Bpda Board of Directors - Regular Meeting

Boston zoning board of appeal hearings on 05/05/2026 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 the 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 in, 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 panelists, and they will appear alongside the presentation materials when speaking. Panelists are strongly encouraged to keep video on while presenting to the board. As with our in person meetings, comments in support will be followed by comments in opposition.

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

When the host sees your hand, you will receive a request to unmute yourself. Select yes, then you should be able to talk. You are connected to the hereby telephone, please press 9 and 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 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 Stenbridge 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. Okay. Mister Stumbridge.

Morning, madam chair, fellow board members present.

Good morning, mister Valencia.

Good morning, madam chair. Present.

Good morning, mister Le.

Good morning, madam chair. Present.

Good morning, miss Wewell.

Good morning, madam chair present.

Good morning, miss Turner.

Good morning, madam chair present.

Good morning. And mister Brunel. Good morning, madam chair. Present. Good morning. I'll turn it back over to you, mister Stenbridge.

Thank you, madam chair. We will begin with the extensions scheduled for 09:30AM today. I'll read all the in all the extensions in one after the other. If there are any questions afterwards, we can we can ask madam chair and and the representative. We'll begin with CaseBOA763614 with the address of 7 Cleveland Street.

Next, we have CaseBOA1521916 with the address of 15 To 17 Brackett Street. Next, we have CaseBOA1199457 with the address of 29 Southwell Road. Next, we have CaseBOA1432486 with the address of 4648 Leo Leo M Birmingham Park. Next, we have CaseBOA1561862 with the address 353359 Bluegill Avenue. That's next, we have CaseBOA1561863.

The address, 391 To 395, Blue, the left. Next, we have CaseBOA1486752 with the address of 16 R Mathem Street. Next, we have CaseBOA1526179 with the address of 26 Laquanse Avenue. Next, we have CaseBOA1568342. The address is 134 To 140 Smith Street.

Next, we have CaseBOA9328424. The address, 192 Gladstone Street. Next, we have CaseBOA1548018 with the address of 2729 Cherokee Road. Next, we have CaseBOA1255410 with the address of 19 Bennyford Street. And finally, we have CaseBOA21324776.

The case POA 213247, the address of 76 Day Street. All of the extension requests appear to be reasonable, and I'll turn it back to the manager.

Thank you. Are there any questions from the board? Hearing none, may I a motion to grant the extensions as requested?

Motion to grant extensions as read.

May I have a second? Second. Mister Stenbridge?

Yes.

Mister Valencia?

Yes.

Mister Langham?

Yes.

Are you on mute, miss Wiguel?

Oh, no. I'm here. Yes. Sorry. I couldn't hear you.

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

Now we'll move on to the hearing scheduled for 09:30AM. At this time, we'll ask if there are any requests for withdrawals or deferrals from the 09:30AM period. Hearing none, we'll move on to the first case, which is case BOA1795439 with the address of 133 To 135 North Washington Street. If the applicant and were the representative or present, will they please explain the case to

the board? I am, mister secretary. Good morning, members of board and madam chair. This is Mike Ross with the law firm of Prince Lobel. I'm here with James Christopher for the architect for the appellant.

Go to the next page. Mister ambassador. So this is a proposal to build six homeownership condominiums within a mid block oddly shaped parcel at 133 North Washington Street within the North End Neighborhood Zoning District within the North Washington Street Community Commercial Subdistrict. And what you see on the above actually, mister Imbest, sorry, just go one more up for me if you would. This existing site plan, this is a one story industrial building.

It's an oddly shaped parcel. My name is Sarah. It spans

it spans from North Washington Street and reaches through the through the block to on the other portion of the survey to Endicott Court, which is a small court off of Endicott Street. The current structure meets the rear abutting property, and you can see it it it kind of diagonally hits that rear abutting property property line creating a zero in that area, a zero rear yard setback. And the abutting property also has a zero rear yard setback. This is for the existing condition. And so at some point, the two buildings nearly touch each other, and that's the existing condition of this current one story structure.

