Bpda Board of Directors - Regular Meeting

The city of Boston zoning board repeal hearing for 03/10/2026 is now in session. This hearing is being conducted in accordance with the 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 livestreamed. 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 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 will be muted throughout unless administratively unmuted when asked to comment. Board members, applicants, and their attorneys or representatives will participate in this hearing 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 in 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 comment and the time for commenting as time constraints require. For that reason, 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 we can provide their comment.

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

Good morning, madam chair. Present.

Mister Valencia?

Good morning, madam chair. Present.

Good morning. Mister Langham? Good morning, madam chair. Present.

Good morning. Miss Wewell. Good morning, madam chair. Present. Good morning. Miss Turner.

Good morning, madam chair. Present. And I apologize in advance for my video. I thought I got it straightened out, but it's not functioning, so I will be off camera.

No worries. Technology. Love it or hate it. Mister Burnell.

Good morning, madam chair. Present. Good morning. What was yours, mister Stenberg?

Thank you, madam chair. We'll begin today with the approval of hearing meds scheduled for 09:30. These are these are from the hearings on February 12 and February 24 of this year. I will make a motion of approval.

Is there a second? Second. Mister Sembridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Mr. Langham?

Yes.

Ms. Wewell? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Mr. Brunel? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Next, we have the extensions scheduled for 09:30 a. M. I will read all of the all of the extensions appear reasonable. So I would read them in one after the other, and we'll take a vote on them aft have any questions for madam chair and then take a vote on them afterwards. We begin with case BOA1133499 with the address of 117 Colbridge Street.

Next, we have case BOA1333102 with the address of 4 To 6 Woodville Park. Next, we have case BOA1074303 with the address of 99 To 105 Fairmont Avenue. Next, we have Case BOA1507893 with the address of 1809 To 1813 Dorchester Avenue. And final extension for today is CaseBOA1527713 with the address of 112 To 114 Chelsea Street. Those are the extensions for today.

Thank you. Any questions from the board? May I have a motion to grant the extensions as requested?

I make a motion to grant the extensions as requested.

May I have a second? Second. Miss Hembridge? Yeah. Mister Valencia?

Yes.

Mister Langham? Yes. Miss Blueaux? Yes. Miss Turner? Yes. To Bruno? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Next, we have a groundwater conservation overlay district case scheduled for 09:30AM. This is case BOA1813655 with the address of 4 Hain Street. If the applicant and or their representative were present, would they please explain the case to the board?

Good morning, madam chair and members of the board. My name is Dominic Capola. I'm an attorney at Draco and Diskono LLP representing this property. We're asking for a deferral for this property in March 24, the next CVA hearing date. We've already been approved to be heard on that date.

Motion. I hear in the.

Okay. Can you just clarify why?

Yes. So we have a board final arbiter going on the twenty fourth and new violations being heard. So we just ask for them to all be heard in the same date.

Okay. Is there a motion?

Motion to defer this case until March 24.

Is there a second?

Second.

Mister Stembridge? No. Mister Valencia?

Yes.

Mister Layton?

Yes.

Miss Wewell? Yes. Miss Turner? Yes. Mister Burnell? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. See you then.

Thank you.

Next, we have a building code case. Paper for 09:30AM. This is case BOA1813622 with the address of 86 Pembroke Street. If the applicant and or their representative present, will they please explain to the board?

Good morning, madam chair, members of the board. Mark Lacasse, Lacasse Law, 177 Huntington Avenue in Boston. I represent the owner of this property, Jameson Brown. And also on the hearing is Mark Van Brocklin, our architect of record from Embark. The single family home renovation has already commenced and has been underway pursuant to a long form permit that was issued, And this is an amendment to that permit regarding access to the roof deck, which has already been approved by the Southland Landmarks Commission.

The sole issue before you today is as shown right here on this screen, access to the roof deck is proposed to be via a hatch. And this case presents the familiar anomaly between the building code on the one hand and the zoning code and Southern Landmarks Commission standards and guidelines on the other hand. The building code requires access to roof decks b through a penthouse, also known as a head house, and article 64 dash 34 of the Southland zoning code. And the Southland Landmark standards and guidelines require that access to roof decks be via a hatch. So we seek a variance from the provisions of the building code in order that we may install a hatch consistent with the zoning code and the Southland Landmarks Commission guidelines.

And that's it. Thank you so much.

Any questions from the board? Hearing none, is there a motion?

Make a motion to approve.

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

Yes.

Mister Langham? Yes. Miss Wewell? Yes. Miss Turner? Yes. Mister Brunell? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Thank you kindly.

Next, we will go to the hearing scheduled for 09:30AM. At this time, we'll ask if there are any requests for withdrawals or deferrals from the 09:30AM hearing.

Good morning, madam chair, members

of the board. Aileen Rose on behalf of the owner for 168 Dana Ave. We're looking to request a deferral for the next availability as an updated refusal letter has been issued and needs to be re advertised.

Thank you. Mister Sandbridge has to read it into the record.

This would be for case BOA1710494 with the address of 168 Dana Avenue.

K. And this one we can put on for April 16. Okay. Since the applicant already gave us their reason, is there a motion?

Motion to defer to April 16.

Is there a second? Doctor.

Mr. Stavenbridge?

Yeah. Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Mr. Langham? Yes. Yes. Wewell? Yes. Miss Turner? Yes. Mister Ronnel? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. See you then. Thank you.

There are no other request for withdrawals of deferral.

I see another raised hand. Can you identify yourself?

Yes. Attorney Jared Eiderman, under McClellan and Fish. I have an item on the first hearing for the 11:00. So you have to wait if

you are Okay. Very good. Thank you. So with that, we'll go to the first case scheduled for 09:30, which is case BOA1785172 with the address of 254 Bremen Street. The applicant and or their representative present, will they please explain to the board?

Madam chair, if I may? Yes. Yes. Thank you, madam chair, members of the board. Jeff Hampton, City of Boston planning department. The petitioner, Jeff Thomas, is having Internet troubles right now, so he is not able to get on. So if it would be an ask if goes to asked. Okay.

Yep. We we we can keep going and come back to him.

Great. Thank you.

Thank you.

So with that, we'll go to case BOA1809938 with the address of 60 Byron Street. If the applicant and or the present, will they please explain the case to the board? Yes.

Thank you, mister Stembridge. Good morning, madam chair, members of the board. For the record, Richard Lin's business address of 245 Sumner Street in East Boston on behalf of the petitioner. This is involving the property at 6062 Byron Street East Boston. If we could jump down to perhaps slide yeah. These slides are good to start. Yeah. It's perfect. So, madam chair, it's a preexisting two unit dwelling on the property. Our proposal is to demolish the existing structure and to replace it with six new residential units with six parking spaces.

If we go down to the next slide, it probably gives you a better view here. Yes. So the existing curb cut on the right side of the property, you can see the area that's to the new to the red structure is all part of this parcel. We do have access rights to the left of our building for an existing driveway, and that would be used to address the parking access to the back of the property. This curb cut will be closed up in connection with the redevelopment site.

Next slide, please. So we are located in EDR 3 District, and that, of course, triggered two violations from the inspectional service department. For all intents and purposes, this project meets all requirements under Planning's Boston's amended zoning for East Boston article 53. The only items that we were cited for involve the use of the property as six units because of the lot width. Our position is that the use of six units is actually allowed.

It's a lot width that requires 55 feet. That was a requirement that was included with the amended zoning for article 53. As the board can see, we do have a lot that is 5,000 square feet, 50 feet wide by a 100. Since the amended zoning for East Boston no longer requires minimum lot size or lot width for as of right development, the site can easily accommodate a total of six units, three on each lot, and we would not be required to do off street parking. The proposal that we vetted with the Neighborhood Association was that, certainly, they encouraged us to consider parking on the site.

And in doing so, we opted for a single building of six units, which does require parking as opposed to two separate three new buildings. Next slide, please. So you can see here from our site plan, our building does meet setback requirements for front, side, and rear. That would be consistent with the regulations for EVR three for this neighborhood. So, again, if we were to propose two stand alone, three unit dwellings, the bulk of the building and the densities in the building should be exactly the same.

The only difference would be we have two entrance ways and not be required to do parking. And once again, I believe that the neighborhood who supported this project was okay with six units based upon the fact that we incorporate parking. Next slide, please. Jump down to the rendering. Probably next slide, So this just shows in context, we are within the height limit. So our building is three stories, 35 feet. We do incorporate roof decks for the upper levels. The building immediately to our left that we can see on this photo is actually a four story building. Again, we kept we kept our building in line with what the requirements for article 53 permit. Next slide, please.

Just a layout of the floors. Don't really have to get too detailed on this. Next slide, please. Just showing the roof, we do provide those two private roof decks. I will point out that the refusal letter did cite us for new structure restrictions. As we've said in the past, new structure restrictions apply to existing buildings, not, proposed new new structures. So in this particular case, provided that we're within the height limit, we are permitted to have roof decks as a matter of right under the amended zoning for East Boston. Next slide, please. Just showing the elevations and, again, that we are, within the height limits, three stories and, within 35 feet. Again, this being exactly what would be built if these were two separate buildings.

