existing architecture. Um
[1:36:29] the idea is that we're going to use um a
[1:36:33] mansard roof at the third floor to uh
[1:36:37] recall the lines of the existing
[1:36:39] building. Uh looking at uh the
[1:36:42] articulation warmers on that addition to
[1:36:45] reflect some of the character of the
[1:36:46] existing building. The height of the
[1:36:48] addition matches the existing building.
[1:36:50] Uh we are enclosing the first floor
[1:36:53] porch on the right in this view as
[1:36:56] additional living space. In addition,
[1:36:58] we're creating uh an accessible uh
[1:37:01] approach to the building by activating
[1:37:03] the basement, creating a basement
[1:37:06] entrance off of Mount Everett, and
[1:37:08] providing an elevator which will provide
[1:37:10] access to all floors of the building. In
[1:37:13] addition, uh some of the building
[1:37:15] services like bike storage and a trash
[1:37:18] room will be located internally on the
[1:37:21] basement level. Um if we go to the next
[1:37:24] slide,
[1:37:27] you'll see um that the existing building
[1:37:30] really continues to um be the forward
[1:37:34] face of this project and obscures the
[1:37:36] proposed addition. Next slide.
[1:37:40] Look at the site plan.
[1:37:43] We've listened long and hard to what the
[1:37:46] neighbors said originally. As John had
[1:37:48] mentioned, we had just one drop off
[1:37:50] space.
[1:37:54] situation.
[1:38:04] Facebook
[1:38:25] as possible and then supplement that
[1:38:27] vegetation uh where we're proposing to
[1:38:31] put the parking area and screen the
[1:38:33] project from the abutters. Uh you'll see
[1:38:36] if you were to look in the uh zoning
[1:38:39] board of appeals submission the
[1:38:40] technical drawings. We have a full set
[1:38:42] of landscape drawings, full set of civil
[1:38:45] engineering drawings as well as the
[1:38:47] chart that uh lists uh our responses to
[1:38:50] the required variances. And then if we
[1:38:53] go to that last slide, you'll see that
[1:38:56] the existing uh architecture and the
[1:38:58] proposed new addition are much more in
[1:39:01] scale with each other.
[1:39:03] So if we go to slide 11, you can see
[1:39:06] that.
[1:39:10] And if we can't go to that, that's fine.
[1:39:12] I'm happy to take any questions then.
[1:39:15] Thank you. Are there questions from the
[1:39:17] board?
[1:39:19] Um, can you mention the affordable
[1:39:21] units? I didn't hear any mention of
[1:39:23] that.
[1:39:24] Uh, yes. Actually, um, Miss Pado, it's
[1:39:27] uh 20% additional 10 units.
[1:40:01] 60
[1:40:06] stackers there.
[1:40:15] Any other questions from the board?
[1:40:18] Public testimony.
[1:40:20] Yes, madam chair member. Honor Newman
[1:40:23] with the mayor's office of neighborhood
[1:40:25] services. This time the mayor's office
[1:40:26] deferred to the judgment of this board
[1:40:28] sent back information to the community
[1:40:30] process. It's been through a Boston
[1:40:31] planning community process uh which
[1:40:33] ultimately ended with the BPD board
[1:40:35] approving this proposal on June 18th,
[1:40:38] 2026. Uh there were two meetings over
[1:40:40] the course of two years. Uh as you heard
[1:40:42] from the applicant's representation,
[1:40:43] there were reductions made um during
[1:40:45] that community process with the number
[1:40:47] of units being reduced. Uh and I
[1:40:49] understand the parking ratio also
[1:40:50] increased. Uh we received a mix of
[1:40:53] public comments. Um supporters cited
[1:40:55] close proximity uh to a number of bus
[1:40:58] lines in the area. uh the addition of
[1:41:00] IDP units uh adding uh an opportunity
[1:41:02] affordable opportunities uh for
[1:41:04] residents in the neighborhood as well as
[1:41:06] the retaining of the front uh facade and
[1:41:09] complementing uh the existing uh
[1:41:11] architecture in the neighborhood uh with
[1:41:13] changes made to that rear addition.
[1:41:15] Those opposed cite uh the busy nature of
[1:41:17] the street with one resident bringing up
[1:41:19] with their two daycarees on the street.
[1:41:21] Frequently people have their driveways
[1:41:23] blocked. Um as well as concerns related
[1:41:25] to density and the potential competition
[1:41:28] for on street parking. Uh the greater
[1:41:30] boat Geneva neighborhood association
[1:41:31] echoed these concerns as well. Uh with
[1:41:34] that we'll defer to the board. Thank
[1:41:35] you.
[1:41:36] Thank you.
[1:41:38] Next we have Jack Gilman.
[1:41:41] Good morning again madam chair, members
[1:41:43] of the board. Uh my name is Jack Gilman,
[1:41:45] project assistant with the development
[1:41:46] review team. Um I'm just here again to
[1:41:50] you know speak to the article 80 process
[1:41:52] for this project. Um and like John said
[1:41:56] on September 3rd, 2024,
[1:41:58] McGregor one LLC filed their SP with the
[1:42:01] planning department. Um
[1:42:04] public meeting was held on October 1st,
[1:42:06] 2024 originally. Um, and this public
[1:42:09] meeting was noticed on the events
[1:42:11] calendar and sent to the Dorchester
[1:42:13] neighborhood distribution list. Um, and
[1:42:15] then following a project update, um, a
[1:42:20] supplemental filing was submitted to us,
[1:42:21] the BPDA on April 23rd, 2026. Um, which
[1:42:25] initiated that second public comment
[1:42:27] period. um and a public meeting was held
[1:42:30] on May 7th, 2026 and the comment period
[1:42:33] ended on May 26, 2026 and the project
[1:42:36] again was approved on June 18th of 2026.
[1:42:39] Thank you.
[1:42:42] Next we have Joseph.
[1:42:47] Hi this is Ysef Abella from city council
[1:42:50] Brian Wells office. The council would
[1:42:52] like to go on record approving
[1:42:54] supporting this project. It goes a long
[1:42:56] way to expanding housing opportunities
[1:42:58] in Dorchester and the developers work
[1:43:01] with both the counselor and the
[1:43:02] community to address the concerns and
[1:43:04] make changes to this.
[1:43:07] Thank you,
[1:43:09] Madam Chair. We don't have additional
[1:43:10] comments.
[1:43:13] Okay.
[1:43:15] Any other questions from the board?
[1:43:19] May I have a motion?
[1:43:25] Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion
[1:43:27] of approval.
[1:43:28] Is there a second?
[1:43:30] Second.
[1:43:31] Mr. Pembridge.
[1:43:34] Yeah.
[1:43:36] Mr. Valencia.
[1:43:37] Yes.
[1:43:39] Miss Turner.
[1:43:41] Yes.
[1:43:43] Miss Panado.
[1:43:45] Yes.
[1:43:47] Mr. Collins.
[1:43:48] Yes.
[1:43:50] Mr. Bern.
[1:43:52] Yes.
[1:43:53] Chair votes yes. The motion carries.
[1:43:54] Good luck.
[1:43:58] Thank you.
[1:44:03] Next, we have case VA
[1:44:06] 177 0910.
[1:44:10] The address of 655 Morton Street. If the
[1:44:15] applicants and or their representative
[1:44:17] are present, would they please explain?
[1:44:21] Good morning, Madame Chair, members of
[1:44:23] the board. Uh, Timothy Fraser from the
[1:44:25] law firm of Dne Torpy, 175 Federal
[1:44:28] Street in Boston. Along with me is Miss
[1:44:32] Jiang Hi New. She's the property owner.
[1:44:35] Uh, this appeal involves a property at
[1:44:38] 655 Morton Street in Madapan. This is
[1:44:41] very close to the intersection of Mortyn
[1:44:44] Street and Blue Hill A right uh over by
[1:44:47] the B3 Police Station. Uh this is a
[1:44:50] classic three decker property and Miss
[1:44:52] New became the property owner in 2018
[1:44:56] and just for some history at that time
[1:44:58] the configuration was four units with
[1:45:00] this two-bedroom apartment on the ground
[1:45:02] level already in place. Um so this
[1:45:05] proposal seeks to legalize that unit
[1:45:08] turning the uh occupancy from three
[1:45:10] families to a four family occupancy. Um
[1:45:13] the entire project is contained within
[1:45:16] the existing building footprint. Um it's
[1:45:18] it's only just framing the bedrooms. Um
[1:45:20] the kitchen and bath will remain in the
[1:45:22] same location and there'll be a living
[1:45:24] room. Um and then also we'll be adding
[1:45:26] uh the required window wells for the
[1:45:28] egress. Um you should note that the
[1:45:31] front entry door for this ground level
[1:45:33] unit is already right there in the
[1:45:34] ground level. I think it's just a one
[1:45:36] step or two steps down into the
[1:45:37] basement. Uh per the plans, the ceiling
[1:45:40] height is uh 7'6 in as required by the
[1:45:43] code. So, the project gives rise to the
[1:45:46] need for four variances. Um, we're we're
[1:45:48] in a 3F000 zoning district. Um, and the
[1:45:52] variances required are the extension for
[1:45:54] the non-conforming use. Um, and that
[1:45:57] that that non-conforming use is actually
[1:45:59] forbidden in this residential sub uh
[1:46:01] subdist. Again, we're going from a three
[1:46:04] family to a four family uh uh occupancy.
[1:46:09] Uh and then the other um uh violation is
[1:46:12] for off- streetet parking and loading
[1:46:14] requirements. This uh building sits
[1:46:16] pretty much covers the entire lot. It's
[1:46:19] always been like that since
[1:46:20] construction. Um there's really no
[1:46:22] opportunity for parking. However, this
[1:46:24] property sits right at the corner of
[1:46:26] Blue Hill and Morton. In fact, there's a
[1:46:28] there's an NBA bus stop right in front
[1:46:29] of the property at the 21 stops there,
[1:46:31] the 31 stops there. Is very well
[1:46:34] positioned as a transit oriented
[1:46:36] project. And then based on the tenant
[1:46:38] history in the other three units, we
[1:46:40] think that the parking is adequate for
[1:46:41] this project. And also there's a high
[1:46:43] need for apartment living of this type
[1:46:46] in in that area. Uh the the applicant
[1:46:49] did conduct a community process uh in
[1:46:51] conjunction with the mayor's office of
[1:46:53] neighborhood services. On November 10th,
[1:46:55] 2025, we presented the project to the
[1:46:58] Wellington Hill Neighborhood
[1:46:59] Association. And then on November 19th,
[1:47:02] 2025, the virtual butters meeting was
[1:47:04] held. uh the office of neighborhood
[1:47:07] services determined that those meetings
[1:47:08] sufficed as the required community
[1:47:10] engagement and the applicant hasn't been
[1:47:12] made aware of any comments or concerns
[1:47:14] arising for those from those m meetings
[1:47:17] to date. Uh in fact, Madam Chair, the
[1:47:19] applicant has submitted for the record
[1:47:21] numerous letters in support of this
[1:47:23] project. I I I trust the board has
[1:47:25] received those letters, so I won't
[1:47:26] recount all of them and I believe the
[1:47:28] representatives of the elected officials
[1:47:30] may go on record with their support
[1:47:31] later in this hearing. So that concludes
[1:47:34] my presentation. On behalf of the Alpha
[1:47:36] Clint, I uh respectfully request that
[1:47:38] the aformentioned variances be granted
[1:47:41] to allow this existing residential space
[1:47:44] to be renovated and added to the city's
[1:47:46] housing stock. Uh I'm available along
[1:47:48] with Miss New to answer any further
[1:47:50] questions that the board may have. Thank
[1:47:52] you, Madam Chair, and thank you, members
[1:47:53] of the board.
[1:47:54] Thank you. Are there questions from the
[1:47:56] board?
[1:47:59] May I have public testimony? Madame
[1:48:01] Chair and members of the board, for the
[1:48:02] record, my name is Jeremy Benbury. I'm
[1:48:04] the Madapan community engagement
[1:48:06] specialist for the Office of
[1:48:07] Neighborhood Services. The applicant has
[1:48:09] completed the community process which
[1:48:10] consisted of an abutter meeting
[1:48:11] facilitated on November 19th with two of
[1:48:13] Butters present, a concern for how the
[1:48:17] addressed with affordable housing and
[1:48:19] new opposition was voiced. Next, the
[1:48:21] proponent presented to Wellington Hill
[1:48:22] Neighborhood Association on November
[1:48:23] 10th, but was not well received by the
[1:48:25] community. Some of the concerns raised
[1:48:27] by community members included loitering,
[1:48:29] parking, and prior offenses associated
[1:48:31] with the property. Concerns were also
[1:48:33] expressed regarding the owner residing
[1:48:35] elsewhere in the property's current use,
[1:48:38] which some members characterized as
[1:48:39] functioning more like a boarding
[1:48:41] facility. Additionally, several members
[1:48:43] expressed concern that the owner may be
[1:48:44] more focused on collecting rent than on
[1:48:46] maintaining the property and the
[1:48:48] fulfilling of the excuse me, and
[1:48:50] fulfilling the responsibilities of a
[1:48:51] landlord. Uh to date, our office has
[1:48:54] received one letter of support uh in
[1:48:56] support of the proposal. Thank you for
[1:48:58] your time and the mayor's office of
[1:48:59] neighborhood services like to defer to
[1:49:00] the board for their judgment.
[1:49:04] Thank you. Then next we have Patricia W.
[1:49:11] I'm sorry. My name is Roger Morren. I'm
[1:49:14] a current tenant. I support this project
[1:49:16] and and surely believe it it'll provide
[1:49:19] additional safe and useful housing
[1:49:20] opportunities.
[1:49:22] I thank you for your time.
[1:49:24] Thank you.
[1:49:27] All right. I think um Patrice
[1:49:31] I think that you're looking to speak on
[1:49:32] this case.
[1:49:38] I am looking to speak on the next case.
[1:49:42] Okay. So, Madame Chair, we don't have
[1:49:44] additional comments.
[1:49:47] Okay. Any other questions from the
[1:49:49] board?
[1:49:52] Is there a motion?
[1:49:54] Well, can can the applicant just address
[1:49:56] the maintenance of the property and and
[1:49:58] landlord tenant issues?
[1:50:01] Uh, sure. Happy to, Miss Pinado. So,
[1:50:03] this uh project was actually before the
[1:50:05] board in 2001 to actually legalize the
[1:50:10] rooming house um occupancy. Uh that
[1:50:13] application was denied back in 2001. So,
[1:50:15] those plans have been abandoned. Um I've
[1:50:17] been in contact with ISD and helping the
[1:50:21] applicant kind of uh keep the property
[1:50:24] maintained, avoid violations, etc. So,
[1:50:27] um, the applicant is is very well aware,
[1:50:29] uh, of the city's requirements for the
[1:50:31] for the update and and maintenance of
[1:50:33] the property and and we'll be playing
[1:50:34] strict attention to that. Any plans to
[1:50:37] operate the uh the the the property as a
[1:50:40] boarding house have been abandoned and
[1:50:41] and it really would be uh the the
[1:50:43] fourunit apartments.
[1:50:46] Okay. Thank you.
[1:50:49] Okay. Any other questions from the
[1:50:52] board?
[1:50:54] Is there a motion?
[1:51:00] I'll make a motion for approval.
[1:51:03] Is there a second?
[1:51:06] A second.
[1:51:08] Mr. Stebridge.
[1:51:12] Yes.
[1:51:14] Mr. Valencio.
[1:51:16] Yes.
[1:51:17] Miss Turner.
[1:51:19] Yes.
[1:51:21] Miss Parado.
[1:51:23] Yes.
[1:51:25] Mr. Collins,
[1:51:26] yes.
[1:51:28] Mr. Bernell,
[1:51:29] yes.
[1:51:31] Chair votes, yes. The motion carries.
[1:51:33] Good luck.
[1:51:33] Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you,
[1:51:34] members of the board.
[1:51:40] Next, we have, excuse me, next we have
[1:51:44] case VA 188 3597,
[1:51:50] the address of 85 Parker Hill Avenue.
[1:51:54] This also is an article 80 case
[1:51:58] and if the applicants and or they
[1:52:01] representative would please explain.
[1:52:05] Uh thank you Mr. Stebridge. Um good
[1:52:07] morning again madam chair members of the
[1:52:09] board John Pjini on behalf of developer.
[1:52:11] Um with me today is Patrick Mildorf from
[1:52:14] EG architects and Jay Walsh our
[1:52:16] development consultant.
[1:52:18] uh 85 Park Hill Lab in Mission Hill. The
[1:52:21] zoning is uh New England Baptist
[1:52:23] Hospital Industrial Zoning. The lot size
[1:52:26] is of 49,747
[1:52:29] square ft. This was an article AD
[1:52:32] project that received its approval in
[1:52:34] July this year. The project initially
[1:52:36] contemplated the full renovation of the
[1:52:38] existing building at 85, previously the
[1:52:40] landmark on Longwood, which had fallen
[1:52:42] into disrepair and was vacant since uh
[1:52:45] co before co um we were to create a
[1:52:49] fourstory 114 unit apartment building,
[1:52:52] 10 parking spaces. At the time, the
[1:52:54] mixed unit mix consisted of 36 studios,
[1:52:57] 65 one beds, 13 two beds. In response
[1:53:01] response to the feedback heard all
[1:53:03] across uh from the community meetings
[1:53:05] throughout the article 8 process, the
[1:53:07] development team has spent the past few
[1:53:09] months completing revisions to the
[1:53:10] project, most notably unit count and
[1:53:13] unit mix.
[1:53:15] In our new plans, which Patrick will go
[1:53:17] over in more detail, we have reduced our
[1:53:19] unit count from 114 to 103. The floor
[1:53:22] plans have also been reconfigured to now
[1:53:25] include eight threebedroom units. The
[1:53:27] new unit mix includes those eight three
[1:53:30] beds, 19 two beds, 351 and 401 studios.
[1:53:34] All the new three bed units will be
[1:53:36] offered as inclusionary zoning
[1:53:38] affordable units for families. Now, this
[1:53:41] proposal is the perfect location
[1:53:43] providing additional needed housing
[1:53:44] without displacement or architectural
[1:53:46] change to the neighborhood. The property
[1:53:49] was once owned by the Baptist Hospital
[1:53:51] and prior to the current ownership, the
[1:53:53] occupancy certificate had it zoned as 75
[1:53:55] dwelling units and 13 hotel rooms. This
[1:53:58] is a beautiful brick building that
[1:54:00] despite a modest addition, there will be
[1:54:02] no visible changes to the addition uh
[1:54:05] with because the addition will be
[1:54:07] located within a courtyard within the
[1:54:09] envelope of the building. In fact, I'd
[1:54:11] be hardressed to remember a proposal
[1:54:13] that provides this amount of housing
[1:54:15] while only receiving two violations for
[1:54:17] use because of where it's located in in
[1:54:20] industrial. It's an extension of a
[1:54:22] non-conforming use because it did have
[1:54:23] residential use prior as well as
[1:54:26] parking. I'll now pass it over to
[1:54:27] Patrick who will go through the uh full
[1:54:29] scope of the plans and happy to answer
[1:54:31] any questions.
[1:54:33] Thank you, John. Can you can you hear
[1:54:35] me?
[1:54:37] Yes.
[1:54:37] Great. Um, I'll I'll go through these
[1:54:40] relatively quickly. My name is Patrick
[1:54:41] Mixdorf, uh, principal at EG Architects
[1:54:44] in Newbury Port, Massachusetts. Um, if
[1:54:47] we could go back to the first slide,
[1:54:48] please.
[1:54:51] Uh, sorry, the third slide.
[1:54:54] So, what you're seeing on this screen is
[1:54:56] a proposed rendering from uh, Parker
[1:54:59] Hill Avenue. What you what's notable
[1:55:02] here is that the bulk of what you can
[1:55:04] see is essentially existing. The the new
[1:55:07] elements here are some landscape uh
[1:55:09] retaining walls, a new um vestibule
[1:55:13] which is visible just above the car in
[1:55:16] the foreground and up at the roof level
[1:55:18] to the left of the rightmost green
[1:55:21] coupoopa is a stair access to a roof
[1:55:23] deck. Um if we could advance through the
[1:55:26] slides uh slowly I'll make note of the
[1:55:31] important things. existing site plan.
[1:55:35] You can keep going. Um, this is our
[1:55:38] zoning information and I we can come
[1:55:40] back to any of that if you have
[1:55:41] questions. Proposed site plan, proposed
[1:55:43] landscape plan,
[1:55:46] proposed open space and tree related
[1:55:49] items, parking related, which I think is
[1:55:51] worthwhile staying if we could stay on
[1:55:52] A12, please. There are 11 proposed
[1:55:57] parking spaces plus a loading area on
[1:55:59] the west of the property. Um, these are
[1:56:02] the proposed accessible units. And then
[1:56:04] we get to the floor plans. If we could
[1:56:06] please stop here. So, what you're seeing
[1:56:08] is two, three floor plans on this sheet.
[1:56:10] And the lower left is the lowest level.
[1:56:12] Um, the site slopes pretty dramatically
[1:56:14] from west to east up towards Fiser
[1:56:16] Avenue. So, the plan in the lower left
[1:56:19] is the lowest level. Uh, the pink
[1:56:22] apartments shown in here are the
[1:56:24] inclusionary apartments, which you'll
[1:56:26] notice there are some on virtually every
[1:56:28] floor. The floor plan directly above
[1:56:30] that is the uh the first floor which
[1:56:34] includes the first of the new
[1:56:36] construction. There's a common area uh
[1:56:38] that says exercise and two sort of
[1:56:41] orange colored apartments. Those are
[1:56:42] built within the existing courtyard of
[1:56:44] the property. and the other than the new
[1:56:47] vestibule on Parker Hill Avenue, all of
[1:56:50] the new construction is proposed within
[1:56:52] the existing courtyard, virtually out of
[1:56:55] sight of any of the uh exterior of the
[1:56:58] property. Um, and the last floor plan is
[1:57:01] the second floor, which shows in those
[1:57:03] orange units the predominant amount of
[1:57:05] new construction on the property. Moving
[1:57:08] to the next slide,
[1:57:13] the final two floors, the third and the
[1:57:15] fourth floor, uh, which again follow the
[1:57:17] same basic idea. The pink apartments are
[1:57:20] the inclusionary apartments, of which
[1:57:22] there are eight. Um, and the orange
[1:57:25] construction is basically the new
[1:57:27] construction proposed for the project,
[1:57:29] which is inside the existing courtyard.
[1:57:31] And then there's also a roof deck
[1:57:33] proposed above that a portion of that
[1:57:36] existing uh new construction in the
[1:57:38] courtyard that is largely invisible from
[1:57:40] the exterior.