If you go to the next slide, this is our proposed site plan, what we are proposed what we're proposing to build. And what you can see here is there's now an eight foot rear yard setback in that same rear yard property line that I just directed your attention to on the lower five floors, and then it steps back an additional four feet to make a 12 foot rear yard setback on the six foot. 12 foot is actually what's called for by zoning, but it's not present in virtually well, this entire block and virtually anywhere in in this zoning subdistrict. Also, regarding this abutting Endicott Court Street, initially, it was proposed that we would bring parking up Endicott Court and into the structure to create ground floor parking within the building. The neighborhood felt strongly that bringing cars of Endicott Court where neighbor door neighboring doors are they're literally right on the curb would not be a good condition.

And so we we eliminated all parking within the project completely. There's no parking. It's one of our reasons why we're here. Next slide, please. Next slide, please. This is the basement. It's only storage. Worth mentioning, however, that this project is within the GCOD. We've been working with Christian Simonelli, the Boston Water and Soar Commission. We have our letter and the appropriate analysis there. Next slide, please.

So on the left, see slide you

see Floor 1, which is a single unit and then Floors 2 Through 5. Each floor is a single unit reaching the six units. Initially, there were 13 units proposed for this building. The neighborhood again felt strongly that fewer units and homeownership would be more desirable. And so, you know, creating more permanent residents, less transient residents.

So the Cohen shifted the plan, and we did the six units. And then here you see that eight foot rear yard setback off the rear property line. Units are fourteen nineteen on the Ground Floor and fifteen ninety seven square feet. Each have three bedrooms. And the next slide here will show you the Final Floor, the 6th Floor, and that's the final unit.

Here you see that 12 yard I'm sorry, 12 foot rear yard setback. We dropped it down to two bedroom units. It's fourteen twelve square feet. And on the right is a roof deck dedicated and only available to the 6th Floor unit. Next slide shows the elevations.

It's kind of difficult to follow these elevations because, again, it's a it's an oddly shaped building, and there are other buildings nestled within the building to the right to the left. So but the upper left image is the shows the front elevation. The upper right image shows it from the right side. You can see partially covered by an existing building. The lower left is the from the rear and the lower right is the view of the elevation from the left side.

Alright. Next slide, please. So we created this one slide just to kind of explain the height because it's different. This is our height slide. So it so there's it's the front portion along North Washington Street sits at 60 feet to meet the cornice line of the building to the left of it.

And then the building drops in height to 50 feet closest to Endicott Street, closest to the neighborhood to meet the scale of the neighborhood. Next slide, please. So this is the existing building today. It's that one story building you see there. That's what's there today.

And then the next slide is showing a rendering of what we would you know, what this building looks like. If you go to the next slide, mister Ambassar. You know, here, what you have is the existing building on the left, that 60 foot corner slide I referenced to you, our proposed building immediately to the right of it, and then at night what it looks like. The zoning, as I mentioned, we're here for GCOD. I also mentioned we're

here for

parking. Residential use on Ground Floor creates a conditional use. FAR for this building, which Boston Planning noted in its memo is not uncommon, is 5.1. This is a three point o FAR district. We are cited for height because of that front corner's line issue I referenced. We are cited for open space. I'm not sure exactly why because we do have the roof deck. The entirety of the roof deck is allowed to be counted towards open space. We also have the rear yard, that eight foot setback there should have been allowed to be counted for open space. The requirement is 50 square feet for each unit, so that would equal 300.

We have six fifty. We also had balconies on each of the units, but the neighbors asked us to remove the balconies because it would create unwanted noise in the neighborhood. So we removed those balconies. But even still with roof deck, we have six fifty, but we're cited for the open space violation nonetheless. We were, of course, cited for the rear yard violation, as I mentioned. I spent some time talking about the rear yard. That's required to be at 12 feet. And then we were cited for a side yard. This is a zero side yard setback, but there are windows and vents on one of the buildings, and they they cited us for a side yard setback. I'll pause there, madam chair, and see if there are any questions for me or architect Christopher.

Thank you. Can you address the CFRAD issue? You've mentioned GCOD several times, but part of the recommendation talks about elevation and habitable space below.

Yeah. We're we're aware of it. We are, I think I think, two feet we need to make up. We we can make that up through design review. We can get the lower floor to be above the flood level, and it will not be within the within the confines of the building. It it will not be an issue. It's something we can handle. It's certainly not a zoning issue, and it's something that we'll be able to remedy through design.