We just consolidate by having a single common stairwell as well as one one main entrance way. Next slide, please. Just our elevations to the side. We do set back the lowest level that still allow for appropriate maneuvering for the parking area. And as I said, we do have access rights to get to the parking in the rear of the property through a shared easement to the left of our building. Next slide, please. Just a rear elevation showing those at that lower deck at the first level. Next slide. And then just the right side elevation. I will pause there and address any comments or questions by the board.

Thank you. Quick question. The the slide that you showed with the property next to it, is your proposed project same height, lower, or taller than that one?

Look lower. The building if we would jump back to slide I think it's slide two or three. We do have, I think, a three d view in the area. Yeah. You can see the building to our left at 58. Madame Chair is a four story. There are other four stories along that side along both sides of the street. We're actually below that. We'd be at three stories in line with the height of 64 to our right.

Thank you. Questions from the board? Madam Chair, I have a question. So

it seems like the number of units is conditional on the lot with their frontage. So can I ask why you didn't consider a three unit building?

Through the chair, we we did. We considered two two three unit buildings. We could subdivide the lot into two twenty five hundred square foot lots and erect two separate three unit structures for a total of six units, that would be my right. When we presented initially to the community, the concern that we did hear was about parking and that in order to be required to have parking, we would have to you know, we we would go to six unit a sick a single six unit building does require parking. Two separate threes do not. So in looking at this, we felt the appropriate trade off was to incorporate the parking while making a single building, which is a much more efficient build.

Next, Lance. I want to ask about, what is your vision or the proponent's vision for open space? Looking at the site plan, and I see that essentially urban housing that I personally don't have any problem with the unit count. The only open space that you are keeping is for six parking spaces and driveway. So how is that going to benefit the residents who may be living in those units? Right.

So great question, mister Valencia. That did come up during the community process. Our original plan, again, to consider two stand alone threes would have allowed that to be open space. But I think as this board's aware, the usable open space requirement has been eliminated under amended article 53. Instead, we have a lot coverage limitation as well as a permeable area limitation. So we meet both of those. We are under the 60% lot coverage, and we do have the minimum of 30% permeable area. So even though we are proposing parking, we would be incorporating permeable pavers as part of that solution.

I'm aware of the open space requirement, but the question is about the quality of life of the residents who have only parking in cars Understood. In order there to spend their free time. Are you have you considered reducing the parking and rearranging the parking to provide at least half of the opening space for the Resiency Dios?

Once again, I think when we originally started our conversations on this, that was our intention to not have the parking. The feedback strong feedback from the surrounding neighborhood in this particular area, which isn't very close to public transit, was that parking was a priority for this area. So understanding that, you know, we we would have preferred an open space concept for the back of the property. The parking was something that was a real important issue for the neighborhood, And it isn't often, I'm sure, as this board is aware, that we actually get the support of civic groups on projects like this. The civic group actually voted in favor based on this plan with the parking.

Final question. If you remove the parking during this hearing, are you going to trigger any zoning violation? Yes. Because we do propose six units in one building as opposed to two separate three unit buildings, we would trigger a violation for minimum off street parking because it is one per unit at six units. We're at zero for one to three units.

Thank you.

Thank you. Let's open it to public testimony.

Hello, madam chair, members of the board. My name is Eva Jones representing the mayor's office of neighborhood services. Regarding 60 Byron Street, our office differs to the board's judgment. A community process was conducted including in a Butters meeting held on Tuesday, 12/09/2025 that was lately attended by the members of the East Boston community where productive questions were asked regarding the proposal and comments were made about the project where the community felt the building was nice and fit into the neighborhood well. They did also show preference for the parking in the proposal due to the immense concerns regarding this e issue in the East Boston community, not just in this meeting, but in several of my meetings in this neighborhood.

The feedback excuse me. The proposal was also reviewed by the Harborview Neighborhood Association at their meeting on 08/04/2025. The association expressed support and has voted 10 in favor and seven opposed about the proposal, and they've also provided a formal letter of support submitted to the board. At this time, the mayor's office of neighborhood services differs the board's judgment on this matter. Thank you everyone for your time and consideration.

Next, we have Steven from the consular Coletta.

Good morning, madam chair, members of the board. My name is Stefan from consular Coletta Sappata's office. We wanted to go on record in support of this project. Like was mentioned before from attorney Lynn's, this project was supported mostly because of the parking that was included. The Harborview Neighborhood Association informed us that they voted 10 to seven in favor. So we would like to go in support as well, with, the parking included. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Chair, there are no additional comments.

Any other questions from the board? May I have a motion?

I'm to make a motion because I believe that six units are better than nothing. I still have concerns about the use of open space for parking. I believe that housing is a human right, but parking is not. But anyways, I'm going to make a motion of approval with planning department review, a special attention to improving or revising the parking count and increasing the use of all open space.

Is there a second?

Second.

Mister Stenbridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Mr. Langham?

Yes.

Ms. Wewell? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Mr. Brunel. Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck.

Thank you very much.

Next we have case BOA one eight one one five one nine with the address of 62 Liverpool Street. If the applicants and or their representative present, will they please explain to

the board? Yes. Thank you again, mister Stembridge and chair, members of the board. Richard Lids, 245 Summer Street on East Boston on behalf of the petition of Truquillo development. Madam chair, if we can just jump down to maybe the context of slide three.

Maybe one more slide for that. Okay. Perfect. So, actually, this board members of this board may remember this matter was before the board maybe about a year and a half ago where the board approved the construction of a new three unit residential dwelling on Coppersmith Way, which is the private way that was directly the lot is directly behind the Building 62 Liverpool. We would gone through the process, received our approvals, and during permitting, we were stopped by Boston Fire who had an issue with the distance to be traveled along Coppersmith Way even though Coppersmith Coppersmith Way has sufficient width, we believed there's sufficient access for fire apparatus.

They gave us a denial on authorizing any fire permit for that for that law. So instead, we've abandoned that plan, and we have opted to propose an extension of the existing building at 62 Liverpool, which is owned by the same party. And in doing so, we were cited for two items. So if we can jump down to slide seven, that is the site plan as part of the best place to start the conversation. So this is just for context, we're looking at an EDR 4 district.

So this is a preexisting six unit multifamily dwelling. The zoning for EDR 4 is actually a little bit more flexible than some of the other districts. And as you can see here on the site plan, we do propose an addition that is set back 3.8 feet, I believe, from what will be the left property line, and then it would be a total of almost a little over seven feet for the rear property line. These dimensions are actually better than what was originally approved for the standalone three unit dwelling that would have sat on the site. And we are we believe that this addition meets with the spirit and intent of the amended article 53, and I'll walk through that in a moment.

Under article 53 in the EDR 4th District, we would be required to have a rear setback of one third of the lot depth. And because we are proposing an addition, the existing condition that that is there today for 62 would be considered a corner lot condition. As a result, you don't necessarily apply the rear yard setback when looking at a corner condition. You would look at the side yard setback. And in this particular case, side yard setback should be five feet, and we would be proposing a little over seven little over seven feet, which is about two feet more than what would be required if we were doing the stand alone building as originally approved.

In addition, that 3.8 foot setback from the side yard would also be in compliance, and we would point the board's attention to article fifty three thirty, which is a newer provision in the amended zoning. What that says is that we have a preexisting nonconforming condition, such as this one here with our building having a zero lot on left. We would be entitled to follow that nonconforming condition provided we make a new course. So as the board can see, we actually set it back 3.8 feet, which would be no worse than the existing condition, and therefore, in compliance with article fifty three thirty for the side yard setback. If jump down to the next slide, we can probably show floor plans.

So as you can see, we do have six existing residential units and the additions that we are proposing roughly around 19 feet by about 31 feet, I believe. And that would allow for additional habitable space, bedroom, bathroom for each of these units. So these units would become a bit larger than the existing conditions and allow for a little bit more habitable space. Next slide, please. So we do also propose our roof decks, and this would be in compliance with I one fifty three as well, that we would be within the item and the setback requirements as set forth in article 53, and those would be exclusive to those upper level units.

Next slide, please. So we do see that we don't increase the IRR building. We maintain what's there. The addition that we're proposing is strictly to the rear of the existing structure. Next slide, please. And just a couple of other different elevation views here. Next slide, please. Just showing our we have our existing conditions met as well.

So it's a

relatively straightforward proposal. And, again, just to remind the board, this was approved for a stand alone three unit dwelling. That has been abandoned. The alternative is to do an addition to the existing structure to add global space. They're not increasing the number of units, so there is no parking violation that was triggered, and everything else is completely within compliance of article 53. I will pause there and answer any questions by the board.

So how big do the units become? How from how many bedrooms to how many bedrooms?