[1:57:42] We could proceed with the next slide. Uh
[1:57:45] sort of site plan and some site sections
[1:57:48] on the that sheet. Some building
[1:57:50] sections
[1:57:52] that identify the new construction
[1:57:54] proposed elevations. As you can see in
[1:57:56] here, everything above the peak of the
[1:57:59] roof level is existing construction
[1:58:01] other than some uh landscape work. And
[1:58:04] what you can see there are sort of two
[1:58:06] rectangular structures with sort of an
[1:58:08] orange color and some grid. Um those are
[1:58:11] uh stairs to allow access to that roof
[1:58:14] deck. All of this is proposed to be sort
[1:58:16] of storefront material um copper colored
[1:58:20] metal um to be sort of consistent but
[1:58:23] not mimic the existing construction.
[1:58:25] That's true of the new vestibule as
[1:58:27] well. We could proceed. There are
[1:58:30] additional elevations on the following
[1:58:32] pages
[1:58:33] um showing very similar sorts of things.
[1:58:36] Uh but most of what should be visible to
[1:58:38] the public other than the proposed new
[1:58:40] landscaping is the existing building
[1:58:42] which has been a residential use for
[1:58:45] more than a hundred years.
[1:58:48] I'm happy to answer any other questions
[1:58:49] you might have but that's the gist of
[1:58:51] the project. Thank you.
[1:58:54] Thank you. Are there questions from the
[1:58:56] board?
[1:59:00] Yes. I would like to ask again
[1:59:02] shar. I would like to ask again about
[1:59:05] the IDP units. I see the total of units
[1:59:09] is 103.
[1:59:11] You are offering eight. I think the IDP
[1:59:16] for this area 17% will require you to
[1:59:19] provide 17 units or 18 affordable units.
[1:59:23] So I just wanted to understand more why
[1:59:26] how did you arrive to this number?
[1:59:28] That's a very good question and the
[1:59:29] reason being is through the mayor's
[1:59:30] office of housing. They worked with us
[1:59:32] because they really wanted the
[1:59:33] three-bedroom unit. So these are
[1:59:34] extremely large units. So it's 17% of
[1:59:37] the gross square footage. So it's 17% of
[1:59:40] the unit to 17% of the gross square
[1:59:42] footage. So that reason reflected in
[1:59:44] those very large three-bedroom family
[1:59:46] units.
[1:59:49] Okay. So the city was okay with reducing
[1:59:51] the number of the affordable units just
[1:59:53] to ensure that the apartments are bigger
[1:59:55] for families.
[1:59:55] Exactly. So that's why it went from 114
[1:59:58] down to 103. So it reduced it by that
[2:00:00] amount so that they could make these
[2:00:01] bigger units. So it goes by square
[2:00:03] footage and or unit count.
[2:00:05] Okay. Thank you.
[2:00:06] Thank you.
[2:00:08] Any other questions from the board?
[2:00:12] We have public testimony.
[2:00:14] Yes, madam chair, members of the board.
[2:00:15] Conor Newman with the mayor's office of
[2:00:17] neighborhood services. This time the
[2:00:19] mayor's office deferred to the judgement
[2:00:20] of this board. Some background
[2:00:22] information the community process. Uh
[2:00:23] this went through a Boston planning like
[2:00:25] community process involving uh two
[2:00:27] public meetings uh hosted by the BPDA.
[2:00:30] Um it was BPDA board approved on June
[2:00:32] 16th, 2026. Uh during the community
[2:00:35] process uh we heard comments in
[2:00:36] opposition uh citing concerns over the
[2:00:39] bedroom uh styles of the units at the
[2:00:42] proposed density uh as what residents
[2:00:45] have also been asking for uh
[2:00:46] restrictions on uh undergraduate
[2:00:48] students uh in the housing due to the
[2:00:50] very high student population in the
[2:00:52] Mission Hill neighborhood. Um, as you
[2:00:54] heard from the office presentation,
[2:00:56] changes have been made uh regarding
[2:00:58] reduction in the number of units as well
[2:00:59] as changing that configuration of uh
[2:01:02] bedroom styles in those units. Uh, the
[2:01:05] community alliance in Mission Hill and
[2:01:06] the Mission Hill Housing Services, we
[2:01:08] understand, are still in opposition to
[2:01:09] this proposal, but that information will
[2:01:11] defer to the board. Thank you.
[2:01:14] Thank you.
[2:01:15] Next, we have Jack Gilman.
[2:01:18] Good morning again, Madam Chair, members
[2:01:20] of the board. Uh again, my name is Jack
[2:01:22] Gilman, a project assistant with the
[2:01:24] development review team uh at the
[2:01:26] planning department. Um here to speak
[2:01:28] about uh the 85 Parker Hill Community
[2:01:30] Process and Arc Lady process. Um and I
[2:01:34] know this was said, but on on February
[2:01:36] 13th, 2026, this project filed their uh
[2:01:39] SP with the BPDA for the proposed
[2:01:41] project. Um, pursuant to article ad uh
[2:01:45] ade uh the BPDA sponsored and held a
[2:01:47] virtual public meeting on March 24th uh
[2:01:50] on March 4th, 2026. Uh this meeting was
[2:01:53] posted on the planning department
[2:01:54] website and a notification was emailed
[2:01:57] to all subscribers of the Mission Hill
[2:01:58] neighborhood update list and the public
[2:02:01] comment period ended on April 24th,
[2:02:02] 2026. And then following the project
[2:02:05] update, um mainly creating the eight uh
[2:02:09] eight three-bedroom units, family-sized
[2:02:11] units, um the BPDA sponsored another
[2:02:13] virtual public meeting on June 29th,
[2:02:15] 2026. And the meeting was posted on the
[2:02:18] plane department website and a
[2:02:19] notification was emailed to all
[2:02:20] subscribers of the Mission Hill
[2:02:22] Neighborhood Update List. Thank you.
[2:02:27] Thank you.
[2:02:28] Next.
[2:02:33] Yes. Hi, good morning. This is Peter
[2:02:35] Antonic. Uh our family owns several
[2:02:38] properties in the area and we wanted to
[2:02:40] speak in strong support of this
[2:02:42] proposal. Uh this is a great uh great
[2:02:45] proposed use for the site especially
[2:02:47] given the um the uh the existing
[2:02:49] magnificent building will be kept and
[2:02:52] renovated and reused as residential. And
[2:02:55] again uh we wanted to go on record in
[2:02:58] strong support of this proposal. Thank
[2:03:01] you very much.
[2:03:02] Thank you.
[2:03:05] Next we have Patricia Flity.
[2:03:08] Thank you. My name is Patricia Flity.
[2:03:10] I'm a resident of Mission Hill and I
[2:03:11] live at 122 Calimett Street and I'm the
[2:03:14] executive director of Mission Hill
[2:03:15] Neighborhood Housing Services. On behalf
[2:03:17] of myself and Mission Hill NHS, I'd like
[2:03:20] to go in on record in strong opposition
[2:03:22] to the variances being sought for
[2:03:24] parking and change of use for the 85
[2:03:26] Parker Hill Avenue project. Multif
[2:03:29] family residential is forbidden in the
[2:03:31] zoning district and it's an
[2:03:33] institutional district, not an
[2:03:35] industrial district. And while creating
[2:03:37] hardship for the 165
[2:03:40] abing town homes at the brick layer town
[2:03:43] homes and the owner occupied homes on
[2:03:46] Ericway Street, two of the last
[2:03:48] remaining home ownership areas of
[2:03:49] Mission Hill, the proponent has not
[2:03:52] proved hardship for his proposed
[2:03:53] development. In fact, we maintain that
[2:03:56] the project should have been more
[2:03:57] thoroughly reviewed for traffic, parking
[2:03:59] impacts, rent impacts, quality of life
[2:04:02] issues, noise, trash, etc., and
[2:04:04] affirmatively advancing fear housing,
[2:04:07] whereby impacts on equity and risk
[2:04:09] displacement by this large 103 unit
[2:04:12] project would have been studied. The
[2:04:14] entire building, not just the new
[2:04:16] construction square footage, is
[2:04:17] requesting relief for change of use, and
[2:04:19] that should have resulted in large
[2:04:20] project review. Instead of supporting
[2:04:23] family-friendly housing and
[2:04:24] family-friendly neighborhoods as put
[2:04:26] forth in the mayor's housing priorities
[2:04:27] for term two, the development of
[2:04:29] extremely small studios and
[2:04:31] one-bedrooms. And this developer with
[2:04:33] his particular marketing and financing
[2:04:35] models will be providing more
[2:04:37] destabilizing undergraduate student
[2:04:39] housing with no on-site management, no
[2:04:41] supervision, and no consequences, but
[2:04:43] big profits. Um, we support the
[2:04:46] three-bedroom IDP units. We don't
[2:04:48] support the reduction in IDP units. and
[2:04:50] we now will have families living among
[2:04:52] the undergraduate students in what is
[2:04:54] essentially a dorm. This does nothing to
[2:04:57] mitigate the housing crisis experienced
[2:04:59] in our neighborhood or in our city.
[2:05:01] Thank you.
[2:05:04] Next, we have Mitch Hilton.
[2:05:14] Mitch, if you can unmute yourself,
[2:05:16] please.
[2:05:23] Can you hear me now?
[2:05:25] Yes, sir.
[2:05:26] Okay. Um, thank you very much. And I
[2:05:28] understand that my time is limited. Uh,
[2:05:30] my name is Mitch Hilton. In May of 1973,
[2:05:33] I moved into 148 Hillside Street on
[2:05:36] Mission Hill, meaning that I'm a 53y
[2:05:38] year plus resident of Mission Hill. Um,
[2:05:41] I rented places on hillside, weight,
[2:05:43] fiser, and in ' 92, I bought my house on
[2:05:46] Irakcoy. So, for the entire time, I've
[2:05:48] always lived within two or three blocks
[2:05:50] of the proposed redevelopment of the
[2:05:53] Baptist Nursing Building. I'm the former
[2:05:56] president of the Mission Hill Planning
[2:05:57] Commission, a founding member of
[2:05:58] Community Alliance of Mission Hill. I
[2:06:01] served on the planning and zoning
[2:06:02] advisory committee of Mission Hill. I
[2:06:05] was the president of Mission Hill League
[2:06:06] for about a decade. My son was in the
[2:06:09] entering class of Mission Hill K to8 and
[2:06:12] I served on its governing board. I'm
[2:06:14] also a retired letter carrier 35 years
[2:06:16] plus in the South Bend. After retiring
[2:06:19] from carrying mail, I taught within the
[2:06:22] Boston public schools at Timulty Middle
[2:06:24] School. Um,
[2:06:27] can you focus on
[2:06:29] Thank you.
[2:06:30] board members, I'll I understand that
[2:06:32] we're dealing with the two um violations
[2:06:35] of the zoning code. I ask that you
[2:06:37] reject the applicant's request for
[2:06:39] zoning relief. There is no hardship
[2:06:42] demonstrated that necessitates providing
[2:06:45] 11 parking spaces for 103 units. The
[2:06:49] numbers speak for themselves. The
[2:06:51] surrounding institutions, New England
[2:06:53] Baptist Hospital, Judge Baker
[2:06:54] Educational Center provide adequate off-
[2:06:57] streetet parking without adversely
[2:06:59] impacting the neighborhood. the change
[2:07:02] of use. The broader picture of the
[2:07:04] change of use is that the um applicant
[2:07:08] um is adding in addition to this 109
[2:07:12] more small units further down Parker
[2:07:15] Hill A. Mission Hill is plagued with
[2:07:18] absentee landlords. Um you you've got in
[2:07:21] your files, my friends, a letter a
[2:07:24] strong opposition from Henry Santana,
[2:07:27] who grew up on Mission Hill, who's very
[2:07:29] familiar with how steep wrap up. Thank
[2:07:32] you.
[2:07:32] Um the
[2:07:39] next we have is Jose Cologne.
[2:07:45] Hello. Thank you, Madame Chair and
[2:07:47] members of the board. My name is Jose
[2:07:49] Cologne. I'm a business representative
[2:07:50] with the North Atlantic States Regional
[2:07:52] Council of Carpenters, and we want to go
[2:07:54] on record as being in full support of
[2:07:57] this proposal. Thank you.
[2:08:02] Next we have Susan Menendez.
[2:08:14] Okay. I don't think that she's speaking
[2:08:17] on this case. Next we have Mark Sul.
[2:08:27] Okay.
[2:08:32] Mark, are you
[2:08:33] okay? Can I ask
[2:08:38] is Mark speaking on this case?
[2:08:42] No, they both hand. So, um I don't think
[2:08:46] Can I ask
[2:08:48] you just
[2:08:51] I'm sorry. Why don't you have to
[2:08:53] respond? Did you ask cut off for a
[2:08:55] second?
[2:08:55] Yes, please.
[2:08:56] Oh, sure. um other issues,
[2:08:59] you know, the argument the multif family
[2:09:01] residential forbidden that was the occup
[2:09:02] that was the current use in this
[2:09:04] building. This building, it is true.
[2:09:05] This building was once owned by New
[2:09:06] England Baptist Hospital. However, they
[2:09:08] sold it and they sold it and it was an
[2:09:10] assisted living facility as I stated
[2:09:12] before 83 units uh 18 uh um hotel units.
[2:09:18] There are um
[2:09:22] this if you look at this building this
[2:09:24] building is a residential building that
[2:09:27] has been sitting vacant for over six
[2:09:29] years. It is going to be residential one
[2:09:31] way or the other. This went through an
[2:09:33] extensive process of the BPDA. As far as
[2:09:35] meetings go, we had seven. We had two
[2:09:37] meetings with Mission Hill NHS, two
[2:09:39] meetings with citizens um community
[2:09:41] alliance in Mission Hill. One meeting
[2:09:42] with the um Back at the Hill uh civic
[2:09:45] and then two public meetings with the
[2:09:47] BPDA. Mr. uh Savage who owns this
[2:09:50] building has been the only developer
[2:09:52] that I have seen had that had signed an
[2:09:55] agreement with the uh Mission Hill
[2:09:57] housing neighborhood services with
[2:09:58] respect to restricting undergraduate
[2:10:01] students in any of his buildings. And
[2:10:04] again, it went through a complete
[2:10:05] community process. He's cooperated. They
[2:10:07] asked for family style units. We did
[2:10:09] that. Everything had been complied with.
[2:10:11] This is a fiveminute walk from the green
[2:10:13] line. It is downtown living. And if this
[2:10:15] is not residential, what would it be?
[2:10:18] What would it be? Are they going to put
[2:10:19] a You guys saw the beautiful picture of
[2:10:21] the stately building. He preserved the
[2:10:22] building and built inside a courtyard.
[2:10:25] This is a beautiful building that should
[2:10:26] be residential. If we're serious about
[2:10:28] housing, the housing is there. Really,
[2:10:30] no change to the neighborhood. It is
[2:10:32] there.
[2:10:33] Happy to answer any other further
[2:10:34] questions.
[2:10:35] Thank you. Any other questions from the
[2:10:38] board?
[2:10:44] May I have a motion?
[2:10:56] I'll make a motion to approve with
[2:10:58] continued BPDA design review. There a
[2:11:01] second.
[2:11:05] Mrs. Stebridge.
[2:11:07] Yeah.
[2:11:09] Mr. Valencia.
[2:11:11] Yes.
[2:11:13] Miss Turner.
[2:11:17] Miss Ponado.
[2:11:19] Yes.
[2:11:21] Mr. Collins.
[2:11:22] Yes.
[2:11:24] Mr. Renault.
[2:11:26] Yes.
[2:11:28] Chair votes yes. The motion carries.
[2:11:30] Thank you everybody. Appreciate your
[2:11:31] day.
[2:11:37] Next we have case um madam chair uh
[2:11:40] since we pass the 11:30 hour at this
[2:11:44] time we'll ask if there are any requests
[2:11:46] for withdrawals or deferrals from the
[2:11:49] 11:30 cases.
[2:11:56] Hearing none then we will
[2:11:58] Nelson
[2:12:00] sorry Nelson Fernandez was looking to
[2:12:03] defer
[2:12:06] Nelson if you can repeat yourself now
[2:12:09] hi yes I'm Nelson Fernandez property
[2:12:11] owner of 213 217 B Street
[2:12:16] so which case you
[2:12:19] I'm sorry which case are you looking to
[2:12:20] defer
[2:12:22] uh withdraw um give me a Second side
[2:12:29] 213 Bowden Street.
[2:12:30] Yeah.
[2:12:34] So this request is for case VA
[2:12:38] 180
[2:12:40] 1106
[2:12:43] the address of 213 to 221 vote.
[2:12:48] Uh would you go ahead and explain sir?
[2:12:52] Yes, we are amending our plans
[2:12:55] and um we are we have a new layers on
[2:12:58] too. So we want to withdraw right now.
[2:13:02] You want to withdraw it?
[2:13:03] Yes.
[2:13:04] Okay. Uh may I have a motion?
[2:13:08] Motion to withdraw this case.
[2:13:11] May I have a second?
[2:13:13] Second.
[2:13:15] Mr. Stebridge.
[2:13:18] Yes.
[2:13:19] Mr. Valencia.
[2:13:20] Yes.
[2:13:22] Miss Turner,
[2:13:23] yes.
[2:13:25] Miss Ponado,
[2:13:27] yes.
[2:13:28] Mr. Collins,
[2:13:29] yes.
[2:13:31] Mr. Bernell,
[2:13:32] yes.
[2:13:34] Chair votes yes. The motion carries.
[2:13:36] Thank you for your time.
[2:13:38] Thank you.
[2:13:40] Any further request for withdrawals of
[2:13:42] deferral?
[2:13:46] Hearing none, we will turn to case BOA
[2:13:52] 1865016
[2:13:56] with the address of 1511 to 1525
[2:13:59] Washington Street.
[2:14:02] If the applicant hand their
[2:14:04] representative Paul present.
[2:14:09] Good morning, Madame Chair, members of
[2:14:10] the board. My name is Mark Lassaw,
[2:14:14] 177 Huntington Avenue in Boston. I
[2:14:17] represent the South End Village Academy,
[2:14:20] which is a new school entity that has
[2:14:22] been founded at this location. Also with
[2:14:25] me on the hearing this morning is
[2:14:28] Christina Lopez, who is the founding
[2:14:31] head of school. Um today we are seeking
[2:14:34] one item of zoning relief and that is a
[2:14:37] conditional use permit to allow for the
[2:14:40] addition of kindergarten and elementary
[2:14:43] school use at this location. This is
[2:14:46] similar to how schools are treated in
[2:14:49] virtually every other neighborhood
[2:14:50] district in the city and that is that
[2:14:52] they are conditional uses. Um, also
[2:14:55] would note that under the new streets
[2:14:57] and squares zoning, which has not yet
[2:14:58] been adopted in the south end, but this
[2:15:01] particular subdist is suitable for
[2:15:03] perhaps adoption of streets and squares,
[2:15:06] schools are listed as allowed uses in
[2:15:09] all subsequent districts that will adopt
[2:15:12] streets and square zoning. Um the space
[2:15:16] is the uh assuming the space of the
[2:15:20] former Croft School at this location and
[2:15:23] the new entity South End Village Academy
[2:15:25] has been created by the parents of the
[2:15:28] former Croft School students who rallied
[2:15:31] together following some uh financial
[2:15:33] turmoil that was well reported in the
[2:15:35] press and have created this new entity
[2:15:38] um that is uh going to undertake the
[2:15:41] mission of continuing educating
[2:15:43] children in the south end neighborhood.
[2:15:46] Um there are currently 80 students
[2:15:47] enrolled in the school and we obtained
[2:15:51] from ISD a temporary certificate of
[2:15:53] occupancy to permit these uses through
[2:15:57] December of 2026 pending the zoning
[2:16:01] board of appeal process. Um the students
[2:16:05] also receive scholarship assistance to
[2:16:08] some extent. Um, the planning department
[2:16:10] has issued a memorandum to this board
[2:16:13] recommending approval. We met with the
[2:16:15] South End Business Alliance because
[2:16:17] there were some concerns about the
[2:16:19] street level use of this property. Um,
[2:16:22] but after discussions with Southern
[2:16:24] Business Alliance, they have issued a
[2:16:26] letter supporting this proposed use at
[2:16:28] this location. Also, the board has
[2:16:31] received over 125 letters of support um
[2:16:35] for this proposal, both from the parents
[2:16:38] of all the children who are attending
[2:16:39] the school and also from many many
[2:16:42] neighbors and other business supporters
[2:16:44] in the neighborhood who are advocating
[2:16:46] for continuation of school use at this
[2:16:49] location. Additionally, because it is a
[2:16:52] private school, the Boston public school
[2:16:55] um has also approved the use at this
[2:16:58] location, this particular school. Um I
[2:17:01] would like to have Christina Lopez, who
[2:17:04] is the founding head of the school,
[2:17:06] speak to describe to you the program and
[2:17:09] the unique aspect of the South End
[2:17:11] Village Academy. So, Christina,
[2:17:14] good morning, Madam Chair and members of
[2:17:16] the board. Thank you. My name is
[2:17:17] Christina Lopez and I'm a Southoun
[2:17:19] resident. I'm a parent to three young
[2:17:21] children and I'm SA's founding head of
[2:17:23] school. After 20 years in public
[2:17:26] district, charters, and independent
[2:17:28] schools, I can confidently say that SA
[2:17:30] is an incredibly special community for
[2:17:32] students, families, teachers, and also
[2:17:35] our neighborhood. When I had my first
[2:17:37] child, I dreamed of a school that truly
[2:17:39] embraced this neighborhood, the one that
[2:17:41] I was choosing to raise her in, and it
[2:17:43] didn't exist. Now, SA is an option that
[2:17:46] takes rigorous learning outside the
[2:17:48] classroom and helps children develop a
[2:17:50] deep understanding and love for our city
[2:17:52] and the people who live here. As Mark
[2:17:54] said, we have over 130 letters of
[2:17:56] support, not just from SA families, but
[2:17:59] equally from neighbors, local business
[2:18:01] owners, and nonprofit leaders. That
[2:18:04] support reflects the relationships that
[2:18:06] SA has built. Students have learned
[2:18:08] valuable lessons through the people of
[2:18:10] the South End about everything that
[2:18:12] makes our neighborhood special. Running
[2:18:13] a business, eating delicious Puerto
[2:18:15] Rican food, being a positive leader, art
[2:18:17] that tells our history, caring for the
[2:18:20] unhoused, where crosswalks should be
[2:18:22] located, and seasonal produce, among so
[2:18:24] many others. They are learning what it
[2:18:26] means to be cared for by their community
[2:18:29] and to care for their community in
[2:18:31] return. As educators and parents, we
[2:18:33] believe that creating sense of belonging
[2:18:35] at our school will help children carry
[2:18:37] that sense of belonging forward into the
[2:18:39] communities they join throughout their
[2:18:41] lives. 45% of our students identify as
[2:18:44] children of color and 42% receive
[2:18:46] tuition assistance. That makes our
[2:18:48] commitment to being inclusive more than
[2:18:50] just a written goal. Families of all
[2:18:52] kinds with all types of learners know
[2:18:55] they are partnered with and supported.