Questions from the board? Hearing none, may I have public testimony?

Hello, madam chair, members of the board. My name is Eva Jones representing the mayor's office in neighborhood services. Regarding 133 To 135 North Washington Street, our office defer to the board's judgment. A community process was conducted including in meeting held on Wednesday, 12/03/2025 that was attended by several North End and West End community members. The feedback from this meeting was significant concern of the impact and the scale of the proposal on the small private way behind the building and the impact on sunlight of many of the buildings and decks that may fall in the shadow of the structure.

The applicant continued conversations with neighbors and made significant concessions, including removing access to the private way, introducing a new rear set bed of eight feet for Floors 1 Through 5 And 12 feet for Floor 6 to better accommodate the butters and reducing the unit number from 13 to six. The proposal has received 29 letters of support. The proposal was also reviewed by the North End Waterfront Neighborhood Council on 01/20/2020 or twelfth twenty twenty six after requesting further disco discussions and concessions to a Butters, Munich voted to unanimously support the project and has submitted a letter in support to the board. The proposal was also reviewed by the North End Water front Residence Association on 02/1226 and has voted tenant support and 10 to oppose. That at this time, the mayor's office of neighborhood services defer to the board's judgment on this matter.

Thank you everyone for your time and consideration.

And next, we have Christian Simonelli.

Good morning, madam chair, members of the board. Christian Simonelli, Boston Groundwater Trust, and we have both G Card Motors from the applicant.

Thanks. Next, have Minor Perez.

Thank you, mister ambassador. Madam chair and members of the board, this is Minor Perez representing hundreds of union carpenters living worldwide across here. I also wanna go on record in support of this break.

Thank you. Next, we have a great.

Good morning, madam chair and members of the board. I'm here with my wife, Sarah Duncan. We're the owner of 186 Endicott Street directly behind the proposed project. After several meetings with the development team, we have withdrawn our opposition to the project and now support it. The team has has

worked with

I think you're frozen. I think so. Yes. Missus Manessi? Did you want

a finished comment? Miss Manessi, you were frozen.

Oh, okay. Sorry about that. Yes. So we are

in support of the project. Up to we got up to

you with junior opposition. Oh, we withdrew our opposition based on several meetings with the development team in which they increased the rear the initial rear yard setback to the eight feet on Floors 1 Through 5 and then 12 feet on the 6th Floor. So that addressed our concerns about the project, and we now support it.

K. Thank you.

Madam chair, can I have any additional comments?

Okay. Is is mister Hampton available? Can you address the comments about the seat pod issue?

Yes. Thank you, madam chair. Members of the board, Jeff Hampton, City of Boston planning department. Our recommendation on projects like these have historically been to ask for denial without prejudice because we don't want the project to be below the designated floodplain. We had a very similar case like this at 105 North Washington where we recommended denial without prejudice.

This was back in January 2025. The appellant then came back with a different design, and we actually went on the record to recommend approval. I heard what mister Ross has said about being willing to deal with this during the design review process if the board does approve this. I would just ask that that be put as a proviso if the board does vote to approve this, that they do work with us to make sure that the 1st Floor unit is not in the flood zone.

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

Madam chair, I'll put forward a motion of approval with the proviso for design review to ensure that no livable space is below the design foot elevation.

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

Yes.

Mister La Engham?

Yes.

Miss. Mister.

Yes.

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

Thank you very much.

Have a nice day.

Next, we have two companion cases. The first is case BOA1813329 with the address of 139 West Canton Street. Along with that, we have case BOA1813317 with along with the with the address of one also with the address of 139 Kent Street. If the applicants and or the representative are present, will they please explain the case to the board?

Yes. Thank you, mister secretary, and good morning, madam chair, members of the board. For the record, attorney Matt Echel with Fletcher Tilton on behalf of the applicant. Also with me this morning is Joseph Kennard from Kennard Architects, the project architect. We are seeking to renovate the existing structure at 139 West Canton Street and erect a roof deck as well as a rear deck. The roof deck is proposed to be accessed by an internal stairs and through a hatch. Just to give a little bit of background, the zoning subdistrict is an MFR. This is an existing single family, and that occupancy will remain. There's no change proposed to the occupancy. And the lot is just over 1,100 square feet.

