Zoning Board of Appeal Hearing 10-6-26

0:17 Jones and members of the

0:19 public.

0:19 The chair may limit the number

0:21 of people called upon to cop to

0:22 offer comment at the time for

0:24 commenting as time constraints

0:26 require.

0:26 For that reason, the board

0:27 prefers to hear from members

0:29 of the public who are most

0:30 impacted by a project that is,

0:31 those individuals who are

0:33 closest to the project.

0:35 If you wish to comment on an

0:37 appeal, please click the Raise

0:38 Hand button along the bottom

0:40 of your screen in the Zoom

0:41 webinar platform.

0:42 Click it again and your hand

0:43 should go down.

0:44 When the host sees your hand

0:46 you will receive a request to

0:47 unmute yourself.

0:47 Select yes and you should be

0:49 able to talk.

0:50 If you are connected to the

0:51 hearing by telephone please

0:52 press star nine to raise and

0:54 lower your hand.

0:55 You must press star six to

0:56 unmute yourself after you

0:58 receive the request from the

0:59 host.

0:59 Those called upon to comment

1:01 will be asked to state their

1:03 name and address first and then

1:04 provide can provide their

1:04 comment.

1:06 In the interest of time and to

1:08 ensure that you have enough

1:09 time to do so, please raise

1:11 your hand as soon as Mr. Stamp

1:12 retrieves the address into the

1:13 record.

1:14 Do not raise your hand before

1:15 the relevant address is called

1:17 or the meeting host will not

1:18 know to call on you at the

1:20 appropriate time.

1:21 We ask that you keep your

1:22 comments brief and all public

1:24 testimony will be limited to

1:25 90s per speaker.

1:27 Okay Mr. Stonebridge, what

1:31 about you bro?

1:32 Good morning, Miss Turner.

1:36 Good morning, Madam Chair.

1:38 Good morning.

1:39 I've never a problem, Mr.

1:42 Barroso.

1:42 Morning, madam chair.

1:43 President.

1:44 Good morning miss.

1:46 We well good morning, Madam

1:48 Chair.

1:48 Process.

1:49 Good morning, Mr. Langham.

1:51 Good morning, Madam Chair

1:52 president.

1:53 Good morning and Mr. Collins.

1:55 Good morning, Madam Chair.

1:56 President.

1:57 Good morning.

1:58 The floor is yours, Mr.

1:59 Stonebridge.

2:00 Thank you, Madam Chair.

2:02 Before we get today here with

2:05 the with the approval of the

2:08 hearing the 9:30 a.m., the

2:11 hearing minutes are from

2:14 September 17th and September

2:17 22nd of this year.

2:19 Um, with that Madam Chair, I'll

2:21 make a motion for approval from

2:23 the bench.

2:24 Thank you.

2:24 Is there a second?

2:26 Second?

2:27 Mr. sandwich?

2:30 Yes.

2:31 Miss Turner.

2:34 Present.

2:35 Yes.

2:36 Thank you, Mr. Barroso.

2:38 Yes, miss.

2:40 We will.

2:40 Yes, Mr. Lang them?

2:43 Yes.

2:45 Mr. Collins.

2:47 Yes.

2:47 Chair votes.

2:48 Yes.

2:48 The motion carries.

2:51 Next we have the extension

2:54 scheduled for five years from

2:56 9:30 a.m..

2:57 Um, there are five.

2:59 Uh, hearing cases which offer

3:03 extensions.

3:04 They all appear to be

3:06 reasonable.

3:07 Uh, with that I'll read them

3:09 all and one after the other.

3:11 Um, if there are any questions

3:15 before we take the vote on we

3:16 because there I go about I'm

3:17 sure.

3:19 That we get one case VOA 773858

3:25 with the address of six 1111

3:29 airport security.

3:31 We try to say that we have VOA

3:38 1322135 with the address of 25

3:41 and Tree Street.

3:43 Next we have a case VOA 1605743

3:50 with the address of 25 West All

3:53 Street.

3:55 Next we have cake VOA 1622321

4:01 with the ad USO 751 757 W

4:05 Street.

4:08 Uh final uh request for

4:11 extension is the case of VOA

4:16 1140230 with the address of the

4:19 Rogers Street and those other

4:22 cases extension cases before

4:24 the point.

4:26 Thank you.

4:26 Are there any questions from

4:28 the board?

4:30 May I have a motion to approve

4:33 the extensions as requested?

4:36 Make a motion to approve the

4:38 extensions as requested.

4:39 May I have a second?

4:40 Welcome.

4:41 Mr. Semaj.

4:43 Yes, Miss Turner?

4:47 Yes.

4:48 Miss Betty browser.

4:50 Yes, miss.

4:52 We will.

4:53 Yes, Mr. Langham.

4:55 Yes.

4:57 Mr. Collins.

4:58 Yes.

4:59 Chair rose.

5:01 Yes.

5:02 The motion carries.

5:05 Back when you have to be

5:07 followed by public in case

5:09 of schedule for that 30.

5:11 Um, there are three cases in

5:14 your um um in the first one

5:18 which is case VOA 1044720 for

5:25 the address of 3326 the 3328

5:30 Washington Street.

5:31 If the applicant and or the

5:33 representative of present the

5:35 Department for thank you.

5:38 Oh, Stonebridge.

5:38 Thank you, Madam Chair.

5:40 Members of the board attorney

5:41 Jeff Drago with Drake going to

5:43 Scannell with the business

5:44 address of 11 Beacon Street

5:46 here on behalf of the applicant

5:48 Mark Kaplan.

5:49 And we also have the architect

5:51 Greg Spaulding.

5:52 Uh, design modifications uh,

5:56 just by way of background, this

5:58 project uh, was approved uh, by

6:01 the BPA board back in November

6:04 of 2020.

6:04 It was a prior owner also was

6:06 approved um, as the zoning

6:08 board of appeal.

6:09 Uh, my client ended up

6:12 purchasing the project um for

6:14 pre-construction obviously

6:15 before permits were pulled um

6:17 and worked with BPD to make

6:20 project modifications uh, those

6:23 project modifications were

6:24 approved by way of notice

6:25 of project change by BPD.

6:28 Uh back in August of this year.

6:31 Um uh, just to briefly go over

6:34 uh what those modifications

6:36 were none of which created uh,

6:37 new variance needs.

6:39 So everything worked within the

6:41 existing structure and then

6:42 existing variances that we um,

6:44 were cited for and approved for

6:46 the board.

6:47 Uh the changes are to add three

6:50 additional units uh, within the

6:52 building.

6:53 So going from 43 to 46 units.

6:56 The original project was

6:58 approved for 43 units.

7:00 Um and along with those

7:02 additional units the gross

7:03 square footage of the building

7:04 went up.

7:05 Uh, it increased from 40,000 to

7:10 176ft2 to 43,825ft2.

7:15 The F.R which we were already

7:17 cited for increased slightly.

7:20 Uh, it went from an FA our 3.31

7:24 to an essay are of 3.56.

7:28 Um parking uh was originally uh

7:31 cited and still is we have no

7:33 parking on site.

7:34 Um so we but with those

7:36 additional uh, units are just

7:37 about they should bring up.

7:38 Uh, there was no parking on

7:40 site.

7:40 Um, but, uh, everything was

7:42 approved by way of NPC and

7:44 we're here to asking for relief

7:46 uh, for board final operator

7:48 for those changes and we're

7:50 here to answer any questions

7:51 you may have.

7:52 Thank you.

7:54 Any questions from the board?

7:59 Hearing none.

8:00 Is there a motion?

8:03 Madam chair, I'd like to put

8:05 forward a motion of approval.

8:07 Is there a second?

8:09 Second.

8:10 Mr..

8:12 Yeah.

8:14 Miss Carter?

8:16 Yes.

8:18 Miss better?

8:20 Yes.

8:22 We will.

8:23 Yes.

8:24 Mr. Langham?

8:26 Yes.

8:27 Mr. Collins.

8:28 Yes.

8:29 Chair votes yes.

8:30 The motion carries.

8:31 Good luck.

8:32 Thank you.

8:33 Thanks.

8:36 Ben.

8:37 Here are the next two cases

8:40 of the Or.

8:41 Five awkward cases are pending

8:44 cases.

8:45 So reading seven together.

8:48 Um, and then we can proceed

8:49 from there.

8:51 First we have case vote 154509

8:58 with the address of Amy Shaw.

9:00 She wrote along with that we

9:03 have to case void 1545111 with

9:10 the address of 82 Shaw she

9:12 wrote uh.

9:14 What do you see?

9:16 Uh, representing the applicant

9:18 thrown at you I go.

9:20 That's correct.

9:21 Thank you, Mr. Bridge.

9:23 Thank you, Madam Chair.

9:24 Members of the board attorney

9:25 Jeff Drago again with the

9:27 business address of 11 Beacon

9:29 Street here on behalf of the

9:31 applicant which is the East

9:33 Boston CDC.

9:34 And with me I have Sharon Genta

9:36 who's the architect who

9:38 designed the modifications on

9:39 the plans that uh, we've

9:42 submitted.

9:43 Uh, just by way of background,

9:45 this again was an article 80

9:47 project involved two separate

9:49 buildings both at 80 and 82

9:51 Crossing Road in East Boston.

9:54 Um, it converted an old um gas

9:57 site uh to and uh cleaned up

10:00 and and to create uh

10:02 residential all affordable

10:04 housing so all of the units uh

10:05 at least two buildings

10:06 originally approved for an all

10:08 affordable project.

10:09 And just to be clear that this

10:10 will remain an all affordable

10:12 project as well.

10:13 Uh, the reason for the changes

10:15 so the minor changes is, uh,

10:18 for funding sources.

10:19 Uh, my client applying for

10:21 state funding and state funding

10:23 at that time and at this time

10:25 would only approve an all

10:26 rental project.

10:27 Um the buildings one of the

10:29 buildings was approved by the

10:31 board, uh, and by the BPD as a

10:34 rental and the other was

10:35 approved at the time, um, as a

10:38 uh, home ownership.

10:39 Um, so we had to make that

10:41 change in order to ensure the

10:43 project would move forward and

10:44 get funded.

10:45 And so this was originally

10:46 approved by the BPD uh, in

10:49 October of 2023.

10:51 Um, and then the zoning board

10:54 thereafter.

10:55 Um the project modest

10:57 modifications uh again that

10:58 that we've made to the to the

11:01 two buildings 82 and 80.

11:03 Uh minor they did not create

11:05 any additional variances and so

11:07 all of them we worked within

11:09 the existing variances, uh,

11:11 that were cited last time.

11:12 Uh, just to go over what those

11:15 changes were and I'll give over

11:17 each of them one at a time.

11:19 Uh, so we will start at it will

11:21 be two um for 82.

11:24 Uh, we actually increased uh

11:27 the unit count.

11:29 So overall the unit count

11:30 increased by five units and in

11:32 doing that the gross square

11:34 footage of the project increase

11:36 from 20,208 originally we're at

11:43 27,281 uh, square feet.

11:44 Uh, that units increased by

11:46 five units going from 22 units

11:49 to 27 units.

11:51 Um and then because of that off

11:54 street parking as we had to

11:56 make room for a laundry room

11:57 of two.

11:58 Now now that this became uh,

12:00 all rental uh, we ended up

12:02 having it removed reduced

12:04 parking spaces by 20 from 21

12:06 spaces to 15 spaces.

12:09 Uh, those were the all of those

12:12 previously cited.

12:13 Uh, when we were first given

12:14 the, uh, letter of refusal for

12:18 80 road.

12:19 Um, the only uh, changes were

12:22 in gross floor area so it went

12:25 from 40,789ft2 to 41,903ft2.

12:32 And in doing that the Essar

12:35 went from 2.22 slightly to 2.28

12:39 uh for an increase.

12:41 We also had to remove one

12:43 parking space going from 14 to

12:46 13 parking spaces and we had to

12:48 remove the uh off street

12:50 loading space as well.

12:52 So really was uh an increase in

12:54 some gross square footage on

12:56 each building.

12:57 And then one of the buildings

12:59 added to increased unit count

13:01 and but in doing that we ended

13:03 up getting more affordable

13:05 units as part of this total

13:06 count um of 62 for the project

13:09 to become more affordable

13:10 because we wanted 57 to 62

13:13 units.

13:14 Um um we can answer myself or

13:17 Sharon any questions that the

13:18 board may have on those

13:20 changes.

13:21 Thank you.

13:23 Are there questions from the

13:24 board?

13:27 Hearing none.

13:28 May I have a motion?

13:31 Madam chair, I like to call for

13:33 motion of approval.

13:34 May I have a second?

13:36 Second, Mr. Pembridge?

13:40 Yeah.

13:41 Miss Turner.

13:42 Yes.

13:43 This better Brasa?

13:46 Yes.

13:47 As we will.

13:48 Yes, Mr. Langham?

13:52 Yes.

13:54 Mr. Collins.

13:54 Yes.

13:55 Chair votes.

13:57 Yes.

13:58 The motion carries.

13:58 Good luck.

13:59 Thank you very much.

14:02 That we'll move on to the

14:03 hearing scheduled for 9:30

14:06 a.m..

14:06 Uh, the forward began.

14:08 We will ask if there are any

14:10 request for withdrawal of the

14:12 girl from inactivity and

14:15 hearing.

14:20 Here dog is the board.

14:23 This is Mr. as attorney winds

14:24 raising your hand.

14:26 Yes I am, Madam Chair.

14:29 Thank you.

14:30 Um so 722 Truman I just had a

14:34 quick question.

14:35 I know that um and the planning

14:37 recommendation as well as um

14:39 some of my notes we have um,

14:41 greenbelts is uh, in play.

14:44 Um, I don't believe we were

14:46 advertised for a conditional

14:47 use permit for that.

14:48 So I just wanted to confirm

14:49 Caroline.

14:50 Uh, we could do a quick

14:52 deferral on that, I don't think

14:55 Caroline's with us.

14:56 Is Stephanie we're getting is

14:59 Stephanie you know housing?

15:02 Um, yeah.

15:02 I just don't know what the

15:03 state would look at if we could

15:04 probably get advertisements.

15:07 But these are going to be the

15:09 November 10th or the 17th is

15:12 the is the refusal letter out

15:14 there on this one.

15:15 So okay there you go.

15:16 The updated refusal did not

15:19 include um Greenbelt.

15:22 Might have to push it to the

15:24 for the 17th.

15:26 Okay because then I have to go

15:28 back in front of standards.

15:29 I'm not sure if that's fine.

15:32 Okay so with that may I have a

15:34 motion for deferral?

15:35 I need to recuse from the this

15:37 motion I assume to go.

15:40 Okay, so six six member board.

15:42 Uh, is there a motion?

15:44 For 22 Grove and Highway?

15:48 Uh, yes.

15:49 We sorry.

15:49 Can we thank you.

15:50 We.

15:53 But that would be Katie boy.

15:56 Why they don't work for them

15:59 for the advocates and stuff.

16:01 42 through but I will okay with

16:05 that.

16:05 Can we have a motion?

16:07 Motion to defer for October the

16:10 17th.

16:10 Uh, November the 17th.

16:12 Oh.

16:12 I'm sorry.

16:13 November the 17th.

16:14 May I have a second for a

16:17 second?

16:17 Thank you.

16:18 Mr..

16:18 Uh, Mr. Stonebridge?

16:20 Yes.

16:22 Miss term.

16:23 Yes.

16:25 Miss better Barraza.

16:28 Yes.

16:29 Yes we will.

16:31 Yes.

16:33 Mr. Langham.

16:34 Yes.

16:35 Chair votes.

16:36 Yes.

16:36 The motion carries.

16:37 Thank you very much.

16:40 So with that who voted?

16:42 The first case was 930 with

16:44 your case VOA.

16:49 1875717 with the ad with 239 to

16:54 245 Causeway Street.

16:56 The applicant and all directed

16:59 to present will include the

17:00 board.

17:02 Hi.

17:03 Good morning.

17:04 My name is Jack and Jimenez.

17:06 I'm here today to ask for the

17:09 removal of the special

17:10 troublesome uh, the Relief Cafe

17:12 located at the two 39th

17:14 Causeway in three.

17:16 I will not be changing any

17:18 of the footprint of the cafe.

17:21 I will just be taking over the

17:23 operation under a new name.

17:27 Okay.

17:27 Thank you.

17:28 Any questions from the board?

17:31 We have public testimony.

17:33 Hello, madam chair, members

17:35 of the board of the.

17:35 Jones I think the mayor's

17:37 Office for Neighborhood

17:38 Services for 1539 1545 Causeway

17:41 Street.

17:41 Our office defers to the

17:42 board's judgment following

17:44 communication with the

17:45 applicant, it was determined

17:46 that a community process was

17:47 not required by my office for

17:48 this type of proposal and we

17:50 are unaware of any issues with

17:51 proposal at some neighbors

17:54 services.

17:55 The first of the board

17:56 statement regarding this

17:57 proposal good time and

17:58 consideration.

17:59 Thank you.

18:01 Next we have the live in studio

18:02 not.

18:03 Good morning chair members

18:05 of the board I'm here on behalf

18:06 of City Councilor Sharon

18:07 Durkan.

18:07 I just want to go on record in

18:09 support of this application.

18:11 Thank you.

18:12 Um, chair, we don't have

18:13 additional comments then so

18:15 that may I have a motion motion

18:18 to approve and I have a second.

18:20 Second.

18:21 Mister Sunbridge.

18:23 Yes.

18:24 Miss Carter?

18:26 Yes.

18:27 Miss better.

18:28 Brasa.

18:28 Yes.

18:29 This really well.

18:31 Yes.

18:32 Mister Bynum.

18:34 Yes.

18:36 Mister Collins.

