Bpda Board of Directors - Regular Meeting

The city of Boston zoning board of appeal hearing for 03/24/2026 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 the hearing as panelists, and they will appear alongside the presentation materials when speaking. Panelists are strongly encouraged to keep video on while presenting to the board. As with our in person meetings, comments and support will be followed by comments in opposition.

The order of comments is as follows, elected officials, representatives of elected officials, and members of the public. The chair may limit the number of people called 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. Select yes, and you should be able to talk. If you are connected to the hearing by telephone, please press 9 to raise and lower your hand. You must press 6 to unmute yourself after you receive the request from the host.

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

Good morning, madam chair. Present.

Good morning. Mister Valencia?

Good morning, madam chair. Present.

Good morning. Miss Turner?

Good morning, madam chair. Present.

Miss Panado? Good morning, madam chair. Present. Good morning. Mister Collins?

Morning, madam chair. Present.

Good morning. Mister Burnell.

He will be joining us in a few minutes.

Okay. I will the floor is yours, mister Stemberidge.

Thank you, madam chair. We'll begin today's hearing with the approval

for of hearing minutes. These minutes are from March 26 March 2020 03/10/2026. I'll put forward a motion of approval.

May I have a second?

Second.

Mister Stumbridge? Yeah. Mister Valencia?

Yes.

Miss Turner?

Yes.

Miss Panado? Yes. Mister Collins?

Yes.

Is mister Bernal Wazeshia? Okay. The chair votes yes. The motion carries. So just a note, we are currently a six member board.

Next, we'll go through the extension scheduled for 09:30AM. I'll read all of the all of the men as they appear reasonable, and we can take a vote on them at when I finish. First, we have case BOA1094129 with the address of 44011 To 4019 Washington Street. Next, we have CaseBOA659702 with the address of 86 To 88 North Washington Street. Next, we have CaseBOA818377 with the address of o 111 Terrace Street.

Next, have CaseBOA1383661 with the address of 329 To 3298 Columbus Avenue. Next, we have CaseBOA1341344 with the address of 635 Hyde Park Avenue. And finally, for the extensions, have CaseBOA1399003 with the address of 625 To 629 Adams Street. And those are the extensions for today, madam chair.

Thank you. Any questions?

Can we hear from okay.

Go ahead.

Giovanni and I think alike. Can we hear from attorney Ross on 111 Terrace Street? I believe that was first approved almost eight years ago. Is attorney Ross present? Is anyone present for 111 Terrace Street?

I don't see anybody.

K. Doesn't appear to be anyone present for that one.

So in the meantime, can I ask if Caroline from ISD legal counsel can answer this question? There is project 111 Terrace Street. It's asking for the fifth extension. And I just wanted to ask ISD legal counsel about how many times we can can we extend a project if the project, as miss Pinar was mentioning, was approved eight years ago. How much time do they really need to figure it out if they can accomplish this or not? I just don't want to keep postponing and postponing projects forever without really knowing what are the real intention from the developers. So, Caroline, if you are here

She is here. Yes.

Yes. So it's at the discretion of the board to approve or deny extensions. The only caveat is that the governor did sign the permanent extension act. So if it was active from, I believe, 2023 to 2025, it's automatically extended. I'd have to check on the dates for this one. But, again, it's at the board's discretion unless it was already active during that period.

Thank Also,

if the board's more comfortable, we can also defer this extension request so that I can look into it more for the dates. It's up to the board.

I would like to recommend that we defer this case. So next time, mister Ross can come and tell us more about the case and what is the situation of this project before we can or deny the extension.

Okay. So there's a motion to defer this one case. Is there a second? Second. Mister Stembridge? Yes. Mister Valencia?

Yes.

Miss Turner? Yes. Miss Bonauto? Yes. Mister Collins? Yes. Has miss mister Bunnell joined us? Okay. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. With that, is there a motion to grant the remaining extensions as requested?

Motion to grant the remaining extensions as requested.

Is there a second?

Second.

Mister Stembridge? Yeah. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Turner?

Yes.

Ms. Panato? Yes. Mr. Collins?

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Next, we have discussion. This will be a discussion on the open meeting law complaint regarding the 02/24/2026 hearing for 154 Terrace Street. This is this is BOA12613113Slash ERT1240355 appeal.

Counsel? Yes. The board initially heard this appeal on 01/18/2022, at which time the applicant sought zoning relief to construct a seven story residential building containing 66 condominium units with on street parking for 24 vehicles. On 11/25/2025, the board voted to grant a three year extension of the previously approved zoning relief, extending the relief through 11/25/2028. On 02/24/2026, the board considered the project under its board final arbiter process and voted to approve a series of minor modifications.

These revisions included reducing the building height from seven to six stories, decreasing the core area ratio by point nine four, reducing the total unit count by one, and converting the units from home ownership to rental. This approval was granted subject to the proviso that the applicant enter into a housing agreement with the mayor's office of housing. Subsequently, on 03/16/2026, David e Minot, acting on behalf of his tenants association, filed an open meeting on complaint alleging that the board improperly denied members of the public the opportunity to provide public testimony.

Okay. So just to confirm, at this time, we are just acknowledging receipt of the complaint. This is not a hearing about the case, and we are not discussing the case. There a motion is there a motion to refer the matter to ISD legal to prepare a response on behalf

of the board? I'll make a motion to refer the matter to ISD legal advisers to prepare a response on behalf of the board.

Is there a second? Second. Mister Stembridge? Yes. Mister Valencia? Yes. Miss Turner? Yes. Miss Panado? Yes. Mister Collins?

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Next, we'll move on to the recommendations scheduled for 09:30AM. These are from the pre of the recent subcommittee on March 19. The recommendations were approved. I'll I'll read through them, and we can take a vote on them at the end. First, we have case BOA1733276 with the address of 29 Elm Street.

Next, we have CaseBOA1803304 with the address of 661 East Broadway. Next, we have CaseBOA1792077 with the address of 658 East 5th Street. Next, we have CaseBOA1800210 with the address of 535 To 545 Douglas Street. Next, we have CaseBOA1802841 with the address of 95 Vinyl Street. Next, we have CaseBOA1725252 with the address of 130 Dana Avenue.

Next, we have CaseBOA1790093 with the address of 62 Dumpster Road. Next, we have CaseBOA1801060 with the address of 268 Chestnut Avenue. And finally, we have Case BOA1798926 with the address of 15 Burstin Avenue. Those are the recommendations. The recommendations of approval from the sub recent subcommittee. Any questions from the board?

May I have a motion? Motion to approve the subcommittee recommendations. Is there a second?

Second.

Mister Stembridge?

Yeah.

Mister Valencia?

Yes.

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

Yes.

Levi Saul, mister Burnell?

Yes.

Okay. The chair votes, yes. The motion carries.

Next, we'll move on to the hearing scheduled for today at 09:30AM. Before we go into the cases, we'll ask if there are any requests for withdrawals or deferrals from the 09:30AM hearings. Hearing none. We'll begin with case BOA1805958 with the address of 445 To 449 Cambridge Street. This is an article 80 case, and we'll ask if the applicants and or their representative present to explain the case to the board.

Good morning. Good morning, madam chair, members of the board. I'm Attorney Jay Eigerman of Notre, McLennan and Fish on behalf of the petitioner ExCorte Capital for this mixed use project. Ben Harrison of SCB Architects will present the drawings. And George Ledwyth from ExCorte is on the line to answer any questions. If you go to the first slide, please. Next slide. This is a long permitting history, so I'll cover the first few slides before the architect takes over. There's a rendering looking at the looking from to the Northwest. Next slide, please.

The site is shaded in red, sites in Olson, the North Side Of Cambridge Street between Harvard Avenue and Brighton Avenue. Neighborhood has been changing over from auto body shops, tow yards, other auto and industrial uses since before COVID. The building you see at the top left is on rug. It's known as 40 To 80 Rook and has opened fairly recently. For the previous owner, I was before you in 2021 for a more complex version of this project. It's actually on two sites. So it was an L shaped building on the red shaded area. And then across Emory Road, you see the patch of tow yard. There was a small building there. It's a total of 152 dwelling units.

That project was not financeable. The project sold. Extension has been granted as most recently as last fall while we came up with a feasible project. This petitioner is going to buy the adjacent lot at 445 Cambridge Street so they can build an efficient building on a single city block that you see, the trapezoidal shape. It's 200 units.

There will be 29 affordable units, which still exceeds the IDP policy before over 17% of leasable area will be affordable. Eight of those units will be for artists. We're able to more than double the usable open space. As you can see shown in green to the right, it's about 7,500 square feet. And there's a more coherent larger retail space maintained on Cambridge Street. Next slide, please. I'm not going to linger on these streetscapes in the interest of time, but we have them if the Board needs us to come back to them. Next slide. The requested zoning relief is the same set as in 2021, went through large project then and went through again. We got a vote at the BRE Board on January 15.