They're single bedroom now, madam chair. I'm sorry. Yeah. I believe they're single bedroom now that would go to two bedroom units, and the addition for each unit is 30 by 2,600, but almost around just under just under 300 square feet per unit.

Sorry. I think either I froze or you froze for a second, so I didn't catch the original what what what's there originally and how did so I got the 300 square foot additions.

Yeah. Single single bedroom single bedroom going to a two bedroom.

Okay. Thank you. Questions from the board?

We also have the same number of units. It's just they're just getting larger?

That's correct. We don't change yes. Six units will remain. Correct.

Other questions from the board? Hearing none, let's take public testimony.

Hello, madam chair, members of the board. My name is Evan Jones representing the mayor's office in neighborhood services. Regarding 62 Liverpool Street, our office differs to the board's judgment. A community process was conducted including an abutters meeting held on 10/01/2025 that was well attended by the East Boston community, and questions were asked about proposal. The proposal was also reviewed by the Maverick Central Neighborhood Association at their meeting on 10/1525. The association expressed support and voted for yes and zero nos regarding the proposal. At this time, the mayor's office in Neighborhood Services defer to the board's judgment on this matter. Thank you everybody for your time and consideration.

Thank you.

Next, we have Stephen for

office. A.

Good morning, madam chair, members of the board. At this time, the counselor's office would like to go in support of this project. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have Christian Simonelli.

Good morning, madam chair, members of the board. Christian Simonelli, Boston Groundwater Trust, and

we have both cheek card letters from the applicant.

Thank you. Madam chair, there are no additional comments.

Okay. Thank you. Can address the CPART issue that's raised in the timing memo?

Hold on one second. Yeah. So I believe because this is existing condition, we're not proposing any habitable space below DFE. I believe that's the basement space, and we're not proposing any basement, for this particular addition. This would be slab on grade only.

Okay. Thank you. Any other questions from the board? Hearing none, is there a motion?

Motion to

approve. Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stambridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Mr. Langham? Yes. Ms. Wewell? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Mister Brunel? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Goodbye. Thank you very much.

Next, we have we have case BOA1799116 with the address of excuse me. With the address of 12 London Street. If the applicant and or their representative are present, will they please explain the case to the board?

Sure. Hello. My name is Tim Shed. I'm an architect here in Charlottesville. 12 Ludlow Street is an existing single family. It's, you know, 890 square foot single family on three floors. My clients are small family. Three of them probably before fairly soon enough, and they want they'd like to expand the house. Okay. Is somebody else there?

Alright. So, basically, what they wanna do is make the house bigger, I think, as anybody else would in a, you know, some 900 square foot house. So currently now, they are on the low place, and behind them is Eden Street Park. What we'd like to do is put a three story addition on, which is each floor will be 56 square feet. Essentially, the 1st Floor, just like to make the kitchen bigger, you know, and the addition would be six foot two by nine foot utilizing, know, what's left of the land that they have to the back to their back property line.

So it would be right up you know, it would be basically filling up the lot to that rear property line. The 2nd Floor, we'd like to add, you know, a normal sized bathroom, so that would should be seven ten by five seven in that addition. And then on the 3rd Floor, we'd like to, you know, we'd like to have make up, you know, a master bathroom and make a master bedroom suite suite on that in that square footage. Currently now, the city you know, the the there's some land there that we're we have a deck on that's not fast. Some of those properties have some they're on the land that doesn't really belong to us.

It's part of Eden Street Park. But the way it is in the field is there's a retaining wall and a fence. So it's it's sort of no man's land. It's been like that, you know, as long as I've been around. And our zoning violations are there's an open space file. There'll be a, you know, there'll be open space violation because they don't even have the space now. We'll be filling up, you know, another 56 square feet of it. There'd be a obviously, a rare setback violation because we're already into the 15 feet as the property sits. And there'll be an FAR violation because currently, we're over you know, I think we're ten, fifteen square feet over what's allowed, and we're adding a 168. Currently, the house gross is $10.10.

We had a good community meeting, and they've got multiple letters of support from the immediate neighbors, which I believe are on record. With that, I'll take questions if there are any if there are any from the board.

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

Good morning, madam chair and members. Siggy Johnson with the office of neighborhood services. This applicant has completed the community process. Our office hosted an abutters meeting on January 15 at which abutters were supportive of this application. Our office has also received a petition of support with 43 signatures that has been forwarded to the board. That background, ONS defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we have the person, Hadesha Barini.

Yes. Hadi and Mitra Chavarini. Can you hear us? Yes, ma'am. Yes. Morning, everyone. My name is Mitra Chavarini, I'm with my husband, Hadi. I've been the owner of 11 Ludlow, which shares the common wall with 12 Ludlow, so we're connected. So directly immediately adjacent. I've owned that property since 1987, and my son lives there now.

I certainly support mister Murray's intentions of improving his house, but I really would wish that we would comply with the zoning rules that apply to all of us After reviewing, carefully reviewing the submitted plans, and I'm sorry that I could not be there for the neighborhood meeting, I would like to re again, reiterate that the proposal eliminates the required rear yard setback. You all know the details of that. The second is that it does not meet the open space requirement. Third, that the plans show an increase in the gross square area, which is really an excessive space to the zoning analysis. I know I have limited time, but I really wanna say that this is also going on additional land from the city, which is a really bad habit for Charlestown to be getting into for for all of us just because mister Sheehan said, oh, it's done.

I don't think this is really a pattern we wanna get into Charlestown as someone who's on that property for forty years. I think that's a wrong direction for the city. And Mr. Murray himself, we had a similar thing. Our space is three floors. We have two floors. Jim, who was the previous owner, had built a third floor. When we proposed the same exact idea to propose a third floor, mister Murray was vehemently against this project, and we abandoned it, respecting the neighborhoods for his decision that we were adjacent to his house and would be disrupting his life freely, my son. And so and he's also neurodivergent. So this construction would be really hazardous for his health.

So we we really wanna defer to your judgment and hope this this does not pass. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you.

Thank you. Frank Murray?

Hi. Can you hear me? Yes. Yes. We can.

Hi. Thank you to the board. I wanna thank the ZBA, the community process. Very much appreciated too, Tim. And my family property

owner or are you in a butter?

No. Excuse me. I'm the owner. Excuse me. I I Okay. Sorry. I didn't

Can we just make sure there's no other public comments? And then if there are not, we can we can go back to you as the owner.

Sorry, madam chair. Okay. Are there any other raised hands?

We don't have any other raised hands. Perfect.

So then we can hear from the applicant on those about our concerns. Thank you. Mister Murray?

Okay. Thank you, madam chair. Thank you again to the board. Again, like Timmy said, a little echoing off of, mister Sheehan, just the the size of the house, of a growing family, where and I'm an iron worker myself, in the city, and my wife Brenna is a nurse at New Health down the street on Bunker Hill Street. We have a young daughter, three years old. Timmy, as he mentioned, his his practice has seen many, many houses in my neighborhood in Charlestown. And ours is, you know, to his words, the smallest, if not one of the smallest. You know, naturally, we we wanna grow our family. We wanna stay here in Boston. I I I really, really, don't wanna go anywhere else.

Prior comments, to our direct neighbor, there was never any true, true issue with their project. It's just I had structural issues that I thought maybe should have been addressed. It's not my take to tell somebody what to do with their house. It's more or less just a structural issue. But, with that being said, I hope the board is willing to considerate, the fact that so small of the house and so small of the land that we are on to potentially grow in this house is is very hard, naturally. That's why we're asking for the addition. Thank you.

Thank you. And can mister Sheener, can someone remind us, the board, what's the total square foot addition? Because you have nine sixty six square feet right now.

Yeah. We're adding one sixty eight, 56 per floor. We're essentially adding a bathroom every floor. You know, it's a it's a very small space.

Thank you. Other questions from the board? Hearing none, is there a motion?

Madam chair?

Yes. I just

I just realized that I need to recuse myself in this case.

Okay. So we are a six member board. Thank you. Any is there a motion?

I'd like to make a motion to approve, madam chair.

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

Yes.

Ms. Wewell? Yes. Mister Burnell? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck.

Thank you, everybody.

Thank you.

Next, we have case BOA1796393 with the address of 241 Bunker Bunker Hill Street. If the applicant and or the representative are present, would they please explain to the board?

Good morning, madam chair and the board. My name is Beth McDougall. I am the architect for 241 Bunker Hill. So what we're proposing here is to add a small roof deck on top of the 1st Floor. If you could go to the next page, please. And the next page. Thank you. On the right, you can see on the left hand side is the small deck, which would be on top of the 1st Floor with a spiral stair that would go up to a deck on the Top Floor. Now the deck on the lower level is 10 by 15. We're using the existing house structure to support that.