18:37 Yes.

18:38 Chair is the motion carries.

18:40 Good up now.

18:42 Thank you so much.

18:46 Next we have two companion

18:48 cases.

18:48 The birth certificate VOA

18:55 1873436 with the address of 125

18:58 Newbury Street.

19:00 Along with that we have case

19:04 VOA 1873434 also with the

19:08 advice of local five Newbury

19:09 Street.

19:10 Is the applicant absolutely

19:13 representative of present at

19:14 that point for the case and

19:16 cases the board.

19:18 Thank you.

19:19 Good morning Mr. Samberg.

19:20 Madam chairman of the board.

19:21 There is an attorney

19:23 representing the applicant

19:26 property owner U of and B 125

19:28 Newbury LLC and their proposed

19:31 tenant if there's a doing

19:33 business as Joe and the Jews.

19:37 Um these two matters are to um

19:40 a remove a proviso similar to

19:42 the previous case you heard uh

19:44 to allow for a continued use at

19:47 the site of a restaurant 36 a

19:50 37 with a small outdoor cafe.

19:53 Uh, and to remove a proviso

19:56 from the previous approved

19:57 takeout restaurant at this site

20:00 known as Jonquil Cafe.

20:03 Uh, so the site uh, is uh has

20:05 been a use item 3637 for some

20:09 time.

20:09 This is a replacement tenant,

20:11 if you will, um, coming in to

20:14 take over the site, reopen the

20:15 business and hopefully continue

20:18 this lively section

20:20 of Blueberry Street.

20:20 Um, in a fashion that's been

20:22 used for for many years.

20:24 Uh, there are no other changes

20:27 .

20:27 Um and requested.

20:29 Uh, this has been reviewed by

20:31 the Neighborhood Association

20:33 of the back Bay who did not

20:35 oppose uh and as a result

20:37 anyone else did not require us

20:39 to do an abutters meeting.

20:40 Um, were unaware of any, um,

20:43 issues with the application and

20:45 we certainly will be happy to

20:47 take any other questions, I

20:48 hope.

20:48 Mr., uh, Corcoran Devon

20:50 Corcoran is with us.

20:52 I don't know whether he was

20:53 elevated, but, uh, again, we're

20:55 happy to take your questions.

20:56 Thank you.

20:58 Any questions from the board?

21:02 Hearing none, ma'am.

21:03 Public testimony.

21:04 Madam chair and board members

21:05 Ziggy Johnson with the Office

21:07 of Neighborhood Services.

21:08 This applicant completed the

21:09 community process.

21:10 They have met with the

21:11 neighborhood association of the

21:12 back Bay and secured their non

21:14 opposition.

21:15 Our office is unaware of any

21:16 community concerns at this time

21:18 .

21:18 With that background no one

21:19 that's the first that's up to

21:21 the board.

21:21 Thank you.

21:23 Matthew.

21:24 Next we have Lily cinema.

21:26 Good morning again here on

21:28 behalf of from for direction

21:29 and record of support for both

21:33 of these cases.

21:34 Thank you.

21:34 Okay.

21:34 I know we don't have additional

21:36 funds.

21:37 You I mean I have a motion.

21:40 Motion to approve.

21:42 We have a second.

21:44 Okay.

21:46 Mister Stonebridge.

21:48 Yeah.

21:50 Miss Turner.

21:51 Yes.

21:53 Is better.

21:54 Barraza.

21:55 Yes.

21:56 Miss.

21:57 We well?

21:58 Yes.

21:59 Mister Lanham.

22:00 Yes.

22:02 Mr. Collins.

22:04 Yes.

22:05 Chair votes.

22:05 Yes.

22:05 The motion carries.

22:06 Good luck.

22:07 Thank you.

22:11 Next we have a VOA wanted 5063

22:17 with the address of Derby the

22:19 night before Revere Street is

22:22 the applicant has no a problem

22:25 what they want?

22:28 Yes.

22:28 Good morning, Madam Chair.

22:30 Members of the board.

22:31 My name is Kevin Butler from

22:33 McDermott quoting Miller

22:34 Hanley, one of the attorneys

22:36 for this project.

22:37 I understand the first slide

22:38 for now.

22:42 Um also with me from the

22:43 project team is Tom Kalis, the

22:45 principal of 90 Revere Street

22:46 LLC and TCR development along

22:49 with architect Guy Grassi.

22:51 Next slide please.

22:53 Uh, so 9294 Revere Street is

22:56 located at the intersection

22:57 of Revere and Myrtle Streets

22:58 and is a pre code building and

23:00 as such is legally preexisting

23:02 non-conforming with regard to

23:04 certain dimensional regulations

23:05 of the zoning code.

23:06 Uh which is not particularly

23:08 unusual for buildings in this

23:09 area.

23:09 Uh, the project seeks to reduce

23:12 unit density from a poorly

23:13 managed residential uh, rental

23:15 units to five family size well

23:18 managed homeownership condos

23:19 while adding open space and

23:21 restoring its historic

23:22 exterior.

23:24 Uh, you can flip through the

23:25 next couple of slides slowly

23:27 just to show the exterior.

23:31 And then next slide.

23:38 And here is just, uh, to orient

23:40 you.

23:40 Um, Revere and Myrtle.

23:42 And then next slide please.

23:44 Uh, so we are seeking, uh,

23:46 relief from two dimensional

23:48 regulations.

23:49 Uh, floor area ratio and rear

23:51 yard setback.

23:53 Uh, the zoning code requires

23:54 buildings in this district to

23:55 have an FA of 2.0.

23:57 The building is legally, uh,

23:59 preexisting nonconforming with

24:01 an existing for a 4.4.

24:04 Uh, as part of this project we

24:05 are better to use lighting

24:06 utilizing mechanical space in

24:08 the distressed and constrained

24:11 977 square foot garden level

24:12 unit to accommodate an

24:13 additional bathroom den and

24:15 study, making it more of a

24:17 family sized unit at 1580 eight

24:19 square feet.

24:20 Uh all within the existing

24:21 building envelope.

24:22 Uh, we're also replacing an

24:24 existing light well with an

24:25 elevator.

24:26 Uh, which altogether results in

24:28 a proposed for a 4.78.

24:31 Um, additionally, the building

24:33 is legally preexisting

24:34 nonconforming with respect to

24:35 the rear yard requirement and

24:37 is constructed a lot line to

24:39 lot line, uh, with no existing

24:40 rear yard.

24:41 Uh, we are proposing a roof

24:43 deck to provide additional open

24:45 space, uh, which will be

24:46 exclusive to the top floor

24:47 unit.

24:47 Uh, the roof deck is not a

24:49 zoning violation in a

24:51 of itself.

24:51 Uh and does not physically

24:53 protruding to the to the rear

24:54 yard.

24:55 Uh but because the existing

24:56 building itself extends to the

24:58 rear very lot line.

24:59 Uh, the roof deck structure

25:01 technically triggers the rear

25:02 yard setback requirement.

25:03 Um, I also just want to note

25:05 that the roof deck has been

25:06 approved by the Beacon Hill

25:07 Architectural Commission as it

25:09 is not visible from any public

25:11 way.

25:12 Um, also we attended an

25:14 Abutters meeting and met with

25:15 the Beacon Hill Civic

25:17 Association who are in non

25:18 opposition to the project.

25:20 Um and with that I will hand it

25:22 over to architect Greg Rossi to

25:24 walk through the plans in the

25:25 remainder of the slides.

25:27 He is already.

25:29 Yes.

25:30 Hello?

25:30 Yes.

25:32 Um.

25:33 Um I can tell you you can

25:35 scroll through.

25:35 These are the existing

25:36 condition plans.

25:38 Uh, so this sheet and the next

25:40 sheet um, on the floor plan you

25:42 can see a square like an X in

25:44 the middle of the plan vessel

25:45 like.

25:46 Well, that exists inside the

25:48 building.

25:48 Uh, that's one of the reasons

25:50 that we're increasing the gross

25:52 more area is we're infilling

25:54 that like well, we're actually

25:56 removing it and installing an

25:57 elevator which gives us

25:58 handicap access to all of these

26:00 elements.

26:01 Um, and uh, obviously a

26:04 positive future for the

26:05 building.

26:06 Um, the other part that's

26:08 notable here is the um on the

26:10 left hand plan which is the the

26:13 existing basement floor plan.

26:14 You'll see that um, more than

26:17 about half of that basement is

26:18 currently not usable

26:20 nonfunctional and some some

26:22 unfinished, uh, basement space.

26:24 Some of which is mechanical and

26:25 some of which is storage.

26:27 Um, our proposed plan um,

26:30 anticipates increasing the

26:31 amount of finished space in the

26:33 basement.

26:33 We want we're not maxing it

26:35 out.

26:36 Um, we're still creating some

26:37 actual unit storage for each

26:39 unit, but we're expanding

26:40 slightly the, um the current

26:42 basement unit which is um at

26:44 the top of that plan and that

26:47 sort of wraps around the back

26:48 which you'll see that number

26:49 one way.

26:51 Um, the plan to the right shows

26:53 the first floor and shows the

26:54 two entrances and one of them

26:55 will be is actually now going

26:57 to be brought into an

26:58 accessible entrance at break

27:00 and the other one will be an

27:01 entrance directly into um the

27:03 first point unit.

27:04 Uh, if you scroll to the next

27:06 plan.

27:08 And then these again there are

27:10 two units on a floor.

27:12 Uh, typically in this building

27:14 and just the existing condition

27:16 will be one unit on a floor.

27:17 So we're actually deducing the

27:19 density.

27:20 Um, um, see the two stairwells

27:22 and again you see the light

27:24 well on the existing play role

27:25 in the center which is being

27:27 built.

27:28 Uh, the sculpture and then the

27:31 top floor plan the fourth floor

27:32 .

27:33 Uh and the existing roof

27:35 there's there is a flat roof up

27:37 there.

27:38 There are two stair head houses

27:39 that go up there.

27:41 Um, we're utilizing one of them

27:43 ,uh, as access to the new roof

27:45 deck.

27:45 Um, the the light well, in the

27:47 middle you can see that you can

27:49 see there is will be infill and

27:51 again the elevator was placed

27:53 approximately there.

27:53 And then the other head house

27:57 will just function as a as a

27:58 powder room uh on the roof.

28:00 Uh that we just call for the

28:01 next one and then this is the

28:04 existing building section so it

28:06 does show the flat roof and the

28:08 little elevator.

28:08 The stair head housing comes

28:10 off and then the the sort

28:12 of mostly below grade basement.

28:14 Uh, and again the cross section

28:16 is going to have some place.

28:18 These are the proposed floor

28:19 plans.

28:20 Um they're oriented differently

28:22 .

28:22 Sorry for that.

28:23 Um so that's Revere Street the

28:25 bottom of the drawing on top

28:27 of what was in the other plan.

28:29 But you'll see the elevator

28:30 sort of dead center and

28:32 approximately the location

28:33 of that infill like well, the

28:36 on the left hand plan that's

28:37 the ground floor plan.

28:38 You see the um the left hand

28:40 side is mostly, uh, storage and

28:43 mechanical space.

28:44 The top the top portion of that

28:47 left side is the expanded area

28:50 .

28:50 So that's the area that we're

28:51 actually increasing far into by

28:54 finishing it off.

28:55 Uh, some of that's already

28:57 finished but we're expanding

28:58 out some of that to our kitchen

29:01 and um and uh, separate whole

29:03 study.

29:04 The first floor is all one unit

29:06 that wraps around the, uh the

29:08 entrance and the elevator.

29:09 Uh, just go to the next plan.

29:12 And then these are just the

29:13 typical floor plans.

29:14 They're essentially 1 or 1 unit

29:17 per floor.

29:18 Again that wraps around the

29:19 elevator opens directly into

29:20 the unit and it has the uh the

29:23 egress there on the setup.

29:25 Uh the door that actually and

29:28 then this is the top floor plan

29:30 on the left.

29:31 Uh and then the roof deck.

29:32 Uh you'll see the roof deck is

29:34 set in from all edges.

29:35 Uh, except for the western edge

29:38 which is up against another

29:39 building uh, or adjacent on

29:42 other building.

29:43 Uh, because that deck is inset,

29:45 you don't see it from any

29:47 of the streets.

29:48 Uh, around it from uh from the

29:50 air or uh uh the side street.

29:54 Um the vertical uh and then the

29:57 stair head house remains and

29:59 has a skylights has been added

30:01 and the air conditioning

30:03 equipment is is on the

30:06 backside.

30:06 Uh, again not visible on top

30:08 of what I saw in the next

30:09 slide.

30:10 This is the building cross

30:11 section just shows the

30:13 development of the roof the

30:14 elevator shaft you know, in the

30:16 center.

30:17 Uh, essentially no additions to

30:19 the building houses on the just

30:21 the roof deck.

30:23 Uh, next one completed and then

30:25 this is the front of the

30:26 building.

30:26 It's being cut out.

30:28 Comprehensive restoration is

30:29 ongoing actually.

30:30 Um, it'll be much cleaned up.

30:32 Uh, restored and brought back

30:34 to life.

30:35 Uh, new windows and, uh,

30:37 restoration of a lot of the

30:39 exterior details, lintels and

30:41 sills and all that stuff.

30:43 We gained approval from the

30:44 Architectural Commission for

30:45 all of the work to the

30:46 exterior.

30:47 Um, essentially because of had

30:49 um uh we didn't require a

30:52 variance to do that typically

30:54 the commercial period and have

30:55 a variance on the standard but

30:58 because it was only the

30:59 basement then the work that

31:00 they were willing to carry.

31:01 Um and that's really it.

31:04 Thank you.

31:07 Are there questions from the

31:08 board?

31:11 Hearing none of that public

31:12 testimony, madam Chair and

31:14 board member Ziggy Johnson with

31:15 the Office of Neighborhood

31:16 Services, the petitioner

31:17 completed the community process

31:19 .

31:19 Our office hosted an Abutters

31:20 meeting on August 4th at which

31:22 there were questions and

31:23 discussion primarily regarding

31:25 the head House.

31:25 One of other expressed

31:27 opposition believing that

31:28 conditions were not unique to

31:29 the property versus the

31:30 district generally and should

31:32 not be granted.

31:33 The Beacon Hill Civic

31:34 Association is a non opposition

31:36 to this proposal.

31:36 With that background on Mister

31:38 for assessment to the board.

31:39 Thank you.

31:42 Mayor and members.

31:44 Oh sorry chair members of the

31:45 board Lily again here on behalf

31:47 of comes to Durkan.

31:48 Um with support from the Beacon

31:50 Hill Architectural Commission

31:51 and known opposition from the

31:52 Beacon Hill Civic Association.

31:53 The council would like to go on

31:55 record in non opposition as

31:56 well.

31:56 Thank you.

31:58 You Madam chair there are no

32:00 additional comments.

32:02 For that.

32:03 I have a motion.

32:05 Madam chair I like to put for a

32:07 motion of approval with the

32:09 proviso that the project um uh

32:12 undergo their review which I

32:14 believe it already has.

32:15 Um that the project be reviewed

32:17 by the Beacon Hill Architecture

32:19 Commission on our exterior

32:20 work.

32:21 Now the second back in this

32:25 assemblage, the, uh, Mr.

32:28 Turner.

32:29 Yes.

32:31 This better browser.

32:35 I think you said yes.

32:36 I just didn't hear it.

32:38 Um yes, I think yes.

32:40 Let's me well, yes Mr. Langham.

32:43 Yes.

32:46 Mr. Collins yes.

32:47 Chair votes yes.

32:48 The motion carries.

32:49 Good luck.

32:50 Thank you.

32:55 Next we have case VOA 1714931.

33:02 The address of the 31,000,001

33:04 three.

33:05 If the applicant and do they

33:07 represent a further potential

33:10 by application for.

33:14 Good morning, Madam Chair and

33:15 members of the board.

33:16 This is Andrea Liebowitz from

33:18 31 Beaumont Street.

33:19 Um, we are asking for approval

33:21 for a seven by 13 wood in

33:23 purple up in the backyard with

33:24 an open slatted roof.

33:25 Um, we're hoping that it will

33:27 be better for some neighbors as

33:28 well by providing more privacy

33:29 and a place for plants to grow.

33:31 Um, the reason for the request

33:33 is that the pergola is within

33:34 four feet of the lot line.

33:36 Um, we have spoken to our

33:38 immediate neighbors who have no

33:39 concerns about the pergola.

33:41 We also completed in the

33:42 butler's meeting with no

33:43 objections or concerns about it

33:45 and we presented at the

33:46 Highland Park Neighborhood

33:47 Coalition on the proposal.

33:48 We found nothing to support the

33:49 variance.

33:50 Um we are happy to answer any

33:53 questions about the project.

33:55 Thank you.

33:56 Are there questions from the

33:57 board?

34:00 Hearing none we have for the

34:01 testimony.

34:05 Madam chair and members of the

34:06 board.

34:06 For the record, that was Jeremy

34:07 Bambury and the Roxbury

34:09 Community engagement specialist

34:10 for the Office of Neighborhood

34:11 Services.

34:11 The applicant has completed the

34:13 community process which

34:14 consisted of an part is meeting

34:15 facilitated on August call but

34:16 there were bodies present.

34:18 No questions or concerns were

34:19 raised.

34:19 Next the proponent was

34:20 encouraged to engage with the

34:22 Highland Park Neighborhood

34:22 Association which completed the

34:24 community process.

34:25 Thank you for your time and the

34:26 Mayor's Office of Neighborhood

34:27 Services.

34:27 I'd like to defer to the board

34:29 position.

34:29 Thank you.

34:30 Back from chairman rotational

34:32 comments.

34:34 That may I have a motion?

34:37 Motion to approve.

