Bpda Board of Directors - Regular Meeting

The city of Boston zoning board of appeal hearing for 01/27/2026 is now in session. This hearing is being conducted in accordance with applicable provisions of the open meeting law, including the updated provisions enacted by the legislature this year. The new law allows the board to continue its practice of holding virtual hearings through June 2027. This hearing of the board is being held remotely via the Zoom webinar event platform and is also being live streamed. In order to ensure this hearing of the board is open to the public, members of the public may access this hearing through telephone and video conferencing.

The information for connecting to this hearing is listed on today's hearing agenda, which is posted on the note public notices page of the city's website, boston.gov. Members of the public will enter the virtual hearing as attendees, which means you will not see yourself on the screen, and you'll be muted throughout unless administratively unmuted when asked to comment. Board members, applicants, and their attorneys or representatives will participate in the hearing as panelists, and they will appear alongside the presentation materials when speaking. Panelists are strongly encouraged to keep video on while presenting to the board. As with our in person meetings, comments and support will be followed by comments in opposition.

The order of comments is as follows, elected officials, representatives of elected officials, and members of the public. The chair may limit the number of people called upon to offer a comment and the time for commenting as time constraints require. For that reason, board the board prefers to hear from members of the public who are most impacted by a project, that is those individuals who live closest to the project. If you wish to comment on an appeal, please click the raise hand button along the bottom of your screen in the Zoom webinar platform. Click it again, and your hand should go down.

When the host sees your hand, you will receive a request to unmute yourself. So yes, and you should be able to talk. If you are connected to the hearing by telephone, please press 9 to raise and lower your hand. You must press 6 to unmute yourself after you receive the request from the host. Those called upon to comment will be asked to state their name and address first and then can provide your comments.

In the interest of time and to ensure that you have enough time to do so, please raise your hand as soon as mister Stembridge reads the address into the record. Do not raise your hand before the relevant address is called or the meeting host will not know to call on you at the appropriate time. We ask that you keep your comments brief, and and all public testimony will be limited to ninety seconds per speaker. Mister Stembridge.

Morning, madam chair. Present.

Good morning. Mister Valencia.

Good morning, madam chair. Present.

Good morning. Miss Turner.

Good morning, madam chair. Present.

Good morning, miss Beta Brazza.

Good morning, madam chair. Present.

Good morning, miss Panado. Good morning, madam chair present. Good morning, mister Collins. Are you on mute, mister Collins? Is mister Collins on?

Jesus, do you see miss dear Collins? I don't see I don't see from the the resolution. Okay. Well, can someone reach out to him? And in the interest of time, we will start as a six member board.

So with that, I'll turn it over to mister Stembridge.

Thank you, madam chair. We'll begin today's meeting with the approval of hearing minutes scheduled for 09:30AM. These hearing these are the hearing minutes from January 13. I will make a motion,

approved. Is there a second? Second. Mister Stoveridge?

Yes.

Mister Valencia? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Vedaraza? Yes. Ms. Perado? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

On to the extensions. Next, we move on to the extension scheduled for 09:30AM. I'll I'll read through all of the extensions. They all appear reason reasonable. And after I finish reading them, we'll take a vote on at that time.

We get this Case BOA1562160 with the address of 61 Lythgow Street. Next, we have Case BOA1270821 with the address of 123 Fisher Avenue. We have CaseBOA1444961 with the address 354 East East Street. Next, we have CaseBOA1521747 with the address 5 To 7 Brown Terrace. Next, we have CaseBOA1521739 with the address of 7 Brown Terrace.

Next, we have CaseBOA1521753 with the address 9 To 11 Seaverance Avenue. Next, we have CaseBOA1521740 with the address of 11th Seaverne Avenue. And finally, for the extension, we have CaseBOA1193958. The address of 1154 To 1156 Dorchester Avenue. Madam Chair, those are the extensions that we have today.

Thank you. Any questions from the board? May I have a motion to grant the extensions as requested? So moved. Second. Mister Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner?

Yes.

Ms. Guerrazzo? Yes. Ms. Panado? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Next, we have two board final arbiter cases scheduled for 09:30AM. The first is case BOA1702915. The address is 27 Wendover Street. It's the applicant and or the representative present. Would they please explain the case to the board?

Thank you, mister secretary. Good morning, madam chair, members of the board. This is Mike Ross. We're off from Prince Lobel, and I'm here with the architect, Peter Rubanco. This project was approved by the board on 10/07/2025.

And at the time, it was a nine unit structure with 13 parking spaces. The development team needed to modify the plans in order to make the project feasible and to get it under construction. The new plan reduces the units to six and the parking spaces to nine. If you go to the zoning chart there, mister ambassador, the zoning relief remains the same. FAR use, stories, height, side, and rear yard setbacks are the same.

While the open space requirement is not triggered by this structure in a '3 f 5000, one of the comments made by the board in October, believe I believe by member Beta Barrazzo, related to this issue of open space due to the amount of parking coverage. And so a proviso was actually added to that decision to, quote, focus on the four parking spaces and prioritize open space. And this new project does just that. If you can get to slide four, hopefully my slides are the same

as your

slides, you can see a comparison of the October plan with the I think it's earlier, mister Ambassador. It should be slide four on this. Let me see. Yeah. This one right here.

Thank you. You can see a comparison from the October plan on the left with now the current proposal on the right. The current proposal on the right has the four apartment spaces removed and replaced with open space. You can also see here that the mass massing of the building is the same in both cases. And then if you go to the slides after this, mister Besser, they'll show the floor plans and the new layouts of the six units.

Previously, there were nine units that had four one beds, three two beds and two three bedrooms. It's now comprised of just one two bedroom and the remaining five units are all three bedrooms. The new units are larger than previously, obviously ranging from ten seventy eight square feet to seventeen forty five square feet. Slides six through 11 show the individual floor plans, you want to focus on them. And then the last slide, mister Abbasor, just shows the elevations, which are largely the same, just some windows have been moved to allow for the new layouts.

You can go to the last slide if you want. That just shows the elevations. I'll pause there, madam chair, and see if there are any questions.

Thank you. Are there questions from the board?

Yes, mister Ross. Just to make sure I understand, you are not changing the footprint or the design of the building, only interior interior renovations. Right? Correct. Correct, mister Valencia. And if the cases about hardship, you are reducing from nine to six units, but you are making the the units bigger. So these are going to be bigger than more expensive condos as well than what you were proposing before? They will

be bigger. And potentially, I guess, they will be you know, the cost of each unit will be spread into the six versus into the nine. Correct.

If I remember correctly, last time you you proposed two affordable units. Is that correct?

I believe so. Yeah. I believe so.

And what is the trade off at this moment with the new project?

Well, you know, it's a good question. So initially, this proposal was 11 units. And we went before the Wendover Street Neighborhood Association who who pushed for a a reduction in the number of units because it's in a three f 5,000. So we reduced those from 11 to nine, and we did so at at request of the of the neighborhood. And the nine units just 11 units would have been feasible.

The nine units just wasn't feasible to to get the the thing financed, including with the IDP units. So they their their decision to reduce it to six made it feasible, but also frankly reached what the Wendover Street Neighbors Association wanted in the first place, which was even less units than nine to bring it closer to the three f 5,000 that that we had. In any case, Wendover supported the nine unit scheme because we did reach a compromise. But when we came to get this project funded, it just wasn't possible.

Thank you. I'm asking because you presented this case about three months ago. And so I'm very curious to understand why in just three months did you discover that your project was not feasible enough, but you are keeping the same size, the same dimensions, making the units bigger, and eliminating the affordable units because of the changes. So that's no more questions. I was just expressing my my concerns. Understood.

Any other questions from the board? Is there a motion?

I'd like to put forward a motion of approval.

Is there a second?

Second.

Mister Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Bedebrazo? Yes. Ms. Panato? Yes. Mr. Collins?

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Thank you. And so to confirm, we are now a seven member board. Thank you.

Next the next excuse me. Next board final operative case is case BOA1476876. The address is 28 To 28 To 30 Geneva Street. If the applicant and or the representative are proud, would they please reply to the court?