[2:18:57] It is purposeful that the word village
[2:18:59] is in our name. Our teachers tell us
[2:19:01] that they feel inspired, connected, and
[2:19:03] proud of where they work. It's a place
[2:19:05] they want to remain until they retire.
[2:19:07] We have teachers who live in the South
[2:19:09] End and teachers who send their children
[2:19:11] to our school. I'm here today with a lot
[2:19:13] of hope that the board will recognize
[2:19:15] the value of allowing the school
[2:19:17] community to continue to grow and serve
[2:19:19] the South End in this location.
[2:19:22] Thank you.
[2:19:22] Thank you,
[2:19:24] Madam Chair. That concludes our
[2:19:26] presentation and we do have many
[2:19:28] supporters who would like to speak as
[2:19:30] well.
[2:19:31] Thank you. And and we received those 100
[2:19:33] plus emails that you noted uh in support
[2:19:37] and so I I'm not going to invite a 100
[2:19:40] people to speak in support. Uh
[2:19:42] we have about five selected and well
[2:19:45] aware of the 90 second limit and will
[2:19:47] not
[2:19:47] Okay. So if if it's just a handful,
[2:19:50] we're happy to hear from them. If it's
[2:19:52] more than that, I'm going to invite them
[2:19:53] uh to put their uh message into the
[2:19:56] chat. Uh are there any questions uh from
[2:19:59] the board?
[2:20:03] Okay.
[2:20:03] Yes.
[2:20:04] Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead.
[2:20:05] Question.
[2:20:06] One of the comments. There is a person
[2:20:08] who has concerns about the project and
[2:20:10] they are mentioning that the school is
[2:20:13] planning to buy another building nearby
[2:20:16] and move in one year.
[2:20:18] And so for that reason, this permit
[2:20:21] should be conditional or or temporal.
[2:20:24] Could you provide more information if
[2:20:26] that is correct? Just because I we got
[2:20:29] that email this morning.
[2:20:32] Yes, Mr. Lancia. So, two two items. One
[2:20:34] is that conditional uses typically are
[2:20:37] to an applicant only. So, uh, making it
[2:20:41] temporary is not really necessary
[2:20:42] because if if the school were to
[2:20:44] discontinue its use at this location, so
[2:20:47] too would the conditional use labs.
[2:20:49] However, and I'll let uh Christina Lopez
[2:20:52] speak to this, I believe that the
[2:20:53] Plimpmpton Street building that has been
[2:20:55] purchased is for purposes of expanding
[2:20:58] and in including more grades than
[2:21:01] presently exists, which at this location
[2:21:03] is kindergarten, first, second, and the
[2:21:06] Plimpmpton Street will will allow for
[2:21:08] further expansion of the school. Um, so
[2:21:12] Christina, is that accurate?
[2:21:13] Yes, we are. We have plans to expand up
[2:21:15] to sixth grade. Um, and currently we're
[2:21:17] working with architects to figure out
[2:21:20] um, which grades would move over there.
[2:21:22] We have six years on our lease in this
[2:21:24] building right here. Um, so it's TBD
[2:21:27] right now.
[2:21:28] Okay. Thank you.
[2:21:30] Other than that, yes. Uh, tremendous
[2:21:32] support for what we saw on the emails.
[2:21:34] Thank you, Madam Chair.
[2:21:36] Thank you.
[2:21:38] Uh, with that, may I have public
[2:21:39] testimony?
[2:21:41] Hello, Madam Chair, members of the
[2:21:42] board. My name is Eva Jones representing
[2:21:44] the mayor's office of neighborhood
[2:21:45] services regarding 1511 to 1525
[2:21:48] Washington Street. Our office defers to
[2:21:50] the board's judgment. This process began
[2:21:52] its community process following the an
[2:21:54] application to change its occupancy
[2:21:56] after this parcel had been used as a
[2:21:58] school for a few years already by
[2:22:00] another entity. The community process
[2:22:02] included the distribution of a
[2:22:04] subcommittee flyer on 71626.
[2:22:06] During the community comment period, I
[2:22:08] did also receive over 140 letters of
[2:22:11] support expressing that the neighborhood
[2:22:13] would benefit from a school and that the
[2:22:15] use would contribute positively to the
[2:22:17] community, many of which were also a
[2:22:19] butters to this parcel. We have received
[2:22:21] three community members uh that have
[2:22:25] expressed concern, one in opposition as
[2:22:27] well. Um they expressed concerns about
[2:22:30] past issues related to parking
[2:22:32] activation of the area protecting and
[2:22:34] conserving the Washington Street
[2:22:36] commercial corridor as well as
[2:22:37] relationship building with neighbors and
[2:22:39] have expressed the desire for the
[2:22:41] applicant to be actively involved in the
[2:22:42] south end community. Our office has
[2:22:44] connected the constituent who expressed
[2:22:46] parking concerns with school leadership
[2:22:49] and they are in communication with no
[2:22:50] further concerns being expressed while
[2:22:52] the new school has been in operation.
[2:22:54] The Washington Street or excuse me, the
[2:22:56] Washington Harrison Neighborhood
[2:22:58] Association has reviewed the proposal
[2:23:00] and the applicant has been in
[2:23:01] communication with the association and
[2:23:03] has made commitments to continue its
[2:23:04] relationship with the civic association
[2:23:06] and community. At this time, the mayor's
[2:23:08] office of neighborhood services differs
[2:23:10] to the board's judgment on this matter.
[2:23:11] Thank you everyone for your time and
[2:23:13] consideration.
[2:23:14] Thank you.
[2:23:19] We um Sydney from the council's office.
[2:23:24] Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the
[2:23:26] board. This is Sydney Scanland from
[2:23:27] Councelor Flynn's office. Councelor
[2:23:29] Flynn would like to go on record in
[2:23:31] support of the proposed kindergarten
[2:23:33] elementary school for the South End
[2:23:34] Village Academy. The counselor heard
[2:23:36] from many families in the city of Boston
[2:23:38] impacted by the closure of the Croft
[2:23:40] School. At the same time, neighbors also
[2:23:42] expressed concerns regarding the need
[2:23:44] for a better community engagement
[2:23:45] process with residents in the Washington
[2:23:47] Harrison Neighborhood Association. While
[2:23:50] Councelor Flynn supports those families
[2:23:51] that contacted our office that advocated
[2:23:53] for the school, he acknowledges that the
[2:23:55] public process could have been handled
[2:23:57] in a manner more responsive to the
[2:23:59] surrounding community. As a District 2
[2:24:01] city councelor, he continues to
[2:24:03] emphasize that those who live in a
[2:24:05] neighborhood deserve a say in what takes
[2:24:06] place there. As a result, councelor
[2:24:08] Flynn will work closely with colleagues,
[2:24:10] relevant school officials, and community
[2:24:12] leaders to ensure that the residents
[2:24:13] voices will also be heard on any
[2:24:15] neighborhood and quality of life issues.
[2:24:17] He respectfully requests that the that
[2:24:19] the board provide every consideration to
[2:24:21] the approval. Thank you.
[2:24:25] You next we have Mark Soreso.
[2:24:30] Thank you, board. Um, good morning. I'm
[2:24:31] Mark Seso. I've lived in the South Bend
[2:24:33] for 10 years and I'm the father of a
[2:24:34] five and a two-year-old. I hope a brief
[2:24:36] background uh will help the board
[2:24:38] understand why SE is so important to our
[2:24:40] community and to me personally. I grew
[2:24:42] up in rural Pennsylvania and looking
[2:24:44] back I was real realized that I was
[2:24:45] taught some ugly things about people who
[2:24:47] were considered different. Not overtly,
[2:24:49] it was always subtle. I was incredibly
[2:24:51] fortunate to encounter people in my life
[2:24:52] who taught me something different. Food
[2:24:54] stamps, help from my church when my mom
[2:24:56] needed it, and ultimately federal
[2:24:57] programs helped make college possible
[2:24:59] for me. And then I spent 10 years
[2:25:00] teaching in Newark, New Jersey, where
[2:25:02] children and families changed the way I
[2:25:04] understood the world. That experience
[2:25:06] has shaped the way I've lived in our
[2:25:07] city and approached fatherhood. Spanning
[2:25:10] the 10 years I've called Boston home,
[2:25:11] I've actively volunteered for multiple
[2:25:13] kid focused organizations. And when I
[2:25:14] became a dad, I started to bring my own
[2:25:16] kids to park cleanups and neighborhood
[2:25:18] meetings because I want them to
[2:25:19] understand that being part of a
[2:25:21] community means showing up for it.
[2:25:23] Unlike me, I want my children to grow up
[2:25:25] embracing diversity and community. This
[2:25:27] is not something that SA puts just on a
[2:25:29] mission statement, but it's something
[2:25:30] that we live, protect, and make room
[2:25:32] for. Like how my son Ryland, excuse me,
[2:25:36] is enthralled at a traditional Japanese
[2:25:38] tea ceremony as he learned about his
[2:25:40] classmates's heritage. Like how I
[2:25:41] marched next to him in the school's
[2:25:43] pride parade, which is normalized for
[2:25:44] him that families look different. And
[2:25:46] like how I learned alongside him as we
[2:25:48] researched Wilma Rudolph and the books
[2:25:50] he selected from Boston Public Library.
[2:25:52] As a parent, this is what SA means to me
[2:25:54] and why it's so important. We aren't
[2:25:56] separating ourselves from our
[2:25:57] neighborhood at all. We're trying to
[2:25:58] build something in it, teach our kids to
[2:26:00] be a part of it, and I ask for your
[2:26:01] support. Thank you.
[2:26:05] Thank you. Next week Jones.
[2:26:13] Oh,
[2:26:16] hi. I'm sorry. My name is Asia and um I
[2:26:20] grew up in the South End. Um and I'm a
[2:26:23] parent at the school. I also um my
[2:26:26] daughter's father is also a resident of
[2:26:30] the south end in the lower Roxbury area
[2:26:33] and when it was time for our daughter to
[2:26:35] go to school, it was very important for
[2:26:37] us to um to have her in a school that um
[2:26:41] was in the neighborhood that we were
[2:26:43] able to grow up in. being that we had to
[2:26:45] leave the community um due to being
[2:26:49] basically like priced out or whatever.
[2:26:51] Um but being able to come back um to a
[2:26:55] school that had um experiential learning
[2:26:59] uh neighborhood adventures. my daughter
[2:27:01] is now able to be in a school that um in
[2:27:05] a neighborhood where you know her father
[2:27:08] and I grew up and learn about how we
[2:27:11] grew up and where we are and be proud of
[2:27:13] where we come from. And so with that, I
[2:27:16] just ask for the support so that we can
[2:27:18] continue to have our daughter grow up in
[2:27:20] the neighborhood where her parents were
[2:27:21] raised um as well as two generations
[2:27:25] back. Thank you.
[2:27:26] Thank you.
[2:27:34] Jesus, can you please continue?
[2:27:42] Have we lost Jesus?
[2:27:46] Sorry. Next we have.
[2:27:49] Thank you, Jesus. Can you hear me?
[2:27:52] Yes. So, we're going to take a few more
[2:27:53] after this because I I I know you're all
[2:27:55] in support. So, unless there's someone
[2:27:57] in opposition. Yeah, thank you. Go
[2:27:59] ahead.
[2:28:00] So, uh, good morning, me board. My name
[2:28:03] is Jonathan Als. I'm a father, a
[2:28:05] southern resident for 12 years and the
[2:28:08] president of Washington Harrison
[2:28:10] Neighborhood Association. Uh, just want
[2:28:12] to first say that I do commend the
[2:28:14] efforts of Mark Lucass, who was a
[2:28:15] wellrespected attorney in the South End,
[2:28:17] and for the parents for coming together
[2:28:19] to do what they need to do for their
[2:28:21] kids. However, I do want to say that I'm
[2:28:24] here to respectfully oppose the request
[2:28:26] for a permanent conditional change of
[2:28:29] use at 1511525.
[2:28:31] I want to be very clear. This is not an
[2:28:34] opposition to children, schools, or
[2:28:36] nonprofit organizations.
[2:28:38] Myself personally, the Washington
[2:28:40] Harrison Neighbor Association has
[2:28:42] supported over the years many
[2:28:44] educational nonprofit organizations in
[2:28:46] the south end and businesses. My
[2:28:48] testimony reflects my own opinion, but
[2:28:50] it is informed by my experience as a
[2:28:52] resident and community leader, while
[2:28:54] also summarizing the concerns I've heard
[2:28:56] from multiple residents about preserving
[2:28:58] the limited ground floor commercial
[2:29:00] space along Washington Street.
[2:29:03] Washington Street is a very important
[2:29:04] commercial corridor and once the
[2:29:06] storefront space is lost permanently,
[2:29:08] it's really difficult to attain. So, I
[2:29:11] understand that SEA might be pursuing a
[2:29:13] new location which will fall within the
[2:29:14] Washington Harrison boundary. I hope
[2:29:16] that they will engage our neighborhood
[2:29:18] association, but I ask for the board to
[2:29:20] consider a temporary relief approach
[2:29:23] while the school is able to hand in the
[2:29:25] appropriate fashion. Thank you for your
[2:29:27] consideration.
[2:29:29] Thank you.
[2:29:30] And next, um Susan Mendes. I think she
[2:29:36] was looking to speak.
[2:29:39] Yes. Um thank you. Um and we're almost
[2:29:43] in the afternoon. And good afternoon,
[2:29:44] Madame Chair and members of the board.
[2:29:46] Uh my name is Suzanne Mendes. I'm a
[2:29:48] Southoun resident. Um I'm a parent of
[2:29:51] two children at Southounn Academy. Um I
[2:29:54] wanted to start by responding to some of
[2:29:56] the concerns around communication and
[2:29:59] relationships with other community
[2:30:01] members. Um deepening our roots and
[2:30:04] connection to the South End community
[2:30:06] has always been at the forefront of what
[2:30:09] the school even as Croft stood for. But
[2:30:12] uh we very much have heard that feedback
[2:30:14] that that it could be stronger and we
[2:30:16] are taking that very seriously. We
[2:30:18] actually have uh parent resources
[2:30:20] dedicated to um strengthening those
[2:30:24] those relationships not just uh the
[2:30:27] community within SIA but the larger
[2:30:28] community within the south end. Uh so I
[2:30:31] just wanted to react to that and say
[2:30:33] that you have on behalf of the school
[2:30:35] our commitment to making sure that that
[2:30:37] relationship um strengthens and that we
[2:30:41] are hearing the voices of everybody in
[2:30:43] our community. Um the other reason why I
[2:30:46] wanted to speak on behalf of the school
[2:30:48] and our zoning application is not just
[2:30:50] because of what the school represents to
[2:30:51] me or the parents of the 85 children
[2:30:54] that go there, but what I believe that a
[2:30:56] school like SA means for the future of
[2:30:58] Boston. Um, we were born out of
[2:31:01] extraordinary circumstances, but what
[2:31:02] we're building right now is about making
[2:31:05] Boston a city where families can put
[2:31:07] down their roots and stay. When families
[2:31:09] have access to great schools and
[2:31:11] meaningful and accessible educational
[2:31:13] places,
[2:31:15] thank thank you. We have a lot we have
[2:31:17] some more raised hands, so I'm just
[2:31:19] going to take three and that's it. Thank
[2:31:20] you.
[2:31:23] One more.
[2:31:29] Michelle.
[2:31:32] Yes.
[2:31:33] Hello. Hello, Madam Chair and the
[2:31:34] members of the board. My name is
[2:31:36] Michelle Hediger and my family and I
[2:31:37] have been Southouners for over 15 years.
[2:31:40] We've rooted our businesses here, built
[2:31:42] our lives here, and made very
[2:31:44] intentional decision to raise our two
[2:31:46] children in the neighborhood. Having a
[2:31:48] community school like South Village
[2:31:50] Academy is incredibly important to our
[2:31:52] family. It allows our kids to be truly
[2:31:54] part of a neighborhood we've known and
[2:31:55] loved for almost two decades. Without
[2:31:58] SA, we can honestly say that there is a
[2:32:00] very real chance we would have left the
[2:32:02] city already. I also want to make
[2:32:04] something very clear. We don't identify
[2:32:06] ourselves by where we send our kids to
[2:32:08] school. We identify as South Enders. SA
[2:32:11] gives us our family and many others for
[2:32:13] that matter the opportunity to remain
[2:32:15] part of this community while raising our
[2:32:16] children here. I'll be quick, but I
[2:32:18] respectfully ask the board to consider
[2:32:20] what SA means to families like ours and
[2:32:23] support the conditional use that will
[2:32:24] allow our children to continue learning,
[2:32:26] growing, and being part of a
[2:32:28] neighborhood we call home. Thank you.
[2:32:30] Thank you,
[2:32:34] Madame Chair. There is more three
[2:32:36] people.
[2:32:37] Yep. Two more people.
[2:32:38] Okay.
[2:32:39] Anybody? Yep.
[2:32:40] Next, we have Phil.
[2:32:44] Can you guys hear me? Yes, we can.
[2:32:47] Okay. Sorry. Um, I am the president of
[2:32:51] the South End Business Alliance. I am
[2:32:54] also own a small business in the South
[2:32:56] End. I am also a 20-year resident of the
[2:33:00] building at 1513 Washington Street. I
[2:33:04] speak on this as a small business owner,
[2:33:05] as the part of the community. I don't
[2:33:08] oppose the school. I oppose the zoning
[2:33:12] restructure. I do believe that we should
[2:33:15] let the school
[2:33:17] last and thrive throughout its current
[2:33:20] lease, but to change the zoning to a
[2:33:25] school is detrimental to the growth of
[2:33:27] the city. I am in full support of the
[2:33:30] South Village Alliance and their new
[2:33:32] location because it's not in a primary
[2:33:36] uh location. Um, again, I've lived in
[2:33:40] the building. The school is great for
[2:33:44] the students, but it is only, you know,
[2:33:47] used 180 days a year. The center, it's
[2:33:51] empty. At night, it's empty. There's no
[2:33:53] activation on the street. And I just
[2:33:56] would like to see the neighborhood
[2:33:59] thrive as much. And again, it's right
[2:34:02] next to another school. And I don't want
[2:34:05] to see I don't want to be against the
[2:34:06] village academy, but the actual space
[2:34:09] itself should remain restaurant, retail,
[2:34:12] keep the streets active and bring more
[2:34:15] to the neighborhood and the community.
[2:34:16] So I thank you for your time.
[2:34:19] Last hand
[2:34:25] Webster.
[2:34:28] Madame chair, members of the board, my
[2:34:29] name is Adam Webster. I'm here to speak
[2:34:31] in support of the proposed change of
[2:34:33] occupancy. I've been a Southoun resident
[2:34:35] for 12 years and my wife and I are
[2:34:37] homeowners in Shamanav. We're active in
[2:34:39] the community on various boards and
[2:34:41] civic associations. I'm also the parent
[2:34:43] of a 5-year-old and seven-year-old who
[2:34:45] do not go to CA um and and will not. Um
[2:34:50] this school impacts dozens of families
[2:34:52] in the south end and its existence is
[2:34:54] helping to keep families in the city. I
[2:34:57] appreciate the extensive community
[2:34:58] outreach the school has done and also
[2:35:00] appreciate their willingness to support
[2:35:02] and engage with local community-based
[2:35:04] organizations. If this school doesn't
[2:35:07] receive zoning relief, the education of
[2:35:09] dozens of Boston kids will be disrupted
[2:35:11] and will continue to the trend of
[2:35:13] pushing families out of the city. I do
[2:35:16] want to note that related to the
[2:35:17] question of lost commercial space, SIA
[2:35:20] has created a positive trend in vacating
[2:35:22] another commercial space that Croft
[2:35:24] already operated in. So, they're they're
[2:35:27] clearly hearing and acting on past
[2:35:29] concerns of the community loud and
[2:35:31] clear. Um, and that's something that I
[2:35:33] really appreciate. The school is a
[2:35:35] welcome addition to the community and
[2:35:36] I'm proud to join so many other
[2:35:39] neighbors in support of their uh their
[2:35:41] appeal today. Thanks so much.
[2:35:43] Thank you. Attorney Lass, would you like
[2:35:46] to address some of the feedback that was
[2:35:48] given?
[2:35:49] Yes, please. So on the notion of what is
[2:35:52] being sought here, it's important to
[2:35:54] remind the board that we are seeking a
[2:35:56] conditional use permit. And of course,
[2:35:58] under the south end zoning code,
[2:36:01] conditional uses are presumptively valid
[2:36:04] provided that they satisfy the
[2:36:06] conditions set forth in article 6 and
[2:36:08] article 64. And that is precisely what
[2:36:10] we are doing here. We are creating a
[2:36:12] school which satisfies the conditions
[2:36:15] for conditional use permit. We are not
[2:36:17] restructuring the zoning. We are not
[2:36:19] changing the zoning rather we are
[2:36:21] seeking a conditional use permit under
[2:36:24] the existing zoning code and
[2:36:26] significantly I'd note that the
[2:36:28] restaurant use which others have spoken
[2:36:31] uh in favor of in the future restaurant
[2:36:33] uses are also conditional uses and would
[2:36:36] be required to seek the very same kind
[2:36:38] of zoning relief uh that the school is
[2:36:40] seeking. So, there's nothing unusual
[2:36:42] about seeking a conditional use permit,
[2:36:45] nor does it change the code, nor does it
[2:36:47] change the zoning for the property. It
[2:36:49] simply grants to this applicant the
[2:36:51] right to carry on the conditional use um
[2:36:54] while they are occupying that space.
[2:37:00] Thank you.
[2:37:03] Okay. Any other questions or comments
[2:37:05] from the board?
[2:37:09] May I have a motion?
[2:37:16] Motion of approval.
[2:37:18] May I have a second?
[2:37:20] Second.
[2:37:22] Mr. Ste?
[2:37:25] Yeah.
[2:37:26] Mr. Valencia?
[2:37:27] Yes.
[2:37:29] Miss Turner?
[2:37:31] Yes.
[2:37:36] Mr. Collins?
[2:37:37] Yes. Mr. Bernell,
[2:37:40] yes.
[2:37:41] Chair votes yes. The motion carries.
[2:37:43] Good luck.
[2:37:44] Thank you kindly.
[2:37:50] Uh the next case has been deferred
[2:37:54] which takes us to case BOA
[2:37:57] 186 0539
[2:38:01] with the address of 795 Saratoga Street.
[2:38:06] If the applicants can't do their
[2:38:08] representative or present, would they
[2:38:10] please explain to the board?