34:39 Second.

34:40 Thank you, Mr. Semaj.

34:43 Yeah.

34:45 Miss Turner.

34:46 Yes.

34:46 This was better.

34:48 Rosa.

34:48 Yes.

34:51 As we will.

34:51 Yes.

34:53 Mister Lanham.

34:55 Yes.

34:56 Mr. Collins.

34:57 Yes.

34:58 Chair votes.

35:00 Yes.

35:00 The motion carries.

35:01 Good luck.

35:01 Thank you very much.

35:04 Next we have Kate VOA 1846937

35:11 with the address of five long.

35:14 Is is the applicant and the

35:17 representative from will

35:18 typically explain to the board.

35:21 Madam chair members of the

35:22 board my name is to bring back

35:24 on behalf of the owners for

35:26 five Long street.

35:27 Um this opportunity we are here

35:29 to present an extension

35:31 of living space for a single

35:32 family dwelling where if only

35:34 one violation was brought up

35:36 which is um under article 59,

35:39 section eight of the zoning uh

35:41 ,the Boston zoning code for

35:44 excessive floor area ratio.

35:46 Um, the exist in Florida which

35:49 is this single family home is

35:51 .59 while their requirements

35:53 and in this area is uh 1.0 and

35:58 this proposal.

35:59 Um, the proposed for will be

36:02 1.1 so we're off by 00.1.

36:06 Um no use changes are proposed

36:08 and the property will continue

36:09 to function as a single family

36:11 .

36:11 Uh, there's only been this

36:13 request is limited to the

36:15 additional floor area needed to

36:18 accommodate the family.

36:19 Um, this families literally.

36:21 Um, the proposed is, uh,

36:25 located at the rear of the

36:27 house and has been

36:30 intentionally designed to

36:31 minimize its impact on the

36:33 neighborhood.

36:33 The project does not alter the

36:36 primary front facade and, uh,

36:39 to preserve the existing

36:40 appearance of the home from the

36:43 street and maintaining the

36:44 character of the established

36:45 streetscape.

36:47 Um the design is intended to be

36:49 compatible with the surrounding

36:51 residential context.

36:52 The scale, massing and

36:54 architectural details uh have

36:56 been developed to complement

36:58 the existing structure while

37:00 providing the additional space

37:02 needed for this extended

37:03 family.

37:04 The additions create uh

37:06 expanded living areas and

37:08 additional bedrooms that will

37:09 allow this uh family to remain

37:12 together in a safe, comfortable

37:13 and functional home.

37:15 Uh, we went through the

37:16 neighborhood process and

37:18 received full support of the uh

37:20 Community Alliance of Mission

37:21 Hill and we understand this

37:24 proposal goes in Lansing with

37:26 the neighborhood.

37:27 Um, that's all we have to

37:29 present and I welcome any

37:30 questions.

37:31 Thank you.

37:33 Any questions from the board?

37:36 Hearing none, ma'am, for the

37:38 testimony.

37:39 Madam chair and board members

37:40 Ziggy Johnson with the Office

37:42 of Neighborhood Services.

37:42 This petitioner has been the

37:44 community process our office

37:45 located and abutters meeting on

37:47 June 8th at which no concerns

37:48 were raised for us is aware

37:50 of a letter of support signed

37:51 by three Abutters sent to the

37:53 board.

37:53 The applicant has met with the

37:54 community allies of Mission

37:55 Hill which expressed no concern

37:57 that we have forwarded a letter

37:58 of support to the board.

37:59 With that background, our

38:01 office deferred judgment to the

38:02 board.

38:02 Thank you.

38:04 Thank you, Madam Chair.

38:07 We don't have additional

38:07 comments.

38:08 Does that mean I have a motion

38:12 put forward a motion

38:14 of approval?

38:15 May I have a second?

38:17 Second.

38:18 Mister Stonebridge.

38:20 Yes.

38:22 Miss Turner.

38:23 Yes.

38:25 Is that a browser?

38:26 Yes.

38:27 Yes we will.

38:29 Yes, Miss Bynum?

38:32 Yes.

38:34 Bonds.

38:34 Yes.

38:36 Chair Rhodes.

38:37 Yes.

38:37 The motion carries.

38:39 Yes.

38:43 Next we have Kate VOA 18.5407

38:50 with the adjustment to 69 Beach

38:53 Club Street.

38:55 Um, this is an article 80 case.

39:00 If the applicant can go

39:01 representative will present

39:02 what they're looking for.

39:05 Good morning, Mr. Stonebridge.

39:07 Uh, members of the board.

39:08 Madam chair, attorney Cho

39:09 Hanley, McDermott, Quilty,

39:10 Miller and Hanley on behalf

39:12 of uh, Cornerstone Real Estate

39:14 .

39:14 Uh, the proponent owner uh,

39:17 developer Adam Sava and his

39:19 partner Jennifer Sandlin who

39:21 are on with us as well as, uh,

39:23 Evan Stillman who is from KDE

39:26 architects.

39:27 Just take you quickly through

39:28 this presentation.

39:29 The next slide please.

39:31 Um, bring you to the site.

39:32 Uh, you can see it in the

39:34 middle of the red hash.

39:35 This is part of a, uh, property

39:38 assemblage which fronts, uh, on

39:41 Dorchester Avenue.

39:41 Uh, in the red you will see the

39:44 the site itself which is in

39:46 back plan left, uh, of Adam and

39:49 Jennifer's new, uh, mixed use

39:52 residential uh development

39:54 along dot ab and this proposal

39:56 is intended to be synergistic

39:58 and uh, connected to that which

40:00 will explain.

40:02 Uh in detail.

40:03 Next slide please.

40:04 Uh, one of the great virtues

40:06 of this site or an expanding

40:07 part of the neighborhood and

40:09 the, uh, commercial district

40:10 along Dorchester Avenue.

40:12 Uh, that also includes uh the

40:15 residential fabric at the rear

40:17 where in within a walk shed a

40:19 very close walk, uh, to the

40:22 MBTA's rapid rail Red line

40:24 station at JFK UMass and in an

40:28 area that has seeing an

40:30 expansion of neighborhood

40:31 serving uses along Dorchester

40:33 Avenue including uh at the site

40:36 uh directly in front of this

40:37 which this project will be

40:39 connected to.

40:39 Next slide please.

40:42 So just some existing

40:43 conditions.

40:44 Uh plan upper left you'll see

40:46 uh, that is the existing uh,

40:49 site uh, with two commercial

40:51 structures on it.

40:52 Uh, was once the home of um a

40:56 little house which is a great

40:57 social services organization.

41:00 Uh, the structures themselves

41:03 are, uh, distressed and in need

41:05 of repair.

41:06 They are commercially zoned.

41:07 They are not residential.

41:09 Uh, little house.

41:10 Um, vacated in 2020.

41:13 And, uh, Adam has continued to

41:16 ,uh, provide it available to

41:18 certain nonprofits.

41:19 Uh, but it is again in a state

41:23 of disrepair and we think that,

41:24 uh, this proposal will better

41:27 integrate if you plan upper

41:29 left into the mixed use five

41:32 story building which fronts

41:33 along Dorchester Avenue that

41:35 you'll see, uh, to the left.

41:37 Next slide please.

41:39 Just to bring you around the

41:40 neighborhood, uh, support the

41:43 height the far requested here.

41:45 Upper left is the existing

41:47 building that's owned by Adam

41:48 and Jen.

41:50 959 951 to 959 Dorchester

41:53 Avenue and um it includes

41:57 resident units on the upper

41:59 level Dorchester Market which

42:02 was once part of the

42:03 neighborhood.

42:04 A new space for the Dorchester

42:05 Market at that uh, corner round

42:08 intersection.

42:08 That's the intersection of East

42:11 Cottage and Dorchester Ave and

42:13 there is vacant restaurant

42:14 space uh, to the left along

42:17 Dorchester Avenue which is

42:18 being integrated into this

42:19 proposal.

42:20 Uh, you'll see AT&T lofts

42:21 across the street at four

42:23 stories.

42:23 It's five uh eight stories and

42:27 three on the lower right.

42:29 Next slide please.

42:31 This is the site plan.

42:33 It's about 12,530ft2 uh,

42:37 of land.

42:38 Again part of a property

42:40 assemblage that fronts onto

42:42 Dorchester Avenue in this new

42:43 building is proposed to be

42:45 connected and integrated with

42:47 the Dorchester Avenue building

42:49 .

42:50 Uh, you will see East cottage,

42:51 uh, plan left.

42:53 I think what's quickly

42:54 important here is you'll see

42:55 the geometry in the shape

42:56 of this site narrows as you go

42:59 back and that supports the

43:00 relief granted and the typology

43:02 of the building and the use.

43:04 Uh, there is also a changing

43:06 grade that goes up uh, about 6

43:09 to 8ft as we go back.

43:10 Next slide.

43:12 Uh project overview.

43:14 Uh, again I talked about the

43:15 site.

43:16 Um, the floor area for the new

43:17 building is approximately uh,

43:21 almost 41,000ft2 for an F are

43:25 3.3.

43:25 Uh, it would include 42.

43:28 Uh, this we call this the Inn

43:30 at little House.

43:32 So 42 rooms of extended stay.

43:35 Uh, many of which have

43:37 kitchenettes.

43:37 In the appendix you have floor

43:40 plans.

43:40 Uh, this is intended to be a

43:43 boutique.

43:43 It's a very small scale, uh, in

43:47 hospitality that is synergistic

43:48 to residential and will comport

43:50 with the 38 units, uh, of amfAR

43:53 which exists in the building

43:55 that it's being connected to

43:57 support the Dorchester market.

43:58 Uh, and uh, what we heard and

44:02 we studied through the

44:03 neighborhood is also alleviate

44:05 some of the burdens that are

44:07 created by Airbnb and other

44:08 short term rentals in less

44:11 appropriate multifamily

44:12 conditions throughout the

44:13 neighborhood.

44:14 Uh, we are also uh, including

44:17 in this project a um expansion

44:21 of the existing restaurant

44:22 space which is in 1951 that

44:25 will allow us to attract a

44:26 neighborhood operator.

44:28 It has been vacant since uh

44:30 that project was approved in

44:32 2018 and this will allow us to

44:34 accommodate a much needed

44:36 restaurant in the way that it

44:37 was approved and, uh, conceived

44:39 12 bike spaces as well as uh in

44:42 addressing uh, the parking for

44:44 the hotel component or the end

44:46 component.

44:48 Um two vehicle shared uh

44:50 vehicle, uh shared vehicles.

44:53 Uh courtesy vehicles which will

44:54 be dedicated to guests.

44:56 Uh the end and we have worked

44:58 hard on loading and vehicle

45:01 share drop offs and the like

45:03 which I'll show you uh, in a

45:04 minute.

45:05 Um, next slide shows you the

45:07 zoning we, uh, we require, um,

45:12 uh, variance for the hotel use

45:14 ,which was extensively scoped

45:16 and process through uh, almost

45:18 a year of the article 80

45:21 process included two public

45:23 meetings, multiple meetings

45:24 with the Civic association,

45:27 extensive outreach with direct

45:29 abutters and city agency

45:31 scoping uh which supports this

45:34 use again small and scale

45:36 boutique and synergistic to the

45:39 existing mixed use and

45:41 supportive uh of the business

45:44 district and neighborhood needs

45:46 for extended stay inappropriate

45:49 uh environment.

45:50 Also uh the extension of the

45:52 restaurant space requires uh a

45:56 variance.

45:56 It is already in place again we

45:58 are connecting this new

45:59 building to the Dorchester

46:00 Avenue building to expand and

46:02 enhance, uh, that restaurant

46:04 space and also provide, uh,

46:07 restaurant space on the upper

46:09 level on the roof deck which is

46:11 uh, buffered and secured and uh

46:14 ,shrouded away from uh the

46:17 residential neighborhood for is

46:20 3.31.3 is allowed height is 69

46:22 three allowed is 40 and we'll

46:25 show you how we work with a

46:26 grade that steps up in the back

46:28 to minimize and mitigate the

46:30 height.

46:31 Um side yard we are compliant

46:33 on the right.

46:34 Uh, and we're at the lot line

46:37 uh, on the left which also

46:39 comports with the existing

46:41 conditions and those challenges

46:42 of the constrained geography

46:44 and topography of the lot that

46:46 I showed you.

46:47 Parking is an issue that we did

46:49 discuss extensively as part

46:51 of the article in process 0.7

46:54 is required for the in use

46:56 again 40 to extended stay uh

46:59 rooms as well as loading that

47:02 is required.

47:03 We do have a loading

47:04 accommodation that we work very

47:05 hard uh through DTD and uh

47:08 instructive through that

47:09 extensive article process.

47:12 Um we also think that adding

47:14 the courtesy vehicles for the

47:16 hotels and being within such

47:18 close proximity of the MBTA uh,

47:21 mitigates parking.

47:23 We also know that parking

47:25 require uh hotel in uses

47:28 require far less parking and in

47:30 this instance uh what's really

47:32 important since we don't have

47:34 ballroom space we don't have

47:35 meeting space, we don't have

47:37 carport space.

47:38 So uh it is not programed and

47:41 it's up to a smaller scale that

47:43 is not likely to generate uh,

47:45 much need if any, uh, for

47:47 parking.

47:48 And so, uh, the next slide

47:51 shows you which I think is

47:52 important I talked about the

47:54 the inn at little House which

47:55 is these two commercial

47:56 structures that are distressed

47:58 are being removed.

47:59 Uh, we went through the process

48:01 already.

48:02 Madam chair, I know you've had

48:03 this discussion on other

48:04 projects.

48:04 Uh, as for demolition and

48:06 demolition has already been

48:08 approved by the city.

48:09 These structures are not

48:11 historically significant.

48:12 Um, from an architectural

48:14 standpoint.

48:15 But we are mindful that little

48:17 House is a cherished

48:18 organization in the history

48:19 of the neighborhood.

48:20 And so we will we will be

48:23 commemorating that and

48:24 integrating that into the uh,

48:26 the in with respect to um uh

48:31 how it will be programed and

48:33 and how we look at wall art and

48:35 the like and um, celebrating

48:37 that history of such a great

48:39 organization that contributed

48:40 to the community.

48:41 Next slide shows you the site

48:44 plan.

48:45 Um, one of the huge benefits

48:47 of this is we are taking a

48:48 public realm that is, uh,

48:51 inaccessible with narrow

48:52 sidewalks.

48:53 Uh, and as part of this

48:55 integration with Dorchester

48:56 Avenue for the property

48:58 assemblage connecting this

48:59 building, uh, to a new mixed

49:02 use building at the front and

49:04 then making a series of been

49:06 major improvements that went

49:07 through the BPR process.

49:09 New street trees, widened

49:11 sidewalks.

49:11 If you look at this it just

49:13 call your attention real

49:14 quickly.

49:15 Uh plan right on the bottom is

49:17 East Cottage Street that is the

49:19 main entrance for the in

49:21 component.

49:22 Uh, and you will see how robust

49:24 that public realm is but also

49:26 that uh, we have setback the

49:28 lobby and the building and we

49:30 also have included a vehicle,

49:33 uh, drop space that we work

49:34 through, uh, for Uber and Lyft.

49:38 Uh, about four spaces along

49:40 that side.

49:41 Uh, a little further to the

49:42 right you'll see a driveway, uh

49:44 ,that separates the uh uh,

49:47 break in the connection between

49:49 this new building, uh, and the

49:51 new building on tot ab and

49:53 allows us to get loading and

49:56 receiving but also allows us to

49:57 have, uh, courtesy vehicles,

49:59 shares or guests of the inn.

50:02 Next slide is the mobility site

50:04 and public realm which kind

50:06 of shows this in a little more

50:07 detail.

50:08 I think it might be helpful if

50:09 you look plan right to the uh,

50:12 salmon color that is the

50:13 proposed recording and stop

50:15 recording in progress and uh

50:18 plan left that is Dorchester

50:20 Avenue.

50:20 Again the existing restaurant

50:22 space you'll see in blue you'll

50:25 see the existing dock market um

50:28 in uh yellow and some of the

50:30 utility space and again that

50:32 drive aisle in the middle and

50:34 how this whole works and comes

50:35 together really as a second

50:37 phase of a completed

50:38 development to revitalize the

50:40 site and support, uh, its

50:42 vibrancy along Dorchester

50:44 Avenue at this intersection.

50:46 Um, next slides just show you

50:48 the elevation of how this

50:49 works.

50:50 Uh, the main in plan left you

50:52 can see that's the entry and I

50:54 showed you some of this and

50:56 then how straight to the right

50:57 the next slide shows you uh,

50:59 the rear uh and you can see how

51:02 the change in grade uh affects

51:04 this and provides opportunities

51:06 for us to mitigate scale and

51:08 height.

51:09 Next slide is a cross section

51:11 that shows exactly how that

51:12 works.

51:13 So uh plan bottom uh if you

51:16 look to the left that is House

51:18 Street at the rear you can see

51:20 the existing residences.

51:21 You can see that they're about

51:22 eight feet above and how we

51:24 have stepped how we sort

51:26 of step into the ground in the

51:28 grade and a way so as to

51:30 mitigate those impacts.

51:31 We've also worked hard to site

51:33 the cafe on the roof deck in a

51:36 way that would uh, not be

51:38 visible but also would uh,

51:41 alleviate impacts to the

51:42 residential neighborhood.

51:44 The next slide show you very

51:46 quickly.

51:46 Uh, the renderings were very

51:48 proud about, uh, what the

51:49 result of this design and

51:51 integration of the public realm

51:53 has been through the BPA

51:55 process.