And then the deck on the top is 18 feet by 21 feet on the top of the house. We've held the deck back six feet from the roof edge. It's five ten from the actual structure. And what these two decks will do is they will give us a combined space of 546 open open space for the house. The spiral stair, as you come out of the 2nd Floor to go onto that deck, you'll go up the spiral stair up to the top deck. And I'll stop there. It's fairly straightforward and answer any questions you may have.

So can you confirm? So this is a this is for the same unit, both decks?

It's one it's a single family home. Yes, ma'am.

Okay. Questions from the board? Hearing none, is there public testimony?

Madam chair and board members, C. E. Johnson with the office of neighborhood services. This application completed the community process, and meeting was hosted by our office on 10/03/2025, at which no concerns were raised. With that background, judgment from our office is deferred to the board. Thank you.

Madam Chair, there are no additional comments?

Hey. Is there a motion?

Motion to approve.

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

Yes. Elaborate.

I'm mister Langham? Yes. Miss Wewell? Yes. Miss Turner? Yes. Mister Burnell? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Thank you, madam chair and board.

Next, we have case BOA1763761 with the address of 10 Harold Park. If the applicant and and or their representative are present, will they please explain to the board? Yes.

Thank you, mister secretary, and good morning, madam chair, members of the board. For the record, attorney Madeckel with Fletcher Tilton on behalf of the applicant. With me this morning is Jennifer Hoff from Pew Architecture, the project architect. We're here this morning seeking to change the occupancy of the existing structure from a three family dwelling to a five family dwelling and renovate the building. The project site is located at 10 Harold Park, which is near the dead end at the end of Harold Street and Harold Park and abuts the City Of Boston open space parcel.

The site is located within a 3F4000 zoning district and is one of the largest lots in the area containing, over 8,700 square feet. You can see the lot there on the presentation, and the existing structure. This project that we're proposing presents a fairly unique situation where we're seeking to add two units to the existing building while proposing very limited changes to the overall structure and no exterior changes from the street. It includes a renovation interior and utilizing existing space both within the lower level as well as a built out existing fourth story, overall making the building more functional and again creating the two additional residential units. We're also seeking to create some additional open space by utilizing space on the existing third story roof in the rear to create a deck for the proposed fifth unit on that fourth level.

Overall, the lower level unit will have both egress windows, window wells to provide light and egress, as well as a full rear walkout to a sunken patio. And again, the fifth unit will be in that existing fourth story, which you can see. So that'll be the smallest unit at two bedrooms, because we'll keep the profile of the building as is and then just add the deck to the rear of that unit. Overall, in terms of violations, we are seeking, use variants. This is a three F district, and we are seeking, the two additional units.

However, as mentioned, this is, one of the largest lots in the area. We're also seeking relief for additional lot area per dwelling unit. The floor area ratio, you're allowed a point eight. We are proposing a one point zero. But again, all that space that we're seeking to, legalize is already within the building.

It's just making it more functional, and utilized for residential units. And then finally, we did trigger a violation for height in terms of feet, but that's based on the roof deck alone. Again, the building is already 46 feet tall. We are not adding any structures above the current roofline, so the building profile will remain exactly as you see it today. As part of this process, we did meet with the abutters as well as appearing before the Garrison Trotter Housing Committee and their full membership meeting, where they ultimately voted to support the project. We also submitted several letters of support through the Board, which you should have on file. With that, I'll very briefly turn it over to Jennifer again, the project architect. She can briefly walk through the floor plans and elevations and some of the landscaping as well.

Hello, Madam Chair and Board members.

My name is Jennifer I'm the Principal Architect Q Architecture. My office is at 53 H Harvard Street in Dorchester. So 10 Hale Park is an existing three family built a building that's built in nineteen o five as a four story mansard multifamily home. The exterior has been recently refaced in the last five years, and the owner wishes to convert the building from three to five units. The new units will be both within the existing building shell.

The changes in the building exterior are pretty minimal as what Matt had explained, and it includes a second patio for the basement, a roof deck over the rear abutment, and a new exterior stair at the building rear. The proposed basement unit will use the existing entrance lobby of the building that's on the 1st Floor, and it will host three bedrooms and two bathrooms. It will feature a private sunken patio for the kitchen living space. The 1st Floor, 2nd Floor, and 3rd Floor are original to the house. Those are units that are already have a private rear deck space.

So there's not really many changes on that. On the 4th Floor is the 4th Floor unit is within the existing 992 square foot mansard, so the space is already there. There has it has a beautiful high ceilings and views to the city, so there's already been a walkout towards the roof to that rear abutment. It will host two bedrooms and one bathroom as well as a new private roof deck, so that rear abutment roof is now gonna be an official deck instead of just a rubber membrane. The front facade of the building essentially stays the same as what Matt had explained, And the visible changes on the exterior can only be seen from the rear of the house, which is the rear roof deck, the rear stairs, and the sunken patio.

That's the end of my presentation.

Great. Thank you, Jennifer. Madam Chair, with that, we'd happily take any questions the board might have.

Thank you. Are there questions from the board? Hearing none, ma'am, I'm sorry. Just to clarify, the

new units are at the mansert and at the basement, right? There's already units in the first, second, and third?

That that is correct.

Yes. Okay. And the only addition of part exterior wise is the is the stair in the back? Correct. Okay.

Thank you. Any other questions from the board? May have public testimony?

Madam chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Bembury. I'm the Roxbury community engagement specialist for the office of neighborhood services. The applicant has completed the community process, which consisted of an abutters meeting facilitated on August 12 that was lightly attended, and a concern for parking was heard multiple times. Filling the cul de sac is too small to provide no parking, as well as a concern for traffic, the increase of, and affordability. Next, the proposal was presented to Greater Toronto Neighborhood Association who voted in support of the proposal. To date, our office has received 10 letters of support recognizing and supporting the need for more housing. Thank you for your time, and the mayor's office of neighborhood services would like to defer to the board with their judge.

Thank you.

Madam chair, there are no additional comments.

With that, may I have a motion?

I make a motion of approval.

Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge? Yep. Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Mr. Langham? Yes. Ms. Wewell? Yes. Miss Turner? Yes. Mister Burnell? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Thank you very much.

Good luck.

Next, we have case BOA1784542 with the address of 9 Claiborne Street. If the applicant and those are members of the president that would explain to the court.

Good morning. My name is Tedman Blake. I'm the owner me and my wife own 9 Claiborne Street in Dorchester. And ten fifteen years ago, we

had

violations for for rooms, and they were actually studios. And they it was silence for fifteen years and then it come back up in 2025. So they tell us to file with the the city to get it legalized, and we're hoping that as a minority that you all will help us to get a relief so we could pay the taxes and be good citizen. We take care of our property, and we just want to be get a relief and make purchase the grid here.

So just to confirm, it's it's been functioning as a five family but but listed as a three, and you're trying to correct it to be a five. Is that correct?

Absolutely. Yes. We try to get get it straightened out and probably want everything to be straightened and good. Yes.

Okay. Are there questions from the board? Wow. 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. The applicant has completed the community process, which consisted of an abode's meeting held on November with no abutters present. Next, the proponent presented to United Neighborhood Association and with no opposition completed the community process. Thank you for your time, and the mayor's office of neighborhood services would like to defer to the board on the agenda.

Thank you.

Madam chair, there are no additional comments.

With that, may I have a motion?

Motion approval. Second.

Thank you. Mister Stambridge? Yes. Mister Valencia?

Yes.

Mr. Leinam? Yes. Ms. Meebo? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Mr. Burnell? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Good luck.

Thank you. Thank you very much.

Next, we have case BOA1774682 with the address of 25 Tina Avenue. If the applicant and or the representative present, would they please explain the case to the board?

Yes. Good morning once again, madam chair, members of the Board for the record, Attorney Matt Echel with Fletcher Tilton on behalf of the applicant. With me this morning is James Christopher from six eighty six, the Project Architects. We're seeking to erect a new residential building with three ownership units and three parking spaces on a lot known as 25 Tina Avenue. The existing lot contains 3,600 square feet and is currently vacant and overgrown.

Tina Ave itself is a private way that connects to Wood Ave and Oakwood Street in Hyde Park. We are proposing a three story building with a common entrance and one unit laid out per floor. Just to briefly go through the floor plans, we will have a very, small basement area, which will just house a sprinkler and mechanical room. The 1st Floor will house Unit 1, which is proposed to be 878 square feet with two bedrooms and two bathrooms. The 2nd And 3rd Floor are very similar.

They will house Unit 2 and Unit 3, and they're both proposed to be twelve sixty five square feet with three bedrooms and two bathrooms. Each unit will have one dedicated parking space. Two of the spaces are located at grade underneath the proposed building. As you can see in the site elevation there, we're kind of cantilevered over, and that's going to provide, space for two of the parking spaces. And the third space will be, looking at the screen to the left, but towards the rear of the property, that will be a fully exterior parking space so that each unit will have one dedicated space.