And parking was set in an on-site garage at 66 spaces. Although the neighborhood has largely changed over to multifamily, as I said, at the site at this scale and height, the zoning is still outdated. So for the first 100 feet back from Cambridge Street, it's a community commercial zoning and multifamily requires a conditional use permit. The rest of the site and the whole neighborhood going back to the Turnpike is still industrial zoning. So all the multifamily projects that you've been seeing require a variance as this one did in 2021.

The proposed height is six stories on Cambridge Street, but it slopes back and it rises to just under 70 feet and seven stories in the back. That also requires a variance as it did in 2021. The proposed floor area is a little bit lower than before in 2021 for technical reasons at 4.7. That still requires a variance. Finally, mentioned we more than doubled the usable open space, but that still requires a variance. Next slide, please. I'm going to turn it over to Ben Harrison, and he'll take you through the details. Thank you.

Hello, everyone. My name is Ben Harrison from SCB. I'll walk you through some of the architectural elements of this project. We are right around a 150,000 square feet. And as was previously mentioned, 200 units including both IDP and artist IDP units with 350 I'm sorry.

3,500 square feet of retail along the corner of Rug And Cambridge, And usable space split between both private patios and open amenity for the building. And as we previously mentioned, the building is just below 70 feet above average grade. 60 spaces will be in the lower level as well as a 126 outbike parking spaces. Next slide, please. We've located the entrance to the parking on the North side of the site to alleviate congestion along Cambridge.

As you can see here, there's a notable grade change about 15 feet from Cambridge to the Corner Of Rugs. So this lower level is partially submerged. On the north corner, we do have two townhomes. It'll be duplex units. Next slide, please.

The Main Floor, we have our residential lobby on the corner of Emory and Cambridge as well as a larger retail space, including a double height retail space along the corner of Cambridge and Rug. Onto the neck, we also have amenity spaces here in the middle, including fitness and artist space for those previously mentioned artist units. On the 2nd Floor, we have our outdoor primary outdoor amenity terrace that is split between private patios for the units on this floor as well as open space for the building consisting of grill, seating, and planted area. Next slide, please. Our typical floor you can see here, it's previously described as c shaped building.

All units consisting of studios, one bedrooms, two bedrooms, and three bedrooms. On to the next slide. At the roof level, we do have a larger amenity roof terrace, roughly 2,000 square feet that we feel will have great views of the city. This combined with the outdoor amenity and the terraces comprises the roughly 7,500 square feet of open space. Onto the next slide.

As was previously mentioned, we do have a very large grade change. So this is the elevation along Cambridge, which will be six stories above grade, whereas the height of the building will be around 70 square feet above average grade. Onto the next slide. This shows that kind of grade change here along Emory. Couple of notable elements on the facade are a series of art trains that will be used for artist display for art generated within the building as well as community outreach.

Next slide. Again, same grade change working our way more towards the Emory site. You can see here on the northernmost site, that corner of Emory And Rug, that's where we see those seven stories. Next slide. There'll be two murals proposed along the Rug Road.

This is also the elevation that our Level 2 amenity deck will be as well, and a series of additional artistry and spaces. Here, as you can kind of see that view of the corner of Cambridge and Rug, this is that double height retail space there on the corner. Residential units above are two murals as well as a series of balconies that overlook the Cambridge streetscape. On to the next slide. A series of community benefits have been agreed to, including Cambridge Street revitalization, a series of contributions to local organizations, public realm enhancement, as well as kind of supporting the affordable and artist housing programs.

The following slides here are the previously submitted drawings. I don't believe there's much value in lingering on these. We can flip through these for reference. But other than that, that really concludes the architectural elements we wanted to present today.

Thank you. Questions from the board?

Yes. The green space or the plans that you are proposing are going to be open to the public, or it's just for the residents in the building?

Just for the residents in the building. We did discuss with Boston Planning Department staff the feasibility of making it open to the general public. But for this project scale, the layout, it it was not possible.

Okay. Thank you.

Are there questions from the board?

Madam chair, there were some comments made by the Disabilities Commission. I'm wondering if the developers are aware of those.

Would you like to state them for the record?

Sure would. Disability comment commission comments are Units 110 And 111 are multileveling units with no accessible route between floors. As all units in a building with an elevator must be group one accessible units according to five five article five twenty one CMR nine dot three, there must be an accessible route to all parts of the units on o 521 CMR 959.5.four.

Would the applicant like to address that comment from the Disabilities Commission?

I defer to George Ledwither, the architect. I I wasn't aware of that comment.

I was not aware of those comments as well, and I do believe that those one ten and one eleven could be the townhomes that have off street access versus going through the lobby, but we can address those. Unfortunately, we we did not receive those comments previously.

K. Thank you. With that, may I have public testimony?

Yes, madam chair, members of

the board, Connor Newman with

the mayor's office of neighborhood services. This time, the mayor's office to defer to the judgement of this board. Some confirmation of the community process. This went through a lengthy PPA led community process back when I was a neighborhood liaison. More recently, with this project notification change, they were in contact, with the IAG, as well as connecting with the Allston Civic Association. The Allston Civic Association was supportive of this change, with the proviso that there'd be no building code relief be granted. And also, due consideration be given to minimize the rental of units to undergraduate students? As you're aware, there's a high number high percentage of students that are in the Austin area. And often, the Civic Association asks that proponents

make

a commitment to not renting to undergrads. With that, I'll defer to the board. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we have Andrew from consular Murphy's office.

Hello, madam chair and members of the board. My name is Andrew Galvin. I work in consular Murphy's office. Consular Murphy would like to go on record in opposition of this project. Thank you.

Next we have Manuel Perez.

Thank you, Mr. Ambassador Madam Chair, members of the board. This is Manuel Perez representing thousands of union carpenters delivering work rights in Boston. At this moment, we're gonna take we're gonna go in all position on this project and we ask respectfully of the board to defer this case so we are able to engage in further conversations with the developer. It is very important for out of state developers and local developers to understand and need to make a good faith effort working with local groups. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Next we have Danz from the attorney section. Dan?

Yes. Good morning, madam chair, members of the board. Thank you

for the opportunity to speak.

My name is Daniel Daley. I live at 14 Madeleine Street in Brighton. I'm a lifelong Alston Brighton resident, and I'm also a business representative for local one zero three with the Electricians Union. Boston needs housing, and our residents need jobs. This residential proposal can help address both by creating real opportunities for the men and women who live here, support our small businesses, and vote in our elections. I personally have closely followed this project for many years through community activism. It's a positive sign to see this amended version ready to move forward as many approved projects in my neighborhood are staying dormant. So I'm in full support of this proposal. Thank you, sir.

Thank you. Thank you. Person, we have Vincent

Yes. Hi. My name is Vincent Coyle, business manager with the Ironwork Local seven. I'm here to speak in support of the proposed residential development at 445 Cambridge Street. This project fits in the context of the surrounding neighborhood with a multitude of other residential projects in the area having received similar zoning relief and are now under construction or near completion.

Projects like this create good paying construction jobs for Boston's building trades and support their working families. Development projects generate months of work for skilled union tradespeople across many different trades. As you know, a version of this project was already approved by the zoning board of appeals in 2021, but this proposal represents a more refined and buildable version consolidated on a single lot making it better positioned to be delivered. The project includes meaningful contributions to local organizations like a million dollars to the Alston Bright Community Development Corporation and Alston Village Main Streets. Those investments help ensure that the benefits of development extend to the broader community. I respectfully encourage the board to support this project. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, madam chair. We have no additional comments.

Thanks. Questions other questions from the board?

Will this be a union project, or is that just undecided at the moment?

That that is undecided at the moment.

Okay.

Thank you. Any other questions from the board? May I have a motion? I'll make a motion to approve.

Is there

a second? Second. Second. Mr. Stumbridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Panado? Yes. Mr. Collins? Yes. Mr. Burnell?

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The most motion carries.

Thank you very much.

Next, have case BOA1800750 with the address of 12 Maple Street. If the applicant and or the representative present, could they please explain the case to the board?

Yes. Thank you, mister Stenbridge. Madam chair, members of the board, attorney Ryan Spitz with Adams and Maranti. Business address of 168 8th Street, 1st Floor, South Boston. Joining me today is the owner, Jim O'Donovan, and the project architect, Jonathan Stone.

This is a proposal to preserve the existing structure and erect a new vertical and rare addition to contain a total of six units with 10 parking spaces located in the rear. Two units will be located in the existing structure, and four units will be located in the rear of the structure. Pro the proposal falls within a one f 6,000 subdistrict, which requires relief for use. However, this is a very large parcel consisting of almost 16,000 square feet. Six units on a 16,000 square foot lot bring overall density closer in alignment with the existing conditions.

Its close proximity to Center Street further supports the project's density located near transit in the commercial corridor in the erection of a multifamily dwelling, which is in line with the planning goals of 2030 while increasing the city's housing stock. If I can direct your attention, mister madam ambassador, to page a one dot o one through a one dot o two. Units 1 And 2 will be located. Ambassador, if we could just have you change the the the drawings, please, to a one dot o one through a one dot o two. Those pages are at the bottom right hand of the drawings.