51:55 Upper left is the main entrance

51:57 to the in component, uh, and

52:00 and you can see it a little

52:01 closer to the right a very

52:04 welcoming, um and appropriate,

52:07 uh, scale size look and feel uh

52:10 ,to integrate into uh, $951.

52:14 Finally the on these renderings

52:16 the next slide shows you uh the

52:19 main rendering of the and

52:21 component.

52:21 If you go to the next slide I

52:23 just want to conclude with

52:24 this.

52:24 Um, this has been an extensive

52:27 uh, process as part of the

52:29 article 80 process, I want to

52:30 thank the members of the

52:32 community, uh, the neighborhood

52:33 and the EPA.

52:35 We went through multiple public

52:38 meetings, community meetings

52:39 and extended comment period.

52:41 We received a scoping detailed

52:43 scoping from the BPA which we

52:45 responded to much of which uh,

52:49 supports this uh, boutique in

52:52 use its transportation, its

52:54 parking, uh and the like we

52:57 received this board received 72

52:59 letters and emails 63 in

53:02 support not only nine oppose

53:03 that's about over 85%.

53:06 And you'll see in this map what

53:08 we're uh, most pleased about

53:10 and is certainly applicable to

53:12 this board is the amount

53:14 of direct of utter support and

53:16 engagement and you will see

53:18 that here in this heat map, uh,

53:20 across the street and impact

53:23 extensive uh, support and

53:26 engagement with the folks that

53:28 are we would argue are most

53:30 closely uh, related and

53:32 effected to this project.

53:34 So Madam Chair, I hope I was

53:35 pithy uh, in going through this

53:37 process there's a lot to

53:39 cover but we are very excited

53:41 to bring this, uh, community

53:42 based development as a much

53:44 needed contribution to the

53:47 Dorchester neighborhood.

53:47 Thank you.

53:50 Just a couple of questions for

53:51 me.

53:51 Um, you mentioned the existing

53:55 and existing restaurant space

53:57 and uh, in the other building

53:59 and then this restaurant space.

54:01 So are the two buildings joined

54:03 like our people.

54:05 Okay.

54:06 Yeah.

54:06 So you'll see there's a break

54:08 where we accommodate a drive

54:09 aisle, uh, to get the vehicle

54:12 share and loading.

54:13 I think if you go to the

54:16 transportation slide.

54:16 There you go.

54:17 Yep.

54:18 So, Madam Chair, you can see

54:19 the, uh, directional uh, the

54:22 hash and red there with the

54:24 arrow that takes you all to the

54:27 plan left to the driveway is

54:29 existing and that's the five

54:31 story 38 unit uh, building

54:33 which revitalized this site.

54:35 Thought out and you see the

54:37 market below.

54:39 The existing restaurant space

54:40 is vacant.

54:41 Um, Adam had worked well in

54:44 that process.

54:45 We promised the neighbors that

54:46 we would be looking for a non

54:47 chain restaurant.

54:49 A neighborhood serving

54:50 restaurant.

54:51 Uh, we went through this before

54:53 the pandemic when we were

54:54 approved and it was built

54:56 during the pandemic and and

54:58 delivered and what we learned

55:00 from the restaurant community

55:01 was that it just wasn't big

55:03 enough and didn't have enough

55:04 area, uh, for them.

55:05 And so this allows us as you

55:07 can see, uh, to capture and

55:10 integrate some new space for

55:11 the back of the house.

55:12 Right.

55:13 It was all contained before

55:14 Madam Chair just in that uh,

55:17 teal blue area on the top to

55:20 the left at the break and now

55:22 you can see to the right how

55:24 we're getting much needed uh,

55:26 kitchen and back of the house

55:27 and then as we go up there's a

55:29 small cafe on the top which

55:31 will be for the restaurant

55:33 operation not for, uh, just

55:35 random guests and it will be

55:37 managed uh, and we I will note

55:39 for this use to that we're

55:41 going to need to go through a,

55:42 uh, regulatory licensing

55:45 process for this as well that

55:46 will control a lot of its

55:49 operations and management and

55:50 the like.

55:50 Does that answer your question?

55:52 Yes.

55:53 And can you talk a little bit

55:55 more about the height?

55:56 Um so this one yes project is

55:58 five stories with a step back

56:00 and what is this adjacent one.

56:02 So this is six stories uh with

56:05 with a setback I think if you

56:07 go to what's a really good uh,

56:11 illustration is page 13, um,

56:16 can show you how we step uh,

56:19 back in a way.

56:20 Right there you go.

56:21 Plan left.

56:22 Right.

56:23 So the allowed zoning is 40.

56:25 I should have said this.

56:26 Obviously we need a height

56:28 variance.

56:28 It's maximum height is a little

56:31 over 69ft but it's in a smaller

56:34 section.

56:35 So one of the things that we

56:36 did and if you read the DDA

56:38 board memo which is pretty

56:40 extensive uh we really worked a

56:44 lot on the massing and the

56:46 setbacks of this six storey um,

56:49 again to to set it back and to

56:51 minimize it but also put it

56:52 where it wants to be to have

56:54 the least amount of impact but

56:55 to comport with the five

56:57 stories and also comport with

56:59 the conditions around the

57:01 neighborhood.

57:01 So again stepping away from the

57:04 neighbors in the back that are

57:05 also above us by 6 to 8ft and

57:10 uh with a smaller massing uh

57:12 section on that six level.

57:14 And then if you look at the

57:15 front elevation, um, it'll show

57:19 you how that sort of comes

57:21 together.

57:22 Uh, I'll give you the the page

57:23 number but um, so that that is

57:26 the request it's not A16 story

57:29 building and one of the things

57:30 we heard from the neighbors but

57:31 that was that the height would

57:33 also help to sort of buffer uh,

57:35 some of the potential uh,

57:37 impacts and it was sited very

57:39 much intentionally in a way

57:41 that would be respectful

57:42 towards uh that part of the

57:44 site and there you can see it

57:47 and the next go up on the next

57:50 slide up next sorry next one

57:51 down there you go.

57:54 And you can see how that works

57:55 from the rear of the site.

57:59 Thank you.

58:00 Are there questions from the

58:02 board?

58:03 Yeah I would um I have a

58:05 question.

58:06 Um did you do uh shadow

58:08 studies?

58:09 Um, given the proximity of your

58:12 of the residential abutters at

58:14 the rear uh, being six stories,

58:18 um, you know, um in terms

58:21 of the duration, um, how many

58:24 hours is are there three

58:26 abutters at the rear in shadow

58:27 ?

58:28 Yeah.

58:28 Evan.

58:29 Adam I don't know if we did an

58:31 actual um maybe it will speak

58:33 to that shadow study.

58:34 I do know that and it's a

58:36 matter of public record that's

58:37 part of the new article eight

58:38 process isn't just that the

58:41 Bcda brings this forward.

58:42 They issued a pretty extensive

58:44 memo and a lot of this was

58:45 focused on where that height

58:47 would be.

58:47 And so we had the benefit of a

58:49 lot of uh, planning expertise,

58:51 architectural expertise.

58:52 But Adam, maybe you want to

58:54 speak to that.

58:55 Yeah, I we worked with, um, all

58:58 of the director Butters there.

58:59 We did not end up um, you want

59:01 a shadow study?

59:02 But as Joe said, work with the

59:03 planning on the massing as well

59:05 as work did more on the noise

59:07 side.

59:08 So the six story that you see

59:10 is designed in the rear there

59:12 to ball capture and control any

59:15 outdoor noise rather than like

59:17 a common roof deck up there.

59:19 Yeah.

59:19 And um Amber better for us.

59:22 So just a note to small project

59:24 for the less than 50,000

59:26 doesn't the regulatory

59:28 requirement for good reason

59:29 doesn't require a shadow study

59:31 but but siting of this and

59:33 setting it back was uh and this

59:36 is in the public record was a a

59:39 a a detailed scoping and review

59:42 and it changed from what we

59:44 filed with in January to what

59:47 we're here at the board today

59:50 is thank you.

59:54 Other questions from the board.

59:57 Here is the do we have the BPD

1:00:00 um plan Revere.

1:00:02 Hi.

1:00:03 Good morning.

1:00:04 My name is Lucia Pena.

1:00:05 How do you say it?

1:00:06 Um and we're going to sign

1:00:07 about today and did you guys

1:00:10 talk about shadow impacts

1:00:12 of the rear abutters being on?

1:00:15 So um, obviously I do not have

1:00:17 the models that we worked on

1:00:21 internally but this was

1:00:22 something that as Joe was

1:00:24 saying, you know, it was an

1:00:26 extensive review process.

1:00:27 It um was about six months

1:00:29 where we you know, discusses

1:00:31 internally among the review

1:00:32 team and even brought it up to

1:00:34 the, you know, highest levels

1:00:36 of our leadership with Kairos

1:00:38 um, our director of planning.

1:00:40 So our internal staff did do

1:00:43 some shallow studies and

1:00:45 models.

1:00:45 Okay.

1:00:47 Um okay.

1:00:48 Yeah.

1:00:49 Just confirming um do you have

1:00:50 any other questions for me?

1:00:52 No.

1:00:52 So I just want to make sure

1:00:54 that you guys did review

1:00:56 internally it's the shadow

1:00:57 impact on a of a six storey

1:00:59 building behind residential

1:01:00 property okay thank you.

1:01:02 No further questions.

1:01:03 Thank you.

1:01:05 Any other questions from the

1:01:06 board?

1:01:08 Hearing none.

1:01:08 Public testimony.

1:01:10 Yes, madam chair, members

1:01:11 of the board on renewing with

1:01:13 the Mayor's Office

1:01:14 of Neighborhood Services this

1:01:15 time the mayor's office defer

1:01:16 to the judgment this board so

1:01:18 back for the community process.

1:01:20 As you're well aware, this went

1:01:21 through a Boston planning led

1:01:22 community process involving two

1:01:23 public meetings.

1:01:24 I was ultimately board approved

1:01:26 uh, PPD board approved on July

1:01:28 16th of this year.

1:01:30 Uh, during the community

1:01:31 process there was a mix

1:01:33 of opinions expressed um some

1:01:35 concerns uh related to um

1:01:38 parking as well as the height

1:01:39 um in proximity to residential

1:01:41 buildings as well as those that

1:01:42 were in support.

1:01:44 Um our office received the 60

1:01:46 letters and support uh provided

1:01:47 by the applicant.

1:01:48 Many of these were direct

1:01:49 abutters um these residents

1:01:51 felt they were very excited

1:01:52 about the opportunity for more

1:01:54 foot traffic to be coming to

1:01:55 this area, um, benefiting the

1:01:57 businesses uh, as well as

1:01:59 residents excited about the

1:02:00 connectivity with neighboring

1:02:01 parcel uh, this concept of uh

1:02:04 the rooftop speed links uh, at

1:02:06 that restaurant, um, we

1:02:08 received letters of opposition

1:02:09 from the Dorchester North

1:02:11 Neighborhood Association as

1:02:13 well as Columbia Savino Civic

1:02:14 Association at the 2017 Civic

1:02:17 Center letter in this morning I

1:02:18 believe the board uh, should

1:02:19 have a copy of that.

1:02:20 Uh, they questioned the need

1:02:23 for a hotel, uh, feeling that

1:02:25 this proposal would not benefit

1:02:27 the community's, uh, existing

1:02:29 challenges with the housing

1:02:30 crisis.

1:02:31 Um, they also questioned the

1:02:32 density and the lack

1:02:33 of parking.

1:02:34 Um, with that information with

1:02:36 the front of the board.

1:02:37 Thank you.

1:02:38 And morning, madam also chair

1:02:39 members of the board Anna

1:02:41 Calderon from our city

1:02:42 councilor Hank Santana's

1:02:44 office.

1:02:45 Councilor Santana supports this

1:02:47 development and the frustrating

1:02:48 fact he would have on the

1:02:50 community.

1:02:50 The project represents an

1:02:52 informal investment in the area

1:02:54 creating new jobs, supporting

1:02:56 local economic growth and

1:02:57 providing opportunities for a

1:02:59 small businesses to thrive.

1:03:00 Thank you thank you I'm about

1:03:05 chair.

1:03:05 Can you hear me?

1:03:06 Uh yes sir I uh thank you,

1:03:09 Madam Chair.

1:03:10 Uh, I'm one of the residents

1:03:12 here.

1:03:12 Um, that was one of the

1:03:13 abutters um for this project

1:03:15 from last year and I would like

1:03:17 to share um, that the group

1:03:20 last year, um, was able to

1:03:22 listen to us.

1:03:23 Um, I live in 959 Dorchester,

1:03:26 um, and have been here for

1:03:28 three years in Dorchester.

1:03:30 I just wanted to share that, uh

1:03:32 ,in favor for this project

1:03:34 that we need to have these

1:03:36 activations for for the

1:03:37 commercial spaces to have a gym

1:03:39 to be able to walk to you know,

1:03:41 walk to the um to the RV to use

1:03:44 the TV.

1:03:45 Um, but within that space I

1:03:47 don't even have those amenities

1:03:50 here and I do think that it

1:03:51 would just, uh, bring this

1:03:53 neighborhood to that next level

1:03:55 and I just wanted to share that

1:03:57 support here, um, for that

1:03:59 having those restaurants are

1:04:00 needed, um, you know, East

1:04:02 Cottage is already a cut

1:04:03 through street.

1:04:05 Um, so I don't believe that

1:04:06 traffic will be affected.

1:04:09 Thank you.

1:04:10 Good morning, Madam Chair.

1:04:13 Yes.

1:04:14 Please proceed.

1:04:15 Good morning, Madam Chair.

1:04:16 My name is Frank Baker.

1:04:18 Sorry about, um my name not

1:04:19 being there.

1:04:20 Frank Baker I'm a former

1:04:21 district city councilor of the

1:04:23 area.

1:04:23 I grew up in the area and spent

1:04:25 nearly every week day night

1:04:30 of my, uh, teen years at the

1:04:32 little house.

1:04:33 Um, I'm here to support this

1:04:35 project but not just support it

1:04:36 but also I'm very excited about

1:04:38 this project for a couple

1:04:39 of reasons.

1:04:40 Adam's been a good neighbor and

1:04:41 he's a great businessman.

1:04:43 Um, this proposal will add to

1:04:45 the vitality of this of this

1:04:47 business district so it will

1:04:48 benefit all of the businesses

1:04:50 in the area also for the

1:04:52 opportunity to bring people to

1:04:54 this, uh, forgotten part of the

1:04:56 city in Dorchester we've got

1:04:58 the oldest house in Boston in

1:04:59 the Blake house.

1:05:00 We've got an Olmsted design

1:05:02 park in Dorchester.

1:05:04 We have the presidential

1:05:05 library and we have an exact

1:05:07 replica of the United States

1:05:09 Senate chamber and when when

1:05:11 the millions of people here

1:05:13 that land in Logan Airport and

1:05:14 they get there, they get their

1:05:16 maps from the city of Boston

1:05:18 doing tests is not even on

1:05:19 those maps.

1:05:21 So this is a way to get people

1:05:23 into our community of doing

1:05:25 testing, which we're very proud

1:05:26 of to potentially spend some

1:05:28 money here and see what

1:05:29 Dorchester has to offer.

1:05:30 So again my name is Frank.

1:05:32 My address is 43 Grampian Way

1:05:35 and I'm in support of this

1:05:37 project.

1:05:37 Thank you.

1:05:40 Great.

1:05:40 Um next we have Martin Bruce

1:05:43 we.

1:05:45 Hi my name is Martin Brunswick

1:05:47 .

1:05:48 I'm a director butter on six at

1:05:51 six our street behind under

1:05:53 proposed building and I want to

1:05:56 um we can support strong

1:05:58 support of of this project.

1:06:02 Um I think I uh I concur with

1:06:07 the um the the want and the

1:06:10 hope for better services and uh

1:06:13 ,more restaurants and that

1:06:15 that other density and and um

1:06:18 will bring and um and I'm also

1:06:21 in support of um the team

1:06:24 of building it because uh, Adam

1:06:26 and Jen have been the ideal, uh

1:06:30 ,new neighbors in the in the

1:06:32 neighborhood.

1:06:33 I've been here for 26 years at

1:06:35 my at a in a single family

1:06:36 behind and, um, they've been

1:06:39 great, great neighbors and are,

1:06:41 uh, quick to, uh, address any,

1:06:45 um, concerns and they worked

1:06:47 tirelessly uh, with uh me uh

1:06:50 and the community to um to

1:06:53 design and tweak the designs

1:06:55 of of this um over the years um

1:06:59 proposal and the the noise

1:07:01 concerns that I had um from

1:07:04 from when um, English was in

1:07:07 the neighborhood uh um uh they

1:07:11 they they went out of their way

1:07:12 to address so I'm strongly

1:07:14 supportive of this and excited

1:07:15 for this project.

1:07:16 Thank you, thank you.

1:07:17 Okay.

1:07:19 Um next we will have a map by

1:07:23 Betsy.

1:07:24 Yes.

1:07:25 Hello?

1:07:25 Can you hear me?

1:07:27 Yes, ma'am.

1:07:27 Hey, I am a supporter of this

1:07:29 project and, uh, just a couple

1:07:31 points here add to what already

1:07:33 has been voice in this meeting.

1:07:36 So I do want to emphasize from

1:07:37 the current space is a very old

1:07:42 abandoned um building maybe or

1:07:45 church that have falling apart

1:07:47 and it's really ugly if you

1:07:50 walk by the street and I am a

1:07:53 resident of Crescent Street, I

1:07:55 live just a few blocks from

1:07:56 from that corner and I uh took

1:07:59 the T to work on JFK stop and I

1:08:03 you know like well it'll be

1:08:04 very nice to have like a cafe

1:08:05 like a new building and I also

1:08:08 want to say like Jen Adam had

1:08:11 um create that um uh, existing

1:08:16 um um uh, apartment building

1:08:18 with uh um grocery my cat I

1:08:20 think that's a very nice

1:08:22 addition and I really look

1:08:23 forward to what else that new

1:08:26 space will bring to the

1:08:27 neighborhood.