This property is in a series of row houses along West Canton Street between Warren Ave and Tremont Street. The proposal includes, as I mentioned, the renovation predominantly in interior renovation of the existing single family structure as well as erecting that new, rear deck and roof deck. The project does include some exterior work to fix the facade and update some of the windows, to bring the building back to its former condition. We are actively working with the South End Landmarks District Commission on that and will need their approval for the exterior work should this board approve our proposal this morning. We are seeking the relief for an extension into the rear yard as a result of the proposed rear deck.

I I would point out this rear deck has been aligned with, the director Butter's rear deck to promote consistency and will provide the homeowner some additional and much needed usable outdoor living space. We're also seeking relief for GCOD as we are in a Brownwater Conservation Overlay District, due to the cost of a rehabilitation. We submitted, through water and sewer and submitted through the zoning board our no harm letter as well as the Boston water and sewer letter. Finally, the roof deck as proposed does comply with zoning. However, we are seeking building code relief for a violation, which was cited due to the fact that the access to the roof isn't proposed through a head house.

It is proposed, through that hatch, which is very typical. As as the board knows, a lot of the roof decks you see now, there is a trend to propose access via a hatch to not alter the profile of the building and the neighborhood. However, that does trigger the need for building code relief through this Board. I would note, we've also, as we scroll through the plans and get to the top level, we've, set back the roof deck approximately seven feet from both the front and the rear to limit any impacts on the streetscape or or the rear. In addition to the South End Landmarks Commission, we've been in touch with representatives from Montgomery Park, which directly abuts us in the rear.

They were supportive of the proposal and felt that the construction and plan was keeping in context with the neighborhood. With that, I'll pause and take any questions the board may have.

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

Hello, madam chair, members of the board. My name is Abby Jones representing the mayor's office of neighborhood services. Regarding 139 West Canton Street, our office refers to the board's judgment. A community process was conducted including an abutters meeting held on Thursday, 03/12/2026 that was well attended by Southend community members, where some concerns were voiced about construction vehicles parking in parking spots and rodent mitigation. Additionally, the proposal was also connected to the Ellis Neighborhood Association where they reviewed the plans and expressed that they did not to meet need to meet with the applicants regarding this proposal. At this time, the mayor's office of Neighborhood Services defer to the board's gentleman on this matter. Thank you, ever.

Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. So next, we have Christian Simonelli.

Good morning, madam chair, members of the board. Christian Simonelli, Boston Groundwater Trust, and we have both from you. And

we have Ashley from Thank you. The counselor's office. Flynn.

Good morning. My name is Ashley from counselor Flynn's office. Counselor Flynn would like to go on record in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

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

Okay. Any any other question? It's from the board?

Yeah. I have one quick question. I'd like to know how how are they gonna handle the cost parking of the construction vehicles?

Yeah. It's a it's a great question. And, certainly, this is can be a congested street, so we will be putting together a construction management plan, and we'll be working with our butters for any, perceived disruptions. But we will be working hand in hand with our neighbors to make sure that we are not disruptive outside of what we have to do to access the property. It's a fairly the majority of the work is interior and obviously the two decks. So there shouldn't be much disruption outside, of the property, and there should only be one or two trucks, you know, per day max.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. With that, may I have a motion?

Ma'am, should I make a motion of approval?

Is there a second? Second. Mister Stubridge? Yes. Mister Valencia? Yes. Mister Langham?

Yes. Miss Fluor?

Yes. Miss Turner? Yes. Miss Dunbar now. Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Thank you very much.

Next, we have case BOA 1822885 with the address of 149 Newberry Street. If the applicant and the other representative were present, will they please explain to the board?

Good morning, madam chair and members of the board. Skin Pharm is a clinically focused cosmetology or cosmetic dermatology and medical spa that's funded by nurse practitioners, and we're providing clinic noninvasive treatments and professional skin care products. We're just seeking approval to change the current occupancy of an existing 3rd Floor tenant space to accommodate our use. Our services are appointment based, low impact, and consistent with similar professional and health care oriented uses. So we appreciate your consideration, and we welcome any questions.