Yes. Thank you, mister Stembridge, and good morning, madam chair, members the board. Richard Lins with the business address of 245 Summers Street Espacia on behalf of the petitioner, requesting that the board review this as final arbiter. Just by way of very brief background, this project was approved back in March 2021. This was an article 80 project that allowed for the renovation or, I I should say, redevelopment of a existing garage site into 26 residential units.

I believe we have four IEP units as well. This was approved prior to the amendments to article 53, which changed pretty much all the zoning for East Boston. As a result, a couple of things have occurred as part of those amendments. First is that parking the minimum parking requirements are no longer applicable to any article a project in the East Boston district. That includes both small and large project.

Previously, it was just large project where the parking was set by the planning department. That now is extended to small projects as well. So by way of the first item that we're requesting is a change in the parking ratio. There was originally 19 spaces approved. We are proposing a total of 14, and that is largely in part to elimination of the stacker system that was being proposed originally when this project was approved.

This site is located within close proximity to two public transit stations, both the airport station and Maverty Station. We did review this with the planning department, and they agreed that that is an appropriate reduction in parking, especially since it eliminates the stagger requirement. The second item, and we can jump to slide seven if the board just wants to see what the new parking layout looks like with a total of 14 parking spaces at ground level. Nothing else with respect to that ground level changes other than the elimination of the puzzle stacker system. If you wanna jump to slide 11, in addition, the amendments to article 53 also allow, by right, the addition of roof decks, that are accessed by head house.

This being in the EBR 4 District, we are within the height limit, still. But by adding the roof decks, these again provided they meet all of the requirements of, section fifty three twenty five for setback, are permitted. And again, we've reviewed this with the planning department who approved this change as well as this was an article 80 project. Both of these changes have also been vetted by ISD. No additional violations under article 53 are cited, and therefore, we believe it's appropriate as board final item of the board review and hopefully approve these changes to the project.

Last point I'll make is this project is under construction currently, so we are eager to move forward with these amendments as soon as possible. Happy to answer any questions of the board.

Thank you. Are there any questions from the board?

I do have a question, and it's more to the Boston planning department, whoever is on call, whether it's Hampton or I see Patrick on as well. Is there a project manager for this project or someone that can speak on the project? From the BPD? Okay. Hampton. Excellent. Great. So

Well, before I oh, miss Bednar Barraza, before you go any further, we don't get notice of board final auditors. They just appear on the agenda. So whomever mister Lin's had been talking to at the planning department, I was never notified about it. So I can't really comment on this.

Alright. So the it's maybe mister Lin can speak on this. Was there ever a notice of project change since this was originally approved under article 80?

Not not that I'm aware of. I was not original counsel on this when it was approved. We did review this in the ordinary course as we do with planning, when we're making changes and inquire as to whether an MPC is necessary. The scope of the change, according to planning is this does not warrant an MPC, and therefore, it was reviewed, internally by design staff. Specifically, Alexa Pinard had reviewed this and confirmed that these changes were appropriate.

Okay. And so Alexa Pinard didn't feel that this needed to go under an MPC?

That's my understanding is that

there was no I mean,

the only because I think the, you know, the removal of the stack and and the reduction of parking, it does lay on the BPD's kind of design review. I think the thing that is new to me is programmatically the addition of the roof deck. Even though you are conforming within the height, I find that to be a programmatic change. And so, typically, that goes through a notice of project change to just kinda kinda get a sense of what the community impact might be on that change. So this is why I just wanted to understand from the BPD, you know, why they felt that there was not necessarily needed to have community feedback on just the addition that's a new program of roof decks.

That's that's my only comment, and and that's why I would have liked for or or or we have BPD representation here if they just feel that additions of roof deck is not considered a change of program for a project that needs to go in front of the community. I don't have any further questions, but BPDs can provide some context. That would be super helpful for for me. Thank you.

If I may, madam chair, just briefly, I I agree with, miss Vedabrazza that there are instances in which we do take that back out to the community. When the, addition of roof decks, would trigger conditional use, for example, or rooftop restrictions, then certainly that would be appropriate to the back office of the community. This change is as a right. This is permitted under the code under the amended code, I should say. I know in certain neighborhoods, it's it's it's certainly a conditional use permit, but the changes to article 53 do allow this change by right. So that I think that probably weighed into whether or not NDC was appropriate.

Okay. Thank thank you for that Yep. Thank along with Dylan for that context.

Any other questions from the board? May I have a motion? Motion to approve. May I have a second?

Second.

Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Bedbarrazza? Yes. Ms. Bonauto? Yes. Mister Collins?

Yes.

Your vote's yes. The motion carries. Good luck.

Thank you very much.

Next, we will move to the recommendations from the subcommittee.

Two word was to request. I'm sorry. We can do two word was to request.

We'll begin with Bill with Mattress. Sorry. So two Woodworth first.

Yeah. Let me just do this first.

The recommendations from the subcommittee, we will begin with two case BOA1798986 with the address of 2 Woodward Street. This was was approved. We'll go back to the beginning. Case BO81795810 with the address of 115 Baldwin Street. This this was also approved.

Next,

we'll go to case BOA1806137 with the address of 57 Emerson Street, which was approved. That's along with that, we have case BOA1806141 with the address of 59 Emerson Street, which was approved. Case BOA1797623 with the address of 27 To 29 Myrtlebank Avenue, which was approved. Finally, we have case BOA.

Sorry to interrupt. I believe the last two we're reading in separately. Is that correct, Caroline? Yes. So we're gonna

be yeah. So we're gonna be reading 2 Woodrow Street and 16 To 18 Bradfield Street separately.

Great. So can we have a a motion on what has been read into the record? Are there any questions? If not, may I have a motion?

Motion to approve all the recommendations from the subcommittee.

Thank you. Is that a second? Mister Stemberg?

Yeah.

Mister Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Vetabrazza? Yes. Ms. Panado? Yes. Mr. Collins?

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

There are two that we'll read separately now. First is case VOA one seven nine eight nine eight six with the address of 2 Woodworth Street.

I believe someone needed to recuse themselves from this one.

Mister Collins, are you recusing yourself? You're on mute.

Sorry, madam chair. Yes. I need to recuse.

Thank you. So we're a six member board. Any questions from the board? Hearing none, may I have a motion?

Motion to approve.

May have a second? Mister Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Barrabrazo? Yes. Ms. Panato? Yes. Here votes yes. The motion carries.

And finally for the recommendations, we have case BOA one seven eight three three four four with the address of 16 To 18 Bradfield Bradfield Avenue.

Madam chair, I need to recuse myself.

Thank you. We are a six member board. Any questions from the board? Hearing none, may I have a motion?

Motion to approve. Second.

Thank you. Mr. Stenbridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Miss Turner. Yes. Miss Panado. Yes. Mr. Collins.

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Next, we will go through the groundwater conservation overlay district case scheduled for 09:30AM. We have case BOA1803649 with the address 181 Commonwealth Avenue. If the applicants and or their representative are present, would that please explain to the board?

Anyone's Jesus, are you on? I am. Okay. Is this person Mary Barnes? Mary Barnes?

I think this is no. Mary Barnes for the next case for 29 Row. Okay.

So do we have someone who's speaking for 181 Comm Ave?

I didn't see anyone. I'm sure.

Okay. So let's move on for now then.

We'll begin we'll go through the hearings of hearing scheduled for 09:30AM. To begin with, we'll ask if there are any requests for withdrawals or deferrals from 09:30AM period.

Yes, mister Stembridge. 198 Marion Street.

That would be case BOA one seven eight seven zero three with the address of 198 Baron Street. Go ahead. Explain attorney Drago.

Thank you, mister secretary. Thank you, madam chair and members of board. Attorney Jeff Drago with Drago and Toscano with the business address of 11 Beacon Street here in behalf of the applicant of 198 Marion Street in Ward 1 East Boston. Seeking a deferral, it came to our attention that the plans that were submitted need the elevation needs to be shown accurately on the plan. It is not depicted, and this isn't a sea fraud, district. So we would ask for deferral to make that adjustment, to the plans.