1:08:28 But, uh, restaurant a place to

1:08:30 hang out, a place to grab

1:08:32 coffee, a place to kind

1:08:33 of bring our friends or invite

1:08:35 a friend can stay and so, you

1:08:36 know, a restaurant to go to and

1:08:38 stuff going to myself that

1:08:40 you're on other very like you

1:08:41 know thank you.

1:08:42 Yeah thank you we work hard for

1:08:45 more so please uh let's keep

1:08:48 going.

1:08:48 All right so next we will have

1:08:52 a dinner to.

1:08:57 Keep going right.

1:08:59 You know, then we'll have um,

1:09:03 Luis Rodriguez.

1:09:08 Uh uh, hi.

1:09:11 My name is Michael Raphael.

1:09:12 I'm a business representative

1:09:13 for the North Atlantic Regional

1:09:14 Council cabinet, and we just

1:09:16 want to go on record as being

1:09:17 in full support of this

1:09:18 proposal.

1:09:19 Thank you, thank you.

1:09:20 All right, next we will have,

1:09:22 uh.

1:09:23 See as they kick.

1:09:28 Oh, hi.

1:09:29 That's me.

1:09:30 Sorry.

1:09:31 I don't know why I chose up

1:09:32 that way.

1:09:32 Oh, um, I'm Christine hogue.

1:09:34 I'm chair of the Columbia South

1:09:36 Hall civic associations

1:09:37 planning committee.

1:09:38 Um, just wanted to go on record

1:09:41 .

1:09:41 Um, we had our vote last night

1:09:44 .

1:09:44 I wanted to thank Councilor

1:09:46 Fitzgerald for coordinating

1:09:47 that vote.

1:09:48 I want to thank Adam for

1:09:50 hanging in for the duration

1:09:51 of the meeting in Bangor last

1:09:53 night.

1:09:53 Um, to present uh, for that

1:09:56 vote.

1:09:57 Um, it was in opposition as I

1:10:00 mentioned before.

1:10:02 Uh, while we do respect uh,

1:10:05 Adam's work and his team's work

1:10:07 in, uh, trying to meet with the

1:10:10 community, we do feel that

1:10:12 there's, uh, definitely some

1:10:14 question about whether or not

1:10:15 this is a valid use on a, uh,

1:10:18 narrow I mean a one way street,

1:10:22 um, in a residential

1:10:23 neighborhood.

1:10:23 We also concerned about the

1:10:25 number of units we call that

1:10:27 was a source of concern about

1:10:29 the polling drop off and

1:10:30 whether or not there's

1:10:31 sufficient support for

1:10:34 deliveries, um, drop offs and

1:10:35 pick ups and um, obviously very

1:10:38 concerned about the shadow

1:10:41 shadowing um uh uh, the

1:10:44 abutting properties though uh,

1:10:45 you know, Abutters have uh,

1:10:49 testified in support I guess

1:10:51 there's still concern about

1:10:52 whether or not um, everyone is

1:10:55 fully aware of what the impact

1:10:57 of this particular development

1:10:58 might be on our neighborhood.

1:10:59 Thank you.

1:11:01 Next, right.

1:11:04 Excellent.

1:11:04 The last kind is from Luis

1:11:08 Rodriguez.

1:11:08 Yeah.

1:11:09 You hear me?

1:11:12 Yes, we yes we can.

1:11:14 Um yes.

1:11:15 Uh um we have uh.

1:11:18 And we always deliver they tell

1:11:20 us we strongly support this um

1:11:23 ,project is very good for um,

1:11:28 everybody's business.

1:11:29 They bring a lot of, um, good

1:11:31 traffic.

1:11:33 Um, and and can been great

1:11:37 great people.

1:11:38 So we strongly support this as

1:11:40 a great job so so wonderful say

1:11:44 thank you.

1:11:45 Thank you.

1:11:46 All right.

1:11:47 No, um, there is one more

1:11:49 question I want to put last one

1:11:52 .

1:11:53 Especially Spencer program.

1:11:56 Yes.

1:11:57 My apologies, Madam Chair.

1:11:58 Uh, my name is Spencer Graham.

1:12:00 I actually currently live at

1:12:02 321 West fourth Street.

1:12:04 Um, I do have a hard stop at 11

1:12:06 today for an internal conflict,

1:12:08 but, um, I did just want to

1:12:10 quickly express my support for

1:12:11 250 average street just because

1:12:13 it will.

1:12:14 So we're not we're not speaking

1:12:15 on that right now.

1:12:17 I'm sorry.

1:12:17 Thank you.

1:12:19 Okay.

1:12:20 My lunch if you want to put it

1:12:21 in the chat later feel free.

1:12:22 Yeah I would love for it.

1:12:23 Thank you thank you.

1:12:25 All right so we'll turn it back

1:12:27 over to the board.

1:12:28 Any other questions or feedback

1:12:30 for the applicant?

1:12:34 Any other last word from

1:12:37 applicant yeah just briefly

1:12:40 Madam Chair I want to thank

1:12:41 Christine um comment seven

1:12:43 Hills Civic Association and

1:12:45 respect that uh their position

1:12:47 we had a very extensive back

1:12:49 and forth and um I don't think

1:12:52 it ends here.

1:12:53 Um, one of the things that

1:12:54 Christine brought up was, uh,

1:12:57 how we work on, uh, traffic and

1:12:59 mobility and one of the good

1:13:01 things about being in the

1:13:02 article 80 process is of course

1:13:03 our site planning, uh,

1:13:06 continues, uh, until we get the

1:13:07 certificate to proceed.

1:13:09 So, um, I know that Adam

1:13:11 remains committed to working

1:13:13 with the neighborhood, uh, on

1:13:15 those issues and and we

1:13:17 appreciate everyone's close

1:13:19 participation, but thank you.

1:13:22 Okay with that?

1:13:25 Is there a motion?

1:13:30 Madam Chair?

1:13:31 I'm a conversion of through.

1:13:33 Is there a second?

1:13:35 Second?

1:13:38 Mr. Stonebridge?

1:13:40 Yes.

1:13:43 Miss Turner?

1:13:44 Yes.

1:13:46 Miss Barbarossa?

1:13:48 Yes.

1:13:50 Miss me?

1:13:51 Well, yes.

1:13:54 Mr. Lang um, yes Mr. Collins.

1:13:59 Yes.

1:14:00 Chair votes yes.

1:14:01 The motion carries.

1:14:03 Good luck.

1:14:03 Thank you.

1:14:08 Uh, Madam Chair, the next.

1:14:10 Case has been deferred to

1:14:15 November 17th.

1:14:16 Um, there's been we have to

1:14:20 discuss something with with the

1:14:22 following case, but I'll read

1:14:24 it.

1:14:25 Uh, case VOA 187137 Gerald was

1:14:32 the address of 42 Boyle 4012

1:14:36 Washington Street.

1:14:38 The applicant and the director

1:14:40 of the program to serve 41.

1:14:48 Madam chair, this is Stephanie

1:14:50 from the under day.

1:14:52 Um, we got a project we were

1:14:55 working on uh, update review so

1:14:57 we have to we advertised as we

1:14:59 were going to put it on for

1:15:00 November 10th.

1:15:01 Okay so with that may I have a

1:15:03 motion to defer motion to defer

1:15:06 this case till November 7th?

1:15:09 I have a second that can be

1:15:11 corrected.

1:15:12 Mr. Bridge.

1:15:14 Yes.

1:15:15 This car yes.

1:15:17 This better browser.

1:15:19 Yes as we well yes Mr. Lang yes

1:15:26 Mr. Collins yes.

1:15:28 Chair votes yes.

1:15:30 The motion carries.

1:15:33 So with that um we'll go to

1:15:38 we're discussing the case and

1:15:40 schedule for Nigeria at this at

1:15:45 this time we'll ask if there

1:15:46 are any request for withdrawal

1:15:50 or deferral from the

1:15:52 discussion.

1:15:55 Q I I hearing the Or move on to

1:16:03 the first case one to case VOA

1:16:10 1862710 with the address of 196

1:16:14 Maverick Street the applicant

1:16:16 as their representative present

1:16:19 was appointed by the case and

1:16:20 the board.

1:16:21 Thank you Mr. Bridge.

1:16:22 Thank you, Madam Chair.

1:16:23 Members of the board Attorney

1:16:25 Jeff Drago with Drago and

1:16:26 Toscano with the address of 11

1:16:28 Beacon Street here on behalf

1:16:30 of the applicant Mike Stevens.

1:16:32 And with me I also have Eric

1:16:34 Akerson from context who

1:16:36 designed the plans and

1:16:37 rendering that we're showing

1:16:38 you today.

1:16:40 Uh, what you're looking at in

1:16:42 this photo is a rendering

1:16:44 of the proposal we have for 196

1:16:47 Maverick Street and that's to

1:16:48 change the occupancy from its

1:16:51 existing use, which is a three

1:16:52 unit building to a seven unit

1:16:54 residential building by way

1:16:57 of full interior renovations.

1:16:58 And those renovations will

1:17:01 include a rare addition and

1:17:03 vertical expansion.

1:17:04 So a new fourth story to this

1:17:06 building and uh, the building

1:17:09 will also be fully sprinkler if

1:17:11 we can stay on this slide Mr..

1:17:13 That next slide sorry you can

1:17:15 go to the next slide.

1:17:15 Yeah.

1:17:16 This just shows uh, context

1:17:18 of all of the four story

1:17:19 buildings uh, in and around an

1:17:21 apartment style complex.

1:17:23 This particular zone has been

1:17:24 zoned to ever for under the new

1:17:27 plan East Boston and that

1:17:29 allows us to go up in height to

1:17:32 four stories, which is what

1:17:33 we're proposing and also allows

1:17:35 us to keep the structure and

1:17:37 create additional units that

1:17:38 are needed for housing, uh,

1:17:40 within this particular area.

1:17:43 So just to briefly you can go

1:17:44 to the next slide please.

1:17:46 This just shows you that zone

1:17:49 and you can see the contours

1:17:50 of the lot in the PDA map and

1:17:53 see um all of the it's one

1:17:55 of the larger lots that can go

1:17:57 back uh in this particular area

1:17:59 and still allows for open space

1:18:00 in the rear.

1:18:01 The um we're increasing by

1:18:07 2180ft2 and what that will

1:18:09 include is a new fourth floor

1:18:11 units which is 1423ft2 and the

1:18:15 rear addition is 757ft2 all

1:18:20 of which meet uh the guidelines

1:18:22 and spirit of Plan East Boston.

1:18:23 That's why we have the

1:18:25 recommendation uh for approval

1:18:26 from DPD as well.

1:18:29 The block size is 2465ft2.

1:18:33 And you can just see in this

1:18:35 aerial view all of the other

1:18:36 four storey and apartment style

1:18:38 complexes uh, in and around

1:18:40 this particular building

1:18:41 including the one directly next

1:18:43 to us.

1:18:43 If you can go to the next slide

1:18:45 please.

1:18:46 These are just existing

1:18:48 conditions the building on the

1:18:50 right and you can just see the

1:18:51 other housing stock in and

1:18:53 around us and the picture on

1:18:54 the left uh next slide please.

1:18:59 Again that's just a good

1:19:01 picture of the building to the

1:19:02 right of us as well which also

1:19:04 recently was developed this as

1:19:05 a four unit building um just to

1:19:09 go over the layout over the

1:19:10 next slide please.

1:19:12 So right now the there's three

1:19:15 units in the building.

1:19:16 What we're proposing is seven

1:19:18 uh unit one would be a two

1:19:20 bedroom one bath at 882ft2 unit

1:19:23 to a studio at 400ft2 unit

1:19:27 three two bed two bath, 720ft2

1:19:31 unit for a studio at 400ft2.

1:19:34 Unit 5A2 bed two bath 667 unit

1:19:39 6A1 bed one bath 495 and unit

1:19:43 seven one bed, one bath 517ft2

1:19:48 um this particular area is also

1:19:50 within the G Court district so

1:19:52 in the basement all we are

1:19:54 using that for is utilities uh

1:19:56 electric and gas meters.

1:19:58 Um the variances you know to

1:20:01 the next slide Mr. Ambassador

1:20:03 you can go one more.

1:20:05 This just shows that you can

1:20:07 stand this one the black

1:20:08 highlighted area off or

1:20:10 diagonal arrow area just shows

1:20:12 the addition in the back and we

1:20:13 still have all of that space

1:20:15 uh, in the rear.

1:20:16 The violations that we were

1:20:18 cited for was G because this

1:20:20 does not fall into the

1:20:21 groundwater district uh um roof

1:20:23 structure restrictions even

1:20:24 though four stories uh is

1:20:27 allowed and they actually allow

1:20:28 for a 50 C height in this area

1:20:30 we're proposing 45 uh, you

1:20:32 still because you're going up

1:20:34 uh, would be asked to have a

1:20:35 roof structure restriction also

1:20:37 off street parking so we're not

1:20:39 able to create any parking.

1:20:41 There's no existing parking.

1:20:43 We are very close distance to

1:20:45 Maverick's t station.

1:20:46 It's a close walk, uh, which

1:20:48 makes it ideal for folks

1:20:49 commuting, uh, to downtown

1:20:51 Boston.

1:20:52 Both the other violations were

1:20:54 preexisting front yard and side

1:20:55 yard.

1:20:56 We're not changing those at

1:20:58 all.

1:20:58 And those were all the

1:20:59 violations that were issued.

1:21:01 Um, when we look at the zoning

1:21:04 code, this particular district

1:21:05 as I mentioned allows for the

1:21:07 four stories you can go up 50ft

1:21:09 .

1:21:09 We're proposing 45 they allow

1:21:12 60% uh, maximum building lot

1:21:15 coverage.

1:21:15 We're proposing only 50 um and

1:21:18 then with in depth we meet both

1:21:20 or below the 70 and 120 uh,

1:21:23 well below that and um, all

1:21:26 of the other areas besides the

1:21:29 the parking and the roof

1:21:30 structure restriction we would

1:21:31 meet uh, under the code um, we

1:21:34 had an extensive community

1:21:35 process.

1:21:36 We uh first uh, submitted

1:21:38 everything before Maverick

1:21:40 Central uh, letter sent a

1:21:42 letter of non opposition we

1:21:43 then morass we took a short

1:21:45 deferral to go before uh Grove

1:21:47 street Association we presented

1:21:49 uh last week to them.

1:21:51 We also submitted uh five

1:21:53 letters of direct about our

1:21:55 support at 183 Maverick six

1:21:58 Brooks 40 Chelsea, 198 Maverick

1:22:01 and 22 Murray Court.

1:22:04 Um with that I can pause and

1:22:06 answer any questions.

1:22:07 The board ma'am.

1:22:08 Thank you.

1:22:09 Are there questions from the

1:22:10 board?

1:22:13 Hearing?

1:22:13 None, ma'am.

1:22:14 Public testimony.

1:22:15 Oh my name chair members of the

1:22:16 board.

1:22:17 My name is Eva.

1:22:17 Films are protesting the

1:22:18 mayor's office and services

1:22:20 regarding 196 Maverick Street

1:22:23 off stickers to the board

1:22:23 statement the late including on

1:22:26 a public meeting held on

1:22:27 Wednesday 2017 2020 attended by

1:22:30 the east of the community where

1:22:32 no major concerns were shared.

1:22:34 There was also the two civic

1:22:36 associations of Everett Central

1:22:38 Neighborhood Association which

1:22:39 has provided a letter of non

1:22:41 opposition suspended to the

1:22:42 board as well as being in

1:22:44 communication with Gulf Street

1:22:46 Citizens Association as well at

1:22:48 this time myself.

1:22:48 So Neighborhood Services

1:22:49 differs to the board's decision

1:22:50 on this matter.

1:22:51 Take on for your immigration.

1:22:54 Thank you.

1:22:55 Next we have only.

1:22:58 Good morning madam chair

1:22:59 members and board Christian

1:23:00 Simonelli Boston Groundwater

1:23:01 Trust we have what she calls

1:23:02 from the applicant.

1:23:04 Thank you.

1:23:07 Next we have the citizens.

1:23:11 And Madam Chair members of the

1:23:13 board.

1:23:13 We have stuff on Marin um, from

1:23:15 Counselor Collette us about

1:23:16 this office and at this time we

1:23:17 wanted to, uh, voice our

1:23:19 support for this project.

1:23:19 Thank you, thank you.

1:23:22 Nine chair in additional

1:23:23 comments that may have motion.

1:23:30 Madam chair, to perform a

1:23:31 motion of approval I will

1:23:34 second second Mister Savage

1:23:39 yeah, yeah Turner yes is better

1:23:43 browser yes miss room yes Mr.

1:23:49 Langham yes Mr. Collins yes.

1:23:54 Chair votes yes the motion

1:23:56 carries.

1:23:57 Thank you very much.

1:24:01 Next we have case VOA one 8 to

1:24:08 7 083 with the address of 350

1:24:12 Capitol Street with the

1:24:14 applicant and other

1:24:16 representative.

1:24:16 First of all the employees

1:24:18 while support.

1:24:19 Yes thank you, Mr. Sam Ridge.

1:24:21 Madam chair members of the

1:24:22 board attorney Ryan Spitz with

1:24:23 that it as a meranti business

1:24:25 address of 168 eighth street

1:24:28 first floor South Boston.

1:24:29 Uh joining me today are the

1:24:30 applicants Tim Wilson and Luke

1:24:32 Fallon as well as the project

1:24:34 architect.