As part of this process, we met several times with the abutters as well as the East River Neighborhood Association. We made several changes to the project, mostly rolling around the design to make sure it better fit in with the context of the neighborhood. We had more of a triple decker look to start, and we worked with the abutters here to come up with a more contextual design that fits within the neighborhood and doesn't play as much as a triple decker. As a result of that, we did receive several letters of support from Director Butters, as well as a letter from City Councilor Pepin, which shall be on file with the Board. Now with that, I'll happily pause and take any questions the Board may have.

Thank you. Are there questions from the board?

Yes. One of the enablers submitted the comments mentioning that you will have to cut at least nine trees. Is that correct? And if so, what is your plan for the open space?

Sure, miss Alessia. So, yes, the the property is vacant. It's been overgrown for some time. So most of the the coverage there are invasive species. So we do have a a landscaping plan, which can you see a little bit in the, aerial view, the the site plan. We have some plantings along the front of the street, along Tina Ave itself, kind of providing a buffer between that walkway. We also have some plantings at the rear and maintain a a six foot side setback to the left. The right side will be the driveway providing access to the parking. So we will be taking down, some trees, but they're mostly invasive, and it's just been kind of an unkempt lot for for many years.

Other questions from the board? May I have public testimony?

Madam chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Bembury. I'm the Hyde Park community engagement specialist with the office of neighborhood services. The applicant has completed the community process for consent to the members meeting facilitated on October 8 that was very relative. Budders voiced their concerns for the size of the proposal, feeling it is too large with a small lot and for the two family duplex would be more in line with the character of the neighborhood. The proposed one to one parking ratio per unit was also a concern as the buddies did not feel it provided enough parking considering the parking congestion issues.

Other concerns were ownership, the number of variances being seeked, road and mitigation during construction, and repairing of the private road the proposal sits on. Next, the proponent presented the East River Neighborhood Association where they voted to oppose the proposal, feeling a three family home was set a negative precedent for the neighborhood. To date, our office has received eight letters of support, one of them from councilor Peppin's office, supporting the need for more housing while staying in line with the character of the neighborhood. Thank you for your time in the mayor's office of New Urban Services. We'd to defer to the board with their judgment.

Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have there Charlene.

Good morning. My name is Charlene Brantley. My address is 18 Tina Avenue. I'm diagonal from 25 Tina Avenue. Nick and his team has met with residents to present the design plans and listen to the residents.

The team made changes to the design plans in response to the residents' concern, one mainly being the structure of the roof. So it can be in alignment more with the other houses on Oak Oak Oakwood Antenna Avenue. Even after that, Nick has made himself available after the abutters meeting to meet as a whole if we wanted to or one on one. I personally spoke with Nick several times. I appreciate his availability and his accessibility to hear my concerns to address them and to make the changes. I support the proposal because I support the opportunity for home ownership. Thank you so much for giving me time to speak.

Thank you,

ma'am. Okay. Next, we have Natalie Reed.

Hello. I am can you hear me?

Yes, ma'am.

Okay. Great. I'm at 22 Oakwood Street. So when we look out our front window where I sit to do some work, I actually look at this location. It is overgrown. I I I don't believe those are invasive species. I mean, I suppose most most trees are from another country, so most of them are. But there are 11 violations. So it's the front, the side, the rear, the height, like, everything is in violation. So, actually, I was only invited to one other meeting, and I did attend.

So maybe the meetings were just not as we didn't know about them. But I am not in agreement with this, mostly the parking issue as well with three new units. Oakwood Street is also a private way, and so we have two spaces for us. But there's not I mean, like, all of the parking is on someone's land since our since it's a private way and we own the space right in front of our houses. So I think parking will be an issue.

I know that when we had a conversation or a meeting, the first meeting that I went to, he was proposing possibly making it two units instead of three. So I see that that was not listened to. So, yeah, I'm not I'm not sure how many people, yep, are in in agreement with that. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Okay. Next, we have Jocelyn.

Yes. Yes. Good morning. This is Jocelyn Campbell. I'm an attorney and I with the law firm of Rudolph Can

you speak up, ma'am?

Yes. Can you hear me now?

Yes. Thank you. Hi.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Jocelyn Campbell. I'm an attorney with the law firm of Rudolph Friedman LLP in Boston. And we represent Oakwood Street LLC and David Rafferty is the manager of that LLC. And they own the property, they are director butters at 20 Seven-twenty 9 Tina and 11 Oakwood and also Fifteen-twenty 5 Oakwood and the small parcel next to that. So they are the director butters on one side of this property. And they are in opposition. I submitted an opposition letter already last week. And the gist of the opposition, I know I have just a short amount of time here, is that he feels that the project and the LLC feels the project is just too large. It's too large for this tiny lot.

It's too large for this private way to submit and have three family with three bedrooms each on this property is excessive and that's just of the complaint. And we agree with the fact about the meetings. Mr. Raffney did indicate to me that he received I believe it was just two pages of notices, but wasn't aware of all the meetings that occurred. So I would respectfully ask that this

Motion. I agree.

You very much.

Thank you.

Madam chair, there are no additional screens raised at the moment.

Okay. Mister Echo, would you like to briefly address the concerns raised?

Sure. Yeah. Happy to, madam chair. So, in terms of the parking, we understand parking is always a concern. However, with the the trend to move away from too much impervious, we thought a one to one parking ratio is, in line with the neighborhood and obviously, provides adequate parking for the units.

There are two three bedrooms and one two bedroom unit, just for the record. I think someone mentioned there being three three bedrooms. But obviously, with this being homeownership, the one to one parking ratio, gives future homeowners, the knowledge of what they will have, with their property and and bring that type of owner who may only have one car. It is a private road on Tina Ave, and that's certainly something that any future owners will know. There come with a private road comes some responsibility to work together with neighbors, obviously, to have certain rights over the street.

I apologize. It does look like someone from 19 Tina Ave maybe was trying to speak in support. I'm not sure if they are not a panelist. But, in terms of the last commenter, I will just point out for the record that the properties that, that was the first we heard of any opposition from them. They do have a two family directly to our left and then six units around the corner.

So it's a little bit disingenuous to talk about the size, I think, of the property there when they have eight units, kind of wrapping around the corner, and we're just proposing a three family. So we do think it's in context with the neighborhood. We designed the building to look very much like, the buildings that wrap around the corner, which were referenced, the two family to the left and then the six units as you go around the corner to Oakwood. So we do think it's appropriate. It does provide homeownership units and much needed residential opportunities. And as mentioned, we have, I believe, six or seven letters of support from Director Butters as well.

Thank you. Any other questions from the Board? Hearing none, is there a motion?

I make a motion of approval with the provides of that plans have to be submitted to the planning department for the same review to increase any product open space if possible and also improve spaces.

Is there a second? Second. Mister Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Mr. Langham? Yes. Ms. Wewell? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Mr. Burnell? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Thank you very much.

Next, we have case BOA1732278 with the address of 26 Eastern Street. If the applicant and or their representative are present, we'll take place in the case of the board.

Good good morning, mister madam chairman and board members. My name is Steven David. I represent Rack Investments whose principal is Ricardo Ricardo Jean. The the twenty six Reston Street is located in in Hyde Park. This particular this this street dead ends. There's 16 residential units on this street. 12 are multi families. Four are singles. And there's a rather large commercial over an acre lot at the end of the street. The street, in fact, dead ends.

I have with me Bonnie Tan from JCBT Architect. She is going to take you through the projects, and then we'd be happy to answer any questions that you have. Bonnie?

Good morning, madam chair and members of the board. My name is Bonnie Tan with JCBT Architect. We are proposing to demolish the existing two family structure located at 26 East And Ave High Park and construction and construct a new four story eight unit residential building on the current lot. The Ground Floor will include an open parking garage with eight parking spaces along with one ADA accessible two bed, two bath unit. The 2nd Floor will consist of three units, each with two bed, two bath.

The 3rd And 4th Floors will feature a two regular unit and two bi level units. The bi level units will have three bed, three bath and a private roof deck. Unit size will range about 800 to 1,200 square feet each. The exterior design will feature a modern architectural style, consistent with many recently approved multifamily developments in the city. The project abuts the commuter rail will require approval from Kiolis.

The surrounding area includes a mix of smaller multifamily homes and industrial buildings. We also received support from District five counselor. So the exterior, we're looking to have hardy siding and PVC and some modern designs, black windows. We'll have a roof deck, private roof deck on the Top Floor as a penthouse units. This is my end of my presentation. Thank you. Are there questions from

the board?

Yeah. I have one small question. Will you be, rental properties or ownerships?

That that that decision hasn't been made. It's been designed as a rental, building and, easily convertible over to homeownership.

Thank you. Thank you.

Any other questions from the board? May I have public testimony?