K. How much time do you need?

Probably about four to five weeks. So a March date, if possible.

March 10 or March 24?

I think the tenth would would work fine, Caroline, if that works for you.

Thank you. May I have a motion?

Motion to defer until March 10.

May I have a second? Second. Mr. Stenbridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Bedevrazo? Yes. Ms. Bonauto? Yes. Mr. Collins?

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Thank you very much.

Any further requests for withdrawals or deferrals from the 09:30? Mister

Stembridge, I have two of them. 18 To 22 Breeze Street is the first one.

So we'll begin with case BOA1788402. The address of 18 To 22 Breeze Street. You go ahead, sir.

You for

the record. Richard Lyndon's business address of 245 Sumner Street East, Boston on behalf of petitioner. Requesting a deferral, we've seen a lot of communication on this matter from the district councilor planning and have heard from the mayor's office on this as well. We'd like to go back and take a look at the project to see if there's any changes we could do to address some of the concerns. So we're requesting a deferral on March date would be

Do March 10 or March 24?

Let's do the twenty fourth, please.

With that, may I have a motion?

Make a motion to declare that till March 24.

Is there a second? Second. Mister Stembridge? Yes. Mister Valencia?

Yes.

Miss Turner? Yes. Miss Bedebrazo? Yes. Miss Panado? Yes. Mister Collins?

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries. See you then.

Thank you. The other one is 128 Bennington Street, mister Stembridge. And that is a for for a new notice. So relatively quicker date if possible, whenever the board needs to re notice the the matter.

So this would be for case BOA1787097 with the address of 128 Bennington Street.

And the earliest would be March 10.

Yeah. So for the record, Richard Lands, 245, Summer Street East Boston. On behalf of petitioner, we, see that the notice, has cited the rear yard setback. I believe that because this is a teardown of the existing building, the side yard setback should also be cited. I believe we've already indicated that to inspectional services to go ahead and update the refusal, and then we're hoping for a new notice, in advance of March 10, assuming that's enough time.

Okay. Mhmm. With that, may I have a motion?

Motion to defer this case until March 10.

May have a second?

I second.

Mister Stenbridge?

Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Metabrazo? Yes. Ms. Panato? Yes. Mr. Collins?

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Thank

you. Mister Sembridge, forty nine to fifty one Calendar Street, please.

So this would be for case BOA1766723 with the address of 4951 Callender Street. Go ahead, attorney Ryan.

Thank you, mister Stembridge, madam chair, members of the board, attorney Ryan Spitz with Adams of Maranti, business address of 168 8th Street 1st Floor. This proposal will need to be re advertised as there was sister application that was inadvertently left off at 53 Kenilman Street. So, again, this will need to be re advertised.

Okay. Caroline? The earliest

we could do is March 10.

That will work. Thank you.

Second. Okay. With that, may I have a motion?

Motion to defer this case until March 10.

Is there a second?

Second.

Mister Stumbridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Barrabrazo? Yes. Ms. Panato? Yes. Mr. Collins?

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Thank you.

There are no more requests for withdrawals and deferrals from the 09:30AM hearings. We will begin with case POA 1803497 with the address of 29 Will Street. The applicant and or the representative are present. Madam Pierre, I need to recuse.

K. So this is a we are a six member board.

Thank you, mister Stembridge. And, again, good morning, madam chair, members of the board. Richard Lanes, 245 Summers Street, East Boston on behalf of the petitioner. Mister ambassador, if you can jump down to slide four just to give ourselves a little bit of context, and I'll explain the proposal to the board. This is an existing approximately 4,100 square foot separately assessed vacant parcel of land in Rossendale.

Our proposal would be to construct a two unit residential structure with parking at grade. Two units per lot are allowed in the subdistrict. This is a two f five thousand district. And although the lot is similar in size and shape, it's many of its adjoining lots of the neighborhood. Dimensional relief is required for this proposal based upon what the current dimensional regulations are for this particular two f five thousand district. If we can get on a slide, maybe slide six, five, five or six. Yeah. Yeah. That's a good place to stop. So with respect to the relief that would be necessary, there are a number of items that have been cited, and I'd just like to walk through those.

We probably can go to the architectural site plan at Slide 10. That's probably the best place to stop so we can explain the dimension of relief that would be So in this particular neighborhood, the minimum lot area for a single dwelling in this 5,000 square feet, this lot would not even be sufficient for that. So relief would be necessary regardless of what is being proposed. In addition, the minimum lot width is 50 feet. We're at 42 and a half feet.

But once again, I would point out that the lot itself is typical for this area, and the proposed use is consistent with the surrounding context in the immediate vicinity. With respect to the setbacks, we see here that the the rear setback is approximately 38 and a half feet to the building from the rear property line. We'll see in a moment that this site is pretty significantly slowed from the back to the front. So we are proposing some retaining walls towards the rear, but I would point out that the setback requirement of 40 feet is practically met based upon where we're at from the building to the rear property line. As a result of the community process, this this setback originally was closer to the rear lot line.

We are we have proposed to move the building forward based upon comments that we've heard from Rear Butters. That has resulted in a reduction of our front yard setback down to about nine feet total. I know the planning department's comments concerning front yard parking were were raised. I think by moving the building forward, we are only proposing to have the single parking space per unit in the garage, and we'll see those in the elevations in a moment. For side yard setbacks, we're able to meet the setback on the left side.

We do have a 10 foot minimum. We are proposing a three foot on the right side, but I will point out that the owner of the property also owns the adjoining lot to the right. So the impact should be minimal on the existing structure that's there. With respect to the foot air ratio, the maximum is point five. We are proposing a point nine, so

we

do require relief from that as well. And while this building is designed to be two and a half stories of habitable space, so there's a main level for Unit 1, and then Unit 2 is bi level with a half story up top. We are excited for height and stories as well. And, again, when we see the elevations, you will see the dramatic change in slope from from the rear of the property to the front. With respect to usable open space, the subdistrict requires about 40 little between 4045% total open space.

We are proposing a total of 52% usable open space, but because the lot size is deficient, we would not meet the physical requirement of open space, which is about 30 I believe, about 3,100 square feet total. We're about 2,200 square feet for the open space that's proposed. And then we are proposing two off street parking spaces. The code does require two per unit in this subdistrict, and therefore, we require relief for the additional space that would not be provided. If we can jump down to, I think, the elevations at slide 14, that will illustrate certainly how we're laying the building up.

As you can see in the upper left corner, that is the front elevation, and we do, again, have a significant slope back to front. So that garage level is subterranean for the most part for most of the site with the two and a half stories being built above the gray line as you can see in the side elevation on the right. When looking at it from the rear, the only exposed portion would be the two and a half stories of habitable space. Again, the garage level would be completely below grade if looking at the property from the rear. One of the things I will point out is that during the community process, we did hear from director Butters to the rear.

We've agreed to work with them not only with slope stabilization and ensuring that retaining walls will not cause any impact of their properties, but we've agreed to incorporate a significant amount of landscaping to the rear to create privacy as well as incorporate a fence of their choice along the rear property line to replace any fencing that presently exists. I will pause there. I know that the planning department has recommended approval with a number of items that they've raised as concern. I believe we can work through most of those items that have been raised. So I'll pause there and answer any questions of the board. Thank you.

Questions from the board?

Yeah. Can you just clarify that the the property right now, there's there's nothing on the property. Correct? I'm just looking at on Google existing conditions. Is they're just big three trees. Correct?

It's a vacant, yeah, vacant lot. No structures existing. I do have an existing condition site plan at Slide 9 if the the Bassanaras will back to that. But, yeah, there are no structures

on You're pro you're proposing a new curb cut that's 14 feet?

That is correct.

Yes. Okay. Alright. So what I find interesting is you're right that the BPD did recommend no front yard parking. But I think what's working to you is that you're there's a property to the left where it has very similar condition. Their garage is not being used, but I can see that it's not like if we were to pass this, it's it's not that this is setting precedent. There's already a condition next to you. The only concern would be that if you have two wide curb cuts next to each other, you're really not making it very pedestrian friendly. You know? So I would imagine that would have been more of the concern, but I don't have any questions. Thank you.