1:24:34 County office of start of stack

1:24:37 architecture.

1:24:38 This is an existing two story

1:24:40 single family home with a

1:24:41 driveway and surface parking.

1:24:43 The proposal today is to raise

1:24:45 the existing home and construct

1:24:46 a four story, six unit

1:24:47 residential building with six

1:24:49 parking spaces and a total

1:24:51 proposed height of 39ft 11in

1:24:54 which is below the 40 foot

1:24:55 maximum allowed and then uh

1:24:57 subdistrict.

1:24:58 The lot size is approximately

1:25:01 5093ft2, which the planning

1:25:03 department notes is the above

1:25:04 average of the lots in this

1:25:05 area.

1:25:06 The site is one block northeast

1:25:08 of West Broadway, served by two

1:25:10 MBTA foster homes on West

1:25:11 Broadway and about 27 miles

1:25:13 from the Broadway Red line

1:25:15 station.

1:25:15 The ground floor consists

1:25:17 of garage level parking for six

1:25:19 vehicles, a mechanical room, an

1:25:22 elevator, trash room storage

1:25:24 community lobby levels two

1:25:25 through four will consist

1:25:27 of two units per floor ranging

1:25:29 from approximately 1300 and ten

1:25:32 square feet to 1650 five square

1:25:34 feet.

1:25:34 The make up will be A11 bed to

1:25:37 two beds and three treatments.

1:25:39 This case was deferred from the

1:25:42 September 8th thousand 2026

1:25:43 hearing.

1:25:44 Are we use that time to work

1:25:46 directly with the planning

1:25:46 staff?

1:25:47 The revised plans dated

1:25:49 September 26th made the

1:25:50 following changes we removed

1:25:52 parking spaces that presented

1:25:54 maneuverability issues.

1:25:55 We eliminated the prior FA

1:25:57 violation, we eliminated the

1:25:59 fire open space violation and

1:26:00 we also reduced the degree

1:26:02 of the side yard violation.

1:26:03 As a result, the planning

1:26:05 department now recommends

1:26:06 approval planning also found

1:26:08 that the project is consistent

1:26:09 with both city and neighborhood

1:26:10 planning goals, encouraging

1:26:12 appropriately scaled

1:26:13 residential infill and new

1:26:15 housing.

1:26:15 Imagine Boston 2030 and

1:26:17 promoting contextual media to

1:26:19 the residential development.

1:26:20 We have the following zoning

1:26:22 violations we have a lot area

1:26:24 violations.

1:26:24 The minimum lot area for six

1:26:26 units in this subdistrict is

1:26:28 7000ft2 and our rock is

1:26:30 approximately 5093ft2.

1:26:32 This is not an undersized lot

1:26:34 it is larger than the average

1:26:35 lot in the area with the error

1:26:37 for the open space violations

1:26:39 now eliminated, we believe the

1:26:40 building fits within the park

1:26:41 and the open space the code

1:26:43 allows for this lot six units

1:26:45 is consistent with the mid

1:26:46 density residential development

1:26:47 .

1:26:47 The article 68 calls for an

1:26:50 emphasis on district.

1:26:51 Next we have a front yard

1:26:52 violation five feet is required

1:26:54 the ground floor a setback one

1:26:56 foot 11in.

1:26:57 This is generally consistent

1:26:58 with the model setback of two

1:27:00 feet set by the other

1:27:01 structures on the block so the

1:27:03 building holds the existing

1:27:04 street wall rather than

1:27:05 breaking it.

1:27:05 Planning department also

1:27:07 recommends approval conditional

1:27:08 on the front yard setback being

1:27:09 paved which theater pavement

1:27:11 rather be planted area given

1:27:13 the narrow sidewalk next we do

1:27:15 have a side yard violation

1:27:17 three feet is required by the

1:27:18 code.

1:27:18 The southeast side is setback

1:27:20 three feet seven inches which

1:27:22 complies on the northwest side

1:27:24 only with the ground floor is

1:27:25 built to the property line but

1:27:27 that wall of a parcel developed

1:27:28 has got an open space over at

1:27:30 the South Boston Action Council

1:27:32 not a residence.

1:27:33 The upper stories are set three

1:27:36 feet six inches which does

1:27:38 comply.

1:27:38 The degree of the violation was

1:27:40 refused in response to the

1:27:41 planning Department's comments

1:27:42 .

1:27:43 Next we have a roof structure

1:27:44 restriction violation uh, which

1:27:47 is a conditional use permit.

1:27:48 The building in 39ft 11in

1:27:50 complying with the 40 foot

1:27:52 subdistrict maximum by section

1:27:54 68 Dash 29 he's the allowable

1:27:56 height to the existing two

1:27:57 storey building on the site as

1:27:59 planned from the proposed

1:28:00 height is allowed and expected

1:28:02 in the area among new

1:28:03 construction and matches the

1:28:04 residential building directly

1:28:05 across Athens and others in the

1:28:07 vicinity.

1:28:09 Lastly we have a parking

1:28:10 violation at 1.5 spaces per

1:28:12 unit nine spaces are required.

1:28:15 We provide 6 or 1 space per

1:28:16 unit.

1:28:17 The spaces meets section 68

1:28:19 Dash 33 dimensional standards

1:28:21 50% compact 50% standard in a

1:28:24 back up area that allows at the

1:28:27 rear of the site that allows

1:28:28 the vehicles to maneuver on

1:28:29 site, enter and exit Athens

1:28:30 streets in a forward motion.

1:28:32 A reduced ratio is supported by

1:28:34 the site's proximity to West

1:28:36 Broadway bus service in the

1:28:37 Broadway Red line station and

1:28:39 again planning standard at

1:28:40 least the proposal responded

1:28:41 well to the lot size restraints

1:28:43 in the staff's previous

1:28:44 comments on design and closing

1:28:46 the project came back to this

1:28:48 point after deferral uh done

1:28:50 exactly what it's asked for and

1:28:52 an additional revised drawings

1:28:54 eliminating parking spaces for

1:28:56 reducing the fire and open

1:28:58 space violations and as well as

1:29:00 the side yard violation the

1:29:02 height that it will reduce the

1:29:03 side yard violation that is the

1:29:05 highest comply with the

1:29:06 subdistrict maximum in a

1:29:07 contact with new construction

1:29:09 on the street and the remaining

1:29:10 relief reflects the lot size

1:29:12 constraints.

1:29:13 The planning department

1:29:14 recommends approval conditional

1:29:15 only on the paving of the front

1:29:17 yard setback further just a few

1:29:19 weeks back I just want to

1:29:20 remind this four point you

1:29:21 heard a carbon copy of this

1:29:22 proposal that's in front of you

1:29:23 today only a few parcels down

1:29:26 at 368 Apple Street either

1:29:28 where the topography to lot

1:29:29 shapes where very much the

1:29:31 same.

1:29:31 The only difference between

1:29:33 those two shapes was that 368

1:29:35 lot size was much smaller so

1:29:37 almost about 1000ft2 smaller

1:29:39 and the structure took out more

1:29:40 of the coverage than the

1:29:41 proposal that you see here

1:29:42 today.

1:29:42 The board voted unanimously to

1:29:44 approve that project.

1:29:45 And lastly I do want to remind

1:29:47 the board which I'm sure you've

1:29:49 all seen that we have submitted

1:29:51 14 letters of support, uh, that

1:29:53 have been added to this record.

1:29:53 So at this point, Madam Chair,

1:29:54 I'm going to pause and turn it

1:29:56 over for any questions or

1:29:57 comments from the board.

1:29:58 Thank you.

1:29:59 Questions from the board.

1:30:03 Hearing none.

1:30:04 We have public testimony, Madam

1:30:05 Chair and members Kiki Johnson

1:30:07 with the Office of Neighborhood

1:30:09 Services.

1:30:09 This petitioner completed the

1:30:11 community process.

1:30:11 Our office hosted an Abutters

1:30:13 meeting on April 15th which

1:30:15 there was significant

1:30:16 opposition to a proposal

1:30:17 presented with ten violations.

1:30:19 An updated proposal would

1:30:21 introduce number of four

1:30:22 violations was presented at an

1:30:23 Abutters meeting on June 22nd.

1:30:26 Abutters continue to be opposed

1:30:27 to the application six Abutters

1:30:28 spoke in opposition at this

1:30:30 meeting.

1:30:30 Butters were concerned about

1:30:31 the size being larger than

1:30:33 surrounding buildings and

1:30:34 issues with shadows as well as

1:30:36 the scale.

1:30:36 They believe that the height

1:30:38 of 39ft did not fit the

1:30:39 context.

1:30:40 Surrounded by 23 foot

1:30:41 structures, there were concerns

1:30:43 about shadows with significant

1:30:44 impacts on yards, decks and

1:30:46 gardens and privacy with

1:30:48 windows overlooking directly to

1:30:50 neighboring properties.

1:30:51 Robbins received six letters

1:30:52 of support signed by Abutters

1:30:53 in the 300 foot radius and

1:30:55 eight letters citing addresses

1:30:56 outside the radius for having

1:30:58 signed no address.

1:30:59 The Saint Vincent Lower End

1:31:01 Neighborhood Association was

1:31:02 connected with the applicant

1:31:03 about background awareness

1:31:05 deferred judgment to the board.

1:31:05 Thank you.

1:31:09 And until next we have

1:31:12 Marguerite and I'm going to

1:31:13 see.

1:31:16 Um hi I live at nine Pacific

1:31:18 Street in South Boston and I

1:31:20 just want to say I'm in support

1:31:21 of this project because the

1:31:22 height and density are

1:31:23 appropriate for this location

1:31:25 and we need additional housing

1:31:26 in Boston, especially South

1:31:27 Boston.

1:31:28 Um I hope you for this project

1:31:30 and I appreciate your time.

1:31:32 Thank you.

1:31:33 Next we have um increased

1:31:37 levels some.

1:31:42 My housing here.

1:31:43 My name is Chris Logan.

1:31:44 I live at 315 West third Street

1:31:47 unit three.

1:31:48 I am a direct of utter I am an

1:31:51 opposition of a project.

1:31:53 Since our last meeting was

1:31:55 deferred I've taken the

1:31:56 opportunity to review the

1:31:58 resubmitted plans for 350

1:31:59 Athens Street.

1:32:00 While I recognize that the

1:32:01 developers have made some

1:32:03 changes to the proposal, I do

1:32:05 not believe those changes

1:32:06 address the fundamental

1:32:07 concerns that led me to oppose

1:32:08 the project in first place.

1:32:10 The revised proposal removes

1:32:12 two outdoor parking spaces in

1:32:14 two tandem parking spaces and

1:32:16 adds one additional space with

1:32:17 the garage bringing the total

1:32:19 proposed parking to six spaces

1:32:21 .

1:32:21 The removal of the outdoor

1:32:23 parking does increase the

1:32:24 amount of usable space.

1:32:25 Open space which I acknowledge

1:32:28 is as a positive change.

1:32:30 However, the revised plan also

1:32:32 creates a new zoning violation

1:32:34 for insufficient parking.

1:32:35 The submitted plans identified

1:32:37 eight parking spaces as

1:32:38 required while only six are now

1:32:40 proposed.

1:32:41 In other words, the revisions

1:32:43 appeared to solve one issue by

1:32:45 creating another.

1:32:46 The maneuverability concern

1:32:49 associated with the prior

1:32:50 parking configuration may have

1:32:51 been addressed, but the project

1:32:53 still requires zoning relief

1:32:54 for insufficient parking in

1:32:56 addition to the other

1:32:57 dimensional and zoning issues

1:32:59 identified by the Inspectional

1:33:00 Services Department.

1:33:01 More importantly, I believe the

1:33:03 board should consider these

1:33:05 revisions in the broader

1:33:06 context of the community's

1:33:07 previous involvement with the

1:33:09 project.

1:33:09 Several of us took time away

1:33:10 from our businesses and

1:33:12 personal lives to meet directly

1:33:13 with two of the three

1:33:15 individuals involved in the

1:33:16 development.

1:33:16 We did make a sorry please wrap

1:33:20 up.

1:33:21 Please wrap up uh I am

1:33:24 ultimately uh, in opposition

1:33:25 due to the size the scale

1:33:27 of the scope.

1:33:28 Thank you, thank you, thank

1:33:30 you.

1:33:31 All right, next up.

1:33:32 Sorry.

1:33:32 Ashley.

1:33:33 Uh, from councilor thank thank

1:33:35 you.

1:33:36 My name's Ashley from cancer

1:33:37 front office Council for I

1:33:38 would like to recommend support

1:33:40 based on a good community

1:33:41 process.

1:33:42 While he acknowledges there was

1:33:44 both support and opposition

1:33:44 from neighbors, he is aware the

1:33:46 city approved a nearly

1:33:47 identical proposal nearby just

1:33:49 weeks ago and the planning

1:33:50 department recommended approval

1:33:52 for this latest iteration.

1:33:54 At the same time, he believes

1:33:55 the city should not have held

1:33:56 the project up based on

1:33:59 recommendation of a denial to

1:34:01 cut three parking spaces from

1:34:03 line space down to six parking

1:34:04 spaces.

1:34:05 The project previously met the

1:34:07 city's own zoning requirements

1:34:08 for parking with nine spaces.

1:34:09 Their new recommendation of six

1:34:11 spaces now needs a parking

1:34:12 variance, so the city went

1:34:14 against its own zoning that was

1:34:15 updated as recently as 2019.

1:34:17 The city must take neighborhood

1:34:19 concerns on South Boston's five

1:34:21 comprise seriously and

1:34:22 acknowledge that new

1:34:23 construction invariably brings

1:34:25 residents and visitors that

1:34:27 have and bring cars.

1:34:28 So Boston should not be treated

1:34:29 any differently than any other

1:34:31 neighborhood when it comes to

1:34:32 parking included a new

1:34:33 development project the city

1:34:35 must decide if we are trying to

1:34:37 address a housing crisis or

1:34:38 primarily focused on a parking

1:34:40 litmus test.

1:34:41 Thank you, thank you.

1:34:44 Okay, uh, next we have, um.

1:34:47 Jessica.

1:34:48 No no no not again.

1:34:57 Jessica, you can speak now.

1:35:00 Jessica speaking on this

1:35:02 project.

1:35:05 All right?

1:35:06 It's not um, we can go with

1:35:09 expense ground.

1:35:12 Uh, yes.

1:35:13 My name is Vincent Graham.

1:35:14 I live in 321 West fourth

1:35:16 Street.

1:35:17 I am in heavy support of this

1:35:18 project because it has a great

1:35:20 design and fits in well with

1:35:21 the neighboring properties.

1:35:24 I hope you approve this project

1:35:24 tonight.

1:35:25 I appreciate all of your time.

1:35:26 Thank you.

1:35:28 Um and we have Greg in Kansas

1:35:33 City.

1:35:35 Yes Connecticut is right.

1:35:36 Uh I live 315 West Third um

1:35:40 very much opposed to this

1:35:41 project especially the parking

1:35:43 ,the size, the scale of it

1:35:45 it's it would kind of suffocate

1:35:47 all neighbors based on the size

1:35:49 and um, walking down on a

1:35:52 privacy issue that's one

1:35:54 they've been using the car for

1:35:57 for 20 West Broadway for the

1:35:59 size that building was always

1:36:00 the same size.

1:36:02 This is obviously about twice

1:36:04 as much.

1:36:05 Um the other is the

1:36:07 neighborhood concerns.

1:36:08 They mentioned it to Saint

1:36:10 buildings but not with the new

1:36:12 parking um numbers same.

1:36:16 Vinnies has said they would

1:36:17 like them to speak at the next

1:36:19 meeting and also it is because

1:36:23 it was materially different

1:36:24 from the last plan.

1:36:26 It took away three parking

1:36:27 spaces.

1:36:28 Um, so I want to go on record

1:36:31 of saying um against it at in

1:36:34 the size and scale that it is

1:36:36 right now and also the people

1:36:37 we have not seen any of butter

1:36:40 that is for this project the

1:36:42 people the main build that they

1:36:44 are for are well over 300ft

1:36:46 away and they have no concerns

1:36:50 uh as being a non direct the

1:36:52 butter to this project.

1:36:53 Thank you.

1:36:55 Okay um chair I think um

1:36:58 Jessica put her comments on the

1:37:01 position of the chat.

1:37:02 Hello?

1:37:03 Are you able to hear me now we

1:37:05 are we are at the moment thank

1:37:07 you so much.

1:37:09 So I am a direct about our

1:37:11 directly east.

1:37:12 Um, I live at 352 Athens Street

1:37:15 and this project is going to

1:37:16 deeply affected.

1:37:24 To create a giant wall directly

1:37:26 next to my building.

1:37:27 I don't know if we can go back

1:37:29 to the presentation and look at

1:37:30 page seven just sort of showing

1:37:32 the contrast between my

1:37:33 building and this building.

1:37:34 But it's giant.

1:37:36 I know I have limited time so

1:37:37 I'm going to keep talking while

1:37:39 you go to that presentation.

1:37:40 They were concerned about the

1:37:43 tiny tall dark, narrow alleyway

1:37:47 that's going to be

1:37:49 created between our two

1:37:50 buildings.

1:37:50 It's a perfect place for rats,

1:37:53 raccoons, urban outdoorsmen,

1:37:56 drug people to hang out.

1:37:57 It's a very like not ideal

1:38:00 space that will be directly

1:38:02 next to my building.

1:38:03 It will create danger.

1:38:05 Um I am concerned about

1:38:08 construction and having any

1:38:10 sort of um recourse or any sort

1:38:14 of see okay.

1:38:14 Yes.

1:38:15 Thank you.

1:38:15 So this is going to completely

1:38:18 dwarf my building.