[2:38:12] Thank you, Mr. Stebridge. Uh, and good
[2:38:14] afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the
[2:38:15] board. Richard Linds, business address
[2:38:18] at 245 Southern Street, East Boston. On
[2:38:20] behalf of the petitioner, um, we want to
[2:38:23] jump down. I'll try to make this as
[2:38:24] brief as possible. Jump down to slide
[2:38:26] 11, please.
[2:38:31] Perfect. Um, so Madam Chair, members of
[2:38:33] the board, this involves a pre-existing
[2:38:35] uh three unit residential dwelling uh in
[2:38:38] the Oran Heights section of East Boston.
[2:38:40] Uh, the building itself is a
[2:38:42] non-conforming structure made
[2:38:44] non-conforming by the changes in the
[2:38:47] zoning code over years, including the
[2:38:49] original introduction of article 53. uh
[2:38:51] under the amended zoning um the proposal
[2:38:55] to uh modify the structure, renovate it,
[2:38:58] add a rear edition as well as to modify
[2:39:01] the roof are all as of right. Uh we were
[2:39:05] cited for two items in the refusal
[2:39:07] letter which I have included in the
[2:39:09] packet. The first is roof structure
[2:39:11] restrictions based upon the dormers to
[2:39:13] the existing structure as well as the
[2:39:15] proposed roof deck to the rear. In
[2:39:17] addition, we were cited for sideyard
[2:39:19] setback uh which I presume although the
[2:39:22] examiner was not able to clarify that
[2:39:25] has to do with the rear addition that we
[2:39:27] do propose as you can see here on the
[2:39:29] site plan uh that is within the setback
[2:39:32] for the um the side that side of the
[2:39:35] building. Um as this board I'm sure is
[2:39:38] aware at this point I sound like a
[2:39:39] broken record. There is a provision
[2:39:41] within article 53 under the amended
[2:39:43] zoning that allows for um the continued
[2:39:47] nonconformity uh to uh to remain. Uh you
[2:39:51] can go up vertically and you can go back
[2:39:53] horizontally as long as you don't create
[2:39:55] any further violation of the setback or
[2:39:59] exacerbate it beyond what the zoning
[2:40:01] allows. So in this particular case, as
[2:40:03] long as we follow that plane on the left
[2:40:05] side of the building, we are in line
[2:40:07] with the permissible sideyard setback
[2:40:11] and we are able to go back as far as
[2:40:12] what the rear setback permitted rear
[2:40:14] setback would be. Um so I do want to
[2:40:16] point that out for the board that
[2:40:17] although we were cited for it, we do not
[2:40:19] believe that is a violation based upon
[2:40:22] the amended zoning for East Boston. So
[2:40:25] that leaves us with root structure
[2:40:26] restrictions. If you want to jump down
[2:40:28] to uh slide 12 please.
[2:40:34] So just so you can see the reprogramming
[2:40:35] of the building here. We propose to make
[2:40:37] the lowest level uh level unit one uh
[2:40:41] which is a combined uh area in the
[2:40:43] basement as well as the first level uh
[2:40:46] that is the uh the renovation for unit
[2:40:49] one. Unit two is flat. three uh which
[2:40:53] involves a number of modifications of
[2:40:54] the roof to allow for that to be a more
[2:40:57] habitable space and I show that the
[2:40:58] elevations uh next slide please.
[2:41:03] I'm sorry we do have a roof plan. So we
[2:41:05] do show the roof plan here which
[2:41:06] incorporates the dormers close to the
[2:41:08] front of the building. Uh that rear
[2:41:10] edition in the back would accommodate
[2:41:12] the roof deck uh that is shown here in
[2:41:15] this plan. If we can go to slide 14
[2:41:18] please.
[2:41:19] Uh so we see the front and the rear
[2:41:21] elevation. Uh the elevation towards the
[2:41:23] rear where the addition would be
[2:41:24] proposed uh is a flat roof and that does
[2:41:27] have the head house with the roof deck.
[2:41:29] Uh the front of the building you can see
[2:41:31] the orientation of the dormers. We show
[2:41:33] them better in the next slide. Uh which
[2:41:35] is the side elevation. Jump to slide 15
[2:41:38] please.
[2:41:44] Slide 15 please.
[2:41:47] Perfect.
[2:41:51] Uh so you can see here the uh dormers
[2:41:53] that are being incorporated that is one
[2:41:56] of the items that triggers restructure
[2:41:58] restrictions conditional use uh as well
[2:42:01] as the roof deck uh that is proposed for
[2:42:04] the rear edition. Next slide please.
[2:42:09] And just showing the left side of the
[2:42:10] building again because that building is
[2:42:12] within 3 ft of the sideyard setback.
[2:42:14] There are no windows being closed on
[2:42:16] that side. uh either for the existing
[2:42:18] portion of the building or the addition
[2:42:20] that's being proposed. Uh so this uh
[2:42:23] it's
[2:42:37] Jesus is uh attorney's frozen I think
[2:42:40] you froze for those last few seconds.
[2:42:47] Oh, I'm sorry. Can you hear Are you able
[2:42:48] to hear me
[2:42:49] now? We can.
[2:42:53] Sorry. I'm just I think I'm having some
[2:42:55] difficulty here. Can you hear me? Okay.
[2:42:57] Or
[2:42:57] It's okay. Yeah, we can.
[2:42:59] Sorry. Okay. I I'll wrap it up there. If
[2:43:01] there's any questions, I'll try to
[2:43:04] Absolutely. Uh any questions from the
[2:43:05] board?
[2:43:08] Hearing none. Oh, I'm sorry. Was that a
[2:43:11] question?
[2:43:12] No. I'm sorry, Madam Chair. That was my
[2:43:15] um electric vacuum. Hello, Madam Chair,
[2:43:18] members of the board. My name is Aba
[2:43:19] Jones, representing the mayor's office
[2:43:21] of neighbor services. Regarding
[2:43:24] 795 Saratoga Street, our office defers
[2:43:26] from the board's judgment. A community
[2:43:27] process was uh conducted, including the
[2:43:30] distribution of a subcommittee flyer on
[2:43:32] 51226.
[2:43:33] During the community process, I did not
[2:43:35] receive any emails from the community.
[2:43:37] Uh, the Harborview Neighborhood
[2:43:38] Association reviewed the proposal and
[2:43:40] voted 16 to 16th with no significant
[2:43:43] concerns being expressed regarding this
[2:43:45] proposal. At this time, the mayor's
[2:43:47] Office of Neighborhood Services defers
[2:43:48] to the board's judgment regarding this
[2:43:49] matter. Uh, thank you everyone for your
[2:43:51] time and consideration.
[2:43:55] Next, we have Gabriela.
[2:44:00] Hi, Madame Chair, members of the board.
[2:44:02] Gabriel Ramirez here on behalf of Boston
[2:44:04] City Councelor Gabriel Klet about his
[2:44:06] office. At this time the council like to
[2:44:08] go on the record in support of this
[2:44:09] proposal.
[2:44:13] Madam chair we don't have additional
[2:44:14] comments
[2:44:18] with that. May I have a motion?
[2:44:27] I think we want to add design review
[2:44:29] with uh focus on the shed dormers.
[2:44:33] I know. Sorry, Miss Turner. You come in
[2:44:35] really low. Uh may I have a second?
[2:44:40] Second.
[2:44:41] Okay, Mr. Stebridge.
[2:44:45] Yes.
[2:44:46] Mr. Valencia?
[2:44:47] Yes.
[2:44:50] Miss Turner?
[2:44:51] Yes.
[2:44:53] Miss Panado? Yes,
[2:44:56] Mr. Collins.
[2:44:57] Yes,
[2:44:58] Miss Bernell.
[2:45:01] Yes,
[2:45:02] chair votes yes. The motion carries.
[2:45:04] Good luck.
[2:45:05] Thank you very much.
[2:45:09] Next, we have case BOA177
[2:45:13] 6392
[2:45:15] with the address of 248 to 250 Edith
[2:45:19] Street. If the applicants andor their
[2:45:23] representative present they please
[2:45:25] explain to the board.
[2:45:28] Good afternoon madam chair members of
[2:45:30] the board Mark Lass
[2:45:32] law 177 Huntington Avenue in Boston
[2:45:36] representing the owner of this property
[2:45:39] who is also on the hearing today.
[2:45:43] Um this is an existing single family
[2:45:46] dwelling in East Boston and the proposal
[2:45:50] is to gut renovate the structure. It is
[2:45:53] uh rather old and in a state of
[2:45:55] significant disrepair.
[2:45:57] um to create four dwelling units. One
[2:46:00] being basement and ground level duplex
[2:46:04] and then floors on two and three and a
[2:46:07] small fourth floor partial fourth floor
[2:46:10] I should say addition to create a small
[2:46:12] unit with a walkout terrace on the top
[2:46:14] floor. Um the Jeffre Point Neighborhood
[2:46:19] Association conducted a process and we
[2:46:22] met with them and they voted to approve
[2:46:25] the project. Um the direct at 246 next
[2:46:29] door which is the sole attached property
[2:46:32] also supports this project. Um the
[2:46:34] zoning relief saw minimal in scope and
[2:46:38] it relates primarily to the existing
[2:46:41] conditions of the property. It's a very
[2:46:42] small lot on a corner. Um, but as the
[2:46:46] planning department memo explains, the
[2:46:49] zoning relief sought is contextual with
[2:46:51] the neighborhood. Um, consistent with
[2:46:53] the plan and the new zoning in East
[2:46:55] Boston. Um, and the planning department
[2:46:58] does recommend approval.
[2:47:00] The U zoning specific zoning relief
[2:47:03] style includes a conditioning use permit
[2:47:05] for the addition of the fourth partial
[2:47:08] story. Um the use in the subd district
[2:47:14] is for up to three units. Um but this
[2:47:17] would provide up to the fourth unit with
[2:47:19] the addition of the fourth half story.
[2:47:21] As the planning department notes the
[2:47:23] adjacent property across the street at
[2:47:25] 254
[2:47:27] Everett um is a four-story building with
[2:47:30] more than six units. So there again is
[2:47:32] context for this minimal scope of zoning
[2:47:35] relief. The building height uh zoning
[2:47:39] relief the
[2:47:41] height limit is 35 feet and this is for
[2:47:44] 38 feet. So three feet above the
[2:47:47] required um the two yard insufficiencies
[2:47:50] are owing to the existing conditions of
[2:47:53] front yard and sideyard. Um and again
[2:47:56] there's no change to the footprint of
[2:47:58] the building. So those are existing
[2:48:00] conditions that is the zoning relief
[2:48:04] sought and we believe that this
[2:48:06] represents
[2:48:08] a nice renovation of existing structure
[2:48:10] that needs a lot of help with the
[2:48:13] minimal addition of one unit to create
[2:48:15] uh some more housing in this very
[2:48:17] transit oriented area. Additionally, as
[2:48:19] you see on the site plan there, there is
[2:48:22] room for one parking space in the rear
[2:48:25] yard, although none is required under
[2:48:27] the uh zoning code for this subdist. Uh
[2:48:31] there's room for one parking space. So,
[2:48:32] that is the current proposal. We could
[2:48:35] scroll through to the other slides and
[2:48:37] maybe take a look at the elevations.
[2:48:44] There are the floor plans describing the
[2:48:46] units um basement and ground floors.
[2:48:49] Unit one, unit two is on the second
[2:48:51] floor, unit three on the third floor,
[2:48:53] unit four on the fourth floor, and then
[2:48:56] perhaps show the elevations.
[2:49:03] Next slide.
[2:49:06] There are the
[2:49:08] existing conditions at the top and
[2:49:11] proposed conditions at the lower level.
[2:49:13] um showing the addition of the fourth
[2:49:15] floor on the top of the building.
[2:49:19] Otherwise, no change to the footprint.
[2:49:21] Um one issue that came up during the
[2:49:23] process was a provision for trash and
[2:49:27] recycling. And you'll see that on this
[2:49:29] on the elevation, there is a recycling
[2:49:32] area provided at the back of the
[2:49:34] building to keep everything contained.
[2:49:39] That concludes um our presentation.
[2:49:43] Thank you. Are there any questions from
[2:49:46] the board?
[2:49:50] Hearing none, may I have public
[2:49:51] testimony.
[2:49:53] Hello, Madam Chair, members of the
[2:49:54] board. My name is Eva Jones representing
[2:49:55] the mayor's office and neighborhood
[2:49:57] services regarding 248 to 250 Ever
[2:50:00] Street. Our office defers to the board's
[2:50:02] judgment. A community process was
[2:50:04] conducted, including an abutters meeting
[2:50:05] held on 92425 that was well attended by
[2:50:08] East Boston community members where
[2:50:10] productive questions were asked and
[2:50:12] concerns about the parking spot in the
[2:50:14] back being blocked in were also
[2:50:15] expressed. Uh I have received six
[2:50:17] letters in support uh from their
[2:50:19] neighbors and they feel that the changes
[2:50:21] are in line with the neighborhood
[2:50:22] character and one letter in opposition
[2:50:24] citing density and loss of tree cover.
[2:50:27] The proposal was also reviewed by the
[2:50:28] planning and zoning committee of the um
[2:50:30] Jamaica or excuse me the um Jeffre Point
[2:50:33] Neighborhood Association on 318. Uh and
[2:50:37] they did vote uh seven in support and
[2:50:39] six in opposition. Uh the excuse me at
[2:50:43] this time the mayor's office of
[2:50:44] neighborhood services defers to the
[2:50:45] board's judgment on this matter. Thank
[2:50:46] you everyone for your time and
[2:50:48] consideration.
[2:50:49] Thank you.
[2:50:53] Next we have Gabriela Ramirez.
[2:50:56] Hi madam madam chair members of the
[2:50:59] board so used to saying good morning um
[2:51:01] Tabria Ramirez is here from councelor
[2:51:03] Kletus about office at this time the
[2:51:05] council would like to go in the record
[2:51:06] in support of this proposal
[2:51:09] thank you
[2:51:12] next
[2:51:15] oh madame chair we don't have comments
[2:51:18] someone named
[2:51:21] Faraha yeah
[2:51:25] Hello.
[2:51:26] Yes. Are you speaking on this case?
[2:51:28] I am actually. I am the uh soul of
[2:51:31] butter to 248 250 Ever Street. I'm a
[2:51:36] lifelong East Boston Jeff Point
[2:51:38] resident. Parents were grandparents
[2:51:41] were. My house is directly next to it.
[2:51:44] Like I said, I'm the only butter. There
[2:51:45] was one wall separating my house from
[2:51:48] 248 250. The house is in shambles. The
[2:51:54] inside is a big fire hazard. I've been
[2:51:56] in the house many times. I knew the
[2:51:58] woman who owned it before Ilon bought
[2:52:00] it. She didn't do one thing in the
[2:52:02] inside. It's all sheetrock. Uh plywood
[2:52:06] floors. It's
[2:52:10] it's it's actually it's an eyesore. I
[2:52:14] totally I totally approve of this
[2:52:16] project 100%. Being the abata, I really
[2:52:19] think it'll bring the value of my house
[2:52:20] and everyone else's house up.
[2:52:23] And also his house is to the left of an
[2:52:26] alleyway and directly to the right they
[2:52:29] built a brand new house a few years well
[2:52:31] maybe five six maybe a little bit longer
[2:52:32] I'm not sure and it's beautiful and to
[2:52:36] the left of that like I said is the
[2:52:37] alley and his house is maybe I don't
[2:52:40] know 20 25 ft away. I don't I don't see
[2:52:44] the issue but I do I do 100% back this
[2:52:47] uh project.
[2:52:49] Thank you.
[2:52:54] Okay. Any other
[2:52:57] questions from the board?
[2:53:01] May I have a motion?
[2:53:04] Motion of approval, Madam Chair.
[2:53:06] Is there a second?
[2:53:09] Mr. Stebridge.
[2:53:11] Yes.
[2:53:13] Mr. Valencia?
[2:53:14] Yes.
[2:53:16] Miss Turner?
[2:53:17] Yes.
[2:53:19] Miss Ponado? Yes,
[2:53:22] Mr. Collins.
[2:53:23] Yes,
[2:53:24] Mr. Bernell.
[2:53:26] Yes,
[2:53:27] chair votes yes. The motion carries. So,
[2:53:30] let's take a 15 minute break.
[2:53:32] Thank you.
[2:53:38] Recording stopped.
[3:10:04] recording in progress.
[3:10:08] Okay. Thank you everyone. Uh we'll do a
[3:10:10] roll call. Mr. Stembridge
[3:10:13] present madam chair.
[3:10:14] Thank you. Mr. Valencia
[3:10:16] present.
[3:10:18] Miss Turner
[3:10:20] present. Madam chair.
[3:10:21] Thank you. Miss Panado
[3:10:24] present madam chair
[3:10:26] you Mr. Collins
[3:10:27] present madam chair
[3:10:29] Mr. Bernell
[3:10:31] present
[3:10:32] thank you Florida here is Mr. Stebridge
[3:10:35] thank you madam chair um
[3:10:40] go to the discussion cases scheduled for
[3:10:43] 11:30 a.m.
[3:10:45] We'll ask again if there are any
[3:10:47] requests for withdrawals or deferrals
[3:10:50] from the 11:30
[3:10:52] cases
[3:10:56] and was hearing no request. Move on to
[3:11:00] case BOA
[3:11:02] 183 0082
[3:11:06] with the address of 21 CUTI Street. If
[3:11:10] the applicants and their representative
[3:11:13] are present, would they please explain
[3:11:16] to the board?
[3:11:19] Yes. Thank you, Mr. See, and good
[3:11:21] afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the
[3:11:23] board. For the record, attorney Matt
[3:11:24] Eckle with Fletcher Tilton, the business
[3:11:27] address of 100 Franklin Street in
[3:11:29] Boston. On behalf of the applicant, uh
[3:11:32] we are here today seeking approval to
[3:11:34] erect a new single family home at 21
[3:11:36] Katu Street in West Roxberry. Uh the
[3:11:39] board originally reviewed this proposal
[3:11:41] at the last hearing on September 8th and
[3:11:44] we were deferred to allow for the
[3:11:45] submission of building elevations which
[3:11:48] were submitted and reviewed by
[3:11:49] inspectional services. By way of brief
[3:11:53] background, 21 Cuit Street is an
[3:11:55] existing vacant lot which contains just
[3:11:58] under 4,000 square ft. Puit Street
[3:12:00] itself is a small side street which
[3:12:02] intersects with Baker Street and
[3:12:04] overlooks VFW Parkway. Uh the street
[3:12:08] contains a number of similarsized
[3:12:09] properties, all of which contain uh
[3:12:12] existing single family homes. And again,
[3:12:14] we're proposing a new twostory single
[3:12:16] family home with two parking spaces. Uh
[3:12:19] the violations as were cited are largely
[3:12:22] driven by the size of the existing lot.
[3:12:24] And again, the lot size is consistent
[3:12:26] with the majority of the lots along
[3:12:28] Katuit Street, which range between 3,800
[3:12:31] and 4,000 square ft. Uh just to go
[3:12:34] through them briefly, in this zoning
[3:12:36] district, typically 6,000 square feet is
[3:12:38] required. And we have, as mentioned,
[3:12:40] 3,800 square feet for lot size. Lot
[3:12:43] width, typically you need 60 ft uh for
[3:12:46] lot width and frontage, and we have 40
[3:12:48] ft. Uh again, which matches just about
[3:12:50] every lot on this street. Uh floor area
[3:12:54] ratio, you're allowed up to a 0.5. We
[3:12:56] are proposing a 0.58.
[3:12:58] And then we are seeking relief for front
[3:13:00] yard, sideyard, and rear yard. The front
[3:13:03] required is 20. We're at 12. But again,
[3:13:05] as you can see, even on this brief
[3:13:08] picture right in front of you, we line
[3:13:10] up with the properties on both sides at
[3:13:12] 12 feet. Uh rear yard, you're required
[3:13:14] 40, we have 25 ft rear setback. And
[3:13:17] finally, sideyard, you're required 10
[3:13:19] ft. We have 7 ft on both sides. Again,
[3:13:22] very consistent with the neighborhood
[3:13:24] context. Uh just to run through the
[3:13:26] floor plans, uh we're proposing an
[3:13:28] unfinished basement for storage and
[3:13:30] mechanicals. Uh the first floor will
[3:13:32] have the twocar garage as well as a
[3:13:34] kitchen, living room, dining area, half
[3:13:37] bath, and laundry. And then the second
[3:13:39] floor will contain a primary bedroom,
[3:13:42] bathroom suite which is located above
[3:13:43] the garage and three bedrooms to the
[3:13:46] rear. Uh this project went through a
[3:13:48] community process which included meeting
[3:13:50] with director Butters, an official
[3:13:52] butter meeting through ONS and two
[3:13:54] presentations through the West Roxberry
[3:13:56] Neighborhood Council who voted
[3:13:58] unanimously unanimously to support the
[3:14:00] project. As the board may have seen, the
[3:14:02] planning department is now recommending
[3:14:04] approval of the project following the
[3:14:05] updated submission through inspectional
[3:14:07] services. With that, I'll pause and I'll
[3:14:10] take any questions the board may have.
[3:14:12] Thank you. Are there questions from the
[3:14:14] board?
[3:14:16] They have public testimony.
[3:14:18] Madame Chair and board members, Sigi
[3:14:20] Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood
[3:14:21] Services. This applicant completed the
[3:14:23] community process our office hosted and
[3:14:25] a gutterss meeting on April 16th at
[3:14:27] which there was some discussion and no
[3:14:29] concerns were stated. The West Roxbury
[3:14:31] Neighborhood Council is supporting this
[3:14:32] application. With that background, ONS
[3:14:34] defers judgment to the board. Thank you.
[3:14:38] Thank you.
[3:14:40] Next we have Lisa.
[3:14:48] Lisa iPhone.
[3:14:56] Yes. Sorry. Can you hear me?
[3:14:58] Yes, we can.
[3:14:59] Okay. Thank you so much. Um uh thank you
[3:15:02] madame
[3:15:03] chair and member of the boards. My name
[3:15:05] is Lisa Spagnolo. I am a homeowner at
[3:15:08] one at 41 Idaho Street. Um we've own our
[3:15:11] own owned our house for 50 plus years. I
[3:15:13] am in opposition of this project. I have
[3:15:16] actually already submitted a letter of
[3:15:19] opposition to the board. Some of my
[3:15:21] concerns include um zoning Boston zoning
[3:15:26] code article 23 with parking. They're
[3:15:30] proposing two parking spaces in front of
[3:15:32] this garage that barely has enough space
[3:15:35] for their two cars that they're using
[3:15:37] for the main house right now. Um I think
[3:15:42] the zone calls for 9 by 18 ft and it's
[3:15:48] measuring like 8 by 20 ft. It's there's
[3:15:50] not enough space for two parking spaces
[3:15:52] there, including this little garden that
[3:15:54] they've proposed to be in front of the
[3:15:56] new project. Um the three-foot flower
[3:15:59] bed uh was proposed with a pave entrance
[3:16:02] into the proposed single family. There
[3:16:05] is absolutely not enough space for that.