Through the chair, I I can I think we can agree that the curb cut showing in '14 could be reduced? I I I think there's there's especially since we pull the building a little bit closer to the front, I think 12 feet could work, But certainly, be able to work through that if the board is inclined to approve it with design review.

Yep. And and I was just gonna ask if someone can clear the screen with the red marks. It's a little hard to see sometimes the details. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions from the board?

Yes, Senator Williams. Just to confirm, this site plan that we are looking at at this moment already reflects the building shifting from the back to the front. I I think one of the comments from the about us that you offered to move the building ten ten feet to the front. Is this the revised site plan?

That that is correct, mister Valencia. The original setback of the building was at approximately 28 feet. We're now at 38 a little over 38 feet, so it's about a 10 foot shift the building forward, and that was in direct response to the butters to the rear.

And do you have to remove all the trees that are existing on the property at this moment? I

believe there's some trees that will be removed or additional trees to be removed. I know some have already been removed, and the trees to the rear, I believe there's some additional trees that we're be removed. But we are replacing a number of trees on-site as well. K.

Thank you. And just to help my colleague, Johnny, that like, you need trucks. I'm sure those three trees are going to be removed. There's no way of saving them.

Yeah. Yeah. I'm asking because I saw that in one of the comments from the. Yeah. And I

think we committed in the community process, mister Delancey and miss Barraza, is that we are we are committed to planting a number of trees on-site. We think it'll help certainly with slope stabilization to the rear, but that will be incorporated as part of landscape plan. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions from the board? Hearing none, may I have public testimony?

Madam chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Bembury. I'm the Rosalindale community engagement specialist for the office of neighborhood services. The applicant has completed the community process which consisted of an abutters meeting facilitated on September 16, where abutters voiced a few concerns, a concern for the impact on an adjacent property due to the adjusting of the grade and retaining wall from the rear immediate abutter to prop to to the property, a concern for the rear setback, which abuts the rear of the property, and suggested the proponent move the proposed building closer to the street by about 10 feet to provide more rear space for children to play. A concern for the height of the proposal and blocking sunlight was mentioned and a request for a structural management plan that all the can review, again, referring to the digging and change of grade. Neighbors voiced concerns for trees on the property requesting that many or most remain.

A buddies voiced concerns for stormwater runoff and if a stormwater management plan has been created as the neighbor pointed out that the patios are landscaped and will increase water runoff. Next, the proposal was presented to Prospect Hill Neighborhood Association, and with no opposition completed the community process. To date, our office has not received any further community feedback. Though it does seem that mister Linz and their team has reached out to the community and continued that community engagement, and there has been some changes made. Thank you for your time, and the mayor's office of neighborhood services would like to

defer to the board for their judgement.

Thank you.

Alright. Next, we have Susan

Hi. Can everyone hear me? Yeah. Okay. So my name is Susan Scheffler. I live at 127 Brown, which is the rear of Butter to 29 Row. I also submitted written comments, and I requested those be part of the record as well. So I want to start by saying that I do not oppose development at 29 Row. Oh, also the trees are gone. I'm looking at the lot right now, and the trees left in April.

So there's no trees left, just to answer Board Member's question on that. So first, I don't oppose development of this site, but that said, this is a very challenging site. It's on a steep hillside. It's very close to existing homes, and it really needs stable, long lasting retaining walls and other core safety features. Because of the conditions of the site, details like building placement, height, safety measures, and landscaping are not minor issues. They are essential to whether this project could be completed safely and responsibly. During our November meeting with mister Rens, he agreed

to

incorporate concerns our concerns into updated plans. These included moving the building forward to increase the rear setback, which has been done, limiting the total height of the building so that it does not exceed the height of 27 row, its neighbor, and installing safety and privacy fencing at dangerous elevation points, particularly along the rear property line. We also discussed the need for a landscaping plan to address tree loss, erosion, and slope stability, as well as clear construction mitigation measures to protect neighboring properties during what's going to be a quite lengthy and disruptive excavation and construction process. At this time, the rear setback is addressed, but the total height, safety fencing, slope stabilization, and landscaping have not been addressed in these plans. We've received big assurances that these will be handled at a later date, but that is not sufficient.

So I respectfully request that Board approval be conditioned on submission and Board acceptance of revised plans that clearly document the total building height no higher than 27 row and the required safety fencing at all high risk elevation points, including along the real property line. I appreciate the board's time and careful consideration and look forward to seeing this project move forward in a way that balances the need for housing with safety, environmental responsibility, and respect for the surrounding neighbors.

Thank you. Thank you. Thanks. And I think next we have another person. She sent me a message. Mary Mary Bone.

Yes. I'm here. Thank you. I support what Susan just said, which is our community came together. The initial meeting was with the Prospect Hill Neighborhood Association. As an organization, we choose not to take positions on development projects, but to allow the abutters to re facilitate their comments. So supporting what Susan said, I want to bring two things to light. One is that two of the trees on the property were large old growth trees. These were taken down by the owner last year before any proposal was ever presented to anybody. I'm also curious of the three foot setback side on the on the side of the property.

It's a comment to the ZBA. So if the person next door who owns this property leaves, then the new owner is confronted with a house next to them that's only three feet away. I find it curious that that's acceptable. My main comment is what part of what Susan said. Richard Lens has been very cooperative with us, and we appreciate that.

But we still don't know who the developer is. We don't really know the owner. What is the recourse if the promises that Richard has made, the attorney has made to us, are not being met if a developer won't meet with us, if we see something that's not what was agreed upon here, one big issue was about construction management plans. There's only parking on one side of the street here, and it's usually full. There are going to be trucks. There are going to be employees with their cars. So we're mostly concerned with what's the process if this doesn't go the way we've been promised. Thank you. Thank you.

Madam chair, I'm happy to that. We you know, I've in the public, process for this project that, we would continue to keep, the civic group, in the butters apprised of construction management plans as they develop. We typically don't do that until an approval is complete and we know what the final plan will look like. It's difficult to tell, what the extent of construction management would be, until we know all the details of construction. And I have no reason to believe that my client will, you know, will not do that.

I think there's ample time to get those conversations continued, and we have been fully committed to working with the neighbors on addressing those concerns that we heard here from from the director of Butter as well.

Thank you. Are there other questions from the board?

I have a question regarding what one of one of the community members just mentioned regards to

are you froze? I think you might be frozen, miss Verobraza. Oh,

can you can you hear me now?

Yes. You might wanna I

was just I was just saying, typically, you know, in regards to impact and regards to being in a new construction neighborhood, typically, one does know whether this is going to be for sale, whether the owner tends to live here. Can you just provide some feedback in regards to what is the future use of this new construction?

Yes. Yeah. These are intended for homeownership. These would be individual condominium units sold off as homeownership.

Okay. Thanks. Yep. Thank you. Any other questions from the board?

May I have a motion?

I make a motion of approval with planning department review. Special attention to parking configuration to ensure that there is no front yard parking.

Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stenbridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Beder Brazza? Yes. Ms. Panayo? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

You very much for your time.

Next, we have case BOA1789141 with the address of 27 Mill Street. If the applicant and the other representative were present, will they please explain the case to the court?

Thank you, miss Stembridge. And I apologize. My camera is not working today. Attorney Jeff Drago with, Drago and Toscano with the business address of 11 Beacon Street. Here on behalf of the owner developers of 27 Millett Street So

they don't do everything we've asked for.

Mister Hassan. You guys are yeah. Thank

you. Caleb and Yasmin Hassan were also on the call as well. And context design is the architect. And what you're looking at in this rendering is a rendering of the proposed condo four unit condominium building that now is comprised of an empty parcel. If you could go to the next slide, please.