I'll continue, madam chair. Units 1 And 2 will be located within the existing structure and will each contain two bedrooms. Unit 1 is located on the 1st Floor, and Unit 2 will be located on the 2nd Floor. There will also be a common area that connects the existing structure and the addition. Units 4 And 6 will be located in the addition. There will be a basement for storage only. Units 3 And 4 will consist of one bedroom on the 1st Floor. Units 5 And 6 will be bi level three bedroom units located on the 2nd and the 3rd Floor. We have additional violations for height. We have a violation in stories.

The maximum building height is 2.5 stories. Despite the violations, plans show that the building's characteristics are consistent with the neighborhood context. We have a floor area ratio violation. Requirement here is a point four in this subdistrict, and our proposal calls for a slight increase at a point five. I'd like to note there are several examples of homes that exceed the FAA requirement in the immediate vicinity.

We have a side yard setback violation. The minimum requirement as we are considered in other use is 12 feet rather than the 10 foot typical requirement here. The right hand side of the existing property is preexisting five feet four inches, and the addition is at 10 feet. So therefore, we do have the side backs requirement. Insufficiency open space will be the last violation. We have 1,800 square feet is required for each dwelling, and this proposal calls for 1,122 square feet per unit, which still provides ample open space for a project of this scope and plus given its very close proximity to a lot of open space at Billings Fields. At this point, madam chair, I'm going to turn it over to the

board for any questions or comments. Thank you. Any questions from the board? Can you address the the parking ratio? I believe you said six units and 10 parking spaces.

Yes. Great question, miss Fanado. So going through the community process, we're trying to balance, you know, the one of the biggest issues that we heard was about parking, providing six units. So what we try to do is provide something a little bit more additional than the one for one parking. So we did provide 10, and even still at that point in time, the community was asking us to provide more parking. But, you know, we felt that 10 was was pretty reasonable for this type of proposal.

Is there on street parking and resident parking in this area?

There there there is on street parking as well, and that was the biggest concern. I guess parking constraints have been tight in this neighborhood. Just like in any portion, you know, of the city of Boston, parking seems to be the number one issue. So we provide try to provide a little bit more than the one for one parking, which is required by the transportation's new new department of policy regarding parking. Thank you.

I I want to share that I agree with miss Pinado's concern about the parking. Looking at the site plan, most of your open spaces for the driveway and the parking. I know there are three or four MBTA bus lines in the area, so street parking. And the planning department is recommending you to reduce the parking count. So have you had more conversations with the planning department about No. I'm well this the open space?

Yeah. Mister Valencia, no. Again, another great question. So we haven't had any direct conversation as the planning department typically does not get involved in any projects outside of article 80. We are well aware of their proposal. So even if you guys decided to provide on reducing the parking, if it was reduced by the proposed amount of two spaces coming from the planning department, it this would not create a zoning violation. We would still be compliant with the eight parking spaces that we would have. And if I could suggest if that is something that the board deems fit for a project like this, my suggestion would be potentially to remove parking spaces nine and ten as that will provide an additional adequate more of screening and buffering to those neighbors in the rear as well.

Thank you. Thank you.

May I have public testimony?

Madam chair and board members, good morning. Siggy Johnson with the office of neighborhood services. This applicant completed the community process. Our office hosted in a Butters meeting on January 7 at which concerns were raised about the lot coverage with the Butters wanting less density, some wanting more parking. One of Butter raised

owner the

owner application due to the very large lot size and the positive reputation of the owner of in the community. Our office received one letter of opposition to the original proposal. However, revisions have been made to the proposal since that time. The West Roxbury Neighborhood Council heard this application and was divided and took no position on it. With that background, our office defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have Diane. Hi, Diane.

Hi. Am I am I thank you. I am a neighbor about four houses up from this proposed, building, and I basically object in the terms of this this is going to drastically change the character of our neighborhood, which is primarily single owned homes and two family homes where at least one unit is owner occupied. I have very strong feelings that introducing this number of rental units to our neighborhood is is going to change it negatively with traffic, with turnover, and just again, that that's I'm a resident. I own my property, and this is what I see happening if this proposal is agreed upon.

I would have no problem with the main house becoming condominiums, two units, and even potentially one unit in the back, I just feel what's being proposed is too dense, too crowded, and a negative imposition on our street.

Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have Matt Milla.

Hi there. Matt Milla live on. We're on Steddick Street. Grew up here my whole life at West Roxbury, and I think more housing is always good, especially if you're providing off street parking. I I do believe that multi units are kind of the next wave of what what needs to happen to provide more housing for for people. I have family and friends who are young working professionals trying to move back to West Roxbury. It's very difficult. So if you can do that with off street parking and not clog up the neighborhood, keep the charm of the neighborhood, be able to walk down the streets, and, you know, shop local business, that's all important things to me. So I'm in support of this project. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. And next, we have Brian Mill.

Yeah. Brian Mill. 791 LaGrange Main Street, Worschach, Roxbury. I'm just calling to support this project. You know, the city does need additional housing. I think the location down at the beginning of Maple Street fits with the commercial district as well as convenient to the bus lines and train lines, etcetera.

Oh, wait. This is for centerfolds. I was thinking of playing downtown. Yeah.

No. We should Can you mute? I'm sorry. Can the speaker who was speaking continue?

Yes. Sure. I just sorry. The it's really convenient to the bus lines and train lines for the potential renters as well. And the off street parking that's been shown and provided is as is the bonus. So thank you.

Thank you.

Madam chair, there are no additional comments.

Okay. With that, may I have a motion?

I'll make a motion to approve with Boston Planning Department review special attach attention to reducing parking from 10 to eight spots.

Is there a second?

Second.

Mister Stenbridge.

I'll vote no. I believe parking is fine. There's plenty of open space in the neighborhood. I believe the park those additional parking spaces would be a bonus, so I'll vote

no. Mister Valencia?

I vote yes, especially since promotion requires the developer to reduce parking and increase open space for the residents. And as I mentioned before, there are at least four bus lines serving the area.

Miss Turner?

I vote yes.

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

Next, we have case BOA1796244 with the address of 30 Webster Street. If if the applicants and or their representative are present, will they please explain the case report?

Thank you, secretary Stemberg. Good morning, madam chair and members of the board. My name is Gary Webster. I'm the president of TAR's Development Company LLC with the business address of 49 Mather Street, Unit 2 in Dorchester. Here on behalf of the current property owners, the project before you proposes to renovate the existing single family home, including a rear and front addition with extension of living space into the attic. With the proposed renovations resulting in a requested change of occupancy from a single family to a two family home. I'm joined today by Gavin Driscoll of Lighthouse Architects and Design who will now go over the design as it relates to the zoning violations, and I'll be happy to answer any questions that the board may have at the conclusion of the presentation.

Good morning. Thank you for having me. Gavin Driscolletas Architecture and Design. This is a change of occupancy from a one family to a two family. It's going be a renovation and an addition. We are reconfiguring the existing roof lines on the 3rd Floor as the ceiling height is insufficient up there and also for previous water damage. If you can scroll down please to the next slide. This is the existing site plan showing that we are squaring off the rear of the property and then adding a second stair for the second means egress for the second unit. If you can scroll down, please. This is the proposed unit number one in green.

There will be two duplex units. Unit 1 will be around fourteen fifty square feet, four bed, two bath, and the basement will just be storage. If you can go to the next slide, you can see in the green, that's, the duplex unit for Unit 1. And then in yellow is Unit 2, which is also fourteen fifty square feet, four bed, 2.5 baths. If you can scroll down to the elevations.

One more slide, please. For the proposed elevations, it's a reconfiguring of the what's there now. We try to keep the existing architectural characteristics on the bottom part of the house. But because of the upper floor, because of water damage from before and the low ceiling heights, we reconfigured that 3rd Floor for the additional living space. And if there's any questions, I can take those

from here. Thank you.

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

Madam chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Bembury. I'm the Hadbach community engagement specialist for the office of neighborhood services. The applicant has completed community process, which consisted of an abutters meeting facilitated on December 11. With no abutters present, no concerns were raised. Next, the proponent presented to Hyde Park Neighborhood Association on January 8, and with no stance taken, it completed the community process. To date, our office has not received any further community feedback. Thank you for your time, and the mayor's office of New Madrid Services would like to defer to the board for their judgment.

Thank you. Thank you. And next, we have Suzanne.

Yes. Hi. I'm a resident on two houses down. My concerns are the the the the bigness of the property. It's going to be cutting into the next house's line. And right now, we have very little parking here. So we're very concerned with extra cars parking here. On Saturdays, we cannot even take our own cars out because of the church across the street. And the other thing is most of the homes that are here are lived in by the owners. Our concern is is is that there gonna be an owner living in one of these units. Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam chair, there are no additional comments.