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

Good morning, board members. I'm madam chair, Siggi Johnson with the office of neighborhood services. This applicant completed the community process. Our office hosted in a Butters meeting on April 2 at which no concerns were raised. The neighborhood association of the back bay is in non opposition to this application. That background, ONS defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Good morning, madam chair, members of the board. My name is Tony on behalf of councilor Sharon Gerken. She'd just like to go on record in support of this proposal.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, I don't see additional comments.

Okay. With that being a motion? I'll make a motion to

approve. Correct, Katie.

Motion to approve. May I have a second?

Second.

Mister Stambridge? Yeah. Mister Valencia?

Yes.

Mister Langham? Yes. Miss Wewell? Yes. Miss Turner? Yes. Mister Burnell? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck, ma'am.

Thank you so much, everyone. Next,

we have case BOA1825910 with the address of 154 To 170 Commonwealth Ave Avenue. If the applicant and or their representative are present, would they please explain the case to the board?

Hi, mister secretary. Good morning, madam chair, members board. This is Mike Ross, law firm of Prince Of Belwind National Place. I'm here with Denise Dennis Ferrendecchi, the architect. This is a tenant build out only. It's currently an existing medical office space that spans two floors, garden level and 1st Floor. It's accessible by a primary entrance off of Commonwealth Avenue. The property you can go to the next slide. There's actually, the last page might be the best one, mister Ambassador, for people to look at. Yeah.

It's just a tenant build out. So there's not there's not a lot there, but, you know, you see it in front of you. The property sits on the corner of Dartmouth And Commonwealth. It's known as the Bendome Building, well known building in the Back Bay. There are a number of commercial uses on the two bottom floors today in addition to this medical office as well as around over 100 condominiums on the floors above.

This proposal is for a private club which is a conditional use which in within an H 365 which would be dedicated to a fitness use fitness center. It'll contain several treatment rooms for traditional spa type services, two larger rooms for classes such as yoga and general fitness equipment which will mostly be placed on the 1st Floor. There will also be a refreshment counter on the 1st Floor and the locker rooms downstairs on the Garden Level. Appellant has worked very closely with the trustees of the Vendome Building to work out things like hours of operation. Call agreed to not operate beyond 10PM.

Noise mitigation and the like. As a result, a letter of support was submitted by the trustees to the board. And I'll pause there to see if there are any questions. Thank you.

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

Good morning, madam chair and board members. Siggy Johnson with the office of neighborhood services. This applicant completed the community process. Our office hosted an abutters meeting on March 23. Some logistical questions, no concerns were raised. The Neighborhood Association of the Back Bay is in non opposition to this application. With that background, ONS defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Good morning, and chair members of the board. Councilor Gerken would like to go on record of support.

Next, we have Ed. The person with the name Ed, if you can unmute yourself, please.

Yes. Madam chair. Devoe, 160 Commonwealth Avenue. I've been a member of a resident of the building for over ten years. The trustees, as I said, have had many meetings alerting their residents. And I am extremely supportive of this project. I think it's gonna be a great addition to the neighborhood as well as our building.

Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have Minor Perez.

Thank you, mister ambassador. Madam chair, members of the board, this is Minor Perez representing the Carpenters Union. On behalf of thousands of union members, 11 workers at the city of Boston, we wanna go on record and support of this this proposal. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have Meg.

Thank you. Meg Meinzer Cohen, president of the Back Bay Association. We are long term supporters of the Quinn since day one. The they've been a tremendous benefit to the neighborhood, and we appreciate, this minor change where they're moving the gym to a different location. And I very much appreciate that the Vendome is also in support of it. That's super important to us. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Madam Chair, there

are no additional comments.

Thank you. With that, may I have a motion?

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

Is there a second? Second. Mister Stenbridge?

Yeah.

Mister LaPazia, are you on mute?

Yes. Yeah. I couldn't hear you. Sorry.

Thank you. Mister Langham? Yes. Miss Wewell? Yes. Miss Turner? Yes. Mister Bunnell? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Thank you all. Have a great day. Thank you.

Next, we have case BOA1772580 with the address of 94 West Cedar Street. If the applicant and or the representative were present, will they please explain?