And just again, the the proposal itself is to erect a new three story residential building that would house four residential condominium units on side and with two exterior parking spaces accessed through a 10 foot curb cut on the right side of the property and then to erect an exclusive use roof deck to the Top Floor exclusive to the 4th Floor unit. This particular and you can see the site overview sort of in this area. We've designed the building to match the style of many of the buildings around us. There's an existing three family to the left and multifamily residential, mostly three and two within that immediate area. The particular lot area, you can go to the next slide please, is 3,580 square feet.

As I had mentioned, you see here sort of what the lot is comprised of. It's actually two lots where one in from the corner. And there's been a lot of other developments proposed in this particular area to create new housing. The lot is 3,580 square feet. This particular subdistrict is a three f 6,000. If we go to the next slide, please. If we go to the next slide, mister Ambassador. Thank you. One back, please. Thank you.

So you can see the the parcel had some overgrown brush of a few smaller dead trees that's been cleaned up. And you can see it's been an open parcel for years. This was actually part of the yard sale program with the city, helped by the mayor's office of housing. And as part of our proposal with the mayor's office of housing, we agreed to an affordable unit on-site. And I'll go over that, once we get into the plans. Next slide, please. Next slide, please, Mr. Mess. Thank you. And you can just see either side of the development as it stands now.

As we worked with the community, with our direct neighbors and the West of Washington Civic Association, we actually made a number of changes to the project and also kept our affordable unit. One was to reduce the number of stories from four stories down to three. We reduced the building height from 43 feet to 34 feet six inches. We shifted the driveway and parking spaces away from our neighbor, and we moved the decks from the side of the building to the front of the building, which many of the properties, if you look down the street, you'll see that they have front decks. And these were all recommendations made by neighbors and the Wow Group West of Washington.

Next slide please. We start to get in and this is the site plan so you can just see the curb cut proposed. Two spaces in the rear of the property. There would be rear decks, front decks, and then obviously the roof deck that I had mentioned. We also have an area carved out for green space in the back of the property.

These would be condo units, so homeownership units. Just to get into the plans, if you could go to the next slide, by way of unit breakdown, Unit 1 is a 1,200 square foot three bedroom unit. Unit 2 is a one bedroom unit, six ninety square feet. And Unit 3 is a six twenty square foot one bedroom unit. Both of those have decks.

And then Unit 4 is the largest unit. That's thirteen seventy square foot three bedroom unit with a deck and a roof deck as well. So front deck and then roof deck on the property as well. Just to point out that the affordable unit that I had mentioned would be one of the one bedroom units in the back. So the 2nd Floor and we agreed to an 80% AMI and that would be a thirty year restriction and that I believe the board should have a letter from MOH supporting this proposal.

We also had a letter sent from the West of Washington Association in support. And we as I had mentioned, we worked with all of our neighbors on this project as we went forward.

With that,

I can pause and answer any questions that the board may have.

Thank you. Are there questions from the board? Hearing none, may I have public testimony?

Madam chair and members of board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Bembury. I am the Dorchester community engagement specialist for the office of neighborhood services. The applicant has completed the community process, which consisted of two abutters meetings facilitated on April 22 and 11/13/2025. During the first abutters meeting, abutters voiced concerns for the height of the proposal, roof decks, parking, and the number of units filling four is excessive, and three would be more acceptable. The proponent made changes to the proposal to adjust some of those concerns.

The second meeting facilitates on November 13 less attended than the first, and a voiced their appreciation for the changes and inquired if the condos were rentals or for sale, prefer ownership over rentals. Next, the proposal was presented twice to West of Washington Neighborhood Association, which completed the community process. To date, our office has received one letter from of support from Western Washington Neighborhood Association. Very excited to support the development. Thank you for your time, the mayor's office of neighborhood services would like to

defer to the board for their judgment.

Thank you. Thank you.

Next, we have Brian.

Thank you very much, madam chair, members of the board. My name is Timothy Guimond. I'm here on behalf of city councilor Brian Morell. We'd like to go on record in support of this project. We're particularly excited about the homeownership opportunity in the neighborhood and appreciate the applicant and their team on the robust civic process. So with that, we'd love to support the project.

Thank you

very much.

Madam Chair, there are no additional comments.

Okay. With that, may I have a motion?

I put forward a motion to approve.

Is there a second?

Sir.

Mister Stembridge?

Yes.

Mister Valencia? Yes. Miss Turner? Yes. Miss Bedebraza? Yes. Miss Panado? Miss Barado? Yes. Sorry. I didn't hear you. Oh, sorry. Okay. Mister Collins?

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Thank you very much.

Next, we have case BOA1767611 with the address of 11 Inwood Street. If the applicants and or their representative are present, would they please explain the case of the report?

Good morning. I'm alarm chair, members of the board. My name is Abraham Alvarez. I am in a licensed contract for 11 Inwood Street. I am in behalf of the owner or the the property owner.

This property has been approved an active building. We have an active building permit for three family residential building. This site is an is in construction site, and work is already underway. Today, request is not a is not a new project. The owner requesting an amendment for an existing approval permit.

The amendment will change the project from a three family to a four residential building. The amendment include additional adding one additional apartment, extending the 1st Floor unit into a basement, interior layout, exterior reconfiguration, changing the roof from a flat roof to a gable roof with a dumber. The the fire sprinkler is is already part of the approval project. If the amendment is approved, the thirteen hour sprinkler system will be adjusted to serve the amended for for family layout. There is no reduction in life safety protection.

The property provide three of street parking spaces. The zoning is requesting the the zoning is requested because the amendment do not comply with the zoning regulation related to use to to the for for for dwelling, lot size and lot wide, lower area ratio, building height, usable open space, front side, and rear yard setback. The zoning condition already existing and no no no have been created by the owner of contractor or the contractor. This amendment improve the property by creating one additional legal housing unit, maintaining the adjusting approval life safety system, keeping the same building footprint, remaining residential use, matching the character of the nearby home. There is no there there is no expansion of the building footprint, and any high changes is minimal and cons consistent with the noble.

Without zoning relief, this reasonable amendment cannot move forward with we will respectfully request the board grant to request zoning relief, approve this amendment for three family for two four unit. Thank you for for your time and the consideration.

Thank you.

Are there any questions from the board? Hearing none, may I have public testimony?

Madam chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Bembury. I'm the Dorchester community engagement specialist for the office of neighborhood services. Applicant has completed the community process, which consisted of an abutters meeting facilitated on my apologies. With one guest present, they immediately abut a voice support for the proposal as they made changes to the roof for their feedback. Next, we're gonna present the integrator Bolton Geneva Neighborhood Association where they voted in support of the proposal. To date, our office has not received any further community feedback at this time. Thank you for your time, and the mayor's office of Neighborhood Services would like

to defer to the board for their judgment.

Thank you.

Next, we have a city councilor O'Brien.

Thank you very much, madam chair, members of the board. Timothy from councilor Brian Morell's office. We'd like to go on record in support of this project and wanted to confirm all the civic engagement that was completed up to this point. So with that, we'd like to go in support. Thank you very much.

Thank you. No, Chair. There are no additional comments.

With that, may I have a motion? I'll make a move approval. Second. Second. Mr. Stenbridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Miss Turner?

Yes.

Miss Bedebrazo? Yes. Miss Panado? Yes. Mister Collins?

Yes.

She votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck, sir.

Thank you very much.

Not untrue. The next case has been deferred. So that takes us to case BOA1802569 with the address 9 Amorth Street. If the applicants and or their representative or president, will they please explain to the board?

Yes, mister Stenbridge. Good morning, madam chair, members of the board. Attorney Derek Small. I have a business address of 51 Dobson Road here representing the owner of the property, mister Lucinda Galve Congalves. We're here today, madam chair, seeking relief to change the legal occupancy of the building from a three family dwelling to a four family dwelling, legalizing the existing basement unit.

The basement unit has been there for twenty, twenty five years. It's been there for for a very long time. So we're here seeking to correct the violation at ISD as such. The violations with regard to this are the FAR. The FAR the FAR requirement is point five.