Mister Webster, if you do you wanna address any of those concerns?

I can address the concerns as they relate to the parking. Parking. The this the existing structure does not have off street parking. And to create off street parking, we would have to take out a retaining wall that's been there for I can't date it, but it's a very old retaining wall with a sloping site with a close proximity to the neighboring property. It would have made it very difficult to to excavate that site and and add off street parking.

And in terms of the end product, I think the trend right now is to be able to afford things in the city. People are trying to buy multiunit and gain rental income from one of the other properties. Whether it's a three family or two family, if you can be owner occupied and get rental producing income from your other from your other tenants, then that's right now is the best way to afford anything in the city. So we anticipate that the end user will be an owner occupied structure there, but, you know, we can't we can't guarantee that, but that is the the goal of the project.

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

I'll make a motion to approve.

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

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Panado? Yes. Mr. Collins? Yes. Mr. Burnell? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck. Thank you.

Next, we have case BOA1802557 with the address of 21 Tina Avenue. If the applicants and or their representative are present, would they please explain the case of the board?

Hi. Good morning, everyone. Good morning, madam chair. Good morning, members of the board. My name is Taniel Cooper, and I will be presenting on 21 Tina Ave.

Okay. To start, we are seeking zoning relief to construct a two family home on our 3,600 square foot lot. The proposal requires a modest setback and relief due to the dimensional constraints of the lot. Our lot measures 40

Sorry, five ma'am. Thank you. I was pretty Thank

you. If you can go to the third slide, please. Perfect. So our lot measures 45 by 80 feet totaling the 3,600 square feet. Zoning requires 20 feet in the front, 30 feet in the rear, and 10 feet on each side.

Due to the narrow lot dimensions, full compliance will make it hard to construct your a functional two family home while maintaining reasonable room sizes. So we are requesting a modest dimensional relief of 10 feet in the front I mean, me, five feet in the front, 10 feet in the rear, and three feet on each side. The proposal remains within the 35 foot height limit, and we'll break down. So on this slide, this is on the far left is the basement, which totals about 1,200 square feet, and that will be used for mechanical systems, laundry, and storage. Next will be our first unit.

That would consist of three bedrooms, two baths, also totaling about 1,200 square feet. And if you can go to the next slide, please. And then Unit 2 would also consist of three bedrooms, two baths totaling about 1,600 square feet. If you can go to the next slide, please. The building complies with the thirty thirty five foot height.

The entries are shown stairways only. They do not include any balconies. The hardship arises from the dimensional constraints of the lot. Yes. And then there's no negative impact, and it actually adds value to the community. And I respect I respectfully request an approval to move forward. That's our presentation. Thank you all.

Are there questions from the board? Can you go over the parking layout?

Yeah. So parking will there are there will be two parking spots per unit, and it's me and my brother who would occupy each unit. So it would be, like, for ownership.

But the the layout of

the parking, how how's the parking? Is it is this 10? Can you show us that on the plan?

Yes. If you go to the second slide. Sorry. I have to zoom in. So if you zoom in, on the far left, there's a parking spot.

There'll be two parking spots. So one at the top, one at the bottom.

It is about that. Other

questions? 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 October 28, very lightly intended, where abutters inquiries such as provided off street parking, construction time frame, road and mitigation, and tree removal was were addressed during the meeting. And with no opposition voiced, the proponent moved forward to present to East River Neighborhood Association on November 10 where they voted in support of the proposal. Thank you for your time, the mayor's office of Nibble Services would like to defer to the board for their judgment.

Thank sorry. Next, we have Charlene.

Yes. Good morning. My name is Charlene Brantley. I I reside at 18 Tina Ave, is directly across from 21. I'm here to support the project because I believe in home ownership.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have Jane Jay Camp.

Jay Campbell.

Yes. Hi.

Let me lower my hand for you. My name is Jocelyn Campbell. I'm an attorney with the firm of Rudolph Friedman LLP State State Street in Boston. Can everyone hear

me okay? Yeah. Could you speak up just a little bit? Thank you.

Sure. Hi. Okay. So we represent Oakwood Street LLC. Oakwood Street LLC owns 27 Tina Avenue, which is just down the street, about three houses down.

And they also own the property on the end of the street on Oakwood. Oakwood Street LLC has owned that property for over twenty years and they are opposing this development and the reasons are, first of all, in addition to the all of the numerous areas of relief that are needed, this is supposed to be a single family district. And we noticed that the Board of Appeals has recently approved two doors down a Friday to twenty five Tina Avenue for a large three family property on a similar size lot. And this amount of construction and building in this tiny little street which has no sidewalks, it's just going to be very difficult if not possibly dangerous. We're challenging this further construction in this very dense neighborhood.

It's not consistent with the objectives of Article 69 due to

the

density issues. And in addition to that, it's going to remove any open space, reduce the quality of life. There'll be absolutely nowhere for anyone to park. There is no place to put a car on the street on as far as 21 Tina Avenue is concerned. In addition to all the reasons cited in our letter which we filed on Friday of last week oppose. We oppose. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, there are no additional comments.

Any other questions from the board? Is there a motion? Madam chair Oh, go ahead.

Motion to approve with our proviso to submit plans for design review with particular focus on the parking design.

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

Yes.

Miss Turner? Yes. Miss Panado? Yes. Mister Collins? Yes. Mister Burnell? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck.

Thank you.

Next, we have case BOA 1819383 with the address of 2028 A Risland Road. If the applicant and or the representative present, will they please explain to the board?

Thank you, Mr. Stemberg. Madam Chair, members of the board, appreciate your time again today. My name is Kyle Smith of Staterra Law with a business address of 359 Newbury Street in Boston's Back Bay. If the board recalls, we were before you just last month with a proposed change to the prior board approved plans.

The owner currently owns the two abutting parcels that you see there at 28 And 28A. The prior approval from this board early in 2024 called for a driveway skirting between the two lots with proposed rear parking for both structures. There's a significant amount of ledge on this parcel and elevation change. The BPVA was seeking for a reduction in paved areas and a increase in open green space. The byproduct of that was that the owner proposed the last month's iteration for parking, which was front yard parking.

The byproduct of that was a request by this board to defer, go back to the BPDA with proposed other alternative options, which we have done. The proposal before you now calls for, if you're standing and looking at the parcel side yard parking, calling for two tandem spaces to the right of the structure. The building itself has been the foot. The building itself and the footprint remain the same. It's been slightly shifted around the parcel to provide the adequate 10 foot width driveway.

We've been in communications with Alexa, Pinard and Mr. Hampton of the BPDA in relation to this proposal for side yard parking, which per my understanding the BPDA is preferable to. The BPDA has also approved the design for the building itself in September '24. So we believe that with that prior approval for the structure and the BPD is buy into this option for parking that we should hopefully have the full blessing of the BPD as it relates to this iteration. So the also the proposals to return back to the street parking to enclose approximately 25 feet of currently curb cut to have it be a new curb cut servicing the new driveway and therefore returning parking options to about 25 feet or so on Ridlawn Street.

So with that, we're hoping to gain the blessing of the board for this iteration of parking and structure and the removal of the BPDA design review in light of the prior approval of the BPDA of the structure back in September '4 and their buy in of this iteration of parking, which has been communicated via email with Alexa and Mr. Hampton as of

last week. Thank you. Questions from the board?

Yeah. You mentioned the the curb cut. I guess, when you were talking about the curb cut, you were talking about the previous submission having a much wider curb cut with. Right? Because existing conditions doesn't if I'm looking on street street view, I don't see a curb cut. Is is that correct?

I mean, at least the plans that

I have show the installation of a significant portion of so it says close existing 25 foot curb cut. So my understanding is that there is an existing curb cut present and the intent is to move the curb cut to align with the proposed driveway in this iteration and to return back to the public domain curbing for parking if permitted.

So you you will be reducing the the size of the curb

cut? Correct. So

we'll be reducing the amount of curb cut. We'll be increasing back to the public domain more curb.

Alright. 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 Hyde Park Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood services. The applicant has completed the excuse me. Applicant was not required to complete a full community process. It is our office's understanding that the proposal was previously approved by the board. Our office is confident that the change in location of parking triggering the violation would not be met with controversy, and the proposal was the proposal was approved to come back before the board. Thank you for your time, and the mayor's office of paper services would like to defer to the board for their judgment.

Thank you.

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

With that, may I have a motion?

Motion approved.

Second. Second. Thank you. Mister Stenbridge?

Yes.

Mister Valencia?

Yes.

Miss Turner? Yes. Miss Panado? Yes. Mr. Collins? Yes. Mr. Burnell? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And just to confirm, the request is to remove the prior BPDA design review proviso. Is that confirmed?

This is a straight up approval. So yes.

Okay. Thank you kindly.

Next we have case BOA one eight one eight six nine one with the address of 5 To 7 Milton Street. The applicants and or their representative present, will they please explain the case of the board?