[3:16:07] I don't know where they're getting these
[3:16:09] measurements. Um I have a concern about
[3:16:11] the bedroom on a second floor does not
[3:16:14] have a window which violates
[3:16:16] Massachusetts state building code safety
[3:16:19] issue that there's no egress from this
[3:16:22] bedroom.
[3:16:23] um and listed uh I have a number four,
[3:16:26] number five, and number six kind of
[3:16:28] issues. Um I am extremely in opposition
[3:16:31] to this proposal because there is not
[3:16:33] enough space. It's a safety issue, fire
[3:16:36] hazard issue. I appreciate your time.
[3:16:38] Thank you,
[3:16:41] Madam Chair.
[3:16:44] Uh would the applicant like to respond?
[3:16:48] Uh sure, Madam Chair. I'm not sure if 41
[3:16:52] Idaho Street is very close to this
[3:16:54] property, unless I'm misinformed. I'm
[3:16:56] not sure if that was actually for 21
[3:16:58] Cuit Street. We do have two uh fullsize
[3:17:01] parking spaces within the garage. We're
[3:17:03] not counting on any space outside of the
[3:17:05] garage. All of our bedrooms have
[3:17:07] windows. So again, I think we we have
[3:17:10] those concerns addressed, but I'm not
[3:17:11] sure that was necessarily even for this
[3:17:13] project.
[3:17:14] That's not for this project. He called
[3:17:16] me for and might have been for a
[3:17:18] different project. Thank you.
[3:17:19] Then you're speaking on behalf of the
[3:17:20] Rome project. Thank you.
[3:17:22] Yes.
[3:17:22] Okay. So with that, may I have a motion?
[3:17:28] I don't feel like
[3:17:30] Sorry. Go ahead.
[3:17:32] I said motion approval.
[3:17:34] Have a second.
[3:17:37] Okay. Thank you, Mr. Spebridge.
[3:17:40] Yes.
[3:17:41] Mr. Valencia.
[3:17:43] Yes.
[3:17:45] Miss Turner.
[3:17:46] Yes. Miss Ponado,
[3:17:49] yes.
[3:17:50] Mr. Collins,
[3:17:52] yes.
[3:17:53] Mr. Bernell,
[3:17:55] yes.
[3:17:56] Chair votes yes. The motion carries.
[3:17:57] Good luck.
[3:17:58] Thank you very much.
[3:18:04] Next, we have case VA
[3:18:08] 178 7126
[3:18:11] with the address of 86 Worth Street.
[3:18:16] If the applicants and or their
[3:18:18] representative are present, would they
[3:18:19] please explain dates of the board?
[3:18:23] Yes. Thank you, Mr. Stebridge. Madam
[3:18:24] Chair, members of the board, attorney
[3:18:26] Ryan Spitz with Adams and Morancey,
[3:18:27] business address of 168th Street, First
[3:18:30] Floor, South Boston. Uh joining me today
[3:18:33] is the owner Roy Aar and project
[3:18:35] architect David Freed. The Azar family
[3:18:38] has been a part of the Rosadale
[3:18:39] neighborhood for over 60 years. This is
[3:18:42] an existing 2 and 1/2tory two family.
[3:18:45] The proposal today is a three-story
[3:18:48] 6-unit residential building with eight
[3:18:50] parking spaces with the total proposed
[3:18:52] height of 33.3 ft, which is well below
[3:18:55] the maximum allowed at 35 ft. The lot
[3:18:59] area is notably large for this subdist.
[3:19:02] It's approximately 12,651
[3:19:05] square ft. All units will be three beds
[3:19:08] ranging from approximately 1300 square f
[3:19:10] feet to,430 square ft. Each floor will
[3:19:14] contain two units, one in the front and
[3:19:17] one in the rear of the building. This is
[3:19:19] not a case of a project pushing against
[3:19:21] the city's stated direction. It is a
[3:19:23] project that anticipates where Boston
[3:19:25] zoning code for the street is already
[3:19:27] headed. On July 17, 2026, the BPDA
[3:19:30] released draft zoning for Walworth
[3:19:32] Street as a part of the of the
[3:19:34] neighborhood housing zoning initiative
[3:19:36] placing 86 Walworth in a proposed RD4
[3:19:40] subdist. The project is substantially
[3:19:42] compliant with the draft RD4
[3:19:44] requirements. Max height three stories
[3:19:46] with the slope roof. Maximum building
[3:19:48] lot coverage 30%. Minimum permeable area
[3:19:52] of lot 25%. Minimum front yard 8 ft.
[3:19:55] minimum sideyard of 15 foot cumulative
[3:19:57] and a three-foot minimum and a minimum
[3:20:00] rear yard of 15 feet. The draft RD4
[3:20:03] zoning also creates a conditional use
[3:20:05] pathway for unit counts above four
[3:20:07] expressing weighing accessibility and
[3:20:09] affordability in the media vicinity and
[3:20:11] compatibility in the surrounding area.
[3:20:13] The same equitable standard this board
[3:20:15] should apply to the variances discretion
[3:20:17] here. We have the following violations
[3:20:20] use violation as we are within a 2F5000
[3:20:23] subd district. This proposal is directly
[3:20:25] aligned with the Rosenddale squares and
[3:20:26] streets, the small area plan adopted by
[3:20:29] the BPDA board back in February 2025,
[3:20:32] which recommends enabling accessory
[3:20:33] dwelling units in small unit residential
[3:20:36] buildings in this area. Again, the
[3:20:38] unusually large 12,651
[3:20:41] ft lot makes the site particularly well
[3:20:44] suited to multifamily building without
[3:20:46] overwhelming its surroundings.
[3:20:48] Consistent with the city's own
[3:20:49] neighborhood housing zoning initiative
[3:20:51] goals for this exact street. We have an
[3:20:53] F violation of 081 is being proposed as
[3:20:56] compared to a.5 as of what is allowed.
[3:21:00] Additional massing is concentrated at
[3:21:02] the rear of the lot minimizing street
[3:21:04] level impact and preserving the existing
[3:21:06] streetscape. The lot's large size still
[3:21:08] leaves substantial room for useful open
[3:21:10] space notwithstanding the added density.
[3:21:12] This is not a building shoehorned on an
[3:21:15] undersized lot. We have a height
[3:21:17] violation. We are compliant again as to
[3:21:19] the feet, but we need we need relief as
[3:21:22] to the stories. Three stories being
[3:21:23] proposed where two and a half is
[3:21:25] allowed. There are other threetory
[3:21:27] buildings exist on the same block. The
[3:21:29] massing is in the context with the
[3:21:30] streets with the streetscape. If I can
[3:21:32] refer to you to sheet 8-2.14
[3:21:36] depicting 82, 86, and 90 Walworth
[3:21:38] Street. The slope roof design rather
[3:21:40] than a flat roof further reduces
[3:21:42] perceived bulk and keeps the buildings
[3:21:44] in contact with its neighbors. We have
[3:21:47] an open space violation in here. This
[3:21:49] subdist requires a very high open space
[3:21:51] at 1750 ft per unit and the proposal
[3:21:55] calls for approximately 888 square ft
[3:21:57] per unit but is aligned with the
[3:21:59] planning department's recommendation as
[3:22:01] stated that this is a substantial amount
[3:22:03] of usable open space for a small
[3:22:05] multifamily project with quality spaces.
[3:22:08] Lastly, we have a a parking violation.
[3:22:10] The requirement in the subd district is
[3:22:12] two parking spaces per unit. And our
[3:22:14] proposal calls for a total of eight
[3:22:16] parking spaces for the six unit.
[3:22:18] Proposal is aligned with the lower
[3:22:20] parking ratio by its transit
[3:22:22] accessibility as reflected within the
[3:22:24] squares and street study area boundary.
[3:22:26] Further, we understand the planning
[3:22:28] department's recommendation concerning
[3:22:30] surrounding maneuverability, and we
[3:22:31] would commit to the design review
[3:22:33] provisal with the willingness to
[3:22:35] eliminate two visitor spaces at the end
[3:22:37] of the driveway if needed. In closing,
[3:22:40] every requested variance is either
[3:22:42] consistent with the city's own draft
[3:22:43] reszoning for the street or directly
[3:22:45] advances the stated goals of the two
[3:22:47] city planning documents, the adopted
[3:22:50] squares and street small area plan, and
[3:22:52] the pending neighborhood housing zoning
[3:22:53] initiative. Planning department has also
[3:22:56] recommended approval. Again, condition
[3:22:58] only on a design review provisal
[3:22:59] addressing parking maneuverability,
[3:23:01] which the applicant should firmly accept
[3:23:03] on the record. Uh so at this point,
[3:23:05] Madam Chair, I'm going to turn it over
[3:23:06] to you and the board for any questions
[3:23:07] or comments.
[3:23:09] Thank you. Are there questions from the
[3:23:11] board?
[3:23:15] Hearing none, they have public
[3:23:16] testimony.
[3:23:17] Madame Chair and members of the board,
[3:23:19] for the record, my name is Jeremy Beny.
[3:23:20] I'm the Roslandale community engagement
[3:23:22] specialist for the office of
[3:23:23] neighborhood services. The applicant has
[3:23:25] completed the community process which
[3:23:26] consisted of an abuters meeting uh
[3:23:28] facilitated on November 10th that was
[3:23:30] very well attended. Abuas expressed
[3:23:32] significant concerns regarding the size
[3:23:33] and scope of the proposal particularly
[3:23:35] its height and the resulting impact on
[3:23:37] views from surrounding properties.
[3:23:38] Additional concerns included the number
[3:23:40] of proposed units loss of green space
[3:23:42] and increased traffic density and
[3:23:43] congestion. Several abunders stated that
[3:23:45] the proposal was out of character with
[3:23:46] the neighborhood, describing it as a
[3:23:48] large apartment building with an
[3:23:49] elevator, a type of development they
[3:23:51] felt was not consistent with their
[3:23:52] surrounding area. Rar Butters expressed
[3:23:54] concerns regarding the loss of open
[3:23:56] green space due to the proposed paved
[3:23:58] parking area adjacent to their
[3:24:00] properties. A director but also raised
[3:24:02] privacy concerns saying that the height
[3:24:03] of the proposed building would loom over
[3:24:06] their yard. Next, the proponent was
[3:24:07] encouraged to engage with the local
[3:24:09] civic association, West Village
[3:24:10] Neighborhood Association, which
[3:24:11] completed the community process. To
[3:24:13] date, our office has received a 68
[3:24:15] signature petition opposing the proposal
[3:24:17] consisting primarily of a brothers from
[3:24:19] Walworth, Orange, Fresno, and Darnell
[3:24:22] Streets, as well as 22 individual
[3:24:24] letters of opposition. Our office has
[3:24:26] also received seven letters in support
[3:24:28] of the proposal. All correspondences
[3:24:30] have been uh sent to the board for
[3:24:32] review. Following the meeting, the
[3:24:34] proponent did make changes to the
[3:24:35] proposal addressing the community
[3:24:37] feedback. Some of those changes included
[3:24:39] the removal of the elevator. The floor
[3:24:41] area ratio has been reduced from 86 to
[3:24:43] 081. The total building length has been
[3:24:46] also reduced uh for to by two feet. Uh
[3:24:48] there has been other changes as well
[3:24:50] that were taken uh again and in
[3:24:52] accordance to the community feedback. At
[3:24:54] this time uh the thank you for your time
[3:24:57] and the mayor's office of neighborhood
[3:24:58] services would like to defer to the
[3:24:59] board for their judgment.
[3:25:01] Thank you.
[3:25:03] Next we have Eopola.
[3:25:13] Ellen Capola, can you unmute yourself?
[3:25:17] I'm sorry. I thought he did. Good
[3:25:20] afternoon. I'm Ellen Kapola. I live at
[3:25:22] 78 Waller Street. Uh my family has been
[3:25:25] here since the house was built in 1928.
[3:25:27] I am opposed to this project due to the
[3:25:31] um loss of green space. The project
[3:25:33] would significantly reduce the local
[3:25:36] green space, contradicting the city's
[3:25:38] goal to preserve open space and maintain
[3:25:40] the neighborhood's appeal to families.
[3:25:42] Um, insufficient parking and traffic
[3:25:44] hazards. The building could accommodate
[3:25:46] 12 to 18 cars, yet proposes only six
[3:25:48] parking spaces. The shortage will force
[3:25:51] street parking and cause congestion on
[3:25:52] Walver Street, which is a single lane
[3:25:54] drive as the single lane driveway cannot
[3:25:56] support two-way traffic. Um, safety
[3:26:00] concerns. Wal Street is heavily used cut
[3:26:02] through between Washington and Belgrade
[3:26:03] A. The added congestion risks delaying
[3:26:06] emergency response vehicles. It's also
[3:26:08] out of character with the neighborhood.
[3:26:09] Uh a six-unit building is inconsistent
[3:26:11] with the existing character of Walware
[3:26:13] Street which has no comparable
[3:26:15] multi-unit structures. Thank you for
[3:26:16] your time.
[3:26:18] Thank you.
[3:26:20] Thank you. Next, we have um
[3:26:24] a
[3:26:30] the person with the E. Conway.
[3:26:33] E Conway, are you speaking on this?
[3:26:38] Okay, we're going to keep going. Uh,
[3:26:40] who's who's next?
[3:26:48] Hello. Um, my name is Lewis Gavara.
[3:26:52] Respectfully, Madam Chair and members of
[3:26:54] the board,
[3:26:55] what's your where do you where do can
[3:26:56] you what's your residence?
[3:26:58] Nine Fresno Street. I border on the
[3:27:00] back. I share the back fence with them.
[3:27:03] I am in opposition as you know. Uh 39 of
[3:27:06] Butter sent ZBA letters of opposition
[3:27:09] and also there were 68 of Butters who
[3:27:12] put in a uh
[3:27:14] a the um petition. Anyway, reasons for
[3:27:18] my opposition are there's 18 bedrooms
[3:27:22] uh and there's only six residential
[3:27:24] parking spaces. So, there's six to 12
[3:27:27] cars that are either forced onto a
[3:27:29] crowded street or there's a risk that
[3:27:32] later uh they're going to need to turn
[3:27:34] the backyard into a parking lot. The
[3:27:37] building is huge. At 3.5 stories, the
[3:27:40] terraces look down on the properties of
[3:27:42] the back neighbors, blocking air,
[3:27:44] sunlight, and removing the feeling of
[3:27:46] green space. Uh, as I said, the density
[3:27:50] now is going to be 0.81 compared to
[3:27:53] Rosenddale's maximum of.5.
[3:27:57] So, allowing a sixunit 3-bedroom condo
[3:28:00] on a two property is too big a change.
[3:28:04] And the only hardship stated is profit,
[3:28:07] which is not illegal.
[3:28:10] If a developer can put such a large
[3:28:12] structure in regardless of the zoning,
[3:28:15] how can the neighborhood trust Boston
[3:28:17] zoning?
[3:28:19] Uh,
[3:28:19] thank you.
[3:28:20] Okay. Is that it?
[3:28:23] Hello.
[3:28:25] Next, we have Kristen Simons.
[3:28:29] Good afternoon, Madame Chair and members
[3:28:31] of the board. My name is Kristen
[3:28:33] Simmons. I live at 70 Wal Street. I
[3:28:35] respectfully ask the board to deny the
[3:28:37] requested variances at 86 Walrus Street,
[3:28:40] proposed 10,000 foot 6unit luxury
[3:28:43] building at a 0.81 F in a two family
[3:28:46] zone. First, there's no physical
[3:28:48] hardship.
[3:28:51] This is a flat large land, large piece
[3:28:53] of land that is more than large enough
[3:28:55] to accommodate a conforming two family
[3:28:57] home. Desiring a high higher profit is a
[3:29:00] hardship of the pocketbook which
[3:29:02] Massachusettly
[3:29:04] rejects.
[3:29:06] Secondly, it bypasses active city
[3:29:08] planning. The proposed neighborhood
[3:29:10] housing initiative specifically targets
[3:29:12] this area of Roslandale to expand
[3:29:14] density from two to four units, a
[3:29:17] compromise neighbors like myself could
[3:29:19] support. This sixunit proposal blows
[3:29:22] past that threshold and is not promising
[3:29:25] any additional affordability that may be
[3:29:27] in the proposed zoning initiative.
[3:29:31] Third, three tiers of balconies on all
[3:29:33] sides creates an invasive fishbowl over
[3:29:36] neighboring homes while maximizing
[3:29:38] building mass and pavement strips away
[3:29:41] open space and drainage. Granting a 70%
[3:29:44] F increase on a conforming lot makes our
[3:29:47] zoning code meaningless. Please uphold
[3:29:49] the zoning code and deny this variance.
[3:29:52] Thank you.
[3:29:57] Um, next we have a car.
[3:30:01] Good afternoon, Madame Chair, members of
[3:30:04] the board. My name is Cara Ross. I live
[3:30:06] at 17 Fresno Street in Roslandale.
[3:30:08] That's two houses away on the back side
[3:30:11] of this property. I want to go on the
[3:30:13] record that I'm against this proposal
[3:30:15] and very concerned for the following
[3:30:17] reasons. Um, zoning requires,750
[3:30:21] for usable open spaces, but this
[3:30:23] proposal only has 888.
[3:30:26] Um, the density proposed is.86.
[3:30:31] Um, but zoning requires.5.
[3:30:33] The parking is not adequate. The
[3:30:36] proposal has 1.3 spaces, but zoning
[3:30:40] requires two spots for every
[3:30:41] threebedroom condo. Parking is already
[3:30:44] an issue on this street. Um, I'm
[3:30:47] particularly concerned about traffic
[3:30:49] impact on a very narrow, very congested,
[3:30:52] and already very dangerous street. I've
[3:30:54] had neighbors who have had accidents in
[3:30:57] the area. Um, any visit vehicle that is
[3:31:01] visiting this property and that pulls
[3:31:03] into the driveway will have to do a
[3:31:05] three-point turn to get out of it. Uber
[3:31:08] drivers delivery will have to double
[3:31:10] park which would stop traffic or result
[3:31:13] in cars having to pass dangerous
[3:31:15] dangerously. Um six units is way out of
[3:31:19] the norm for this area that really only
[3:31:21] has one and two family housing. Um
[3:31:25] uh the proposal is for three stories
[3:31:27] where the zoning only allows for two and
[3:31:30] a half and there are far too many big
[3:31:33] exceptions of this that will erode the
[3:31:35] public trust in zoning if the developer
[3:31:37] is allowed to ignore code and I ask the
[3:31:41] board to enforce current zoning rules
[3:31:43] despite possible changes in the future.
[3:31:45] Thank you for your time.
[3:31:51] And next we have Okcon.
[3:31:54] Uh yes.
[3:31:55] Hello Madam Chair and team. Uh my name
[3:31:58] is David Okconor. I live on 16 Fresno
[3:32:01] Street in Rosendo and I'm also um
[3:32:06] opposed to this project. Um basically
[3:32:08] mostly because of the zoning laws. You
[3:32:11] know, it's zoned for two and a half
[3:32:13] stories, but this building is going to
[3:32:14] be three stories. Um you know, it's
[3:32:17] supposed to be
[3:32:19] see why it's supposed to be 0.5. It's
[3:32:20] going to be 081. It's just going to be
[3:32:23] jammed in there. It's going to be up
[3:32:24] high. No privacy for our neighbors. And
[3:32:27] I agree with Lewis where there's not
[3:32:29] going to be enough parking. And I think
[3:32:30] eventually that whole that whole lot
[3:32:33] will just simply be a a gigantic house
[3:32:36] with parking. Um should be two spots for
[3:32:39] every unit with the total of 18
[3:32:42] bedrooms.
[3:32:45] uh possibly be enough double parking
[3:32:47] blocking traffic in a street that is
[3:32:48] already cut off. There's only room for
[3:32:50] one lane on each side. There isn't
[3:32:52] enough yard space. As I said earlier,
[3:32:55] it's supposed to be 750 square ft. This
[3:32:58] is only 888 ft, which is half. Um I
[3:33:02] collectively none of these are small
[3:33:03] technical issues. They add up to a
[3:33:05] completely different kind of building
[3:33:07] than what's allowed now with the current
[3:33:08] zoning. And the only reasons for the
[3:33:12] developer to get these exception is to
[3:33:14] make a profit. So,
[3:33:15] all right. Thank Thank you. Can I ask
[3:33:17] the the remaining to please add new
[3:33:19] information? Please do not repeat the
[3:33:22] same information you've heard. Thank
[3:33:24] you.
[3:33:24] Okay. I'm all set. I'm done. Thank you.
[3:33:26] Thank you. So, let's take one more.
[3:33:28] Can I get a chance to sneak sneak in
[3:33:31] when you get a chance? I am 82 years
[3:33:34] old. I had difficulty finding the mic.
[3:33:37] So,
[3:33:38] yes, please go ahead. Please state your
[3:33:39] name and address for the record and let
[3:33:41] us know whether you're in support of
[3:33:42] My name is My name is Edward Conway and
[3:33:45] along with my daughter Stacy own the two
[3:33:47] families located at 79 W Street. This
[3:33:50] property was purchased by my parents in
[3:33:52] 1948. Since that time the second floor
[3:33:56] apartment has continued continuously
[3:33:58] been occupied by a director descendant.
[3:34:01] I guess 78 years makes us longtime
[3:34:03] neighborhood residents. Lest I be
[3:34:05] accused of hiding any information, I
[3:34:08] personally do not res reside there. I
[3:34:11] live on Zeala Street in Rosendale. My
[3:34:13] daughter is over overseas and thus
[3:34:16] unable to speak. I speak for both of us
[3:34:19] in strong opposition to this project.
[3:34:21] They've already mentioned this the
[3:34:23] petition signed by 68.
[3:34:27] I went to some nonab I went to the even
[3:34:31] numbers oddnumbered side of Orange
[3:34:33] Street. Are they different than the even
[3:34:35] numbered side of Orange Street? I went
[3:34:37] to houses on Hilllock Street and Waller
[3:34:40] Street that are one or two neighbors
[3:34:41] away. I obtained 13 additional
[3:34:44] signatures even though these people are
[3:34:46] not above us. The obvious issue is that
[3:34:49] it's going to R2 and it calls for an R
[3:34:52] six.