We are seeking one off street parking. We would need to add an additional parking space, but there is no room on the site. The site is a triple decker in in amongst other triple deckers, so so many of which are three or four family dwellings. So this is not out of the character of what is existing already in in the neighborhood. That basement unit is approximately 1,000 square feet and consists of two beds and one bath. I can stop there, madam chair, and answer any questions that the board members may have.

Right. Thank you. Forward. Any questions from the board? Hearing none, may have public testimony?

Madam chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Bembury. I'm the Dorchester community engagement specialist with the office neighborhood services. The applicant has completed the community process, which consisted of an abutters meeting held on November 13 with the one guest in attendance who saw no issue with the proposal stating it is pretty straightforward. Following the abutters meeting, no further community process was required. And to date, our office has not received any further community feedback. Thank you for your time, and the mayor's office of neighborhood services would like to defer to the board

for their judgment.

Thank you. Madam chair, just there should be some letters from neighbors in support of the application. I also know that the BPD's recommendation was for approval as well. Thank you.

Okay. Any other raised hands?

Madam Chair, we don't have additional hands raised at the moment.

Okay. With that, may I have a motion?

Madam chair, like Oh,

go ahead. You go ahead.

You I go

was gonna make a motion of approval with, no building code relief because it seems some questions around ceiling heights and such.

Okay.

Yeah. I think it's more I think it's more the, bedroom doesn't have, access to light in air, but thanks. I would have done the same thing, Jean. Is there a second?

Is there

a second? Thank you. Mister Sunbridge? Yes. Mister Valencia?

Yes.

Miss Turner? Yes. Miss Bedarrazzo? Yes. Ms. Panado? Yes. Mr. Collins?

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the board. Have a good day.

Thank you.

With that, the next three cases have been deferred, which takes us to the 11:00 hour.

So we'll take a break and come back at eleven.

Okay. See you guys then. Mister Valencia? Present. Miss Charter?

Present. Miss Beder Brazza? Present. Miss Pornado? Present. Mister Collins?

Present.

Floor is yours, mister Stemberg.

Thank you, madam chair. We'll begin by returning to the brown water conservation overlay district case scheduled for 09:30AM. Mhmm. This is case BOA1803649 with the address of 181 Commonwealth Avenue. The applicant and or the representative are present. Would they please explain the case to the board?

Good morning, members of the board. My name is Matthew Marshall. I'm the owner of 181 Commonwealth Avenue, and we are before you today seeking relief to receive a conditional use permit under the groundwater conservation overlay district. All required prerequisites for this permit have been completed. The project has received approval from the Boston Water and Sewer Commission for the proposed groundwater recharge system, and we have submitted a certification of no harm prepared by our engineer. And with those requirements satisfied, we are requesting the board's approval of the conditional use permit.

Thank you.

K. Is mister Simonelli on by chance?

Yes, madam chair. Good morning. Christian Simonelli, executive director of the Boston Grower Trust. I have both key card letters from the applicant.

Any questions from the board? Hearing none, is there a motion? Motion to approve. Varaza second. Mr. Stenbridge?

Yeah. Mr. Valencia?

Yes. Ms. Tanner? Yes. Ms. Varaza? Yes. Miss Bonauto? Yes. Mister Collins? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

So with that done, with that, we'll go through the hearings scheduled for 11AM. To begin with, we'll ask if there are any requests for withdrawals or deferrals from the 11AM time frame. Hearing none, we'll go to the first case, which is case VOA1789969 with the address of 7 Browning Avenue. If the applicants and or their representative are present, will they please explain to the board?

Good morning, member of the board. Isn't my name is Shai Vaugh. I live in 1065 Washington Street in Georgia. I'm the owner of seven of Brown and F. I'm also I'm a conductor too. I gotta build that house. So we we propose a three family house with a one and a half bathroom with three bedroom for the each floor and three space pocket in the back. And I get the driveway on the right side. On the left side, I keep, like, four feet. So this is just normal. A pre family house for the attendant. I gotta build a house and rent it out for the attendant.

So

Do you wanna walk us through any of these plans? Are there questions from the board?

No. Yeah. All the board all the member of the board, they have little plan. Right? Yeah. Like, yeah, one and a half bathroom at the kitchen, living room, and three bedroom on the one side. And and, also, I own the house number 11 Of Round And F. So this is Number 7. So side by side for more houses have a the other house have a right way. This one have a right way too. So so my neighbor over there, they love what I do in. So they support me to put a free family on there.

Thank you. Questions from the board? May I have public testimony?

I I'm not sure if someone from ONS is speaking.

I do apologize. Madam chair and members of the board for the record, my name is Jeremy Bembury. I'm the Dorchester community engagement specialist for the office of neighborhood services. The applicant has completed the community process, which consisted of an abutters meeting facilitated on November 20 with no guests in attendance, which completed the community process. To date, our office has received one letter in support of the proposal. Thank you for your time, the mayor's office of neighborhood services would like to defer to

the board for their judgment.

Thank you. Next, we have a city councilor Brian.

Hi. Thank you again, madam chair, members of the board. Timothy from councilor Brian Worrell's office, we'd like to go on record in support of this project. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Madam chair, there are no additional comments.

With that, may I have a motion?

Madam chair, I'd like to put forward a motion of approval.

Is

there a second?

Second.

Mr. Stumbridge?

Yes. Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Pedra Brazo? Yes. Miss Panado? Yes. Mister Collins?

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck, sir.

Thank you very much. Remember all the vote.

Next, we have case BOA1803623 with the address of 181 West 1st Street. This is an article 80 case, And if the applicants and the representative present, will they please explain the case to the board?

Good good morning, madam chair. This is attorney Nick Sizullo, McDermott, Quilty, Miller, and Hanley. Attorney Hanley is supposed to be handling this case. He just let me know that he was having some technical difficulties. I don't know if we could possibly ask for just the deferral to the end of the eleven o'clocks if there's it looks like there's only one more matter on. Exactly. Would it be possible to go after that one? I don't see him jumping back on yet.

I'm fine with that. If we can do that and then circle back and

Yeah. If they're available. If not, we can proceed. I'm sorry, madam chair.

With that, we'll go to the next scheduled case for 11AM, which is case BOA1775791 with the address of 748 To 750 East Broadway. If the applicant cancels their representatives present, will they please explain to the board?

Yes. Thank you, mister Stembridge. Good morning, madam chair, members of the board. My name is George Moranci. I'm an attorney with the business address of 350 West Broadway in South Boston representing Joe Arcari, the owner of the property.

As much as I wish I could help Nick Zoula out by prolonging this hearing until he's ready, this is a fairly simple matter. The building in question is a four story building containing nine dwelling units and ground floor and basement commercial space. It was approved by this board in 2023. Construction of the building is now essentially complete. When it was originally approved, no tenants commercial tenants had been identified for the commercial space on the Ground Floor and basement.

My client has since identified a gym, fitness studio, actually I believe a pilates studio, who would like to go into the basement portion and would like he would also like to change the occupancy of the allowed occupancy of the 1st Floor to a bank. The zoning district here is MFRLS, multifamily residential local service under Article 68. Article 68 in South Boston is, I think, unique in the city in that it does not contain any neighborhood business zoning subdistricts. It is MFR, MFRLS and local industrial. Hence, almost any commercial use along East Broadway or West Broadway requires zoning relief.

The bank here is a conditional use, even though East And West Broadway are populated by many banks. And the Pilates studio or fitness studio is a forbidden use. There may be some testimony on this matter. Folks in the community would have liked to have seen a more active use on the 1st Floor than a bank. My client has been trying to find some sort of local retail use, preferably one that serves food, quick to go items.

He's going to continue to do that. He does not have a bank client identified, but there have been some inquiries and would like to have it essentially bank ready. But he is going to continue to work with the community to find a use that is something that people in the neighborhood would like to see there more than a bank. But for today's purpose, we are seeking the variance for the fitness center, gym, pilates studio in the basin portion of the building and conditional use permit for 1st Floor Bank. I did read the planning recommendation of the planning department.

And the only thing I would note with respect to that is there was a proviso here for design review. But all exterior construction on this building is complete. Any signage would have to abide by the sign code and be approved by the planning department anyway. So I'm not sure that that is actually a necessary or desirable proviso should the Board elect to grant the requested relief. With that, I'll pause and take any questions that members may have.