Thank you. Good morning, madam chair and members of the board. My name is Jeff Sargis, the architect for 5 And 7 Milton Street. The proposed project is converting an existing two family into a three family. The 2nd Floor unit has walk up access to the attic, and we're proposing reframing the attic into a third third unit. If you could scroll down to the last three pages for the renderings. Thank you. We've we designed the roof and dormer layout to maintain a consistent soffit height to match the neighborhood character and not overpowering our adjacent neighbors. The variances we are seeking is use. It's a two family zone.

We're proposing a three family floor area ratio. The floor area ratio is 0.4. This is proposing a 0.6. And the number of stories, this is a two and a half story zone and building out these dormers would create a third story. Thank you for your

Questions from the board? May I have public testimony? Madam chairman of

the board, my name is Emma Jones representing the mayor's office of neighborhood services. Regarding 5 Milton Street, our office differs with the board's judgment. A community process was conducted, including an abutted meeting held on 10/2925 attended by several Dorchester community members. The feedback from this meeting was concerns expressed of excuse me. Expressing increased density

in

the neighborhood and the increased stress on parking in the neighborhood. Additionally, we did receive two emails in opposition expressing many of the same sentiments expressed in the meeting, including density and increase in parking stress. The proposal was also reviewed by the Cedar Grossman Association, and communication is ongoing. At this time, the mayor's office of neighborhood services differs from the board's judgement on this matter. Thank you everyone for your time and consideration.

Thank you. Hello. Next, we have Anastasia from the consular warrant. I'm sorry.

Hi, madam chair, members of the board. I'm. I'm deputy counsel of all. Would like to go on record to support this project. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have a Liam Remus.

Aloha, madam chair, members of the board. Liam Remus from Council Fitzgerald's office. Our office

is let go on record for this proposal. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have Andrew from Consular M. Murphy's.

Andrew?

Councilor Murphy's office, are you speaking? We can't hear you if you're trying to speak.

Hello? Can you hear me now?

Yes. Thank you. Hello. Thank you, madam chair, members of the board. My name

is Andrew Galvin. I work in councilor Murphy's office. Councilor Murphy would like to go in support of this project on record and in support of this project. Thank you.

Thank you, chair. There are no additional comments.

With that, may I have a motion? Motion to approve. May I have a second? Mr. Pembridge?

Yeah.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Miss Panado? Yes. Mister Collins? Yes. Mister Burnell?

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck. Thank you.

Next, we have case BOA1821751 with the address of 190 Bowden Street. It's the applicant's this is also a mayor of office of housing and article 80 case. If the applicants and or their representative or president, will they please explain the case to the board?

Yes. Good morning, madam chair, members of the board, attorney Nick, Dermot, Quilty, Miller and Hanley, 28 State Street in Boston, here on behalf of Viad Aide for Hollins Park at 190 Bowdoin Street. If Mr. Or Madam Ambassador could scroll down to the next slide and just quickly introduce our team. George is the Executive Director and Anna Clements is the Project Manager who will be helping with the presentation.

Our architects are from Davis Square Architects and Laura will be helping in the presentation. We also have Rebecca from RBLA Design and our development consultants from New Seasons Development. Next slide, I will pass it over to Anna, who will just quickly go through a little bit of just brief background on VIADAID. Anna?

Hello. Good morning. I'm just going to roll through a few slides here. So I am from the Vietnamese American Initiative for Development. We are the project proponent.

We were founded in 1994 by community members and residents in the Fields Corny neighborhood with the mission of a of bettering the Fields Corner Vietnamese community of Dorchester. Next slide, please. We achieved that mission through the development of affordable housing commercial space, the provision of high quality child and senior care, as well as direct social services, and the fostering of community building. Next slide, please. You can see that our Holland Park site is located pretty far south in Dorchester in the Fields Corner area.

We're specifically in the Bowdoin Geneva neighborhood where we already have a presence of two other properties. One is under development under construction, and we are, of course, across the street from another one of our properties. We have two aerial shots there on the right that you can see that the site currently is used as a single family home. Next slide. The site is well served by transit.

We have a number of commercial shopping centers nearby. The site will bring another 44 spaces of bike parking, 36 inside the building and eight outside. There's nearby blue bike stations. The site is served well by two separate bus lines. There's also both rail and commuter rail nearby, and we'll have eight vehicle parking spaces on-site for residents. Next slide, please. This is another look at the house. Like I mentioned, it's a single family home. It is vacant. The family who owned the house previously sold it to V and A with the understanding that we were going to turn it into affordable housing, hence why it's called Holland's Park after the Holland's family.

There is a detached garage there in the back. But like I said, the site is vacant. And I will turn it back over to Nick for the next couple slides to talk more about the zoning. Thank you.

Thanks, Anna. Yeah, next slide, please. This is just an overview slide. I think we can just spend a quick thirty seconds on this. The site, as you just saw, is about 18,600 square feet. And what's being proposed is just under 36,000 square feet of multifamily residential for an FAR of 1.93. And as mentioned at the outset by Mr. Stembridge, this is all affordable rental housing, 33 units, all at 60% or less AMI, which is in line with V88's mission in other projects in the neighborhood. And I think most importantly is twothree of these units are family size units. So you can see the breakdown.

In the middle of the slide, there would be the requisite bike parking, of course. And although this is an all affordable housing project and off street parking is not required under the zoning code, there are eight surface spaces for residents. Very sustainable project, passive house, net zero zoning compliant. As just mentioned, lots of transportation right around us. And we're nearby to a whole host of opportunities in the neighborhood from a mixed use perspective. It is an oversized lot, as I had mentioned, 18,600 square feet in a 3F5000 zone and subdistrict. So it's a little

bit of

anomaly. And as you can tell by the unit count in the 36,000 or so square feet, this is a small project review project. It was approved in February, so just last month by the planning department board. Next slide, please. This is, I believe, the next slide will be our zoning act of actually, some challenges to the site, you know, as required under the zoning code if Madam Ambassador or Mr.

Ambassador could just scroll down to the next slide, please. There's a lot of challenges actually to the site. There's a significant grade change, nine feet from the street to the highest point on the site. Lots of tree canopy which required minimal excavation. We didn't want to disrupt as many trees as possible to keep the tree canopy while allowing for all affordable residential units.

Parking, neighboring residents, as we hear all the time, you know, express the desire for on-site parking. This was made difficult due to the grade changes, but, you know, we were able to provide eight on-site parking spaces. Not going underground, certainly helpful from a budget standpoint as well, considering this is all affordable housing. There is a retaining wall along Bowdoin Street on the south of the image. You can see the site plan on the right side of the screen, which just shows the configuration of the new building lot and how unique the lot really is.

There's a retaining wall on the lower end, about three to four feet above the sidewalk. So again, regrading the site, flattening the site is cost prohibitive and labor intensive. And then not rectangular square by any means. It's in regular shape. It actually has a very small frontage on the north on Olney Street and a lot of frontage on Bowden Street.

So siting the project on this site was difficult. You know, there's some hardship there from lot width, building height, off street loading, yard setbacks, things of that nature from a zoning perspective. Next slide, please. Zoning chart. I'm not gonna go line by line, madam chair, but this is the zoning chart which is showing what we need for zoning.

Again, it's an oversized lot. We do need a use variance for the multifamily residential, but this is affordable housing. And I'll just note that it's adjacent to a large Bowdoin Street local convenience subdistrict where the multifamily use is actually conditional. And there is multifamily right around the site. Anna mentioned that diagonally across the street is a 41 unit affordable housing project built by the same developer.

It's been in operation for a few years now. And we also bought a nonresidential use to the right if you're facing the site, which is the family nurturing center in Geneva, both Main Street's offices. There's multiple non single non three family residential uses right around us. So we do need zoning relief. Again, a lot of that is due to the size of the lot and and more specifically, the grade change and the shape of the lot.

Again, I can come back to this slide, but all that information is right here. If you go to the next slide, I believe that's just our refusal letter. Again, the first it's a little tough to see on the refusal letter, but the first item is that multifamily use. And, again, all of the I would say all of these items are are tied to the to the uniqueness of the lot, its shape, its grade, as well as the uniqueness of of the programming for the all affordable rental use programming. That's my end. Pass it over to Laura. She's gonna quickly go through from Davis Square Architects just a few of the renderings just to tie it all together. So, Laura, over to you.

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the Board. My name is Laura Chelamoya. I'm with Davis Square Architects, and we're very happy to be here today on behalf of VIA for the proposed development, which will, as both Nick and Anna have said, include 33 affordable rental units for families in Dorchester. So I will briefly walk through the plans, and I'm happy to answer any questions the board may have. Here's our site plan to orient you.

Bowdoin Street is on the right here. And you can see that the 1st Floor plan includes six units as well as a management office. You can see the indoor bike parking, which accommodates 36 bikes. We have support spaces to help with property management and the residents. And most importantly, a highly visible and welcoming entry at Bowdoin.