[3:34:53] uh they recently went through a streets
[3:34:56] and uh square initiative and it came
[3:35:00] back that they left war street and all
[3:35:03] the other areas except for Washington
[3:35:05] street and
[3:35:08] so
[3:35:08] thank you please please wrap up
[3:35:12] and
[3:35:12] thank you I guess I'm done
[3:35:15] thank thank you
[3:35:17] um do we have
[3:35:19] last one
[3:35:21] okay I'll Excuse.
[3:35:23] Hi, my name is Albert Tedesca. Uh, my
[3:35:25] family's been in Rosenddale for I don't
[3:35:27] know over a hundred years. I go back to
[3:35:29] my great-grandfather built Rosendale A.
[3:35:32] Uh, long story short is I think that
[3:35:33] this lot is it's a double lot. It's
[3:35:35] plenty big for what they're um asking to
[3:35:38] do. And I think that a lot of
[3:35:40] development is happening in Rosendale
[3:35:41] West Roxbury. And I think that the
[3:35:43] development is what the mayors want
[3:35:44] wants to see. We got the new bike lanes.
[3:35:46] We want people traveling with bikes, not
[3:35:48] cars. Um, and I just wanted to say there
[3:35:50] are people in the neighborhood that are
[3:35:52] still uh for it.
[3:35:54] Thank you.
[3:35:56] Okay. Can we have the um applicant
[3:35:58] please uh circle back with um
[3:36:00] Yes. Thank you, ma'am. M madam chair.
[3:36:03] So, one one thing I know we did have um
[3:36:05] we we did have many people here uh to
[3:36:08] speak in support. I know that you
[3:36:09] limited it um the the testimony. Uh but
[3:36:12] what I do want to
[3:36:13] see one other raised hand, but you know.
[3:36:15] Okay.
[3:36:16] I don't know if they left in time. I
[3:36:17] know we did have a have have a lot of
[3:36:18] people logged in early, but I just want
[3:36:21] to though reaffirm the board that we did
[3:36:23] submit 12 letters um that were coming
[3:36:26] from immediate director Butters on this
[3:36:27] street as well. One including the
[3:36:29] immediate director Butter on the
[3:36:31] construction side of the proposal
[3:36:33] itself. Um and also again this you know
[3:36:37] just remind the board that this is a
[3:36:39] notably very large size lot which is a
[3:36:42] unique size lot. Um and again very
[3:36:44] consistent with the planning
[3:36:45] department's recommendation who I
[3:36:46] believe maybe Jeff Hampton's here he can
[3:36:48] speak more towards their recommendation
[3:36:49] is that it's consistent with a lot of
[3:36:51] the initiatives that we're seeing that
[3:36:53] are in play now and that are coming into
[3:36:55] the future of this street as well. So
[3:36:57] again um our our proposal is well
[3:37:00] aligned with the planning department's
[3:37:01] recommendation for approval in the
[3:37:03] context of this neighborhood.
[3:37:06] Questions from the board. Um I I would
[3:37:09] like to hear from Jeff Hampton because I
[3:37:11] am sympathetic to the view that if
[3:37:14] squares and streets zoning is meant to
[3:37:16] sort of allow buildings to occur as of
[3:37:19] right and and it is more um appropriate
[3:37:23] zoning in most cases for the
[3:37:25] neighborhood, but they are blown through
[3:37:27] the building floor plate, you know,
[3:37:30] under squares and streets as well as the
[3:37:33] the maximum allowed number of units. So,
[3:37:35] I'd like to hear from Jeff on sort of
[3:37:38] their rationale for the uh the approval.
[3:37:42] Mr. Hampton.
[3:37:44] Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the
[3:37:46] board. Jeff Hampton, City of Boston
[3:37:47] Planning Department. Uh, Squares and
[3:37:49] Streets was developed to uh allow more
[3:37:53] as of right uh in terms of housing. This
[3:37:56] is actually going to be proposed under
[3:37:58] the new residential zoning uh which is
[3:38:02] being rolled out and has been put forth
[3:38:05] in Rosundale High Park and West Roxbury
[3:38:07] to increase the number of dwelling units
[3:38:09] in the one family and two family zoning
[3:38:11] districts. Uh as you can see in our
[3:38:15] recommendation, we are not opposed uh to
[3:38:18] this project. the scale of the project.
[3:38:20] We do understand
[3:38:22] um that it is a larger lot and the F is
[3:38:27] a little north of 0.5.
[3:38:29] But our only concern in this development
[3:38:32] uh Miss Panado was the parking. And
[3:38:35] honestly, it was design review for
[3:38:38] maneuverability and not so much the
[3:38:40] number of parking because as you and the
[3:38:42] rest of the board is aware uh the city
[3:38:44] has taken uh the policy of uh reducing
[3:38:48] parking. We've even had that in the
[3:38:50] proviso uh today on a couple of our
[3:38:52] hearings that there would be design
[3:38:54] review with the thought of removing uh
[3:38:57] some of the parking to make the project
[3:38:59] more pliable. So we are in support of
[3:39:03] this and we recommend that the only
[3:39:06] provisal that we put on is you know
[3:39:08] attention to parking maneuverability.
[3:39:11] Okay. Thank you.
[3:39:13] Okay. Any other questions from the
[3:39:16] board?
[3:39:16] I may just say something. Uh, Madam
[3:39:18] Chair, I think that I've seen a decent
[3:39:21] amount of opposition for this project
[3:39:23] and everyone that is opposed should know
[3:39:26] that the, you know, under the zoning
[3:39:28] that is coming out and proposed for the
[3:39:30] area, this would essentially be an as of
[3:39:32] right project. So, if you are, if you do
[3:39:35] have an opinion on it, you should
[3:39:37] definitely get to your the next zoning
[3:39:39] meeting that the BPDA holds um and make
[3:39:42] your opinion known on.
[3:39:46] Thank any other comments or cons or or
[3:39:49] questions?
[3:39:52] Is there a motion?
[3:39:57] I'll make a motion to approve with BPDA
[3:40:00] design review.
[3:40:02] Is there a second?
[3:40:09] Mr. Stebridge.
[3:40:13] Yes.
[3:40:15] Mr. Valencia,
[3:40:17] yes.
[3:40:19] Miss Turner,
[3:40:21] I'm gonna vote no. I think the community
[3:40:24] process could be a lot better.
[3:40:27] Miss Bonado,
[3:40:29] a vote yes.
[3:40:31] Mr. Collins,
[3:40:32] yes.
[3:40:34] Mr. Bernell,
[3:40:38] yes.
[3:40:40] The chair The chair agrees with uh
[3:40:43] member Turner and votes no. What? The
[3:40:45] motion carries.
[3:40:47] Great. Thank you.
[3:40:54] Next, we have case BOA
[3:40:57] 183 5904
[3:41:01] with the address of 105
[3:41:04] Pleasant View Street.
[3:41:06] If the applicants and or their
[3:41:09] representative are present, would they
[3:41:10] please explain to the board?
[3:41:14] Yeah. Good afternoon, Madam Chair,
[3:41:16] members of the board. Excuse my voice.
[3:41:18] Uh, cold. Uh, my name is Lorraine Moyer
[3:41:20] with General Contractors, and we're here
[3:41:22] for Maxwell, owner of 105 Pleasant View.
[3:41:25] Um, the board previously heard and
[3:41:28] approved our request for zoning relief
[3:41:30] associated with converting the existing
[3:41:32] owner occupied one-story single family
[3:41:34] into a two family residence by adding a
[3:41:37] second story. At the time of that
[3:41:39] hearing, the refusal letter identified
[3:41:41] three zoning violations. um excessive
[3:41:44] floor area ratio, insufficient front
[3:41:46] yard, and insufficient rayard. Following
[3:41:49] the board's approval, we learned that an
[3:41:51] additional zoning violation had been
[3:41:53] omitted from the original refusal um
[3:41:56] article 69 section 8 use forbidden
[3:41:59] relating specifically to the proposed uh
[3:42:01] two family use. Um the project has not
[3:42:05] changed uh from what the board
[3:42:08] previously uh approved, what we
[3:42:10] presented. Uh we're still converting the
[3:42:13] existing one family residence into uh a
[3:42:15] two family uh residence uh constructing
[3:42:19] one additional story above the existing
[3:42:21] home. Uh there's been no expansion of
[3:42:23] the proposal. Um the existing footprint
[3:42:26] remains uh unchanged.
[3:42:29] Um we were not expanding outward on the
[3:42:31] loft and the property remains owner
[3:42:34] occupied. Um, as the board may recall,
[3:42:37] the proposed second story uh contains
[3:42:39] approximately 1,140 square ft uh and
[3:42:43] provides a two-bedroom dwelling with the
[3:42:44] kitchen, living room, uh dining area,
[3:42:46] and a full bathroom. Uh, the design
[3:42:49] includes independent access, an
[3:42:51] appropriate egress, uh, fire separation
[3:42:53] between the units, structural
[3:42:55] improvement, and other building and life
[3:42:57] safety upgrades, um, as shown in the
[3:42:59] plans.
[3:43:01] um architecturally we designed to
[3:43:03] maintain the appearance and scale of a
[3:43:05] traditional residential home.
[3:43:08] So now uh we seek the additional relief
[3:43:12] uh from the board uh concerning the use
[3:43:14] of the property is a two family
[3:43:16] residence um in context that is still
[3:43:21] exactly the same project. Um this is the
[3:43:25] uh area that is being adapted to
[3:43:26] accommodate one additional dwelling unit
[3:43:31] and that's it.
[3:43:32] Thank you. Thank you. Are there
[3:43:34] questions from the board?
[3:43:40] Hearing none. May I have public
[3:43:41] testimony?
[3:43:42] Madame chair and members of the board.
[3:43:43] For the record, my name is Jeremy
[3:43:44] Bereie. I'm the Hide Park community
[3:43:46] engagement specialist for the Office of
[3:43:48] Neighborhood Services. As you heard, the
[3:43:50] proponent has already been previously
[3:43:52] approved. Uh they did return to our
[3:43:54] office for one misviolation uh that was
[3:43:57] missed and documented. Uh the abuter's
[3:44:00] meeting was previously held on May 14th
[3:44:02] with one abuter and support. Again, that
[3:44:04] was previously approved. No further
[3:44:06] community process was required for the
[3:44:07] missed violation. Thank you for your
[3:44:09] time in the mayor's office of
[3:44:10] neighborhood services would like to
[3:44:11] defer to the board for their judgment.
[3:44:14] Madam chair, there are no additional
[3:44:16] comments.
[3:44:17] Okay. With that, may I have a motion?
[3:44:24] A motion to approve.
[3:44:26] Second.
[3:44:28] Thank you, Mr. Stebridge.
[3:44:31] Yes.
[3:44:32] Mr. Valencia.
[3:44:34] Yes.
[3:44:36] Miss Turner.
[3:44:37] Yes.
[3:44:39] Miss Ponado.
[3:44:41] Yes.
[3:44:42] Mr. Collins.
[3:44:44] Yes.
[3:44:45] Mr. Bernell. Yes.
[3:44:48] Votes yes. The motion carries. Good
[3:44:49] luck.
[3:44:50] Thank you.
[3:44:55] Next we have case BOA
[3:44:58] 181
[3:44:59] 00051
[3:45:02] with the address of one Hopkins place.
[3:45:06] It's the applicant and though they
[3:45:08] represent the president.
[3:45:10] Are you
[3:45:11] I'm sorry. Are you reading that in
[3:45:13] conjunction with two h two Hopkins
[3:45:15] place? No,
[3:45:17] no, they're two separate parts.
[3:45:18] They are they are two separate cases,
[3:45:21] madam chair. Um, we heard them before
[3:45:24] and yes, we went through even though
[3:45:26] they're one right one right next to each
[3:45:30] other, they are two separate cable.
[3:45:32] Okay. Well, I'll save my inclusionary
[3:45:34] zoning question for later then. Go
[3:45:36] ahead.
[3:45:37] Okay.
[3:45:38] Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of
[3:45:40] the board. My name is Steven David. I'm
[3:45:42] an attorney with an address of 40 436
[3:45:44] Washington Street in Westwood,
[3:45:46] Massachusetts. I represent Dr. Roger
[3:45:49] Harris who is a lifelong resident and
[3:45:51] educator in the city. Um Dr. Harris owns
[3:45:54] the property at one Hopkins Place which
[3:45:58] is a 9,084 square foot lot. Hopkins
[3:46:02] Place intersects with Font Street and my
[3:46:05] client also is the owner of 25 and 27
[3:46:09] Font Street which are both two family
[3:46:11] dwellings. My client seeks to erect a
[3:46:14] six-unit uh uh apartment building on
[3:46:17] this uh lot. And I have with me today
[3:46:20] from Chewin Associates, Mark Sullivan,
[3:46:22] who will bring um the board through the
[3:46:25] uh building specifications and I'm
[3:46:27] available to answer questions after
[3:46:29] that. Um, so if I may, Mark, could you
[3:46:32] uh go through the presentation that you
[3:46:34] have today, please?
[3:46:36] Sure thing. Thank you. Uh, Mark Sullivan
[3:46:38] from Chewin Company, uh, located at One
[3:46:41] Billings Road in Quinsey, Mass. Um,
[3:46:45] with this proposal, as uh, Stephen had
[3:46:48] mentioned, we are proposing six total
[3:46:49] units. Uh, the only violation we are
[3:46:51] seeking is for the use, uh, for a multif
[3:46:54] family dwelling. Um, all six of the
[3:46:56] units are three-bedroom units. Uh they
[3:46:59] range anywhere from um just over 2,000
[3:47:02] square feet um down to 1,200 square feet
[3:47:06] um for some of the smaller ones up on
[3:47:08] the second and uh third floor. Um as you
[3:47:12] can see from the view here uh we are
[3:47:13] proposing three stories total. Um the
[3:47:16] building also does have a basement that
[3:47:17] is entirely below grade. Uh we are
[3:47:20] providing eight parking spaces which is
[3:47:22] in excess of the required five spaces.
[3:47:25] Um the three extra spaces are um to
[3:47:29] provide additional um guest parking
[3:47:31] spaces as these units are as mentioned
[3:47:33] three-bedroom units. Um
[3:47:36] if you scroll down a little bit um to
[3:47:39] the site plan, I believe it's on page
[3:47:41] four of this document um you can see
[3:47:44] that we are also adding um a good amount
[3:47:47] of landscape around the building. Uh the
[3:47:49] building footprint does align with the
[3:47:52] zoning requirement of 30% block
[3:47:54] coverage. Uh we are also providing um
[3:47:58] some uh enclosed trash area um for the
[3:48:01] utility of the building. Um you can see
[3:48:03] the parking spaces there. Hopkins place
[3:48:06] being on the right side of that plan and
[3:48:08] Fonts Road being kind of offscreen to
[3:48:10] the bottom of the plan. Um if you scroll
[3:48:13] down to the elevations, we are trying to
[3:48:14] utilize um materiality that's found all
[3:48:18] throughout this neighborhood. Um fiber
[3:48:20] cement lap siding, a very residential
[3:48:23] um material. U some nice thick white
[3:48:26] trim um and double hung windows with uh
[3:48:30] um mold uh units uh three over two in
[3:48:34] terms of the the breakup of the windows.
[3:48:36] So again, elements and design elements
[3:48:39] that are found throughout the
[3:48:41] surrounding neighborhood.
[3:48:49] Uh can you address parking because I I'm
[3:48:51] pretty sure you're aware that front yard
[3:48:54] uh facing off streetet parking lots are
[3:48:56] forbidden. Um what was the thought
[3:48:58] behind putting the parking in the front
[3:49:00] as opposed to the rear of a building?
[3:49:03] Yeah. So, so this uh site is a little
[3:49:06] funky. As you can see, Hopkins Place
[3:49:08] kind of comes down and makes a right
[3:49:09] turn there. Um,
[3:49:12] with the shape of the lot and getting to
[3:49:16] the back of the lot for parking, um, we
[3:49:18] actually couldn't get a building within
[3:49:20] the setbacks and get the parking back
[3:49:22] there. There also is quite a significant
[3:49:24] grade change towards the back um which
[3:49:26] would require significant uh retaining
[3:49:29] walls that we felt would kind of destroy
[3:49:32] the the exterior space that we're
[3:49:34] providing. Um and our our idea was at
[3:49:38] least to dress up that kind of parking
[3:49:40] area at least with landscaping around
[3:49:41] it. Um but obviously we hear your
[3:49:44] concerns. is just that that's how we
[3:49:46] felt that we could actually uh fit a
[3:49:48] building that's as of right in terms of
[3:49:50] size of the building but also get the
[3:49:52] parking to logistically work on the
[3:49:54] site.
[3:49:58] If I might add there's a to the rear of
[3:50:00] the building there is uh houses running
[3:50:02] along a residential street behind the
[3:50:04] building and those walls would create
[3:50:07] pretty unsightly view for those
[3:50:09] homeowners that have that abut the
[3:50:11] property. So that was another
[3:50:13] consideration that was taken into
[3:50:15] account at the time.
[3:50:18] I'm sorry. Can can you let us know if
[3:50:20] you spoke with the mayor's office of
[3:50:22] housing because one of the concerns we
[3:50:24] had had the last time was that this and
[3:50:27] the other case are interrelated and
[3:50:30] therefore should uh you know
[3:50:33] inclusionary zoning should apply. I did
[3:50:36] speak uh not not only I did speak with
[3:50:38] the mayor's office uh and their council.
[3:50:40] Um initially these were somehow tied
[3:50:44] together as a companion case. We went
[3:50:46] back to the plan examiner Cheryl Odum.
[3:50:48] Um she u we went through that with her.
[3:50:52] She separated that the cases were never
[3:50:55] tied. They were just referred to as
[3:50:56] companions. So for some reason when the
[3:50:58] ZBA got the cases they were tied
[3:51:00] together. I spoke to council at HH uh
[3:51:04] mayor's office of housing. Uh they
[3:51:06] understood the distinction. They had no
[3:51:07] opposition to these cases being handled
[3:51:10] separately. And I confirm that I believe
[3:51:12] with I'm trying to remember her name,
[3:51:14] but u that's how we then prepare we uh
[3:51:18] reverted and we came before you today as
[3:51:21] two separate cases.
[3:51:24] They're owned by two separate entities.
[3:51:26] Um I I can get it. The number two
[3:51:29] Hopkins is right afterwards. So you'll
[3:51:31] you'll see uh that's a much different uh
[3:51:34] project as well as it's going to be
[3:51:36] owner occupied by the owners of the lot.
[3:51:42] Other questions from the board?
[3:51:46] May I have public testimony?
[3:51:48] Madam chair and members of the board.
[3:51:49] For the record, my name is Jerry Vbery.
[3:51:51] I'm the Madapan community engagement
[3:51:53] specialist for the office of
[3:51:54] neighborhood services. The applicant has
[3:51:55] completed the community process which
[3:51:57] consisted of a voters meeting
[3:51:58] facilitated on April 8th with no voters
[3:52:00] in attendance. Next, the proposal
[3:52:02] presented to River Street Civic
[3:52:03] Association in March where they received
[3:52:05] a mixed vote of support and opposition.
[3:52:07] Uh today, our office has not received
[3:52:09] any further community feedback. Uh the
[3:52:11] proposals were seen uh together as uh
[3:52:15] were seen together as companion cases.
[3:52:17] Thank you for your time in the mayor's
[3:52:19] office of neighborhood services would
[3:52:20] like to defer to the board for their
[3:52:21] judgment.
[3:52:24] Madam chair will have additional
[3:52:26] comments.
[3:52:28] Okay. Any other questions from the
[3:52:30] board?
[3:52:32] Yes, just another comment about the
[3:52:33] parking. Madam chair, I'm looking at the
[3:52:36] site plan and it seems that you are
[3:52:39] occupying probably 40% of the lot on
[3:52:42] parking driveway.
[3:52:45] The planning department is recommending
[3:52:48] approval only for the building for what
[3:52:50] I understand not for the parking. So my
[3:52:54] initial question to you is if you will
[3:52:56] be willing to reduce the parking to so
[3:53:00] with that to increase the uh increase
[3:53:02] the open space for the buildings. So
[3:53:05] that is the first question.
[3:53:11] I'm not quite sure I understood the
[3:53:12] question. He's asking if you reduce the
[3:53:14] number of parking to increase open
[3:53:16] space.
[3:53:18] Correct.
[3:53:20] We we we would be willing to do that.
[3:53:23] Second question is for probably Mr.
[3:53:25] Hampton and from the planning department
[3:53:28] if we approved only the building and not
[3:53:31] the parking is the proponent will be
[3:53:34] required to come back to the board just
[3:53:36] to approve the parking later on
[3:53:38] if Mr. Hampton is here.
[3:53:41] Uh, yes. Thank you, Mr. Valencia. Jeff
[3:53:44] Hampton, City of Boston Planning
[3:53:45] Department. If the board, and Caroline,
[3:53:48] correct me if I'm wrong, if the board
[3:53:50] does not approve any of the off-
[3:53:52] streetet parking, it would create a new
[3:53:54] variance if there is nothing uh
[3:53:58] provided. Um,
[3:54:01] I think that would have to be the case.
[3:54:04] Uh I would strongly suggest that they
[3:54:07] look at al alternative solutions to the
[3:54:10] front yard parking uh because the
[3:54:12] planning department is
[3:54:15] uh not one to approve front yard
[3:54:18] parking.
[3:54:23] Thank you.
[3:54:24] Sounds like a deferral.
[3:54:26] Correct. I don't know what motion we
[3:54:28] could make. I don't I don't know how we
[3:54:30] can make a motion on this because I
[3:54:32] agree the front yard parking is is
[3:54:34] forbidden and we shouldn't set a
[3:54:36] precedent.
[3:54:37] Mr. David, would you be amendable to
[3:54:40] working out the open space in the
[3:54:41] parking with the BPDA if approved?
[3:54:43] Uh yes, we would be uh and unfortunately
[3:54:46] I I don't recall this coming up at our
[3:54:48] our our first presentation and but we
[3:54:51] are always willing to work with BPDA on
[3:54:54] an issue like this.
[3:54:59] Okay.
[3:54:59] Actually, we prefer to move the the
[3:55:01] project forward if we could.
[3:55:04] Is there a motion?
[3:55:06] I'll make a motion to approve with BPDIA
[3:55:09] design review specifically regarding
[3:55:11] open space in the parking lot.
[3:55:15] Is there a second?
[3:55:21] I think I'll second that. Second.
[3:55:24] Okay, Mr. Stumbridge.
[3:55:28] Yes,
[3:55:29] Mr. Valencia.
[3:55:31] Yes,
[3:55:33] Miss Turner.
[3:55:35] Yes,
[3:55:37] Miss Ponado.
[3:55:39] Yes,
[3:55:40] Mr. Collins.
[3:55:42] Yes,
[3:55:45] Mr. Renell.
[3:55:47] Yes.
[3:55:49] Chair votes yes. The motion carries.