Thank you. Questions from the Board?

Hearing none, may I have public testimony?

Yes. So you Johnson with the office of neighborhood services. This applicant completed the community process. Our office hosted on a Butters meeting on October 23 where community members were not very receptive to the idea of a bank. They expressed interest in having any basically anything other than a bank at this location. Gate of Heaven and Neighborhood Association is in non opposition to this application. That background, our office defers judgement to the board. Thank you.

Thank you. Thanks.

Next, we have Ashley from councilor

Hi. My name is Ashley from councilor Flynn's office. Councilor Flynn would like to go on record in support. He would like to acknowledge the applicant's continued work in good faith with neighbors in the City Point and Gate of Heaven Neighborhood Associations on retail and storefront amenities for the community. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Next, have Marco De Barros. If not, we can go with Minor Perez.

Thank you, mister ambassador, madam chair. Members of the board, this is Minor Perez representing the Carpenter City. On behalf of hundreds of union carpenters, I wanna go and recognize support of this project.

Thank you. Next, we have City Point Neighborhood Association.

Hi. Can you hear me? Yes.

Okay. Good morning. City Point Neighborhood Association will go on record in non opposition as well. And I just do wanna make a correction to the record. We are not looking for anything to go in there that is, alcohol related. So not only a bank, but nonalcohol related, and that was agreed to. The zoning, as attorney, Marantzia explained, is in fact conditional. Some of it is, forbidden use. But in this particular location, we're hoping that we can get an amenity in there such as, you know, a butcher shop, something similar to Lambert's, and that's what we're looking for. So with that, we will stand in

on opposition. Thank you. Thank you. Next,

we have Marco De Barros. Now you can Yes. Okay.

Can you state your name and address for

the record and whether you're in support or opposition of this project? Hello? Mister DeVaros, are you speaking in support or opposition for 07:48 I'm

a panelist. I'm the owner.

Are you doing a future case?

Yes.

Okay. So we're not up

to you

then. Please be patient. Any other comments for 748 Broadway?

Madam chair, I don't see any additional comments.

Okay. Does the applicant wish to address any of the feedback?

I don't think that's necessary, madam chair. I don't think anything contradicts any of my testimony.

Alright. Thank you. Madam chair madam chair, can I just ask one question for clarification regarding to the potential lease of the commercial space? Please. Yeah. Do you do you have a sense of how long your lease would be to for the bank use?

George Maransi for the owner. I don't have any knowledge of any. There is no current lease or even target bank. So again, there are a limited number of allowed uses in an MFR LS subdistrict under Article 68. When I say limited, I mean there is local retail, there's a barber shop, there's not much else.

So my client has the capacity to put a local retail establishment in here because it's an allowed use. He would like to add to his options a bank as an allowed use with the conditional use permit so that he at least has it ready. If a bank were to express interest, he would not want to say to the potential bank tenant, I should have the certificate of occupancy in place in nine months. That might not work. But yeah, as Louanne O'Connor from City Point Neighborhood Association pointed out, he has committed to working cooperatively with the neighborhood, hopefully to find a local retail tenant that is going to activate the space. So short answer to the question, member Beta Garza, is there there is no bank lease, so there is no term.

No. I just would like to make a recommendation that the when lease terms have pulled together, if there was to be a bank tenant, that you would consider other options and so not a very long long term lease. But thank you so much for that clarification.

You're

welcome. With that, I'd like to put a motion forward if you're ready, madam chair. If there are no other questions from the board, please. Madam chair, I would like to put forward a motion of of approval. Is there a second?

Second.

Mister Stembridge? Yeah. Mister Valencia?

Yes.

Miss Turner? Is miss Turner on?

Sorry. I just had a problem unmuting myself. Yes, please.

No no worries. Miss Bediraza?

Yes.

Miss Panado? Yes. Mister Collins? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Thank you.

Madam chair, we'll return to and ask about case VOA 1803623 with the address of 181 West 1st Street, which is an article 80 case. If the applicant and all their representative are with us, would they like to explain?

Good morning, mister secretary, madam chair, members of the board. Attorney Joe Hanley representing Triad Alpha Partners, the owner developer Peter Zagorianakis, who is with me. Just making sure everyone can hear me okay.

We sure can.

Alright. So I'm going to run you through this quickly. As the secretary said, this is an Article 80 large project that was approved by the BPEA for its residential use. This slide here on the site locus, if you can stay here for just a second, shows you the location. We are in a watch head of the MBTA's Broadway Station also within a watch head of 4 Point and the former Gillette headquarters and the convention center and all of South Boston's amenities and the like.

Our site is shown in the Red Hash Building. Next slide please. So just to walk you really quick around plan upper left, you will see this is the existing it's an existing outdated industrial use. Approximately 28 feet in height and is obviously distressed and unutilized. So you'll see in this too that there is a grade that goes up towards the hill.

Again, plan upper left shows you that. And that is the view looking south into the neighborhood from 1st Street. And then looking down, looking up 1st Street, excuse me, towards B Street, you'll see the corner of the building and then down 1st Street towards C in the lower left and then the right is up on 2nd Street. And you will see the site obviously to its immediate left. Next slide please.

So what is being proposed here is the project site is a little over an acre, almost 50,000 square feet. The building that is being proposed is varies in height and massing. It's been real carefully designed.

It's a

little less than 150,000 gross square feet. It would deliver 144 new residential units with 13% affordable as well as activate 1st Street, the West 1st Street corridor with neighborhood serving retail. Proposed FAR is just a little under three, two point nine. This is a full sized these units are all full size family sized accommodations. As you'll see, have eighteen three bedrooms, seventy four two bedrooms, and fifty one one bedrooms.

We also have bike parking, 170 interior spaces, 26, as well as a blue bike station and 101 total parking spaces, which is under the maximum limit of 0.7 and we think is appropriate considering the size of these units. The lot coverage, a little less than 60%, 59 And the building height varies between four to six stories at forty six and sixty three feet in elevation. And that is utilizing that grade change that I showed you in the photos. The project timeline, this is a notice of project change that was approved by the BPA under Article 80. Twenty eleven, Article 68, which is South Boston zoning was adopted.

This originally the project was originally contemplated as an as of right development with no affordable back in 2014. It was approved as such. It was stalled and not built. And we referred we returned the BPA for a notice of project change in 2024 in September and we've spent the last year extensive outreach with the neighborhood to public review process as well as the BCDC which voted to support this and we were approved by the BPDA Board and here we are today. In support of the zoning, we would suggest and you'll see that certainly we have a unusual shaped lot.

It's also happens to be abutted on three sides by public ways, second Street, C Street, and 1st Street. And on the other side, it's abutted by what is now known as the Mahoney Park, used to be a DPW lot. And since the approval in 'eleven, it was turned into a community garden and a public park. And that's a huge driver with how we shaped our massing and responsive height and the like. And then, of course, the grade change between its lower elevation down on 1st Street up to 2nd Street and carving that building in there and responding to that as a way to mitigate any potential impacts.

Next slide, please, shows you how the zoning comes together. And you can see the relief that is necessary. We, in MFR District, the MFR does not I think you heard this from Councilor Rancy on another project, but in South Boston, Article 68 doesn't allow retail. Through the BPDA process, we were asked to activate 1st Street as part of the retail. That does need a variance under the MFR of which we're located.

We also need relief for lot area for additional dwelling units, as you'll see. And again, I spoke about the FAR too is allowed. We're at 2.9. And in terms of the building height with its variation between four six stories presenting the lower height on 2nd Street as we get closer to the

Oops, I can't hear him.

I know. I think we just lost Joe.

Did we lose, though, mister Hanley?

If you go back a slide, I can go through the I'm the I'm I'm Peter Sigourianakis. I'm the owner. Okay. Sure. This is the zoning, code refusal letter from ISD, which matches the zoning that Joe just described about. Next slide, please. Next slide.

Next slide.