We're also planning to reuse the existing curb cut, which, as Nick mentioned, was tricky to get parking to work on this site. But even with reusing the existing driveway, we were able to reorganize the parking and fit eight spots there. Next slide, please. This is another view of the 1st Floor. You can see the interior program a little bit more here.

I think we can go to the next slide for 2nd Floor. 2nd Floor and 3rd Floor stacked. We have eight nine units on each floor. Of course, two stairs and an elevator connecting all the floors for the residents. Next slide, please. This is the 3rd Floor. It looks a lot like the second. Next slide should be 4th Floor. The building is four stories. Units mostly stack here as well, although we've swapped one unit for a community room, which also has access to a roof deck at that at that 4th Floor Level.

So total units is 33, and again, a nice mix of one, two, and three bedroom units for families. These are views of the elevations. You can see the building height, four stories. Some of the parking you can see on that lower elevation is partially covered by the building. And if you go to the next slide, I think you'll see the front.

That's our front entry on top and side elevation. Next slide, please. And this is our rendered view. You can see that existing curb cut being reused there. The front entry, again, highly visible, welcoming, close to offices, great access for residents. And I'll just point out the roof deck off of the community room is up there

in the corner of the on the 4th Floor.

Thanks, Laura. And just to wrap up, thanks for the time. This is, again, we had an Article 80 small project review public meeting on November 3. We also provided, which to the board numerous support letters from every elected official imaginable, as well as the Fields Corner Civic Association. So that concludes our presentation. And thank you for letting us go through it.

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

Yes, madam chair, members of

the board. Call on new with

the mayor's services. This time, mayor's office to defer to the judgment of this board. Some background information in the community process. As you heard, this went through a small project review with Boston Planning. They submitted 18 letters in support from elected officials, local nonprofits, as well as residents in Dorchester. They presented to the Greater Bowdoin Geneva Civic Association as well. Presently unaware of any concerns. With that, I'll defer to the board.

Thank you. Okay. Next, we have Anastasia from Consulate's Board Office.

Yes. Madam chair, members of the board, councilor World is happy to go on record in support of this project, but it pretty much needs all affordable housing to the area. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have Leon Remas.

Hello, madam chair, members of board. Leon Remus from councilor Fitzgerald's office.

I also like going records for this proposal. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Next, we have

Mayor Perez. Thank you, mister ambassador. Madam chair, members of the board, Mayno Perez with the Carpenters Union. We wanna go in reference support of this project.

Thank you. Next, we have Camille from Boston Planning department.

Good morning, madam chair, members of the board. Thank you for letting me speak today. I'm the project manager for the planning department for 190 Bowdoin Street. As Nick mentioned in his presentation, the project filed a small project review application with us on September 19. It recently went to the BPDA board in February 2026 and did host one Article 80 led virtual public meeting on 11/03/2025. The meeting was well attended. It was advertised in local newspapers as well as sent to our Dorchester email list, so we would like to be on record in support of the project. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. And we have Tiara.

Good morning. My name is Tiara Satrobot. I'm the mayor's office of housing. I'm the development officer assigned to this project, and we wanna go

on record in support of the project.

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

Okay. Any other questions from the board? May I have a motion? Motion to approve. Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge?

Yeah.

Mr. Valencia? Yes. Great project. Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Panato? Yes. Mister Collins? Yes. Mister Burnell? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck.

Thank you very much.

Next, we have case POA 1811687 with the address of 147 Harvard Street. If the applicant and or the representative are present, will they please present to the board?

Good morning. Can you hear me?

Yes, sir. You.

Please state your Yes. Name and address for the

Thank you. My name is attorney Michael Van Dams. I I, also have, with me if if we need assistance, the architect, Jennifer Howe, and the builder, Vargas de Silvira. We were we were in front of the board, in September for, zoning relief, which was granted by this board. And later on, we learned that there needs to be some tightening up, if you will, on the zoning relief requested, which is why we're here today, in which a new refusal letter was issued by the or signed February 2, essentially, members of the board.

The the original zoning refusal letter just failed to include and it needed to cite article 60 section three. It's in the, greater, Matapan, neighborhood use. And, because, it violated the f, three f 5,000, this is a four story unit, I should say, building. And, as you see, when we presented back in the fall, it was four stories as well. So we're just, cleaning that up, if you will.

Secondly, this new, refusal letter has a relief under article 60 section nine in terms of the stories were were approved at the last hearing being four four stories. However, the feat technically wasn't approved, the dimensional regulations. I will say for clarity, the dimensional the dimensions in the last go around was 40 feet in the new in new new plants you have before you. I believe it's 40 feet and four inches. Secondly, this new application or I should say new refusal extends three previously granted relief as to and I'll just go over quickly.

The floor area ratio was excessive. In the last go around, it was, let me just see here. It was, let's see. Oh, it was, 1.36. Now it's 1.41. That all the things I'm gonna go over, has to do with it. We add to the for safety reasons, add decided to add a rear egress. So that that small area of the the staircase. That also changed because we had to move the building a little. It changed the front yard setback from two.

There was in the last go around two feet 10 inches. Now it's two feet. And the rear yard was 23, 23 feet three inches to now 14 feet 11 inches due to, as I said, the, rear egress and the movement of the building to the front a little to, not disturb the, butter, in terms of tree limbs and and and foundation. So, that's what's before you. We seek relief of those, really those five five violations.

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 Dorchester community engagement specialist for the office of neighborhood services. The applicant has previously complete completed the community process within a budget meeting facilitated on January 8. As you heard, budget has voice concerns over the parking and the size of the proposal if they were filling that the four stories is excessive for the area concerning the new updated proposal of the missed variances. No further community process was required at this time. To date, our office has not received any further community feedback. Although the proponents team did mention 18 letters of support for the previous proposal, no support letters have been received at this time. Thank you for your time, and the mayor's office of NIPA Services would like to defer to the board for the judge. Next,

we have Anastasia from Consular World.

Yes. Thank you, madam chair, members of the board. Consular World would like to go on record in support of this project. Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, there are no additional comments.

With that, may I have a motion? Motion of approval. Is there a second? Second. Second. Mister Stamch?

Yeah.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Panado? Yes. Mr. Collins? Yes. Mr. Burnell. Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good

luck. Thank you.

Next, have case BOA17622896 with the address of 37 Calumet Street. If the applicant and or the representative were present, would they please appoint the case to the board?

Yes. Good morning. This is Tim Johnson, the project architect. And nice to see you, madam chair and members of the board. This is a project at Mission Hill, Number 37 Calumet Street. It's a change of occupancy we're proposing from a three to a four unit residential building. There'll be no expansion of the building footprint. There's an existing lower level walkout to a side passageway with an existing rear deck that will be renovated. This will be a build out space to a two bedroom, two bath unit. The building does have a fire suppression and fire alarm system which will be extended into this unit.

And the change of occupancy two of three and four family requires zoning relief including excessive FAR, insufficient lot area, insufficient usable open space per unit, insufficient off street parking for the additional unit, and relief for nonconforming existing insufficient front and side yard setbacks. We are currently this multifamily proposed four unit building is an attached multifamily to the abutter next door at Number 39. This building also went for zoning relief for a 4th Floor walkout several years ago. For the process, per the mayor's office mayor's office of neighborhood services, we had an abutters meeting in October. We had two neighbors attend.

There was no opposition. And we also made three presentations to the Community Alliance of Mission Hill. And we submitted their support letter and the support letter from the director Butter at Number 39. Next slide, please. These are showing existing conditions.

When my client purchased this building several years ago, there was some work done on this lower level unit. We believe it was without a permit, and it was never completed. We are going through the permitting and approval process now to complete this walkout number four unit. You can see in the lower right the existing rear deck. So this unit will have access to the exterior for fresh air, light, etcetera.

Next slide, please. These are existing plans showing this is a lower level, which was never completed. Next slide, please. These are floor plans of the three units at the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Floor. Next slide, please.

And finally, this is the certified plot plan showing the partition wall between Number 37 And 39. We have the passageway on the right side, which goes to a side entry door and also to the rear under the existing rear deck where trash and AC units are located. And that's a quick overview, madam chair.

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

Madam chair and board members, C. E. Johnson with the office of neighborhood services. This petitioner completed the community process. Our office hosted an abutters meeting on 10/23/2025 at which no concerns were raised. The applicants met multiple times with the community alliance with the Mission Hill. It was meaningful productive, and they have secured the support of that group. Our office is aware of some concerns from Mission Hill Neighborhood Housing Services, the community group that owns a property in the area and they would like the applicant to reach out to them. With that background, our office defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Madam Chair, there are no additional comments.

With that, may I have a motion? Motion to approve. Is there a second?

Second.

Mister Stemberg?

Yes.

Mister Valencia?

Yes.

Miss Turner? Yes. Espanado? Yes. Mister Collins?

Yes.

Mister Burnell? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Good luck. Thank you, madam chair, members of board.

Madam chair, at this point, we've passed the 11:00 hour. So we'll ask if there are any requests for withdrawals and or deferrals from the 11:00 hour.