1:38:19 You can see um there is a nice

1:38:22 open space next to my building

1:38:23 right now my building is going

1:38:25 to look at a giant wall.

1:38:27 It is going to completely block

1:38:28 all air and space.

1:38:30 I've asked them to make the

1:38:31 building a little bit smaller

1:38:32 or push it a little bit further

1:38:34 away from my building to avoid

1:38:35 creating the alleyway to create

1:38:37 maybe a little bit more safety

1:38:39 for my buildings and during

1:38:40 construction and to allow a

1:38:42 little more light in there and

1:38:44 they completely shut me down

1:38:45 and just disregarded my

1:38:47 concerns.

1:38:48 Um, I don't know how I would

1:38:50 have any recourse during

1:38:52 construction if they were to

1:38:54 damage my building.

1:38:55 I know that's happened with

1:38:56 other projects that were that

1:38:57 close to such buildings.

1:38:59 I also don't think this is a 68

1:39:02 project as there isn't a

1:39:04 building like mine directly

1:39:06 next to it.

1:39:07 Thank you, thank you very

1:39:08 opposed.

1:39:10 But I'm sure I can ask

1:39:12 questions.

1:39:13 I think there's one more sorry

1:39:15 one one more reason to then

1:39:16 we'll correct or some fireworks

1:39:19 might if you can.

1:39:20 Um.

1:39:21 What?

1:39:22 Okay, uh, before we have

1:39:23 someone else, I just want to

1:39:24 ask directly to Jessica, which

1:39:26 is um, okay.

1:39:28 Provided a testimony I, um I

1:39:30 just wanted to know if, um, the

1:39:33 wall there's a flooding the new

1:39:35 construction.

1:39:36 Do you have existing windows on

1:39:38 that wall?

1:39:39 I sure do, I'm happy to.

1:39:41 Do you want me to share my

1:39:42 screen?

1:39:42 Yeah, I just I just wanted to

1:39:44 know.

1:39:44 Yeah.

1:39:45 So my building was there.

1:39:46 Okay.

1:39:47 That's that's something that

1:39:48 there was a yard there.

1:39:49 Yeah.

1:39:50 Thank you.

1:39:51 Yeah okay.

1:39:52 Did we have one last raise

1:39:53 hand?

1:39:53 We'll take one more.

1:39:54 Yes fast.

1:39:55 And you are in the finish line

1:39:57 and you're allowed to bring

1:39:58 yourself if you can speak up my

1:40:00 name is Patricia right I'm the

1:40:02 director of the Southwest

1:40:03 Action Council, the Sunset

1:40:05 Gardens are directed by that

1:40:06 man to the left of this project

1:40:08 we have attended multiple

1:40:09 meetings for content hours

1:40:10 including two city sponsored

1:40:12 zoom sessions.

1:40:13 Um, I'm an in-person meeting in

1:40:17 July.

1:40:17 Throughout this conference up

1:40:19 conference I'm not going to

1:40:20 address our questions have gone

1:40:21 on input from the developers

1:40:23 not from up front and honest

1:40:25 person open.

1:40:26 So when we were in July they

1:40:28 come to meet because some

1:40:30 concerns neighborhood

1:40:30 association that meeting never

1:40:32 happens supplemented presuming

1:40:35 the developer presented the

1:40:36 Fleischer grounds a precursor

1:40:39 of the current project and the

1:40:41 wider meeting there was a whole

1:40:42 new different set of slides.

1:40:43 The carpet carpet also

1:40:45 drastically there was ten

1:40:47 zoning violations at that time.

1:40:49 You Barbara's wanted a meeting

1:40:51 .

1:40:51 We had a meeting in July and

1:40:54 they never Covid from not

1:40:55 driving on submitted give

1:40:58 consent to my first heard they

1:40:59 claim underground parking was

1:41:02 impossible to the crime that

1:41:04 surrounding homes surrounding

1:41:06 this parcel according to

1:41:09 homeless recent Grafton street

1:41:09 prior to Bronson however the

1:41:12 geological record did not throw

1:41:13 deep enough to measure real

1:41:15 water level and they claim that

1:41:18 subterranean sleep prevents on

1:41:20 the palm.

1:41:21 This sounds on site for the

1:41:24 park which is simply too large.

1:41:25 Could this section about the

1:41:26 truth the street is only 32ft

1:41:29 wide with the circumstance for

1:41:32 one that the developers asking

1:41:34 for relief okay thank you ma'am

1:41:37 we have one one more we'll take

1:41:39 one.

1:41:40 The last one that's, uh, about

1:41:41 our Lisa McGill.

1:41:44 Yes.

1:41:44 Hi.

1:41:45 Can everybody hear me?

1:41:45 Yes, ma'am.

1:41:46 Thank you.

1:41:47 Morning board.

1:41:48 Um, I live at 315 West Third

1:41:50 Street.

1:41:50 Um, I direct about our behind

1:41:52 um, the proposed project.

1:41:53 Um, overall this project is

1:41:55 just too large for the location

1:41:56 in the community.

1:41:57 Apple Street is a no parking

1:41:58 street.

1:41:59 Um, this project is surrounded

1:42:00 by residential for us, the

1:42:01 developers comparables in the

1:42:02 surrounding area by parking

1:42:04 lots or commercial buildings.

1:42:05 It will completely block all

1:42:06 natural light in the back

1:42:08 of our building, which is a six

1:42:09 unit condo building for any

1:42:10 kind of project so also

1:42:11 complete with all natural

1:42:13 lighting severely impacted

1:42:14 direct neighbors on Apple

1:42:16 Street as you park.

1:42:18 Um we are not against

1:42:20 development but we are against

1:42:21 the size and scope of this

1:42:22 building and the lack

1:42:23 of parking thereby the revised

1:42:25 plans now show for less parking

1:42:26 and there is now no longer a

1:42:28 sign of the large beautiful

1:42:29 tree that is currently in

1:42:30 between our property lines

1:42:31 which provides shade during the

1:42:33 summers on our decks and a lot

1:42:35 of privacy please refer to 315

1:42:37 West Third Street.

1:42:37 Abutters previously filed a

1:42:39 position letter and further

1:42:40 comments since the newly

1:42:42 proposed plans, I feel that the

1:42:43 developers are taking advantage

1:42:44 of the current property and

1:42:46 design this building without

1:42:46 the thought of the surrounding

1:42:48 abutters or community.

1:42:49 All direct abutters oppose this

1:42:50 project.

1:42:51 Thank you for your time.

1:42:52 Thank you.

1:42:54 Okay can the applicant uh

1:42:56 there's a lot to process.

1:42:58 Yes, yes thank you.

1:43:00 Thank you, Madam Chair.

1:43:01 All right I'm going to I'm

1:43:02 going to just kind of go

1:43:03 through that taking my notes

1:43:04 first.

1:43:04 Um, based on just his comments,

1:43:06 I just do want to remind

1:43:07 everybody she did stated that

1:43:08 she lived there.

1:43:09 Uh, Jessica is actually

1:43:10 actually an absentee landlord.

1:43:11 But given that we do not have a

1:43:14 setback violation on that

1:43:15 property there and then also

1:43:17 there is a passageway in

1:43:19 between those properties that

1:43:20 preexisted that we do not

1:43:21 obstruct and again, we don't

1:43:23 have a side yard setback as far

1:43:25 as the concerns surrounding the

1:43:26 parking are we you know, we do

1:43:28 understand those concerns and

1:43:29 everybody's um you know, that's

1:43:31 one of the biggest concerns we

1:43:32 hear citywide.

1:43:34 Um, what we do is we try to

1:43:36 balance the needs between the

1:43:38 city's initiatives and the

1:43:40 Transportation Department's

1:43:40 policy given how close and

1:43:42 proximity we are, uh, to

1:43:44 transit and hence the reason we

1:43:46 do provide one for one parking

1:43:48 uh, for this uh, as far as you

1:43:50 know, we heard go about density

1:43:51 and height.

1:43:52 Um, again, we are underneath

1:43:53 the 40 foot requirement for the

1:43:55 height we're compliant.

1:43:56 We do we are compliant under

1:43:58 the floor area ratio.

1:43:59 Um then further as far as uh

1:44:02 questions surrounding the Saint

1:44:04 Vincent Neighborhood

1:44:04 Association, we did immediately

1:44:06 we've had two of us meetings on

1:44:08 this project.

1:44:09 The applicants have actually

1:44:11 met with some of the direct

1:44:12 abutters outside of public

1:44:14 forum as well continue to

1:44:16 further have dialog.

1:44:17 We did reach out just like we

1:44:18 do we don't script process.

1:44:20 We reached out to the Saint

1:44:21 Vincent Neighborhood

1:44:21 Association and the mayor's

1:44:22 office contest.

1:44:23 They decided to not meet with

1:44:25 this proposal.

1:44:25 Um, you know it's the first

1:44:27 thing we did was talk about how

1:44:29 reasonable it was.

1:44:29 But again, I'm not part of the

1:44:31 civic association so I can't

1:44:33 really say what their reasoning

1:44:34 was behind it.

1:44:35 Uh, but again they chose at

1:44:37 that point time not to meet

1:44:39 with this proposal hence the

1:44:40 reason why we were awarded a

1:44:41 DDA date.

1:44:41 Uh, and based upon those first

1:44:43 initial board meetings and as

1:44:45 well as the private party

1:44:46 meetings we did reduce that

1:44:47 height, reduce the floor ratio

1:44:49 ,we did decrease open space

1:44:51 and we did uh change the the

1:44:54 front yard setback and we also

1:44:55 eliminated a rear yard setback.

1:44:57 So lastly I just want to leave

1:44:58 you all with um again that

1:45:00 project a 368 app and street

1:45:02 which we do have many of voters

1:45:03 in support that did write

1:45:05 letters from half the street

1:45:06 and again that 368 active

1:45:08 Street is a mere carbon copy if

1:45:09 you look at the the actual uh

1:45:12 how the up the topography the

1:45:14 land itself in the shape it's a

1:45:17 very very similar shape and

1:45:18 it's quite unique.

1:45:19 I've never seen anything like

1:45:20 it myself to see it again

1:45:22 except that it's 1000ft2

1:45:23 smaller than us, approximately

1:45:25 1000ft2 small desk and that

1:45:27 proposed building that you all

1:45:28 voted unanimously on took off

1:45:30 just about the entire block

1:45:31 coverage where we did not take

1:45:33 up what the entire block

1:45:34 coverage here.

1:45:35 So um, at this point, Madam

1:45:36 Chair, I think I think I did

1:45:38 hear everything that we heard

1:45:39 and I'm here to answer any

1:45:40 other questions from the point,

1:45:41 uh, are there any other

1:45:45 questions or comments from the

1:45:46 board?

1:45:49 Is there a motion?

1:45:53 On the.

1:45:57 Yes I have one one other

1:45:59 question so I was really

1:46:00 looking at the plans um the

1:46:02 units that are stacked um in

1:46:05 proximity to your abutters uh,

1:46:09 there are about 1300 square

1:46:10 feet.

1:46:10 Are those uh, two bedrooms?

1:46:13 What are the what are the units

1:46:15 size?

1:46:15 Um well, if you have the the

1:46:18 just the unit breakdown.

1:46:19 I know I have the square

1:46:20 footage here but I don't it's I

1:46:22 forget I think it was a one

1:46:24 bedroom and I think there's a

1:46:25 three bedroom I believe it off

1:46:26 the property is a three

1:46:27 residential unit one has it

1:46:30 seems like it has two bedrooms

1:46:31 .

1:46:31 Yeah.

1:46:32 So this should be a one bedroom

1:46:34 and a three bedroom on the

1:46:35 first floor.

1:46:36 Uh, two bedroom three bedroom

1:46:39 on the is on the left side.

1:46:40 I think I'm more concerned with

1:46:42 the the one that is that

1:46:44 there's a bear next year but to

1:46:46 your right we just heard from

1:46:47 Jessica so there's two it looks

1:46:49 like there's two bedrooms two

1:46:52 bedrooms are stacked yeah so

1:46:53 there are two bedroom stacks

1:46:54 okay great thank you.

1:46:56 And they're pretty generous

1:46:58 right 13 1311 is pretty

1:47:01 generous for a two bedroom.

1:47:04 There they are.

1:47:06 All of the units are very

1:47:07 generous yes yeah okay great.

1:47:09 Thank you so much I don't have

1:47:11 any further questions okay.

1:47:12 Any other feedback from the

1:47:15 board may I have a motion.

1:47:20 Madam chair uh, I would like to

1:47:22 put forward a motion

1:47:25 of approval with a proviso that

1:47:28 the project undergoes PPD

1:47:30 design review and, um, takes a

1:47:33 look at whether the setback

1:47:36 needs to increase um further or

1:47:39 whether there needs to be

1:47:41 windows along that blank facade

1:47:44 to make it work more contextual

1:47:46 with its neighboring

1:47:48 properties.

1:47:52 Is there a second second?

1:47:54 Yeah, just the numbers.

1:47:59 Yeah.

1:48:01 This Carter yes.

1:48:05 Just by the browser.

1:48:06 Yes.

1:48:08 Miss Rubio yes.

1:48:11 Mr. Lamb yes.

1:48:16 Mr. Collins yes.

1:48:19 Chair votes yes.

1:48:20 The motion carries.

1:48:22 Good luck.

1:48:22 Thank you.

1:48:25 Next we have Kate VOA 1857 nine

1:48:32 365 with the address of 151

1:48:35 Water Street.

1:48:37 This is that about article 80

1:48:39 case assistance and with that,

1:48:42 uh, if the applicant and or the

1:48:45 representative from.

1:48:48 43.14%.

1:49:00 Is anyone present for 151 123?

1:49:03 Mr. Hampton, are you weighing

1:49:06 in on this?

1:49:07 Uh I mean I nothing uh and

1:49:11 Stephanie can probably concert

1:49:13 confirm this.

1:49:15 I believe they received a

1:49:16 letter of withdrawal.

1:49:19 So I would wait to have

1:49:20 Stephanie confirm that.

1:49:22 Okay.

1:49:23 Stephanie, you're yeah.

1:49:24 This is this is second from the

1:49:27 ZBA if the office a bit of a

1:49:28 letter to the project.

1:49:32 Okay then may I have a motion?

1:49:36 Make a motion to withdraw the

1:49:41 second um, that that this

1:49:43 assemblage.

1:49:45 Yes.

1:49:46 Mr. Carter yes.

1:49:48 Mr. Barroso yes, as we will yes

1:49:53 .

1:49:54 Mr. item yes.

1:49:57 Mr. Collins yes.

1:50:01 Terrible.

1:50:01 Yes.

1:50:02 The motion carries.

1:50:06 Next we have Keith Boe wanting

1:50:14 363101.

1:50:15 Yeah just 44 Granger this is

1:50:18 the applicant this was a

1:50:20 representative from for their

1:50:22 2022 work.

1:50:25 Uh, I am present uh, Ethan

1:50:26 Rittenhouse representing the,

1:50:29 um, project proponent on this

1:50:30 matter.

1:50:30 Um.

1:50:32 I'm just gonna grab my notes

1:50:34 for a second.

1:50:34 Could we, uh, return to the

1:50:36 initial I submitted a

1:50:38 presentation, I believe.

1:50:42 Maybe it was back.

1:50:43 Maybe it came in backwards.

1:50:45 So sorry.

1:50:45 Like some go all the way to the

1:50:46 bottom.

1:50:48 Um, uh.

1:50:49 Perhaps not.

1:50:50 All right, well, let's just for

1:50:52 season, um, as as it is.

1:50:54 So those are the new plans that

1:50:55 were, um, reviewed by the

1:50:58 zoning board.

1:50:59 Uh, March 31st.

1:51:00 Um, this project has resulted

1:51:02 in a lengthy community process

1:51:04 ,um, principally resulting in

1:51:06 the, um the shifting of parking

1:51:08 spaces.

1:51:08 The project is located at a um

1:51:12 two F residential development

1:51:14 in Dorchester and I believe

1:51:15 it's uh, 415 and uh, what we

1:51:19 are attempting to do is to

1:51:21 build a um, three families

1:51:23 house.

1:51:23 Um, there's going to be uh,

1:51:25 extensive um, relief required

1:51:28 from the variance code which I

1:51:30 will I will go through um, now

1:51:33 and then I apologize I'm a

1:51:35 little bit out of sorts.

1:51:36 I thought there was more

1:51:37 hearing material to review that

1:51:39 have been submitted to the

1:51:40 board.

1:51:40 So my apologies.

1:51:41 There was some um, present

1:51:42 character of the neighborhood

1:51:44 protocol photography that might

1:51:45 have been helpful.

1:51:46 Um, in any event, uh, we are

1:51:48 going to require a substantial

1:51:49 relief um, from article nine

1:51:51 section two this is a

1:51:53 non-conforming use change and

1:51:54 this work um we are obviously

1:51:56 going to be trying to create a

1:51:57 three family house.

1:51:58 Um, and it's a two family

1:52:00 neighborhood.

1:52:01 Um, in addition we require

1:52:03 quite a bit of relief from

1:52:04 article 65 section nine.

1:52:07 The, uh, lot area is

1:52:09 insufficient with a 5000 um,

1:52:12 minimum.

1:52:12 We're at 4000 with the project

1:52:14 proposal.

1:52:14 The width is also insufficient

1:52:17 to um basically for the same

1:52:19 reason requiring a um 50ft.

1:52:21 Um and we are at 40ft under

1:52:23 these plans.