Yes. Thank you, mister Stembridge. Madam chair, members of the board, attorney Ryan Spitz with Adams and Maransi, address of 168 H Street, 1st Floor, South Boston. Joining me today is the project architect, Tim Johnson. This is a proposal to change the use from an existing two story commercial residential building to a five story, six unit residential building by way of a three story addition.

The lot sizes is approximately 1,520 square feet within an H 265 subdistrict on West Cedar Street. The existing building sits on the lot lines with no front, rear, or even side yards. The proposed project also falls within the groundwater conservation overlay district. Applicant has provided both letters to the Boston Groundwater Trust. If I could turn it over to page a one zero one, please.

Basement will consist of just utilities. Page a 102, 1st Floor will consist of a bike trash room located in the front of the building along with a Unit 1, approximately 679 square foot studio. A 103, 2nd Floor will consist of Units 2 And 3, both one bedroom units. Page a one zero four. 3rd And 4th Floor will consist of Units 4 And 5, both duplex units with two bedrooms. A 106 is the 5th Floor, which will consist of a two bedroom. This unit will also have an exclusive roof deck. We have the following violations. We have a flurry ratio violation. Maximum FAR is a two point o.

The proposed addition would bring the FAR to a four, but aligns with the FARs of the abutting buildings. We have a side yard, rear yard, and projections into the rear yard violation. All our preexisting nonconformities, and despite no changes to the footprint of the building, we have been cited for such due to the vertical additions. We have open space violation requirement in the subdistrict is 150 square feet per unit. Despite being an existing nonconformity, the new proposal allows for small decks in the rear of the property to allow for some open space.

Lastly, we have a parking insufficiency. The requirement is point seven per unit, and the proposal doesn't provide any parking. But this neighborhood is in very close proximity to transit, is highly walkable, making it more aligned with the mayor's initiative reducing dependency on private vehicles. At this point, madam chair, I'm gonna turn it over to you and the board for any questions or comments.

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

Madam chair and board members, Cece Johnson with the office of neighborhood services. This applicant completed the community process. Our office held in a Butters meeting on 09/22/2025. A concern was raised about the loss of a community amenity of commercial space for more housing, a concern about what was thought to be a large increase in the floor to area ratio, and concerns about the type of masonry and other physical characteristics of the building. The Beacon Hill Civic Association voted to oppose this application.

Our office understands they felt that the FAR was too substantial an increase for them to support. Our office has received one letter of opposition and five letters of support with two signing an address in a 300 foot abutters radius and the other letter signing an address in other areas of Beacon Hill. With that background, ONS defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Good morning, madam chair, members of the board here on behalf of councilor Sharon Durkin. So we spoke to the proponent. We read the letter from BHCA, and then we spoke to the Landmarks Commission. So our office thinks that there is more work to do before going to the ZBA. So at this time, Councillor Durkin defers to the judgment of the board.

Next we have Christian Simonelli. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of

the board. Christian Simonelli, we have both G Card letters from the applicant. Thank you.

Thank Thank you. Next, we have Phillips Street.

Hi. My name is Andrew Henson. I'm an abutter to this project and in great support of it. No abutters that I've spoken to are in opposition to this project, and we can't figure out why the Beacon Hill Civic Association has gone the direction they have. We are very disappointed in the counselor's office.

You were in support of that CVS project at a much worse location, and that developer gave you money to your coffers. So we would suggest, in this very specific case, that you approve this project. This developer has been nothing but operating in good faith with the neighbors, ensuring that they're all in line with the buildings. And they're offering a great building that we can see in dedicated housing on the hill. And we'd hope that you would see that the addition of the housing for this particular project is needed in the neighborhood and that the abutters are in support of this project despite what the Civic Association thinks. Thank you.

Madam Chair, there are no additional comments.

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

What's your now, bro?

Is there a second?

Back back in.

Mister Stumbridge?

Yep.

Yes. Thank you, mister Valencia. Mister Langham? Yes. Miss Wheeler? Yes. Miss Tardell? Yes. Mister Barnett? Barnett? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck.

Thank you. Thank you, madam chair.

Just to notice that at least on my end, the sound coming from your computer is breaking up a little bit.

Okay. Thank you for letting me know. It's probably my Wi Fi. I like everybody else's.