See Justin Burns?

Yes, mister Stembridge. Are we looking to defer 1740 Hyde Park Ave?

Believe that's oh, no. Yep. So that so this deferral would be for case BOA1800610 with the address of 1740 High Park Avenue. Go ahead and explain what.

Thank you, mister Stembert. Good morning, madam chair, members of the board of attorney Justin Burns, business address, 10 Forbes Road, Braintree, Massachusetts. This is just an issue with advertising. ISD hadn't updated the scope of work on the on the plans on the refusal, and then says ZBA got a scope of work that reads 40 units when the project is for 42, so we just need to re advertise and then come back before ZBA.

Okay. Do we have dates for

that long? We could do May 5, May 19, or June 2.

May 5 would be perfect. Thank you.

K. With that, may I have a motion?

Motion to defer this case to May 5.

Is there a second? Second. Madam chair, I'm sorry.

I need to recuse from from this project.

Okay. Yep. Mister Stembridge?

Yes.

Mister Valencia?

Yes.

Mister Tornow?

Miss Turner. Yes.

Miss

Turner. Sorry. Miss Venato? Yes. Mister Collins? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Thank you very much.

If there are no further requests for withdrawals or deferrals from the 11:00 time frame, we will return to the September, and we will have we will go through two companion cases. These being case BOA1798824 with the address of 69 South Huntington Avenue along with case BOA1798829 with the address of 71 South Huntington Avenue. If the applicant and or their representative present, will that be explained to

the board? Yes. Thank you, mister Stenbridge, madam chair, members of the board, attorney Ryan Spitz with Adam Zimmermanci. Business address of 168 H Street 1st Floor South Boston. Joining me today is the owner Scott Schneider and project architect Gavin Driscoll. Our proposal seeks to change the occupancy from a three family dwelling to a four family dwelling by way of renovating the lower levels of both of these applications. One at 69 South Huntington Ave and the other at 71 South Huntington Ave. Same ownership as well as there's a shared wall in the in between. Again, this lower level is a full walkout in the rear. There'll be no other changes to the footprint of the building.

Project was submitted in unison with 71 South Huntington Ave, which shares the north wall of the property. Both properties are proposing the same improvements and are signed to the same exact violations. Proposals are closely aligned with the city's by right conversion of internal spaces to accessory dwelling units except that this property is investor owned rather than owner occupied. Parcel falls within an RH subdistrict, which allows for the proposed use. The unit will be a two bedroom, one bathroom.

We have violations for additional lot area. Lot size is 1,923 square feet, and the code requires 1,400 square feet for the first two units and then an additional 700 square feet for each additional unit. However, this proposal is aligned with other parcels in this neighborhood. We have FAR violations. The requirement in this subdistrict is a one point o.

The existing preexisting is is an existing I'm sorry. The existing is preexisting nonconforming to the zoning code with a slight increase. So it's 69. The FAR is at 1.84 with the proposed at 79 I mean, 71 South Huntington is at 1.96. However, the the FARs will be worsened to a 2.44 at 69 and a and a 2.55 at 71.

We have open space violations requirement. This subdistrict is 200 square feet per unit, and the existing is preexisting nonconforming at a total of 338 square feet. The conversion will worsen the open space as there is no additional being provided for this new unit. Off street parking violation requirement is one point o parking spaces per new unit of housing, but for the proposal does not include any, but again is aligned with the surroundings. In concluding, the proposal meets the city of Boston's housing and development goals, architectural with the surrounding neighborhood in Faber. And most recently, madam chair, very consistent with the last proposal that you just heard at 37 Kalimet, which was just approved by this board in the same neighborhood. At So this point, I'm going to turn it over to you, Madam Chair, for any questions or comments from the board.

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

Madam Chair and board members, Sigee Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This applicant has completed the community process. Our office hosted an Butters meeting on December 10 concerning both of the companion cases at which no concerns were raised. The applicants presented to the Community Alliance of Mission Hill. We're not aware of any concerns from that group. That background, ONS defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

There are no additional comments.

Okay. That, may I have a motion? I'll make a motion of approval. There's a second. Mr. Stenbridge? Yeah. Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

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

Thank you.

Next, we have case BOA180066 with the address of 428 To 434 Massachusetts Avenue. If the applicants and or their representative are present, would they please explain to the board?

Good morning, William Furulo on behalf of the applicant, 4 thirty four Massachusetts Avenue LLC. We are before you today with the request to change occupancy to include live entertainment at an existing restaurant at that address. This use is, conditional in the South End Neighborhood Community Commercial Subdistrict as a restaurant with live entertainment operating after 10:30. The current SRV restaurant has been in this location for ten years. Very well received in the neighborhood.

It's a fine dining, Italian restaurant. The restaurant does approximately thirty, thirty five events, each year, requiring one day entertainment licenses. Most of these events are weddings, and it's growing that, business, each year and the entertainment board, had requested that we explore the change of zoning to allow this since the process of obtaining the one day licenses, is both time consuming and expensive, for the host who has the, the wedding party, etcetera. We have been before the, Claremont Neighborhood Association, as well as in the buzz meeting, both of which have endorsed this. There should be a letter on file from Claremont, indicating their support.

There will be no changes to the operation of the restaurants. It will continue to operate, exactly as it has for the past ten years. As mentioned, the only difference being that rather than going in, nearly every week for one day entertainment license, we will now be able to do that automatically by engaging the entertainment for the facility. Entertainment here is limited to the inside. There's no entertainment on the patio or in front of the restaurant at all.

We have agreed with the neighborhood association that again operation doesn't change. There will be no increase in hours of capacity or any change in the way the operation has worked for the last ten years. The owner manager is also present on this call. So if there are any questions about that, we can answer them for the board.

So can you confirm what your current hours are?

Yes. The closing hour for this restaurant is 1AM.

And that's daily?

Yes. It doesn't close at 1AM daily, but the allowed closing hours 1AM. The general closing of the restaurant usually ends up being between eleven and twelve. And that's similar for the functions. The functions generally close down somewhere between eleven and twelve at night.

Yeah. And then just can you confirm we did receive some emails of concern about the noise? Can you just talk a little bit more about that and what type of, live entertainment you generally Sure. Will be using?

As mentioned, we've we've done this, for ten years. There have been, no complaints registered for noise. The entertainment is generally either a DJ that allows for dancing by patrons at weddings. And the other is usually a combo, which will be usually about one to three instruments or maybe a vocalist. As mentioned, it's all interior.

We locate this at the front of the restaurant near the street. It's not at the rear of the restaurant or further back in the restaurant. The surrounding building is a commercial property. And as mentioned, we do not do this on the outside. We do have an outside patio in the back. And we don't allow the live entertainment in that area.

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

Hello, madam chairman. Name is Emma Jones, representing the mayor's office of neighborhood services regarding 428 To 434 Avenue, our office to burst to the boards of judgment. The community process was conducted, including on a Butters meeting on Thursday, February 5, attended by several South Bend community members. The feedback from this meeting was support from everyone expressing that serve as a popular venue in the city and had attended many wonderful mornings at the restaurant. The proposal was also reviewed by the Fairmount Neighborhood Association at their meeting on 12/1825 and have expressed support through a letter submitted to the board. At this time, the mayor's office of neighborhood services defer to the board's notice on this matter. Thank you everyone for your time and consideration.

Madam chair, next we have Christian Franza.

Hello, everyone. Christian Fraser. I'm a neighbor across the street at the 566 Condominium. I just wanna express my support for this petition. SRV is beloved restaurant in the neighborhood, including myself and my wife. And we are aware that there are weddings at the restaurant from time to time, and I can say that, you know, from our perspective, you know, the live entertainment they have at those weddings, know, presents no disruption to the neighborhood. And we just wish the best for SRV, and the only disappointment is when they close the restaurant for those weddings, but no disruption from the entertainment. So just wanna express my support.

Thank you.

Madam chair, there are no additional comments. Oh, I'm sorry. I think there is Indus Johnson.

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. Thank you so much for taking the time to allow me to speak. We wanted to I'm from Councilor Santana's office and we wanted to go on record in favor of this. And we also wanted to say that the restaurant has been a long standing, you know, part of the community and really accommodating to neighbors, and we are in favor. So we are in total support.

Thank you. You're welcome.

Madam chair, I don't have additional hands raised at the moment.

K. With that, may I have a motion?

I get a motion to

move approval. Is there a second? Second. Second. Mister Stenbridge? Yep. Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner?

Yes.

Ms. Panato? Yes. Mr. Collins? Yes. Mister Burnell? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Thank you very much.

Next, we have case BOA 1789913 with the address of 81 To 85 A L Street. If the applicant's envelope and a representative or present, would they please explain to the board? Yes.