This is our garage retail level. So on we're on grade all frontage on West 1st Street. And as you come across around c to to to 2nd Street, because of the grade change, we have a different elevation on 2nd Street. So we're at grade on 2nd Street would be the 1st Floor, would be the 2nd Floor, and at grade on 1st Street would be the retail level on the parking garage. And we have 101 parking spaces and of course, our bike parking here, which is direct access outside the building.

Next slide, please. Next. As Joe mentioned, we tend to develop a little bigger units than most people, so we don't have a lot of studios in our buildings. We have a good mix of one, twos, and threes with the majority of them being twos and threes. We have a nice open area here with setback 60 actually 80 feet from 1st Street on this side of the building with a, you know, an amenity for the residents of the building and we have a courtyard in the middle of the building.

Next slide, please. Again, good mix of units on the second, next, in the third, fourth and fifth. Next slide, please. You can notice we have lots of balconies around the building on on on on different floors, again, the the the residents some nice outdoor space. Next slide, please.

4th Floor, the same. We have now on the 4th Floor, we've actually set the 4th And 5th Floor back on the building here so that we have we've limited the community garden shadow lines from the building. So we're not encroaching the shadow lines more than we were with the original design that was approved in 2014 by setting that side of the building is setback. Next slide, please. And same thing on the 5th Floor.

We did we we've eliminated most of the 5th Floor on this side of the building. Next slide, please. We have a solar array on our roof and per the request of the local, council people and electeds. We've eliminated the roof deck. I guess some of the buildings in South Boston, the roof decks have caused too much noise. So we've eliminated the roof deck on the roof. Next slide, please. Here's some renderings of the building from different. This is the West 2nd C Street rendering. We've actually designed the building to fit right in with the with the streetscape going along 2nd Street.

Next slide, please. This is the corner of C And 1st Street, which is a little larger because you have the elevation change that goes down about eight feet from 2nd Street to 1st Street in the retail level on the 1st Floor. Next slide, please. This is looking the other way on 1st Street. We have the the community garden and park, Normandy Park here.

Next slide, please. This is our landscape area that's on 2nd Street that's tying into the Mahoney Park. It's not part of the park, but it ties into the park and gives you a nice visual landscape effect which is used by our residents. This is set back 80 feet from our property line. So this building is opening up the air to this building in the middle so they're completely this side of their building is completely exposed to light. Next slide, please. Thank you. I'll be happy to answer any questions that you might have.

Thank you. Are there questions from the board?

Hearing none, may I have public testimony?

Madam Chair and members, CE Johnson with the Office of neighborhood services. This applicant completed a Boston planning department led article 80 process. A joint impact regroup pub publicity was held on 09/11/2025. Written public comment period solicited 24 written comments in opposition and six in support. Our office has received 19 letters of support, one letter of opposition.

Main points of concern during the community meetings, height, proponent or abutters would like to see the height reduced, noting that the proponent did work with the community on height setbacks. Transportation impacts of greater density around this corridor. Community would like a more comprehensive transportation approach given the amount of article 80 projects coming to 1st Street. Proponent worked with members of the IAG to mitigate any impacts to be abutting garden space and better blend landscaping between parcels. And with that back on our office to first judgment to the Board. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have Andrew Galvin.

Hello, madam chair and members of the board. My name is Andrew Galvin. I'm representing councilor Aaron Murphy's office. The councilor would like to go on record in support of this project. Thank you.

Thank you. Thanks.

Next, we have Ashley from city councilor Flynn.

Hi. My name is Ashley from councilor Flynn's office. Councilor Flynn would like to go on record in support based on a good faith compromises in the community process that included removing roof decks and removing the 5th Floor story along Mahoney Park. The proponent has also worked to conduct site remediation and agreed to improvements for accessibility for persons with disabilities, urban tree, canopy, and sidewalk, and public realm improvements. Most notably, the proponent has worked with the community to maintain over a 100 parking spaces and recognition of South Boston's existing parking crisis with the reality that new residents and visitors will invariably bring cars to this site.

Counselor Flynn respectfully ask that the board please provide every consideration and the proponent to continue working closely with the community during the construction phase. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thanks. Next, we have Steven Harvey.

Hello, madam chair, members of the board. My name is Steven Harvey. I am the senior project manager who represented this represented this project for the planning department. This project was originally approved in 04/17/2014, and it filed a MPC on 09/19 09/19/2024. It had two public meetings and one IAG meeting and had a substantial amount of meetings with the Boston and Civic Design Commission.

The project was approved by the VPDA or the fire department board on 09/18/2025, and it was an increase from 97 units to a 144 units. And the planning part the planning department approved the project based on their article 80 review process.

Thanks. Next, we have Marco DeVarros. Hello. Good morning.

Are you here to speak on this project? No. Okay. I think he's waiting for his own project. So can you please continue?

Okay. Next, have Mayno Perez.

Thank you, mister ambassador. Madam chair, members of the board. This is Mayno Perez representing Carpenters Union. On behalf of hundreds of union carpenters, living work across the of Boston, we're gonna go on record and support this project.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, there are no additional comments.

With that, may I have a motion? Make a motion of approval. Is there a second?

Second.

Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner?

Yes. Miss Bedebraza? Yes. Miss Panado? Mister Collins?

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Thank you. Thank you. Good luck. With that, it was madam chair. We'll move on to the rediscussions scheduled for 11:30AM. First, we have case BOA1774198 with the address of 2 To 4 Danny Road. If the applicant and or their representative were present, will their police explain the case to the board?

Miss Secretary, I'm sorry.

I just was asking,

would would deferrals already called for November?

No. No. Miss Stenbridge missed that, but let's do Danny Rody.

I just was, I'm sorry. Thank you.

You're good.

You're

good. Anyone here for Danny Road?

Sir, I don't I don't see anyone.

Okay. So let's keep moving forward,

and mister Stembridge can ask about deferrals. Which we will which we will do. So at this point, are there any requests for withdrawals or deferrals from the 11:30AM platform?

Yes. 100 Huntington Ave.

So that would be for case VOA 1703445 with the address of 100 Huntington Ave. Go ahead, attorney Drager.

Thank you, miss Stemberg. Thank you, madam chair, members of the board, attorney Jeff Drago with the business address of 11 Beacon Street here on behalf of the applicant. And working with the Back Bay Business Association, we are seeking one additional deferral. We've been working with them on some changes, mitigation for the advertisement, and we should have this all complete within the time period if

we can get one more deferral. Okay. What are we looking at, Caroline?

We could do March 24 or April 7.

April 7 would be great, Caroline.

Yeah. May I ask

madam chair. How many deferrals have you requested so far?

So I I believe there were three. One was because of a board. The board what composition was understood. It wasn't a full board. And then two, to continue working with a different association, and the city councilor had asked us to defer ones to to meet with him. But this is our final. I we'll have everything wrapped up if granted.

Okay. So today is November 4?

I believe so. Well, you said one was an administrative deferral.

Correct. Yes.

Okay.

So today is the third. Okay. So is there a motion?

Make a motion to defer. Sorry. What was the date again?

03/24/2007.

April 7. Oh,

April 7. Yeah.

Is there is there a

second? Seventh.

Second. Second. Okay. Mister Sunbridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Redebrazo? Yes. Ms. Panado? Yes. Mr. Collins?

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon. I have a deferral as well. Okay. Could you $8.87 Morris.

Okay.

So this would be for two cases. Hello? Case BOA1482368 with the address of 87 Morris Street. Along with that, we have case BOA1482374, also with the address of 87 Morris Street. Would you please go ahead and explain?

Yes. Attorney Lorene Scatino with a business address of 245 Sumner Street in East Boston requesting a deferral because we are still seeking GCOD compliance and waiting for Boston Water and Sewer approval, as well as we had an update in the plans. And the plans examiner that was on this is no longer an employee at the city, so we need to get another examiner assigned to rereview this case as well. K. How much time do you need? I would say April. Okay. Carolyn?

April 7 or April 28?

Let's do the twenty eighth. Okay. May I have a motion?

Motion to defer until April 28.