Madam chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Bembury. I'm the Hyde Park community engagement specialist for the office of neighborhood services. The applicant has completed the community process, which consisted of an abutters meeting facilitated on July 31, lightly attended with four guests, two being civics leadership, where inquiries were addressed and concerns were raised regarding open space for children to play and the verbiage of the refusal letter regarding forbidden use. Next proposal was presented to Hyde Park Neighborhood Association, where they vote in opposition the proposal, feeling the neighborhood is dealing with overdevelopment, and the proposal has too many violations. To date, our office has received one letter of support from councilor re Enrique Pepin's office. I thank you for your time, the mayor's office of neighborhood services would like to defer to the board for the judge.

Thank you. Thank you. Madam chair, there are no additional comments. And the applicant addressed the concerns that were mentioned?

We took the concerns very seriously. It it was the opposition at the meeting was more about the new development rather than the project, quite frankly. So the open space is something that that we could deal with possibly with the Boston planning and development at that time. This particular area is would would actually benefit from this project in terms of, you know, some of the homes on the area are much older. This could stimulate some redevelopment and remodeling in that area.

The street dead ends, so it's really safe at that area. The only one traveling on that street would be people who live there, doesn't access anywhere. So we attempted to address those issues. That particular issue was was was a challenge.

Thank you. Any other questions from the board? May I have a motion?

Motion to approve.

Is there a second? Second. Mrs. Stemberg? Yes. Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Mr. Langham? Yes. Ms. Weawell? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Mr. Burnell?

Yes. Chair

votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck.

Thank you.

The next case has been deferred, so we'll return to the first case of the nine thirty hearings to see if anyone's present. I'm present. Okay. So this will be for case BOA1785172 with the address of 254 Bremen Street. Would you go ahead, please? Yes.

And thank you, and apologies for my earlier Wi Fi connection issues. Good morning, madam chair, members of the board. My name is Jeff Thomas. I am the homeowner and proponent of the project at 254 Bremen Street in East Boston. We are seeking a conditional use permit to construct a single story vertical addition and roof deck on an existing triple decker to expand the living space for our 3rd Floor unit, allowing us to accommodate a growing family and call East Boston home for the foreseeable future.

We designed this addition to be as compliant with Plan East Boston zoning as possible and to fit in with the context of our neighbors on Brehm Street. You can go to the second slide. The relief we're requesting is specific to article 53 regarding roof structure setbacks. While we meet almost all the criteria, we're seeking relief from the five foot setback requirement on the roof edges due to the narrow footprint of the building, a mandatory five foot setback on all sides kinda shrinks the deck to an unusable area and would require us to move the the eager staircase internally, which would, you know, obviously be difficult and render the deck pretty small and make elements of the project inside infeasible. The same setback requirements would also make the proposed solar array, kind of difficult to pull off.

You can scroll down to the third slide. Despite the lack of setbacks on the roof, we intentionally positioned the deck at the rear of the property so it's not visible from the street level, and we're gonna design the structure to, to support large planters around that we can frame the deck, to minimize any potential nuisance to our neighbors. So with that, I'm happy to answer any questions about the project.

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

Services regarding 254 Brentman Street, our office compares to the board's judgment. A community process was conducted including an abutters meeting held on Monday, 11/24/2025 that was attended by two community members who did not have any questions or comments regarding the proposal. They it was also reviewed by the Maverick Central Neighborhood Association, and they decided to support the project. At this time, the mayor's office of neighborhood services differs to the board's judgment on this matter. Thank you everyone for your time and consideration.

Thank you.

Next, we have Stephen Murray.

Good morning, madam chair, members of the board. At this time, our office would like to go in support of this project. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, there are no additional comments.

With that, may I have a motion?

Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve.

Is there a second?

Second.

Mr. Stavridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Mr. Langham? Yes. Ms. Wewell? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Mister Burnell. Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck.

Thank you.

And with that, we'll take a break till 11AM. Dunbridge.

Present, madam chair.

Thank you. Mister Valencia. Mister Langham.

Present.

Miss Wewell? Present. Miss Turner? Present.

Mister Brunell? Present.

Mister Valencia? K. It looks like he has not rejoined yet. Okay,

mister Balazia. Presents.

Alright. Thank you. Okay. So Thank mister Stamage.

All good. It's too nice to be indoors.

So with that, we'll go we'll we will go to the hearing scheduled for 11AM. At this time, we'll ask if there are any requests for withdrawals or deferrals from the 11AM period.

Jared? Yes. I'm seeking a deferral.

Yes. Good morning, madam chair and members of the board. Jared Eigerman, Butter, McLennan, and Fish for the first item, 119 To 127 North Washington.

Okay. Please let mister Stenbridge read it into the record first.

Very good. So this request is for case BOA1782541 with the address of 119 To 127 North Washington Street. Go ahead and explain. Yes.

I represent the appellant Copper Mill North End, but the property is actually owned by a family business now known as Jake Realty Inc, and they've asked for a deferral of two months to discuss internally with their family.

Okay. Caroline? We could do

May 19, June 2, June 16.

May 19, please.

K. With that, may I have a motion?

Motion to defer till May 19.

May I have a second? Second. Mister Stenbridge? Yep. Mister Ronstia? Yes. Mister Lanham?

Yes. Miss Wewell?

Yes. Miss Turner? Yes. Mister Burnell? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. See you then.

Thank you.

So, again, we'll ask if there are any request for further withdrawal of the from the 11:00 hearing. And with that, we'll move on to the case BOA1796362 with the address of 566 Commonwealth Avenue. If the applicant and or their representative present, would they please the case in the board.

Yes. Thank you, mister secretary, and good morning once again, madam chair, members of the board. For the record, attorney Madeckel with Fletcher Tilton on behalf of the applicant. With me this morning is Eric Zacherson from Context, the project architect. The proposal before you is we're seeking to convert a portion of the 2nd Floor at 566 Commonwealth Ave into six new residential units.

Currently, the building at 566 Comm Ave, known as Kenmore Tower, contains 111 residential units as well as office space. This project would convert some of that existing office space on the 2nd Floor into new residential units for a total of 117 residential units. The site is located in Kenmore Square and is within the Boston Proper Zoning District and a B 4 subdistrict. The lot itself is approximately 24,000 square feet and is surrounded by many different uses, including residential, retail, offices, and institutional. The property is located between the Blandford Street and Kenmore MBTA stations, providing access to the Green Line as well as bus route 57, which runs right along Commonwealth Ave outside of the building.

The project itself involves interior renovations to create the six new residential units, all of which would be proposed to be one bedroom units. There are no exterior changes proposed or changes to the building footprint. This will all be within the second level of the existing building. The proposed multifamily use isn't allowed use. However, we are seeking relief from the board this morning for usable open space.

As this is obviously an existing building on an existing site, we don't have the ability to add any additional open space for the new proposed units. As part of the process, we met with the Butters as well as the Kenmore Square Business Association and obviously stakeholders within the building, and no concerns were expressed at those times. With that, I'll pause and happily take any questions the Board may have.

Thank you. Are there questions from the Board? May I have public testimony?

Madam chair and members, Siggy Johnson with the office of neighborhood sir purposes. They completed the community process. Our office hosted in a butters meeting on January 7 at which no concerns were raised. The Kenmore Square Association has no concerns regarding this application. That background, our office defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, madam chair and members of the board. My name is Anthony. I'm calling on behalf of councilor Sharon Durkin who would like to go on record in support.

Thank you.

Thanks. Next, we have Nasrcc Motadero.

Good good morning, madam chair, members of the board members of the board. This is Mayna Perez with the Carpenters Union. We just like to go on record on support of the project. Thank you, Mr. Pasador.

Thank you, madam chair. There are no additional comments.

Okay. With that, may I have a motion?

I'd like to make a motion to approve.

I have a second. Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Mr. Langham? Yes. Ms. Wewell?

Yes.

Miss Turner? Yes. Mr. Brunel? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good vote. Thank you very much.

Next, we have case BOA 1798179 with the address of 555 To 5667 East Broadway. If the applicants and or their representative are present, will they please explain to the board?

Yes. Good morn good aft good morning, madam chairman, members of the board. My name is Francis Adams. I'm an attorney in South Boston, business address of 350 West Broadway. I represent the owner, Steven Collins, who was also on the call. As the application today is to add a roof deck to an existing townhouse condominium. The first slide shows the the site plan. We are seeking a relief for article sixty eight twenty nine roof roof decks restriction and also article 68 building height excess of this project. It's brought new construction, six townhouse condominiums located on East Broadway in South Boston. Next slide, please.

You can see the front front elevation of the property. Broadway slopes down from G to Broadway, from G Street to H Street. Next slide, please, which shows the deck. The proposed addition of the deck, as you can see from the proposal, is a roof deck to an existing structure accessed directly from the unit via a hatch from within the unit. There are no exterior staircases or balconies. It's an exclusive use deck solely for the use of the unit owner. This is the side of Broadway. There's a parapet. The whole deck is hidden behind the parapet. It's below the low the level of the parapet.