Thank you, mister Stemberidge, madam chair, members of the board, attorney Ryan Spitz with Adams and Maransi. Business address of 168 8th Street, 1st Floor, South Boston. Joining me today are the owners, Rachel Tickham and Mike Shaw. The existing site is occupied by a one story commercial building that houses Petula's Restaurant, Fish Store, and a dry cleaners. Our proposal seeks to change the occupancy by reconfiguring the commercial layout to two spaces, one by expanding the existing restaurant and the second space would be a professional office.

This proposal would include legalizing the restaurant's existing takeout license. No other alterations to the existing structure are proposed by this project, and no other changes to the operation of the restaurant. The extension of the restaurant, which is a nonconforming use, and the takeout component of the restaurant all require conditional use permits. Both the use and the expansion are appropriate for the site and the neighborhood. The professional office also requires a conditional use permit despite it being the second most common commercial land use in this neighborhood.

Project's insufficient parking violation is triggered by the restaurant expansion. The requirement is point three parking spaces per seat. However, the location is in a dense urban environment and does not have any existing off street parking, which does align with the vast majority of the surrounding commercial properties. If I can direct your attention to page a e dot 1.1, which shows the the the floor plan, the current space has 54 seats within 1,600 square feet. The expansion will be approximately 1,100 square feet, and we'll add an additional 39 seats with a new bar.

The purpose of the expansion was to fulfill the customers' demands of more seating and additional room to potentially host small events. The professional office will consist of approximately 1,000 to 1,400 square feet. At this point in time, madam chair, I'm going to turn it over to you and the board for any questions or comments.

Thank you. Are there questions from the board? Hearing none, ma'am. Publication department?

Madam chair and board members, Sigu Yance with the mayor's office of neighborhood services. This applicant completed the community process. Our office hosted an abutters meeting on November 12 at which abutters had concerns about noise from the open windows at the restaurant and were concerned that expanding the restaurant will exacerbate this issue. The abutters were seeking a commitment that the windows be closed by 9PM, which we understand the applicant has agreed to. The applicants have also provided the owner's contact information to direct Butters in response to this concern. The Gate of Heaven Neighborhood Association and City Point Neighborhood Association have taken no position on this application, although they are aware it is being heard today. With that background, ONS defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have Ashley from Consular Flinn's.

Good morning. My name is Ashley from Consular Flinn's office. Councilor Flynn would like to go on record and support based on a good community process and compromises with neighbors and both the Gate of Heaven Neighborhood Association and City Point Neighborhood Association on closing the windows at 9PM, seven nights per week, as well as providing contact information to nearby residents. Councilor Flynn respectfully request the proponent continue to work closely with neighbors on any of quality of life issues. Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, we have one more person. Luanne, now you can speak.

Good morning. Thank you, madam chair and members of the board. Luanne O'Connor, president of the City Point New Neighborhood Association. Essentially, what ONS and councilor Flynn have put forth is, in fact, true. The process itself went very well. The owners, Mike Shaw and Rachel, did, in fact, reach out to the abutters that were in opposition, gave them a secure feeling by sharing their personal information in case there are any noise issues. They can be addressed right away. And the closing of the windows at 9PM because it is MFRLS, so there is, in fact, residential neighborhoods surrounding it. So with that, Data Heaven and City Point Neighborhood Association will take no position. And, yes, we are aware that it's being heard today.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Chair, there

are no additional comments. With that, may I have a motion?

We have a motion to approve with the proviso that the windows are closed at 9PM May.

To bear a second? Second. Ms. Dunbridge? Yeah. Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

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

Yes.

Mr. Burnell? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Thank you.

Next, we have case BOA one 7 82125 with the address of 58 Chandler Street. If the applicant and or their representative present, will they please explain to the board?

Hello? Madam chair, can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Thank you. Sean Moran, Alpine Advisory Services. This is a grow house project in the South End seeking to change the occupancy from four dwelling units to two dwelling units with interior demolition, reconfiguring and renovating the new dwelling units with one cantilevered rear deck at the, 2nd Floor Level and reconstruction and enlargement of an existing roof deck for the exclusive use of the second unit. The cost of the project exceeded 50% of the assessed value thereby triggering g card applicability. The customary water Boston Water and SOAR compliance letter and stamp plans have been duly filed together with the old harmless letter sent to Kristen, at Groundwater Trust.

Additionally, the proposed rear deck at the 2nd Floor Level requires a conditional use permit. The site is somewhat unique in the South end as the Riyadh abuts Warren Street, which only has construction on the opposite side of the street. If we could stroll to a 22, We sought an advisory opinion from Landmarks and they indicated that they would approve the proposed rear deck, but only with the conversion of an existing window to a door, and we have agreed to that. Outreach in the community was very positive and supportive with that, but we would defer.

Questions from the board and public testimony? Hello, madam chair, members of the board.

My name is Heather Jones representing the mayor's office of neighborhood services. Regarding 50 H Handler Street office differs to the board's judgment. A community process was conducted, including an outreach meeting held on 11/1025 that was likely attended by the South Bend community, and productive conversation was had among neighbors. Although following this meeting, South Bend liaison has been made aware of the community's concerns about the amount of construction occurring on the street itself and the amount of constructing vehicles taking parking spaces not within the permits. This where this proposal is mentioned as one of the projects causing some concerns in the South Bend.

The proposal was also connected with the Ellis Neighborhood Association, and the association is non op not opposed to this me, to this proposal. At this time, the mayor's office of neighborhood services differs supports judgment on this matter. Thank you everyone for your time and consideration.

Thank you.

Next, we have Ashley from councilor Flynn. Office.

Good morning. My name is Ashley from councilor Flynn's office. Councilor Flynn would like to go on record and support based on a good community process and non opposition from the Ellis Neighbourhood Association. Councillor Flynn respectfully requests that the proponent work closely with neighbors and abutters on quality of life issues during the construction phase. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, have Christian Simonelli.

Good morning, madam chair, members of the board. Christian Simonelli, Boston Groundwater Trust. And we have Paul from the applicant.

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

With that, may I have a motion?

I think the motion is approved.

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

Yep.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

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

Yes.

Mr. Burnell. Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Thank you.

That's the final case for 09:30. No. Actually, we pass the. We'll ask again if there are any request for withdrawals from the. The address of 01 Elko Street. If the applicant said those are representative of the president, okay, but the case is.

Good morning, madam chair and members of the board. David Suni, attorney for Saba Development. The project is 11 Elko Street. I'm here with Farzid Kiani and the architect Andrew Falkenstein from Concise Design. This is a two family residence to which we are developing 10 units in total at 11 Elko Street.

It is in the Sparhawk neighborhood design overlay district, so design review will follow if we receive favorable variances. We are constructing 10 units, a total of 10,571 square feet on a 10,000 square foot lot. The variances require our use variance to go to multifamily. It's a two f 5,000 neighborhood district as well as FAR to go from code point six to 1.21. In addition, building height from 35 feet three stories to 39 feet and four stories.

This is for the addition on the back of the house. The house is being fully preserved, and there will be a breezeway that connects the structure in the back to the house. We also have off street parkland variance that was requested. And as I mentioned, because it's in the Sparhawk Overlay District, design review will follow. We are excited to create condominium home ownership opportunities for the neighborhood.

We are fully complying with inclusionary zoning, so there will be a three bedroom affordable unit at the front house, upper floor, probably the nicest unit in the project. Happy to make that affordable. And we have engaged with the community, and we believe we've received favorable in the community association BIA. And we with that, unless the board has any questions for the architect, I will turn it back to you.

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

Madam chair and board members, Iggy Johnson with the mayor's office of neighborhood services. This petitioner completed the community process in September 2025. An initial abutters meeting was held, and the proposal was substantially reworked. Thereafter, a new proposal responded to feedback by preserving the existing structure. A follow-up abutters meeting was held on February 10.

A number of abutters previously opposed were supporting the changes to the design. However, the direct abutter at 15 Elko Street as well as a condo association nearby at 735 Cambridge Street continued to be opposed to the application primarily due to removing open space. They contend there is an issue with flooding in this immediate area and removing this amount of open space for the project will make water runoff and flooding issues worse on their property. They have submitted letters and photographs to the board explaining this position. Our office received two letters of support and four letters of opposition for the updated proposal, and the Brighton Alston Improvement Association is supporting the updated proposal. With that background, our office defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Next, we have Moira McCrae from Council of Bradenton.

Hello. This is Moira McCrae from Council of Bradenton's office. Council Bradenton would like to go on the record and support of this project. She appreciates that this project will bring much into new housing to Brighton Center and condominium units. She appreciates that the proponent has retained the original residential structure and is adding an addition in the rear. And she also significantly, the project also includes IDP call over suite unit, which is much deeper than the

unit. Thank you.

Thanks. Next, we have the Arabela Gomez.

Madam chair, members of the board, Annabel Gomez from the Brighton Ulcer Improvement Association. The applicant presented twice to the BIA after the first presentation. They went back to work on concerns that were brought up and worked with the historic to address issues of preserving the house. And the second presentation, the VIA voted to support this project. Thank you. Thank

you. Madam Chair, there are no additional comments.