1:52:24 The uh, lot frontage is also

1:52:25 not sufficient, uh, for the

1:52:27 same dimensions 50ft required,

1:52:29 40ft is proposed and the floor

1:52:31 area ratio is, um, excessive

1:52:33 under the zoning regulations uh

1:52:35 0.5 being the maximum with this

1:52:38 proposal uh, I believe being at

1:52:41 2.77 FDR um the building also

1:52:44 is a three story building uh,

1:52:47 as opposed to a 2.5 story

1:52:49 building as is required under

1:52:50 this neighborhood subdistrict

1:52:53 um however, it is worth noting

1:52:54 that the building is not

1:52:56 actually in excess of the

1:52:56 height requirements and merely

1:52:58 these story requirements.

1:52:59 Um, well, this photography is

1:53:01 uh apparently not with the

1:53:03 board.

1:53:03 The um building is going to be

1:53:06 a freestanding triple decker

1:53:07 that effectively um meets with

1:53:10 the character of the

1:53:11 neighborhood quite well in my

1:53:12 in my humble opinion um I

1:53:15 believe uh beyond that there is

1:53:16 also uh request there is yes,

1:53:18 there is relief required under

1:53:19 the side yard on the left side

1:53:22 which I believe um is only uh

1:53:27 three feet is on the proposal

1:53:28 as opposed to the ten which

1:53:30 would be required.

1:53:30 Um, the right side is

1:53:34 acceptable.

1:53:36 Um, going through the plans it

1:53:38 is a three family um it

1:53:41 effectively is uh, three

1:53:42 identical units.

1:53:43 Uh, and I believe uh.

1:53:49 That should conclude my

1:53:51 presentation.

1:53:52 Um, so I'm happy to answer any

1:53:53 questions that the board may

1:53:54 have.

1:53:55 We have uh oh and one final

1:53:56 thing we do have community

1:53:58 support.

1:53:59 This was presented to the

1:54:00 fields course of association on

1:54:01 several occasions.

1:54:03 Um and I believe that they have

1:54:04 forwarded a letter of support

1:54:05 to the board.

1:54:06 Um so I believe that completes

1:54:08 the presentation.

1:54:09 I'm happy to answer any

1:54:09 questions the board may have.

1:54:12 Thank you.

1:54:13 Any questions from the board?

1:54:15 Madam chair, I have a quick

1:54:16 question but this is probably

1:54:18 directed towards planning or

1:54:19 I-s-d staff somewhere where

1:54:21 they have plan set.

1:54:23 Um it looks like there's an

1:54:25 earlier iteration of the

1:54:27 project that is sort of the SA

1:54:30 site plan whereas the landscape

1:54:32 plan reflects revisions that is

1:54:35 the parking in the back.

1:54:36 I just want to shift this

1:54:38 project for you.

1:54:39 I just want like the assurance

1:54:41 that the plan we are approving

1:54:44 is the one we intend to

1:54:46 especially when there's two

1:54:48 conflicting plans within the

1:54:49 plan set.

1:54:53 That is Mr. Hampton with us.

1:54:58 I am Madam Chair.

1:54:59 Thank you.

1:55:01 Uh, thank you, Madam Chair.

1:55:02 Yes.

1:55:02 The city of Boston planning

1:55:04 Department, uh, plans that we

1:55:08 reviewed for our recommendation

1:55:10 are dated April 2025.

1:55:12 So if there's anything new, um,

1:55:17 we have capital is a much lower

1:55:19 than that.

1:55:20 Yeah, I have one I have one

1:55:23 2926 okay.

1:55:25 So especially when it comes to

1:55:27 parking in the front yard like

1:55:28 obviously we're not supportive

1:55:30 that so uh, if they know um

1:55:33 that we know the primary

1:55:36 redesign was moving the parking

1:55:38 to the rear of the apartment

1:55:40 shown in the rear.

1:55:41 Yeah.

1:55:41 Okay.

1:55:43 80 I'm seeing just one set

1:55:45 of plans.

1:55:47 One is to the plot plan.

1:55:51 It shows the parking in the

1:55:52 front.

1:55:53 No mine ships parking in the

1:55:55 rear.

1:55:56 Okay, okay.

1:55:57 If that's what everyone also

1:55:59 shows and that's fine, I think.

1:56:03 Oh, I see what you're saying.

1:56:04 Yeah even in this because

1:56:06 typically in my line of work

1:56:08 like the plot plan it's

1:56:10 actually you know, not the

1:56:12 landscape but Katy you're right

1:56:15 actually, um, the plan does

1:56:16 show parking at the front um

1:56:20 grander street the stop the

1:56:22 stop plan but the actual

1:56:25 landscape plans shows it at the

1:56:27 rear.

1:56:28 Yeah.

1:56:29 I think my question is just if

1:56:31 we were to approve it, I just

1:56:32 want to make sure it's clear

1:56:34 which plan we are approving,

1:56:35 but maybe we can clarify that

1:56:38 but just sort of wanted to

1:56:40 raise the concerns.

1:56:42 It's I know that this was

1:56:45 scheduled at an earlier agenda

1:56:46 and I found it hard to match up

1:56:49 the memo with the plot planning

1:56:51 .

1:56:51 So it was talking about two

1:56:52 different conditions and then I

1:56:54 realized it was a landscape

1:56:55 plan.

1:56:57 So my apologies for for for

1:56:59 that no no uh sorry.

1:57:02 Uh but yes I just just to be

1:57:05 completely clear, the primary

1:57:07 of the redesign had two

1:57:09 elements.

1:57:09 The primary one was shifting

1:57:10 the parking to the back after

1:57:12 community development and also

1:57:14 I believe the addition of an

1:57:15 Ada ramp which is noted in that

1:57:17 those plans as well.

1:57:19 Uh, so yes.

1:57:22 All right.

1:57:23 Thank you.

1:57:24 The other questions is take

1:57:28 public testimony.

1:57:30 Hello, madam chairman, may my

1:57:32 own representing the mayor's

1:57:34 Office of Neighborhood Services

1:57:35 regarding 44 graves.

1:57:36 This office is for sports

1:57:38 judgment a community process

1:57:40 was conducted including an

1:57:41 abutters meeting held on

1:57:43 Tuesday, July 28th, 2026 that

1:57:45 was not attended by any

1:57:46 Dorchester community members.

1:57:48 The proposal was also reviewed

1:57:49 by the fields.

1:57:50 According to the associated at

1:57:51 their meeting.

1:57:52 You know before 2026, the

1:57:55 association expressed the call

1:57:57 and provided a formal letter

1:57:59 of support submitted to the

1:58:01 board at this time.

1:58:01 The mayor's also neighborhood

1:58:02 since differs from the board

1:58:03 said for this matter thank you

1:58:05 everyone in consideration thank

1:58:07 you Lee and dreamers.

1:58:10 Hello madam chairman board game

1:58:12 room and council for down

1:58:13 that's the counselor like go on

1:58:15 record for this proposal thank

1:58:16 you thank you you're chairman

1:58:19 my father is going to call.

1:58:22 With that.

1:58:23 May I have a motion madam chair

1:58:26 I like to put forward a motion

1:58:28 of approval with two proviso

1:58:30 one that the plan has uh, um,

1:58:34 an accessible entry and the

1:58:36 second proviso um being that

1:58:40 the applicant resubmit a

1:58:42 revised plan showing parking at

1:58:46 the rear.

1:58:46 Thank you.

1:58:48 Is there a second second,

1:58:50 Mister Sturbridge?

1:58:52 Yes.

1:58:56 Better browser?

1:58:58 Yes.

1:59:00 Uh oh.

1:59:01 Well, yes, it's the Langham.

1:59:08 The Langham.

1:59:11 Where?

1:59:12 Yes.

1:59:13 Thank you, Mr. County.

1:59:15 Sorry.

1:59:15 Yeah.

1:59:18 Thank you.

1:59:19 Chair votes uh, the motion

1:59:21 carries.

1:59:26 Thank you very much.

1:59:28 Have a great rest of your day.

1:59:33 Next we have 2.1749423 with the

1:59:42 AD 26 for the applicant and

1:59:46 those thereafter the front will

1:59:48 apply to both but afternoon

1:59:52 madam chair Barnes carrier with

1:59:54 an office address of 299

1:59:57 Gallivan boulevard representing

1:59:58 the applicant with me is uh

2:00:00 architect Joseph Money and um

2:00:05 Joseph Zero on the line Fred

2:00:06 Monday's out and Joseph do

2:00:08 madam chair as you may remember

2:00:09 we came before you in July at

2:00:12 that time the board as well as

2:00:14 Mr. Hampton um a concern this

2:00:17 is a project that involves 26

2:00:19 and 30 Brook Street.

2:00:21 Whether or not the next line

2:00:22 will contain any restriction at

2:00:25 that time we ask for a short

2:00:28 continuance within a day of a

2:00:31 presentation.

2:00:31 I wrote to the city and sent a

2:00:34 copy of the letter to Mr.

2:00:35 Bumbry.

2:00:37 Uh, if addressing the

2:00:38 restriction of the lot the lot

2:00:40 in question um the restrictions

2:00:42 were released and was recorded

2:00:44 in box 67 043 page 122 and um

2:00:51 it was recorded back in January

2:00:53 19th, 2022 also um Madam Chair,

2:00:56 you have uh requested that we

2:00:58 engage with the Ashmont Valley

2:01:00 Association.

2:01:01 I'm pleased to report to you

2:01:03 that we have had extensive

2:01:05 conversation with the

2:01:06 neighborhood association.

2:01:08 Uh, in addition, I've met with

2:01:11 and received a letter

2:01:12 of support from the um Ashmont

2:01:14 Hill Neighborhood Association

2:01:16 although we attended we've also

2:01:18 met with all stakeholders

2:01:20 including uh representatives

2:01:21 from uh City council from the

2:01:23 warehouse office where we've

2:01:25 met with them and explained

2:01:27 extensively about the project

2:01:28 this project we were excited

2:01:30 about it's located less than a

2:01:31 block and a half away from

2:01:33 Ashmont station where um, the

2:01:36 new owners will have simple

2:01:38 access to the train as well as

2:01:40 bus lines um as well as bus

2:01:43 line.

2:01:43 We believe that the project

2:01:45 fits with the character of the

2:01:46 neighborhood at this point I'd

2:01:47 like to pass it on to um the

2:01:49 architect Mr. Fred Monica to

2:01:51 explain some of the relief that

2:01:53 we're seeking.

2:01:55 Good morning, Madam Chairman.

2:01:57 Morning.

2:01:58 Member of the board.

2:01:58 Thank you so much for the

2:01:59 opportunity.

2:02:00 I think, uh, gives as the

2:02:02 attorney mentioned, this

2:02:03 project is uh, is contextual to

2:02:06 the neighborhood.

2:02:07 What we are proposing is is

2:02:09 eight units with eight parking

2:02:11 spaces.

2:02:12 All the units will be two

2:02:14 bedrooms, uh and uh and two

2:02:17 baths that will be on the

2:02:18 ground floor will have two

2:02:19 units on without with an

2:02:21 underpass to allow for parking

2:02:23 to the back and the other two

2:02:25 upper floors will have three

2:02:26 units on each floor for a total

2:02:28 of six six plus two equals

2:02:30 eight.

2:02:30 Um we've uh we have met with

2:02:34 the several uh, member of the

2:02:37 community and I think we

2:02:38 generally have good feedback

2:02:40 and support for our proposal.

2:02:42 Uh, one of the comments that we

2:02:43 did receive is the fact that

2:02:46 the building is so close to

2:02:48 Ashburn station and the

2:02:49 transit, the building and the

2:02:51 development.

2:02:51 One of the comments that we

2:02:52 heard would it be possible to

2:02:54 reduce the number of parking

2:02:55 from 8 to 6 to allow for a

2:02:58 little bit more of green space,

2:02:59 which is something we are

2:03:01 amenable to if that was the

2:03:02 direction that the board would

2:03:04 send us to oh, maybe if there

2:03:06 was a need to be suburbs or

2:03:08 something we would be willing

2:03:09 to do that.

2:03:10 Uh, there's some other relief

2:03:11 we asking for the typical depth

2:03:13 of relief uh, in terms of uh

2:03:15 light side the last size

2:03:17 requirement is 7000ft2.

2:03:18 We're a little bit under that

2:03:20 at 6900 we uh uh uh the we uh

2:03:25 validations um uh SDR and also

2:03:30 uh number of stories it was a

2:03:31 hey, we okay with the height

2:03:33 because typically a lot of the

2:03:34 uh the buildings on the street

2:03:36 are about 35ft and a building

2:03:38 where within that but we do

2:03:40 have a larger phone number

2:03:41 of staff because I think it's

2:03:42 two and a half stories in the

2:03:44 neighborhood.

2:03:44 So, um, we think the project is

2:03:46 a pretty straightforward

2:03:47 project as you can see from the

2:03:49 elevations in the renderings I

2:03:50 think it's very uh it's uh

2:03:52 happy with this uh with the uh

2:03:55 ,other development uh,

2:03:57 happening in the neighborhood

2:03:58 uh, in terms of scale size and

2:04:00 these are decently, uh, good

2:04:02 sized units that are we feel

2:04:05 that uh, the available to

2:04:07 members of the community in

2:04:08 terms of either uh, going to a

2:04:10 home ownership, um, now stop

2:04:14 being open to any questions

2:04:15 that you may have.

2:04:16 Thank you so much, madam.

2:04:17 Actually a one of the things

2:04:19 that we group, uh, represent to

2:04:20 all of the community um,

2:04:23 association we do have a

2:04:24 version where we would add

2:04:25 shrubberies along the sides and

2:04:27 I don't believe that it's

2:04:29 showing the plan and in the

2:04:31 interest of full disclosure, we

2:04:33 would have a in for why is it

2:04:35 to have that a design thank you

2:04:38 .

2:04:40 Questions from the board.

2:04:44 Hearing none ma'am.

2:04:45 Public testimony Madam Chair

2:04:48 and members of the board for

2:04:49 the record my name is Jeremy

2:04:50 Bembry.

2:04:50 I serve as the community

2:04:51 engagement specialist for the

2:04:52 Office of Neighborhood

2:04:53 Services.

2:04:54 The applicant has completed the

2:04:56 community process which

2:04:57 consisted of an a protest

2:04:58 meeting facilitated on

2:04:59 October 20th during which About

2:05:00 Us expressed significant

2:05:02 concerns regarding the size,

2:05:03 height and placement of the

2:05:04 proposed development about the

2:05:05 about the building was

2:05:06 excessive for the area and

2:05:07 expressed concerns that its

2:05:08 proximity to the sidewalk and

2:05:10 neighborhood properties would

2:05:11 be out of character with the

2:05:12 surrounding neighborhood

2:05:13 parking was another major

2:05:14 concern, with the voters

2:05:15 questioning the need for eight

2:05:16 parking spaces given the

2:05:17 property's proximity to the

2:05:18 Ashmont uh Ashmont station.

2:05:22 Questions were also raised

2:05:23 regarding whether the units

2:05:24 would be sold or rented,

2:05:26 anticipated crisis property

2:05:28 management and the construction

2:05:29 timeline what if what I've also

2:05:31 expressed frustration over the

2:05:32 lack of direct outreach and

2:05:34 requested an opportunity to

2:05:35 meet with the project team.

2:05:36 Additional concerns include a

2:05:37 potential shadow impacts,

2:05:39 limited space for cleaning and

2:05:40 trash removal and pedestrian

2:05:41 and traffic safety near the

2:05:43 corner following the above is

2:05:45 the proponent was encouraged to

2:05:46 meet with the Ashmont Hills

2:05:48 Civic Association where they

2:05:49 portray the support of the

2:05:50 project.

2:05:50 To date our office has received

2:05:51 six letters of support

2:05:52 including one from the Ask My

2:05:54 Suffolk Association.

2:05:55 Thank you for your time and the

2:05:57 Mayor's Office of Neighborhood

2:05:57 Services would like to defer to

2:05:58 the board for the judgment.

2:05:59 Thank you.

2:06:01 Next we have um, the city

2:06:03 of Dana.

2:06:05 Hello.

2:06:06 Useful build up from City

2:06:07 Councilor Brian Wells office.

2:06:08 Uh, the city council would like

2:06:10 to go on record supporting this

2:06:11 project.

2:06:12 Uh, he believes that this is a

2:06:13 great opportunity to expand

2:06:15 homeownership opportunities.

2:06:16 The fact that these are, uh,

2:06:18 units that are available for

2:06:20 families, uh, would be proper

2:06:21 size for families is just

2:06:23 really what we need in

2:06:24 Dorchester and Boston.

2:06:26 Uh, and they have done the work

2:06:28 to reach out to the community

2:06:29 and make changes based upon the

2:06:31 community's concerns.

2:06:32 So again, City Council is in

2:06:33 support of this project.

2:06:35 Thank you.

2:06:38 Generational comments okay.

2:06:41 Any other questions or comments

2:06:43 from the board?

2:06:47 May I have a motion?

2:06:57 Madam chair, I'd like to go for

2:06:58 a motion of approval with a

2:07:01 proviso that the applicant

2:07:03 enters into a housing agreement

2:07:04 with millage prior to receiving

2:07:07 the permit.

2:07:08 Thank you.

2:07:09 Is there a second?

2:07:10 I can't discourage you.

2:07:13 Yeah.

2:07:15 Miss Carter?

2:07:17 Yes.

2:07:18 Barraza.

2:07:19 Yes.

2:07:21 Miss rule?

2:07:22 Yes.

2:07:24 Mr. Langham?

2:07:25 Yes, Mr. Collins.

2:07:29 Yes.

2:07:30 Chair votes yes.

2:07:31 The motion carries.

2:07:32 Good luck.

2:07:33 Thank you.

2:07:34 Thank thank you.

2:07:36 All right with that thank you

2:07:40 everyone.

2:07:40 Thank you for the day for a.

2:07:49 Recording stopped.