If what can't see, but the property is surrounded in the rear entirely by the Verizon building. There is no residential. But it's in the rear. And to the right of the building, the Broadway side. There are five commercial storefronts, then there's the South Boston Courthouse, and then there's the Paraclete Center. There are virtually no residential in the rear or to the right of the property. As I said, the deck will be accessed directly from the unit. Exclusive use. It's not a common deck. The deck is set back.

As you can see, it's approximately six feet from East Broadway. So the vision there's no you cannot be seen from the Broadway side. And as I said, in the rear and to the right, it's all commercial buildings. It's not going to be visible from any of those buildings. Total size of the deck is approximately 12 by seven or 300 square feet. It's accessed directly from the deck, and this deck is from the from the roof hatch. And it's we're seeking a conditional use as well as a variance for the two violations that are cited. With that, we can take any questions from the board.

Questions from the board? Hearing none, public testimony.

Madam chair and members, Ziggy Johnson with the office of neighborhood services. This petitioner completed the community process. Our office hosted on a Butters meeting on 12/11/2025. Butters were opposed to the application. Butters stated that part of the community process for the construction of this building was a compromise for no roof decks on the building. Our officers received three letters of opposition that has been forwarded to the board. Our officers are aware of a petition from 11 of Butters that has been forwarded to the board. Gate of Heaven Neighborhood Association is opposed to this application. With that background, ONS defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we have Ashley from councilor Flynn.

Good morning. My name is Ashley from councilor Flynn's office. Councilor Flynn wrote to the board today in complete opposition to the proposal at 555 East Broadway. There was significant opposition during the community process with nearby neighbors in the Gate of Neighborhood Association meeting. Moreover, the reason why the community, the Gay to Heaven Neighborhood Association in my office supported the original project years ago and now oppose this one is specifically due to a good faith compromise to remove the roof decks.

Residents believed individual owners adding roof decks after the fact does not deal with our housing crisis, and there is no hardship to address. Councilor Fling has a long longstanding policy against roof decks in the residential areas of South Boston due to years of negative feedback from our seniors, persons with disabilities, and young families on the quality of life issues in the form of noise at all hours, trash removal, and subsequent pest control concerns. As South Boston has become a destination for young people to visit on the weekend, these neighborhood issues have increased dramatically. Moreover, as a roof deck does not address our housing crisis, councilor Flem believes it should not be granted zoning relief to benefit individual property owners over many concerned neighbors. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Madam chair, there are no additional comments.

So can the applicant address the that comment about the praise you know, preexisting sort of agreement?

Yeah. Sure, madam chair. The first off, mister Collins did not have an agreement with the abutters. He's a residential unit owner. He recently purchased the condominium. My understanding is when the project was approved by this board previously, there was no restrictions on roof deck. Furthermore, the original application was for rental rental units, not homeownership units. The developer had turned the property into all residential units as a compromise. Furthermore, mister Collins is an owner occupant. He's a sole person living in the property.

There is no renter in the building. There is no party deck. It's an exclusive use common deck for one particular person. As far as the abutters opposition, I would again like to point out to the board, there is no residential abutters in the rear of the carpeting. The Verizon building takes up half a city block, which is directly behind this property.

Furthermore, if you're looking at the front of the building, there's five commercial buildings to the right as well as the South Boston Courthouse and then community center, the Paraclete Center for the city of Boston. There's no residential abutters in any direction in the rear or to the right. I respect councilor Flynn's position. I know he opposes all roof decks. We don't disagree with them, but that this particular project was is recommended by approval by the planning department. We've committed the we completed the community process. And, again, as far as noise, I I don't disagree with the councilor. If there is noise, it's it's sometimes it's with rental units. This is an owner occupied property. Mister Collins had no agreement, and and it's a great use of open space.

The property has no additional open space. And those are two of the reasons the planning department did make recommend approval for this. So hopefully, addressed the question, madam chair. Thank you. Any other questions from the board? Is there a motion?

Ma'am Sheridan, I'm an agreement with the Boston Planning Department, and I make a motion of approval.

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

Yes.

Mister Langham? Yes. Yes. Miss Wewell? Yes. Miss Turner?

No.

Mister Burnell?

Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Thank you. Thank you, Boyd. Appreciate it.

Next, we have case BOA 1818358 with the address of 165 Tudor Street. If the applicant and or their representative are present, will they please explain to

the board? Good morning, madam chair. My name is Charlie Chapman. I'm an attorney at 15 Broad Street, Boston. I'm appearing on behalf of the applicant one sixty two West seventh Street LLC, Darren McGuire, Philip Keene, and his co managers.

Mister Keene is also available on this hearing to answer any questions. The proposal is seeking a conditional use permit to make the longstanding use of this 819 square foot parcel for parking zoning compliant. This 15 feet by 52 feet 15 feet wide by 52 feet wide a long, rather, parcel is part of a larger parcel which was conveyed to the director Butters in 1995 by the city of Boston as part of the Butter Lots program with the restriction running with the land that no structure would be erected on the property and that the premises would remain open for uses, including but not limited to off street parking. The proponent has completed the neighborhood process and the abutter process. There is no opposition to this as of which we are aware.

We've also been in close communication with the office of district councilor Ed Flynn and regarding this project. And finally, we understand that the planning department has recommended approval and and has concluded that the requested relief is appropriate. And with that, I'm available are able to answer any questions that

the board may have. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions from the board?

May I have public testimony?

Madam chair and members, C. E. Johnson with the office of neighborhood services. This applicant completed the community process. Our office hosted an abutters meeting on January 14, which Noah abutters chose to speak. Cityside neighborhood association was made aware of this application application and and has taken no position or office unaware of any other concerns. That background judgment is deferred to the board. Thank you.

Next next, we have Ashley from consular Flynn's office.

Thank you. Councilor Flynn would like to go on record and support based on a good community process. We respectfully request that the proponent continue to work closely with neighbors on quality of life issues that may arise during the construction phase. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks.

Next, we have a Philip Keane Keane.

Mister Keane is is a co owner, madam chair, so he would be in support.

Not need to be of course. Thank you. Any other raised hands?

Madam chair, there are no additional his rights. Okay.

With that, may I have a motion? Motion. Motion. Second. Thank you. Mr. Stumbridge? Yeah. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Mr. Langham?

Yes.

Miss Weaveau?

Yes. Miss Turner? Yes. Miss Burnell? Yes. Mister Burton? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good vote.

Thank you, madam chair and members of the board.

Next, we have case BOA1798127 with the address of 16 Chilkat Place. If the applicants and or their representative are present, would they please explain the case to the board?

How are doing? My name is Cole Chaparri. I'm a project manager for Cohn Construction. I'm here representing 16 Chilcott and Jesus Martinez. I can share my screen. Just give me one second.

So you need to present with what the ambassador is scrolling here.

Oh, okay. So this is existing proposed plot plan. We and Marty Jesus Martinez are looking to add a 20 by twenty two third Floor addition with a new full full full bathroom and HVAC and plumbing with cedar shingles. We have received approval in the past from the angle Carol Royce and the Angleston Square Neighborhood Association. We originally were denied or there was a denial for nonconforming in certain variances.

But as you can see from the proposed plot plans, we're making more space for more more housing options. Jesus has been a great landlord and made multiple affordable housing locations available for residents of the city of Boston. So this is basically extending and adding an addition on top of the existing building itself and not expanding it or going out on the roadway to block any neighbors or upper out any more than it currently is. It's just an expanded with current footprint. And we have received support from the neighbors and the neighborhood association as well.

Thank you. Are there 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 am the Jamaica Plain community engagement specialist for the office of neighborhood services. The applicant has completed the community process, which consisted of an abutters meeting facilitated on January 8 that was likely attended. Abutters voiced inquiries regarding the construction time frame and the aesthetics of the proposal, specifically the painting and the shingles. Two of what is worth support for the proposal. Next, the proponent presented to Eccleson Square Neighborhood Association and Jamaica Plain Neighborhood Council. Eccleson Square Neighborhood Association supports the proposal. Jamaica Plain Neighborhood Council zoning voted to approve the proposal. To date, our office has received two letters of support, one from Egleston Square Neighborhood Association and one from Jamaica Plain Neighborhood Council recommending the proposal's approval. Thank you for your time. The mayor's office of neighborhood services would like to defer to the board for the judge.

Madam chair, there are no additional comments.

Any other questions from the board? May I have a motion?

I put forward a motion of approval.

Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stenbridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia? Yes. Mr. Langham? Yes. Miss Wewell? Yes. Miss Turner? Yes. Mister Burnell? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Thank you, madam chairman and members.

Thank you very much.

Good luck.

Next, we have case BOA1804462 with the address of 203 Claire Avenue. If the applicants and or their representative are present, would they please explain to the board?

Madam chair, members of the board, good morning. Thank you for your time. This is Kyle Smith of Statera Law, business address of 359 Newbury Street in Boston's Back Bay, here to present on behalf of the owner. I believe the owner is on the line as well and does have some language related complications being primarily Spanish speaking. If there's any translator available that would in the event that he has questions that the board would like for him to answer, if that could be provided to him. But otherwise, happy to proceed and speak on behalf of the owner.