[3:55:53] Thank you, Madam Chair.
[3:55:56] Next we have case VA181
[3:56:00] 00052
[3:56:03] the address of two Hawkins boys. If the
[3:56:07] applicant and or the representative
[3:56:09] present will they please?
[3:56:13] Uh good afternoon madam chair members of
[3:56:15] the board. Uh my name is Steven David
[3:56:16] with offices at 436 Washington Street in
[3:56:19] Westwood. uh two Hopkins Place is owned
[3:56:22] by my clients Justin Harris and Tiana
[3:56:25] Curran. Uh my clients have resided in
[3:56:28] the neighborhood for the last 13 years.
[3:56:30] They wish to continue to reside in the
[3:56:32] neighborhood. Uh they own the property
[3:56:34] at two Hopkins Place and are proposing
[3:56:37] to construct a three family unit there
[3:56:41] where they intend to reside in the first
[3:56:43] floor of the building um as as their
[3:56:46] residence. Again, Mark Sullivan from Chu
[3:56:50] has created a presentation for the board
[3:56:53] and I would turn it over to Mark at this
[3:56:55] point.
[3:56:57] Thank you, Stephen. Uh again, Mark
[3:56:58] Sullivan from Chew and Company
[3:57:00] Architects uh based out of Quinsey, Mass
[3:57:02] at One Billings Road. Um this project
[3:57:05] seeks to create uh three new uh family
[3:57:09] style units. Um the ground floor has
[3:57:12] some basement shared space as well.
[3:57:15] That's a four bedroomedroom unit. Uh the
[3:57:17] other two units on the second and third
[3:57:19] floor are three-bedroom units. Um this
[3:57:23] proposal is proposing to be three
[3:57:24] stories again aligned with uh what is um
[3:57:28] allowed within the current zoning. Um if
[3:57:32] you scroll down a little bit to the site
[3:57:34] plan,
[3:57:37] uh it's it's on page uh four again.
[3:57:42] Um so here we can see Hopkins Place as
[3:57:45] it turns the corner. Hopkins Place is
[3:57:46] actually a dead end here. It's a very
[3:57:48] narrow portion of this Hopkins Place
[3:57:50] Road. Um we have positioned the four
[3:57:52] parking spaces in that area purposely
[3:57:55] for turnaround space um for emergency
[3:57:57] vehicles um and any other uh service
[3:58:01] vehicles that need to get down this road
[3:58:03] as mentioned because of the the
[3:58:05] narrowness of Hopkins Place. Um
[3:58:09] uh one unit per floor with some basement
[3:58:11] space again for that first floor unit.
[3:58:14] Um, again, we tried to dress up along
[3:58:16] the front on Hopkins Place as well as
[3:58:19] along the rear and the side. Um, some
[3:58:21] open space where we could. Um, some new
[3:58:23] tree plantings um to help buffer from
[3:58:26] the residential neighborhoods um that
[3:58:28] are to the north. So, towards the top of
[3:58:31] this page, um, in terms of the building
[3:58:34] materiality, again, very focused on the
[3:58:37] surrounding neighborhood of that fiber
[3:58:39] cement lap siding. um a nice kind of
[3:58:42] clean white trim and corners board um
[3:58:45] and then double hung windows to also
[3:58:47] match the the typology of all the
[3:58:49] surrounding residential buildings.
[3:58:53] And that concludes our presentation.
[3:58:55] We'd be happy to answer or respond to
[3:58:57] any questions,
[3:58:59] questions from the board.
[3:59:01] Yeah, I mean I have the same concern
[3:59:03] about front yard parking on this as
[3:59:05] well. I I I don't think these are the
[3:59:08] kind of projects we uh typically see or
[3:59:10] typically approve.
[3:59:14] Thank you.
[3:59:15] I'm wonder Yeah. I I don't know why this
[3:59:17] approach has been taken.
[3:59:22] Any other questions or comments from the
[3:59:24] board?
[3:59:27] Does Mr. Hampton want to weigh in on
[3:59:29] this uh front yard parking?
[3:59:34] I'll rest my laurels on the last one.
[3:59:39] Is this something you could also think
[3:59:41] you guys could work through in and site
[3:59:43] design and u
[3:59:46] review?
[3:59:46] I'll tell you, Mr. Collins, this is
[3:59:48] going to be tough. 13 spaces uh 12
[3:59:50] spaces, not a lot of room to maneuver,
[3:59:53] and we are adamant about not allowing
[3:59:56] front yard parking. I don't know how
[3:59:58] this is going to be, but thank God I'm
[4:00:01] not an architect.
[4:00:07] Okay. Well, let's take public comment.
[4:00:10] Madam Chair and members of the board,
[4:00:11] for the record, my name is Jeremy
[4:00:12] Benbury. I'm the manipan community
[4:00:14] engagement specialist for the office of
[4:00:15] neighborhood services. The applicant has
[4:00:17] completed the community process which
[4:00:18] consisted of an aboters meeting
[4:00:19] facilitated on April 8th with no voters
[4:00:21] in attendance. Next, a proposal
[4:00:23] presented to River Street Civic
[4:00:24] Association in March where they received
[4:00:26] a mixed vote of support and opposition.
[4:00:28] Uh this proposal was seen in conjunction
[4:00:31] with one Hopkins place uh for the
[4:00:33] record. Thank you for your time and the
[4:00:35] mayor's office of neighbor services
[4:00:36] would like to defer to the board for
[4:00:37] their judgment.
[4:00:40] Madam Chair, there
[4:00:47] any other feedback from the board?
[4:00:52] May I have a motion?
[4:00:54] I'll make a motion with uh approval with
[4:00:57] proviso that the plans be submitted to
[4:00:59] the planning department with special
[4:01:01] attention to reducing lot coverage. It's
[4:01:05] slightly above the maximum coverage and
[4:01:08] um and improving the parking layout.
[4:01:14] You want to be more clear about no front
[4:01:16] yard parking or are you good with your
[4:01:18] language?
[4:01:19] That's the language the planning
[4:01:21] department suggested. I think they will
[4:01:23] not allow for front yard parking.
[4:01:25] Okay. So, we have a motion and a second.
[4:01:27] Mr. Sambridge.
[4:01:31] Yes.
[4:01:33] Mr. Valencia.
[4:01:34] Yes.
[4:01:36] Miss Turner.
[4:01:38] Yes.
[4:01:40] Miss Ponado.
[4:01:42] Yes.
[4:01:44] Mr. Collins?
[4:01:45] Yes.
[4:01:46] Mr. Bernell?
[4:01:48] Yes.
[4:01:50] Votes? Yes. The motion carries.
[4:01:52] Thank you, Madam Chair. Have a nice
[4:01:54] afternoon.
[4:01:59] Next, we have case BOA
[4:02:02] 178 2691
[4:02:05] with the address of 121R
[4:02:09] Street.
[4:02:11] If the applicants andor their
[4:02:13] representative are present, would they
[4:02:15] please explain to the board?
[4:02:17] Yeah. Um, good afternoon, Madame Chair,
[4:02:19] members of the board. My name is Eileen
[4:02:21] Rosa from Rosa Design and Construction.
[4:02:23] I'm located in Milton, Massachusetts.
[4:02:25] Um, I'm the residential designer for
[4:02:27] this proposal. I'm here on behalf of the
[4:02:29] owner, Lashant Sales. Um the intention
[4:02:33] here is to make uh all the necessary
[4:02:35] improvements to convert the existing one
[4:02:38] and a half story stable or barn into a
[4:02:41] twostory ADU of approximately 970 square
[4:02:47] ft. It's a two-bedroom unit. Um the
[4:02:50] violations cited u are a total of six
[4:02:54] violations where three of these are due
[4:02:58] to pre-existing non-conforming
[4:03:00] conditions. All these violations were
[4:03:02] cited under article 65. The first one
[4:03:06] referring to uh two or more dwellings on
[4:03:09] the same lot due to the um the
[4:03:12] additional dwelling unit. The second one
[4:03:15] area insufficient which we understand is
[4:03:18] a pre-existing
[4:03:19] condition. Um the lot size is
[4:03:23] approximately two 5,212
[4:03:26] square ft while the uh zone in this area
[4:03:30] called for two family on 6,000 square ft
[4:03:34] lots. Um the next um violation it's for
[4:03:40] excessive floor area ratio. The
[4:03:43] requirement in this area is 04. The
[4:03:46] existing is 04 and with the new ADU this
[4:03:50] one is being increased to 6. Um the next
[4:03:54] violation is sideyard insufficient. The
[4:03:57] requirement here is 10 ft and the
[4:04:00] existing as well as the proposed as is
[4:04:02] an existing structure. It's 1.88
[4:04:06] for the rear yard. Um the requirement is
[4:04:08] 30 feet and what's being prop uh the
[4:04:12] existing is 10.59
[4:04:14] and that's the intention for the
[4:04:16] proposal as well. Um and the last uh
[4:04:20] violation
[4:04:21] related to uh the location of the main
[4:04:25] entrance for this ADU and this is
[4:04:27] because if we go to the next uh slide
[4:04:30] the plotline is we'll see the exact
[4:04:32] location. Um it's a corner lot and the
[4:04:36] ADU will be facing
[4:04:40] um towards Idaho Street. So the main
[4:04:42] street is the main street number is on
[4:04:44] River Street. That's the main um
[4:04:47] intention here. Uh we're proposing a
[4:04:50] twostory ADU. It's being carefully
[4:04:53] designed and revised based on
[4:04:55] neighborhood feedback. Um the existing
[4:04:58] structure will be upgraded ensuring that
[4:05:01] it meets all codes. um blending with the
[4:05:04] residential context this area. Um it is
[4:05:07] a two-bedroom unit. First floor is about
[4:05:10] 66
[4:05:12] square ft and we have a modest second
[4:05:15] floor with 364 square ft making a total
[4:05:19] of 700 sorry 970 ft of living space. Uh
[4:05:24] the goal is to enhance the property in a
[4:05:27] way that supports the neighborhood
[4:05:29] character and ensure the project uh that
[4:05:32] this project it's in harmony with the
[4:05:35] neighborhood. Um and that also including
[4:05:37] the proper materials to to blend it in.
[4:05:40] So that's all I have for now to present
[4:05:42] and I'm open for to answer any
[4:05:44] questions. Thank you.
[4:05:46] Thank you. Questions from the board.
[4:05:48] Um can you speak to parking? the the
[4:05:50] recommendation refers to an additional
[4:05:53] parking space as proposed.
[4:05:55] Yeah. Uh parking was not brought up as a
[4:05:58] violation, but uh however, based on uh
[4:06:01] neighborhood feedback, uh we were able
[4:06:04] to accommodate an additional parking um
[4:06:08] inside of the in the property. And
[4:06:10] that's the the gravel space you see
[4:06:13] somewhere in the middle. Sorry, I can't
[4:06:14] see without my glasses, but it's a it's
[4:06:17] a 8 by 20 designated space for for the
[4:06:21] additional parking. So, there will be
[4:06:22] there's currently two parkings and with
[4:06:25] the ADU, we're adding one more parking
[4:06:29] and and the city's uh recommendation is
[4:06:31] to remove that parking space. Are you
[4:06:34] aware of that?
[4:06:36] Uh no, we were not aware of that. Um our
[4:06:39] last um update was uh related to the
[4:06:44] neighborhood concerns about parking and
[4:06:46] that's why it was added.
[4:06:51] Okay. Other questions from the board
[4:06:56] have public testimony.
[4:06:58] Madam chair and members of the board for
[4:06:59] the record my name is Jeremy Benbury.
[4:07:01] I'm the matter community engagement
[4:07:02] specialist for the office of
[4:07:03] neighborhood services. The applicant has
[4:07:05] completed the community process which
[4:07:06] consisted of an abutters meeting
[4:07:08] facilitated on October 20th with more
[4:07:10] than 10 abutters in attendance. The
[4:07:11] original proposal was not wellreceived
[4:07:13] with many of us expressing opposition
[4:07:15] and the remaining attendees raising
[4:07:17] concerns consistent with those who
[4:07:18] opposed the proposal. The primary
[4:07:20] concerns regarding the original proposal
[4:07:23] included its size in relation to the lot
[4:07:24] with the butters expressing that they
[4:07:26] felt the lot was too small to
[4:07:27] accommodate the proposed development.
[4:07:29] Concerns were also raised regarding the
[4:07:31] design which several of Butters felt was
[4:07:32] out of character with the surrounding
[4:07:34] neighborhood. The concern raised most
[4:07:35] consistently throughout the meeting was
[4:07:37] the existing density and parking
[4:07:38] congestion in the area with the Butters
[4:07:40] expressing concern that the proposed
[4:07:42] addition would further exacerbate these
[4:07:43] conditions. A director Butter at 11
[4:07:46] Idaho also expressed concern regarding
[4:07:48] the proposal's proximity to her property
[4:07:49] specifically citing the proposals the
[4:07:51] proposed sideyard setback. She raised
[4:07:53] concerns about fire safety and expressed
[4:07:55] that reducing the distance between the
[4:07:57] properties could increase the potential
[4:07:58] for a fire to spread in that event. At
[4:08:01] the time of the aboters meeting, the
[4:08:02] proposal was also presented to and
[4:08:04] opposed by the River Street Civic
[4:08:06] Association. Following the community
[4:08:08] feedback, the proponent made revisions
[4:08:10] to the proposal and and subsequently
[4:08:12] presented the changes to the River
[4:08:13] Street Civic Association. Following
[4:08:15] those revisions, River Street Civic
[4:08:17] Association expressed support for the
[4:08:18] proposal, noting that the change is
[4:08:20] better aligned with the character and
[4:08:21] concerns for the surrounding
[4:08:22] neighborhood. To date, our office has
[4:08:24] received five letters of opposition
[4:08:26] regarding the original proposal.
[4:08:28] Following the revisions, our office
[4:08:29] received one additional letter of
[4:08:31] opposition, which raised concerns
[4:08:32] regarding requirements, including the
[4:08:34] absence of bedroom windows on the second
[4:08:36] floor. Our office has also received one
[4:08:38] letter of support from the River Street
[4:08:39] Civic Association following the
[4:08:41] revisions to the proposal. Thank you for
[4:08:43] your time and the mayor's office of
[4:08:44] neighborhood services would like to
[4:08:45] defer to the board for their judgment.
[4:08:49] Thank you.
[4:08:51] Next we have Lisa.
[4:08:56] Yes. Thank you. I'm on the right right
[4:08:58] proposal here. Madame chair, member of
[4:09:00] the board, my name is Lisa Spagnolo. I
[4:09:03] am a homeowner at 41 Idaho Street. We
[4:09:06] have owned our property for over 50
[4:09:08] years and I'm very familiar with this
[4:09:10] property that they're proposing. Um,
[4:09:13] I've submitted a letter to the board.
[4:09:15] I'm hopeful that you have all seen it
[4:09:18] and read it. I think I'm the one letter
[4:09:20] that was submitted. I think that's
[4:09:22] because of lack of communication from
[4:09:25] our um, community boards in terms of
[4:09:29] getting letters of opposition in. My
[4:09:33] concerns are continued safety violations
[4:09:36] and continued code violations and that
[4:09:40] that space is not adequate for the size
[4:09:43] of the of the building they're trying to
[4:09:45] erect there. I know a lot of a lot of
[4:09:48] the um the property is already kind of
[4:09:51] grandfathered in, but that doesn't mean
[4:09:53] that they should then build something
[4:09:54] that's two stories high that is that's
[4:09:57] violating codes that are currently in
[4:09:59] place. I'm very hopeful that the board
[4:10:02] and the zoning committee will will
[4:10:04] listen to us and and the homeowners that
[4:10:07] are on that street and our concerns of
[4:10:10] safety, parking, congestion,
[4:10:14] um, and the the butters that live
[4:10:16] directly next to it in terms of their
[4:10:18] their quality of life. I really truly
[4:10:21] appreciate your time and I'm hoping that
[4:10:23] you're able to hear our concerns. Thank
[4:10:26] you.
[4:10:27] Thank you.
[4:10:31] Next we have
[4:10:39] uh Ysef Abdullah from city council Brian
[4:10:42] Wall's office. Uh really happy to hear
[4:10:45] the councelor and the office is really
[4:10:47] happy to hear of that addition to the
[4:10:48] parking. But that being said, we still
[4:10:51] feel that there is a strong opposition
[4:10:53] from the community. We are asking and
[4:10:56] recommending that this be pushed back to
[4:10:59] a later date to allow the developer to
[4:11:01] uh get more community buy in get more
[4:11:03] community buying on this project.
[4:11:06] Thank you.
[4:11:12] Any other raised hands?
[4:11:15] We don't have additional comments.
[4:11:17] Okay. Any response from the applicant?
[4:11:21] Um yeah, I just wanted to maybe hear
[4:11:24] back from Jeremy just for clarification
[4:11:26] with the original application
[4:11:30] um that it's uh significantly different
[4:11:32] from what we have now. It was including
[4:11:34] a a lot subdivision. We did receive uh
[4:11:38] the opposition from the neighborhood and
[4:11:39] that's why we uh worked on the plans
[4:11:42] revision including that uh privacy
[4:11:45] concern about the butter uh on Idaho
[4:11:48] street and we understand that all of
[4:11:50] those items were addressed and therefore
[4:11:52] we received uh support from the uh
[4:11:55] neighborhood association. I just wanted
[4:11:58] to clarify that um our understanding was
[4:12:00] that we had all of their concerns
[4:12:02] covered um including parking and privacy
[4:12:05] and size because we also had a a larger
[4:12:09] um more um structure there but now it's
[4:12:13] just a free building based on what we
[4:12:15] have there.
[4:12:18] Okay. Well, this is not a back and forth
[4:12:21] with Jeremy, but uh are there other
[4:12:23] questions uh or concerns from the board?
[4:12:30] Okay. Is there a motion?
[4:12:40] We could defer as was requested. We can
[4:12:44] approve or
[4:12:47] not. Is there?
[4:12:49] Yeah, I'll make a motion to defer.
[4:12:52] Is there a second?
[4:12:54] I will second.
[4:12:56] Okay. Do uh well, we'll we'll go through
[4:12:59] the vote and get get a date. Uh Mr.
[4:13:01] Stebridge,
[4:13:04] yes.
[4:13:06] Mr. Valencia,
[4:13:08] yes.
[4:13:09] Miss Turner,
[4:13:11] yes.
[4:13:13] Miss Ponado,
[4:13:14] yes.
[4:13:16] Mr. Collins,
[4:13:17] yes.
[4:13:18] Mr. Bernell,
[4:13:20] yes.
[4:13:21] Chair votes yes. The motion carries.
[4:13:23] Caroline, can we get them a date that
[4:13:25] allows them uh to do some more community
[4:13:27] process?
[4:13:29] Yeah, we could do November 10th,
[4:13:31] November 17th, or December 8th.
[4:13:34] November 10th. That's the earliest.
[4:13:36] Yeah, can do that.
[4:13:38] Okay. See you then.
[4:13:40] Thank you.
[4:13:48] The next case has been withdrawn.
[4:13:53] So that will take us to case BOA
[4:13:57] 1825854
[4:14:01] with the address of 57 M Street. The
[4:14:05] applicants and or their representative
[4:14:07] are present. They please explain the
[4:14:09] case to the board.
[4:14:19] Madame Chair, members of the board. Yep.
[4:14:22] This is uh Doug. Yeah, I mean Ryan's
[4:14:24] probably joining us. This is Doug
[4:14:26] Stefanov.
[4:14:27] Stephanov architects at business address
[4:14:29] of 93 F Street, uh South Boston. Uh
[4:14:35] I thought 57 was postponed.
[4:14:41] Not unless you're asking for a deferral.
[4:14:44] No, no. I'm sorry. I'm I'm premature.
[4:14:47] So, um not
[4:14:49] Sorry. Are you here for 57 Mount Vernon
[4:14:51] or something else?
[4:14:52] No. No. The one thereafter.
[4:14:54] Okay. So, we're still looking for
[4:14:56] someone for 57 Mount Vernon. Is the
[4:14:59] applicant available?
[4:15:02] Is this person Sean? Are you the
[4:15:04] applicant?
[4:15:12] Is this We have anyone?
[4:15:16] We have but I think it's might is a
[4:15:20] different case. I don't see anyone else
[4:15:23] for this.
[4:15:25] Yeah. We move on.
[4:15:27] Yes. Let's let's keep going.
[4:15:30] Okay. Uh with that we'll go to case BOA
[4:15:35] 174
[4:15:36] 94.
[4:15:37] I'm sorry. Sorry Madam
[4:15:41] Excuse me. Can you hear me?
[4:15:43] Yes.
[4:15:44] Sorry. This Sorry, Madam Chairman. This
[4:15:46] is uh Sean from 57 Mount Vern and I
[4:15:48] couldn't get my speaker to turn on. I'm
[4:15:50] sorry.
[4:15:52] Okay. Well, you're here now, so let's uh
[4:15:54] let's uh get that open and proceed.
[4:15:57] Okay. Thank you.
[4:16:04] Please proceed. Someone open up that
[4:16:06] link.
[4:16:12] My apologies. Um, yes. So, we we're
[4:16:15] we're sent back for appeal on this
[4:16:17] matter of an concrete entrance way to 57
[4:16:22] Mount Vernon Street, uh, Ward 7. And we
[4:16:28] were hoping it might get pushed through
[4:16:31] some point. I'm not sure of the
[4:16:32] complaints or what's stopping it from
[4:16:35] going through. I've done many of these
[4:16:37] concrete uh, entrance ways. They the
[4:16:40] driveway has been existed in existing in
[4:16:43] sorry in existence for about maybe 10
[4:16:46] years. They purchased the house with a
[4:16:48] driveway already installed but it's
[4:16:50] unusable with the curbing how it is. So
[4:16:53] people just park on the curb which
[4:16:56] rightly so until it's open um the
[4:16:59] homeowners cannot use the driveway.
[4:17:02] So you you're just applying for a curb
[4:17:04] cut. Well, yeah. We we've all we've
[4:17:06] applied and it's been sent back and then
[4:17:08] it went to appeal and we're just waiting
[4:17:10] on approval to do the per I mean it's
[4:17:12] been a year and a half now. We're just
[4:17:15] we just want to make a curve cut and on
[4:17:17] Mount Vernon Street. Yeah.
[4:17:22] Okay. Any other questions from the
[4:17:24] board?
[4:17:27] Can I have public testimony?
[4:17:29] Madam Chair, members of the board.
[4:17:33] Hello, Madam Chair, members of the
[4:17:34] board. My name is Eva Jones representing
[4:17:35] the mayor's office of neighborhood
[4:17:37] services regarding 57 Mount Vernon
[4:17:39] Street. Our office defers to the board's
[4:17:41] judgment. A community process was
[4:17:43] conducted including the distribution of
[4:17:45] a subcommittee flyer on 5826. During the
[4:17:48] community comment period and did not
[4:17:49] receive any emails from the community.
