Zoning Board of Appeal Hearing 10-6-26
2026-10-06

[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.