Please do so. Did did you request interpretation in advance?

It was only known to me last minute that he would be able to attend, so I had not previously requested it.

Okay. So just please keep that in mind in the future. Understood. Thank you. Please proceed.

So Madam Chair, members of the board, if you proceed to the site plan, if you enlarge that small right portion of the corner, you'll see that this is an adjacent parcel to the former church site, the All Grace Harvest Church. We have an approximate 12,500 square foot lot that is largely clear cut and McAdam. This is a prior parking lot servicing the prior church site. On the left most portion of this kind of you know, multi shaped parcel we have on the right most and left most side on Collins Street and also on Claire Avenue. We have two existing curb cuts and the plan is to utilize those curb cuts for access for parking so we don't need to obtain any new curb cuts to service the site.

The proposal is to basically erect housing in a single family subdistrict adjacent to some larger zoned portions of this immediate community for proposed four story. 1st Floor is partially subsurface. We have about four to five feet of exposure between grade height and the ceiling of the proposed basement level unit with appropriate window wells and the like for that unit and then three units above. So a total of four units in this stacked quadruple decker. Again, we have an approximate 12,500 square foot lot size.

We're seeking relief for multi several dimensional regulations for FAR. For exceeding the number of stories where two and a half is allowed, we're proposing three with partially subsurface basement unit. 35 feet of maximum height is permitted in the subdistrict. The proposal is for a building height of just sub 37 feet. We have 40 feet of required setback from the rear.

The proposal at the pinch point is 34.78 feet, so just slightly under the requirement. Parking requirements for this area are two per unit. We're proposing four in aggregate, one per unit. We also need relief for the number of units in a single family subdistrict. And then there's also just general concerns about basement dwelling units. But again, we do have approximately four to five feet of exposure from grade to ceiling height of the proposed lower level living. I guess with that, I can turn it over to the Board for follow-up questions or concerns.

Thank you. Are there questions from the Board?

Yes. How many court codes court codes do you have on this side?

There are preexisting two. The intent is to maintain and utilize those two. Okay. Now I saw that the

the plan department is recommending to close one of those. Have you had conversations with the plan department about that?

I mean, ideally, I would say existing infrastructure, curb cuts is is of value. So I think for the ability to enter and exit, right, to maintain traffic flow, it would be preferable to maintain them and not to close-up one of the curb cuts. But that's a conversation, I guess, we can continue to have with the people through the planning process. But ideally, we'd like to maintain that with that which is existing.

Thank you. Thank you. Other questions from the board and public testimony?

Madam chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Beverie. I'm the Hyde Park community engagement specialist for the office of neighborhood services. The applicant has completed the community process, which consisted of an abutters, and we think facilitated on October 23, very lightly attended with two immediate abutters, and one abutter who expressed a concern for the foundation stating there is a ledge they are aware of that runs below and across the street. Abutters were concerned for the impact the project will have on the foundation and inquired how the dig will be done safely, including the removal of the ledge. Next, the proposal is presented to Hyde Park Neighborhood Association where they voted in support of the proposal. To date, our office has received one letter of support again from the Hyde Park Neighborhood Association. Thank you for your time, and the mayor's office of paper and services would like to defer to the board for their judge.

Thank you. Madam chair, there are no additional comments.

Okay. Any feedback from the applicant on

comments. So two things I did fail to mention. The proposed blend of beds and baths in the units, they're all kind of stacked with the same footprint. But the proposal is for three bed, two and a half baths per unit with an approximate building footprint of 1,800 square feet. So nice sized, generally family oriented type units.

As far as the concern, I mean there is no ledge on-site. I've worked with other communities specifically, you know, Rockview Street and Jamaica Plain where that was also a concern. There's an ability to maintain and take existing kind of conditions of other neighboring structures. So, you know, in building in the city, building close to other structures, there is an ability for engineers to take existing conditions and monitor that. So we're confident in the ability to build the site while also maintaining and respecting a budding structure.

Thank you. Any other questions from the board? May I have a motion?

Madam Chair, I'll put forward a motion of approval with a proviso that plans are submitted to the planning department for design review to ensure the adequate design of the basement dwelling unit. I also agree with mister Valencia's comment about the two curb cuts that was also raised in the planning memo. I don't think four units warrants two curb cuts, so I would also add design review to review closing the curb cut and eliminating the driveway off Collins Street.

Is there a second? Second. Mister Stembridge? Yep. Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Mr. Langham? Yes. Ms. Wewell? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Mr. Barnell? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Good bye.

Thank you.

Next, we have case BOA1796654 with the address of 41 Spokane Road. If the applicants and or the representative present, will they please explain the case in court?

Yes.

Is the applicant present?

Right here. Yep.

Okay. Can you identify yourself and please proceed?

Tim Bailey from Bailey Deiball Studio Build. I'm the general contractor on this project, And it's basically a basement renovation. We actually thought it had heating in the basement until everything was moved out of it. So basically, it's just adding each v d c system to the basement, enhancing the existing space, creating a bathroom and a bar underneath the basement stairs. It's not going outside the existing basement footprint at all and no changes to the exterior of the home.

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

Madam chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Bembury. I am the Jamaica Plain community engagement specialist for the office of neighborhood services. The applicant has completed the community process, which consisted of an abode as meeting facilitated on December 15 with one abode in attendance that voiced support as they saw nothing that raised concerns. Next, the proposal was presented to Jamaica. It was association on January 14 and Jamaica Plain Neighborhood Council zoning on January 21 where both associations approved the proposal. To date, our office has received one letter of support from Jamaica Plain Neighborhood Council recommending approval. Thank you for your time in the mayor's office of neighborhood

sure. And I don't know if I have additional comments.

With that, may I have a motion?

Motion to approve.

Is there a second? Second. Mister Stenbridge?

Yes.

Mister Valencia? Yes. Mister Langham? Yes. Miss Wewell? Yes. Miss Turner? Yes. Mister Burnell?

Yes. Chair votes yes.

The motion carries. Good luck. Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam chair, since we passed the 11:30 hour, I will ask at this point if there are any requests for withdrawals or deferrals from the 11:30AM. Hearing none, we'll return to the eleventh of the cops, and we'll go to case BOA1803365 with the address of 857 Beacon Street. If the applicant and the representative is present, would they please explain to the board?

Yes. Thank you. Cameron Merrill, I apologize. When I was promoted as a panelist, my video shut off, I'm having trouble turning it back on. I didn't want to restart my computer right on the cusp of presenting, so I apologize for the fact that the video is not on.

Aaron Steves is present as well. But my name is Cameron Merrill, counsel for the association, the Inverness Condominium Association, 100 State Street, Boston, Massachusetts. This project comes before you after about two years of attempting an elevator modernization after the elevator in this five story building failed about two years ago. This project has been presented to the AAB, the elevator commission before the state, and it was before that elevator commission that they did request the head house be enlarged and a stair be built to the head house for the elevator equipment. This is shown on page a six is the best page to see this.

So we did previously have a building permit, but it was based on that request, as you can see there, that the plans had to be amended to account for additional head height. So ultimately, the structure is going to be about three feet six inches taller than it had been. We're expecting little to no visibility from the street and the unit owners are in desperate need of this. As you can see, it's a stair walk up. You have a letter, I believe, from a unit owner upstairs.

We have attempted to work this every single possible way without a full fledged modernization. Engineers, specialists, architects, consultants. But unfortunately, a $1,200,000 modernization is what we resulted with. This has been approved by the board. Funding is in place. This was just a last minute hiccup that we did not anticipate given the amendment that the, state board requested for the elevator head house. And, I apologize for the video. Typically, I have it on, as you know. I'm not sure what happened there.

No problem. Any questions from the board? Hearing none, may I have public testimony?

Madam chair and members, Cece Johnson with the office of neighborhood services. This petitioner completed the community process. Our office hosted an abutters meeting on January 13 at which no concerns were raised. Office received one letter of support from an abutter and another letter of support from the Autobahn Circle Neighborhood Association. With that background, our office defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Well, madam chair, Tony Baez again from councilor Sharon Durkin's office. She'd just like to go on record and support.

Thank you.

And we have somebody from the public, Brian McWright, if you can unmute yourself.

Good day. Yes.

Are you here to speak in support or opposition of this 857 Beacon Street?

No. I'm in support of 378380 with Derek Woodhouse.

Okay. We're not there yet. Next what's next? Thank you.

Okay. I think we have Minor Perez.

Thank you, mister ambassador. Madam Chair, members of the board, Minor Perez representing the Carpenter's Union. We'd like to go in record and support of this project proposal.

Thank you. Madam Chen, with that, there are no additional comments.

That may I have a motion?

Motion to approve.

May I have a second? Second. Mister Stenbridge? Are you on mute, mister Stenbridge?