[4:17:52] The Columbia 7ill Civic Association
[4:17:54] reviewed the po proposal on 6926
[4:17:56] expressing support with a vote of six
[4:17:58] support, two opposed and one abstain
[4:18:01] regarding the proposal. At this time,
[4:18:02] the mayor's office of neighborhood
[4:18:03] services defers to the board's judgment
[4:18:05] on this matter. Thank you everyone for
[4:18:06] your time and consideration.
[4:18:10] Madame chair, we don't have additional
[4:18:12] comments.
[4:18:13] Okay. With that, may I have a motion?
[4:18:16] Make a motion to approve.
[4:18:18] Is there a second?
[4:18:19] Second.
[4:18:21] Mr. Stebridge?
[4:18:24] Yes.
[4:18:25] Mr. Valencia?
[4:18:26] Yes.
[4:18:28] Miss Turner?
[4:18:29] Yes. Miss Ponado,
[4:18:32] yes.
[4:18:33] Mr. Collins,
[4:18:35] yes.
[4:18:36] Mr. Bernell,
[4:18:38] yes.
[4:18:39] Check the motion carried.
[4:18:44] Thank you so much, guys.
[4:18:46] Cheers.
[4:18:51] Next, we have case BOA
[4:18:54] 174
[4:18:55] 94
[4:18:57] 25.
[4:18:59] the address of 425 East Dur Street. If
[4:19:03] the applicant and or their
[4:19:05] representative further, would they
[4:19:07] please explain?
[4:19:08] Yes. Thank you, Mr. Stebridge, Madam
[4:19:10] Chair, members of the board, attorney
[4:19:11] Ryan Spitz with Alison Morancey,
[4:19:14] business address of 168th Street, First
[4:19:16] Floor, South Boston. Uh joining me today
[4:19:19] is the applicant Michael Rooney, as well
[4:19:21] as project architect Doug Stephanoff.
[4:19:24] The proposal in front of you today is to
[4:19:26] erect a new four-story two-unit
[4:19:28] residential building over existing
[4:19:30] surface parking for seven vehicles.
[4:19:32] Those seven parking spaces are not deed
[4:19:34] out, but rather the occupants have an
[4:19:36] easement to those spaces which allows
[4:19:38] the applicant the legal right to erect a
[4:19:40] structure above those spaces. Two of
[4:19:43] those spaces the applicant does have
[4:19:44] rights to them. By way of history, this
[4:19:47] property formally did hold a three
[4:19:49] family structure many years ago, but
[4:19:51] that was torn down due to fire and was
[4:19:53] never rebuilt. Proposal falls within an
[4:19:55] MFRLS subdist, which puts higher
[4:19:58] requirements on lot size than what a
[4:20:00] typical MFR subdist requires. The
[4:20:03] minimum lot requirement here is 5,000
[4:20:05] square ft for the first unit and 1,000
[4:20:08] square feet for any additional unit.
[4:20:09] Current lot size is 1,600 square f feet
[4:20:12] which requires the necessary relief and
[4:20:14] insufficient lot area and additional lot
[4:20:17] area. Unit one is approximately 675
[4:20:20] square ft. That's a onebedroom and unit
[4:20:22] 2 is approximately 1363 ft 3bedroom. The
[4:20:26] flurry ratio is compliant within this
[4:20:28] subdist at a 1.5. We have the following
[4:20:31] additional violations. Building height
[4:20:34] 35 ft is required within the MFRLS subd
[4:20:37] district and our proposal calls to 43
[4:20:39] ft. The height violation is
[4:20:41] substantially due to the 7 foot grade
[4:20:43] change going from the front to the rear
[4:20:46] and is also necessary to accommodate the
[4:20:48] existing first floor parking with
[4:20:50] altering without altering the grade on
[4:20:53] site. Further, this type of height is
[4:20:55] consistent within the neighborhood
[4:20:56] context. We have a sideyard and rear
[4:20:58] yard violation. The proposal due to its
[4:21:00] small lot size is proposing zero lot
[4:21:03] lines as compared to a 3 ft for the side
[4:21:06] and a 15 ft requirement for a shallow
[4:21:08] lot as to the rear but is consistent
[4:21:10] with other properties in the immediate
[4:21:12] neighborhood and as highlighted within
[4:21:13] the planning department's recommendation
[4:21:15] of approval. Open space 400 total square
[4:21:18] ft of open space is required and the
[4:21:20] proposal comes a little bit shy of that
[4:21:22] at 386 square ft as far as the as the
[4:21:26] deck does hold that in the rear. That
[4:21:28] puts again puts the property very close
[4:21:30] to compliance with the open space.
[4:21:32] Lastly, we have off- streetet parking
[4:21:33] design and maneuverability. Parking
[4:21:35] spaces are are all less than 20 ft long
[4:21:38] while five of those spaces will be
[4:21:39] approximately 7 1/2 ft wide and they all
[4:21:42] has to reverse out of the spaces spaces
[4:21:45] which is the same manner in which they
[4:21:46] operate currently without. Further, we'd
[4:21:49] also like to note that the drive aisle
[4:21:50] width as it was mentioned um in the
[4:21:53] planning department's recommendation of
[4:21:55] being altered and shortened that is not
[4:21:57] um actually correct. Uh it's not being
[4:22:00] altered as stated within the planning
[4:22:01] department's recommendation. The drive
[4:22:03] aisle width is 11.5 ft wide uh as it is
[4:22:06] today and will continue to be such as
[4:22:08] well. Again, the operation of those
[4:22:10] spaces as it is currently will not be
[4:22:11] altered or changed in that manner. In
[4:22:14] closing, we'd like to remind the board
[4:22:15] that this proposal is aligned with the
[4:22:17] planning department's recommendation for
[4:22:19] approval. But we do ask that you also
[4:22:21] keep in mind that if in fact you're
[4:22:23] inclined to approve this proposal, we'd
[4:22:25] like to request that all seven spaces as
[4:22:27] approved uh remain uh within your
[4:22:30] approval as this is a neighborhood who
[4:22:32] faces many difficulties surrounding
[4:22:34] parking challenges. Uh so at this point,
[4:22:36] Madam Chair, I'm going to turn it over
[4:22:37] to you and the board for any questions
[4:22:38] or comments.
[4:22:40] Thank you. I have questions from the
[4:22:42] board.
[4:22:47] Okay. May I have public testimony? Oh,
[4:22:49] I'm sorry. Is that Mad Chair and board
[4:22:51] members?
[4:22:51] Miss Pan, was that sorry?
[4:22:54] Yeah. The the notion that um the
[4:22:58] recommendations for one parking space to
[4:23:00] be removed and maneuverability. So, I
[4:23:03] guess I'd like to hear from Mr. Hampton
[4:23:05] about whether it's possible to continue
[4:23:09] that space and and reconfigure the
[4:23:11] parking or there's a strong
[4:23:13] recommendation to to reduce that
[4:23:15] parking.
[4:23:18] Uh yes, thank you uh Madame Chair,
[4:23:20] members of the board. Jeff Hampton, City
[4:23:21] of Boston Planning Park.
[4:23:24] I mean, we'd like to have it removed to
[4:23:26] make the other spaces bigger. Um but I
[4:23:30] that's something that we could probably
[4:23:32] take a look at through design review. I
[4:23:34] mean, obviously, we can look at it
[4:23:36] through design review,
[4:23:37] but
[4:23:38] yeah.
[4:23:39] Um, it's it's just one of those things.
[4:23:41] It's really tight right now, and our
[4:23:44] recommendation would be to remove at
[4:23:46] least one of them just so the
[4:23:47] maneuverability is better, the spaces
[4:23:49] are bigger. Um, but with that being
[4:23:53] said, if it were to be approved, we'd
[4:23:55] ask that it get sent to our urban design
[4:23:57] department, take a look at.
[4:23:59] Okay. Thank you.
[4:24:01] Thank you.
[4:24:02] Okay. Let's uh go with public testimony.
[4:24:06] Madam Chair and board members, Sy
[4:24:07] Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood
[4:24:09] Services. This applicant completed the
[4:24:10] community process. Our office hosted a
[4:24:12] final AB Butters meeting on February
[4:24:14] 12th, which was well attended. Abutters
[4:24:16] had various concerns, including a
[4:24:18] Butters at 524 East Broadway felt there
[4:24:21] is an easement over the property that
[4:24:22] would prohibit this construction.
[4:24:24] Butters requested a boring and
[4:24:25] engineering report. Abutters felt that
[4:24:27] the building would create unsafe
[4:24:29] sightelines for vehicle maneuverability
[4:24:31] in the area given that they believe
[4:24:33] vehicles would need to back down the
[4:24:34] driveway to enter Third Street. Our
[4:24:36] office received 10 letters of support
[4:24:38] with nine signing an address in a 300t
[4:24:41] abutters radius. Office has received a
[4:24:43] letter of opposition stating it
[4:24:44] represents multiple unit owners in the
[4:24:46] condominium. The Gate of Heaven
[4:24:48] Neighborhood Association is opposed to
[4:24:49] this proposal. With that background, ONS
[4:24:51] defers judgment to the board. Thank you.
[4:24:57] Next we have Erica.
[4:25:07] How about Sydney from Council Flynn's
[4:25:09] office?
[4:25:11] Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the
[4:25:12] board. My name is Sydney. I'm from
[4:25:14] councelor Flynn's office. Councelor
[4:25:15] Flynn would like to go on record in
[4:25:17] opposition based on feedback from
[4:25:18] neighbors and abutters. During the
[4:25:20] community process, residents called
[4:25:22] attention to the number of variances
[4:25:24] required They expressed concerns
[4:25:26] regarding the ability to build on top of
[4:25:28] the site without impacting the existing
[4:25:30] parking spots below owned by neighbors
[4:25:32] as well as the impact that construction
[4:25:34] will have on residents trying to enter
[4:25:36] and exit the driveway every day. Beyond
[4:25:38] construction logistics, neighbors
[4:25:40] emphasized issues of pedestrian safety
[4:25:42] with cars having to enter and exit that
[4:25:44] will be a unique construction site at
[4:25:47] the corner of Emerson Street and East
[4:25:49] Third Street and steps away from an auto
[4:25:51] body shop across the street. Thank you.
[4:25:56] Next we have the person Elsie.
[4:26:02] Hi, my name is Christine Lankite and I'm
[4:26:04] the owner of 429 East 3rd Street, unit
[4:26:07] 1. I'm an immediate butter only
[4:26:10] separated by the driveway at 427 East
[4:26:12] Thirdrd Street and I'm in full support
[4:26:15] of the proposed development. I'm also
[4:26:17] here on behalf of the other owner
[4:26:19] occupant at 429 East 3rd Street residing
[4:26:23] in unit 2, Tim Bigalow, who is also in
[4:26:26] favor of the proposal. I live here
[4:26:29] full-time and work from home. And um the
[4:26:32] 429 East 3rd Street condo was one of
[4:26:34] Mike Rooney's most recent developments.
[4:26:37] Both Tim and I are owners of a parking
[4:26:39] easement at 425 East Thirdrd Street and
[4:26:42] are in support. We would see a large
[4:26:44] increase in value having a covered
[4:26:46] parking spot versus just an open air
[4:26:48] parking spot as it stands now. Um, and
[4:26:51] we also would be relieved of maintenance
[4:26:53] issues caused by a severe winter like we
[4:26:55] had this past year. I think the new
[4:26:57] construction would also add to the
[4:26:59] aesthetics of the neighborhood and
[4:27:01] further result in an increase in value
[4:27:03] of my property. Thank you.
[4:27:07] Thank you.
[4:27:08] Next we have Frank.
[4:27:11] Hey, how's it going? This is Frank
[4:27:13] Kenneth. I own and live at 528 East
[4:27:15] Broadway directly abuting the south side
[4:27:18] of this project. I know I've sent to a
[4:27:21] few of the a few of you a fairly
[4:27:23] detailed list of objections to the
[4:27:25] project. So, I'll just touch on the
[4:27:26] major concerns I have today. Um, safety
[4:27:29] concern obviously is number one here.
[4:27:30] Calls for the spots below the structure
[4:27:32] to back out every day, which is not how
[4:27:34] it happens right now. They use an
[4:27:36] easement that they shouldn't. Um, I just
[4:27:39] have no idea how when you have the
[4:27:40] structure in place, these people are
[4:27:42] going to back out with Emerson Auto
[4:27:44] double parking all day long. I think I
[4:27:46] think it's a serious as accident risk.
[4:27:49] Secondly,
[4:27:51] I the accuracy of the plans I I would
[4:27:53] call in question. I have no idea how
[4:27:55] you're going to add structural support
[4:27:56] for this building on this steep of a
[4:27:58] grade. Two additional sets of egress and
[4:28:00] then all the parking underneath when the
[4:28:02] spots barely fit now and some of the
[4:28:04] spots push into a my lot. Uh lastly, the
[4:28:07] layout of the building and lack of
[4:28:09] setbacks is uh directly going to
[4:28:11] negatively affect uh my property. You're
[4:28:14] putting a tall rectangular box in the
[4:28:16] middle of a parking lot. Uh every spot
[4:28:18] back there right now is diagonal down
[4:28:20] that whole row. Uh so with no setbacks,
[4:28:23] I lose at least one of my spots, more
[4:28:25] likely two. And um
[4:28:29] I'm definitely against this project.
[4:28:32] Thanks.
[4:28:36] Uh, next we have the person uh LC.
[4:28:44] Good afternoon, Madame Chair and members
[4:28:47] of the board. My name's Peter Coin. I
[4:28:50] live at 524 East Broadway and have been
[4:28:53] there for 30 years with my wife. We are
[4:28:56] a director of butter and also we share
[4:29:00] the a driveway easement which is uh
[4:29:04] right next to this property. It's the
[4:29:06] driveway that allows access to uh the
[4:29:10] cars to park under to park on the spot.
[4:29:14] Um the uh we just received access to a
[4:29:18] new plan that was filed in the refusal
[4:29:21] letter yesterday
[4:29:23] and I'd like to ask that you deny the
[4:29:25] relief sought. Uh oversized this is an
[4:29:28] oversized building on an undersized lot.
[4:29:33] They still need a significant amount of
[4:29:35] relief even with the new plan. Uh there
[4:29:38] are no special considerations.
[4:29:41] Uh there are four directive letters that
[4:29:44] are opposed to the property right now
[4:29:48] and um the maneuverability
[4:29:52] is a public safety issue. They don't
[4:29:55] have legal access to any part of any
[4:29:59] property except for the driveway.
[4:30:02] So, um the there's there's no there's
[4:30:06] little space to turn around when they
[4:30:08] pull out in the driveway, but uh but
[4:30:12] that's all that I want to offer. Thank
[4:30:14] you for your consideration.
[4:30:16] Thank you,
[4:30:19] Madam Chair. There are no additional
[4:30:20] comments.
[4:30:23] Okay.
[4:30:25] Can the applicant address some of these
[4:30:27] concerns, please?
[4:30:28] Um yes, Madam Chair. A lot of these
[4:30:31] concerns are surrounding um the legality
[4:30:33] of the actual easements, right? Um the
[4:30:35] parking spaces do have a valid easement.
[4:30:37] You heard from one of the immediate
[4:30:38] directors who do have easement rights to
[4:30:40] that property uh who's in support of it.
[4:30:43] Other is about access. Uh again, during
[4:30:46] construction, I'm not going to um
[4:30:48] sugarcoat it. There's always going to be
[4:30:50] impacts with that easement. However, we
[4:30:52] can't obstruct that easement passageway
[4:30:54] in any manner or fashion whatsoever. And
[4:30:56] I would encourage uh my client who has
[4:30:59] done many developments in this
[4:31:00] neighborhood, who is beyond reasonable,
[4:31:02] works well together with the community
[4:31:03] to continue to work together with the
[4:31:05] neighbors. Um again, um we heard a lot
[4:31:08] about about the about the plot lines. I
[4:31:11] think one gentleman said he's going to
[4:31:12] lose spaces on his own property. That in
[4:31:14] fact uh will not be true. We're not
[4:31:16] encroaching on anyone else's property
[4:31:18] except for the own property here. Uh so
[4:31:20] that will definitely not uh happen. And
[4:31:22] again um just you know we feel the
[4:31:24] proposal adequately balances you know
[4:31:26] the tight existing lot condition that we
[4:31:28] have and and extremely you know aligned
[4:31:31] well with the planning department's um
[4:31:33] you know recommendation for approval on
[4:31:35] this project.
[4:31:37] Thank you. Other questions from the
[4:31:39] board?
[4:31:44] Is there a motion?
[4:32:01] Okay. Who is ready to make a motion?
[4:32:09] I'll make a motion. Motion. Motion of
[4:32:12] approval with approvise. So that the
[4:32:16] project under goes planning department
[4:32:17] review special attention to the parking
[4:32:20] configuration to improve parking and
[4:32:24] access.
[4:32:26] Is there a second?
[4:32:28] Second.
[4:32:29] Thank you.
[4:32:30] Mr. Stumbbridge.
[4:32:34] Yeah.
[4:32:36] Mr. Valencia.
[4:32:37] Yes.
[4:32:39] Miss Ter. Yes,
[4:32:42] Miss Bonado.
[4:32:44] Yes,
[4:32:46] Mr. Collins.
[4:32:47] Yes,
[4:32:48] Mr. Bernell.
[4:32:50] Yes.
[4:32:51] Chair votes yes. The motion carries.
[4:32:54] Thank you.
[4:32:58] And next we have case VA
[4:33:02] 183 3292
[4:33:06] with the address of 336 E Street.
[4:33:10] If the applicants and other
[4:33:13] representative present, if they please
[4:33:15] explain to the board.
[4:33:17] Yes. Thank you, Mr. Stebridge, Madam
[4:33:18] Chair, members of the board. Um,
[4:33:20] attorney Ryan Spitz, Adams and Morancey,
[4:33:22] business address of 168 Street, First
[4:33:24] Floor, South Boston. I'm actually
[4:33:26] covering for my colleague who had to
[4:33:28] abruptly uh leave the meeting for a
[4:33:30] little bit of an emergency. So, again,
[4:33:32] I'm just covering the hearing for him.
[4:33:33] So, this appeal seeks to legalize an
[4:33:35] existing second story rear deck. The
[4:33:38] property owners purchased their condo
[4:33:40] unit in 2013. Their unit had a rear deck
[4:33:43] at that time and it is referenced in the
[4:33:45] master deed. In 2018, they were first
[4:33:48] forced to replace the deck due to
[4:33:50] deterioration and the fact that it was
[4:33:52] damaged during the construction of an
[4:33:53] abooding building. Their contractor
[4:33:56] advised them since there was an existing
[4:33:58] deck that was being rebuilt, no permit
[4:34:00] was needed. That was obviously bad
[4:34:02] advice. ISD issued a violation in late
[4:34:05] 2018, but the owners did not become
[4:34:07] aware of that violation until January of
[4:34:10] 2024. Since that time, they've worked
[4:34:12] cooperatively with ISD to resolve the
[4:34:14] situation, applied for a building permit
[4:34:16] themselves, and received a zoning code
[4:34:19] refusal letter. The refusal letter cites
[4:34:21] two violations, insufficient usable open
[4:34:24] space and a setback violation. The
[4:34:26] refusal letter is erroneous on the open
[4:34:29] space violation. The deck is a second
[4:34:31] story level at the rear of the building
[4:34:33] above Adita permanent parking space
[4:34:35] serving unit one of the condominium. It
[4:34:38] does not reduce any usable open space.
[4:34:40] Rather, it provides more open space for
[4:34:42] unit 2. With respect to the setback
[4:34:44] violation, the contractor who gave the
[4:34:46] owners bad information about the permit
[4:34:48] also slightly increased the size of the
[4:34:50] deck during reconstruction, but it is
[4:34:52] still essentially the same size. The
[4:34:54] owners contacted our office after
[4:34:56] completion of the community process
[4:34:58] which produced no opposition to conduct
[4:35:00] this hearing to ensure that the chain of
[4:35:02] events that landed them before the ZBA
[4:35:05] was adequately explained and that no
[4:35:07] additional mistakes were made. Uh so at
[4:35:09] this point, Madam Chair, I'm going to
[4:35:10] turn it over to to you and the board for
[4:35:12] any questions.
[4:35:13] Thank you. Any questions from the board?
[4:35:18] Was that a question, Mr. Collins?
[4:35:21] No. No. from
[4:35:24] uh may I have public testimony?
[4:35:27] Madame chair and board members, city
[4:35:28] Johnson with the office of neighborhood
[4:35:30] services. This applicant completed the
[4:35:32] community process. Our office hosted an
[4:35:34] abutters meeting on June 1st at which
[4:35:35] there was discussion and no concerns
[4:35:37] were raised. St. Vincent's Lower and
[4:35:39] Neighborhood Association chose to take
[4:35:41] no position on this application. Our
[4:35:43] office is aware of two letters of
[4:35:44] support that have been forwarded to the
[4:35:46] board. With that background, ONS defers
[4:35:48] judgment to the board. Thank you.
[4:35:52] Next, we'll have
[4:35:54] Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the
[4:35:55] board. This is Sydney from Councelor
[4:35:57] Flynn's office. Councelor Flynn sent a
[4:35:59] letter of support to the ZBA this
[4:36:00] morning. He'd like to go on record in
[4:36:02] support of the rear deck proposal based
[4:36:03] on a good community process and no
[4:36:05] negative feedback received from
[4:36:06] neighbors of Butters or local civic
[4:36:08] groups. The proponent has shown good
[4:36:10] faith in working closely with ISD and
[4:36:12] their neighbors throughout this process.
[4:36:14] We respectfully request that they
[4:36:15] continue to work with neighbors on any
[4:36:16] quality of life issues during the
[4:36:18] construction phase. Thank you,
[4:36:22] Madam Chair. Additional.
[4:36:24] Okay. With that, may I have a motion?
[4:36:28] Motion of approval.
[4:36:30] I have a second.
[4:36:31] Second.
[4:36:33] Mr. Stebridge.
[4:36:35] Yes.
[4:36:37] Mr. Valencia.
[4:36:38] Yes.
[4:36:40] Miss Turner.
[4:36:41] Yes.
[4:36:43] Miss Ponado,
[4:36:45] yes.
[4:36:47] Mr. Collins,
[4:36:48] yes.
[4:36:50] Mr. Bernell,
[4:36:51] yes.
[4:36:53] Chair votes yes. The motion carries.
[4:36:54] Good luck.
[4:36:55] Thank you.
[4:36:57] Thank you to everyone. I'll see you next
[4:36:58] month.
[4:36:59] All right. Thank you.
[4:37:01] Thank you.
[4:37:02] Have a good day, folks.