Next, we have case VOA 1833689 with the address of 6971 A Street. This is case. And if the applicants and or their representative to the board.

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Stemberidge. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is George Moranci.

I'm an attorney with the business address of 350 West Broadway in South Boston. I represent the petitioner, the Council on International Educational Exchange or CIEE with respect to this application to convert the second through the fourth floors of the existing building owned by CIEE and located at 69 Dash 71 A Street in South Boston. This would convert the occupancy from vacant office space to 24 residential units while retaining the existing Ground floor and basement gym and retail uses, the 5th Floor office space and amenity area, and adding a new rooftop amenity area. Joining me today are Mariela Ebro and Matthew O'Connell of DBI Projects, the project manager, as well as Jack Moriarty, the project's permitting consultant. Madam Chair, members, I wish to start with a brief word about the petitioner because the nature of CIEE's mission is central to understanding why this project is before the board in the form that it is.

CIEE is a nonprofit, nongovernmental organization founded in 1947, just after World War II, with a mission of promoting international understanding through educational and cultural exchange. They're widely known as the oldest and largest nonprofit international educational exchange organization in the country. Over more than seven decades, CIEE has developed and administered study abroad internship and professional exchange programs operating in more than 30 countries and serving tens of thousands of participants annually. They played a significant role in shaping the modern framework of international educational exchange, including their longstanding participation in programs administered by the US Department of State's J1 visa program. CIEE, as part of this project, will be relocating its world headquarters to 69 A Street in South Boston.

The project relates to the fully constructed five story building at 69 A Street, which sits upon a 17,749 square foot lot that is walking distance from Broadway Station on the Red Line. The second through fourth Floors, floors that have been substantially vacant or entirely vacant since the building was completed, would be converted to 24 residential units. Nothing would change about the building's height, footprint, or gross floor area. This is purely an interior change of occupancy with the addition of some rooftop amenity space. These 24 units will not be rented to the general public.

They will be occupied exclusively by participants in CIEE's BridgeUSA International Exchange Program. These are recent graduates and young professionals from abroad who will be here in Boston on structured time limited internship placements. This residential use is thus tied directly to CIEE's educational mission. It is supervised housing for federally authorized exchange program participants. One of these 24 units will be reserved for a live in building manager employed by CIEE, someone who will be on-site twenty four hours a day overseeing building operations.

The existing basement and Ground Floor gym and retail uses in the 5th Floor office and associated amenity areas will all remain. A rooftop amenity terrace is being added for the use of CIEE employees, program participants and affiliates. I would be remiss if I didn't provide some context on how we got here. As Mr. Stembridge mentioned, this is an Article 80 project but it is a notice of project change under Article 80.

This property does have a history with the planning department and with the Board of Appeal. The site was originally approved in 2016 for redevelopment into a commercial office building. CIEE acquired the property in 2018 with the attention of establishing its headquarters here. They obtained approval for a revised project and constructed the building envelope, which was completed in 2021. Then, of course, the COVID pandemic hit.

The intended office occupancy was materially disrupted with the disruption to the operations of CIEE and their business model, and the building has remained largely vacant above the Ground Floor. In 2021, some members may remember that CIEE explored converting the building into a life science R and D use. That proposal went through a notice of project change but was ultimately denied by the ZBA. The present application is the next chapter. Rather than a new building program or expansion of the structure, CIE is proposing to activate the upper floors for a residential use that is directly connected to its core institutional mission with absolutely no changes in the building's height of footprint or expansion of gross floor area.

The variance is being sought arise from the change in occupancy, not from any new construction. Converting office space to residential use triggers per dwelling unit dimensional and parking violations under Article 68 that did not apply to the previously approved commercial program. Specifically, we're seeking board approval on three items. One, lot area per dwelling unit. The deficiency arises entirely from introducing residential units into a building whose lot size and footprint are fixed.

Full compliance would require eliminating a substantial number of the proposed units. This would undermine the viability of the project and defeat the reasonable use of the property. This is a hardship that is not self created but is inherent in the fact that this is an existing building that was approved originally for non residential use. Second violation is insufficient usable open space. And while project might not meet the strict numerical standard of 200 square feet per dwelling unit, it might.

And what I mean by that is it will depend on a final design of the rooftop amenity space, which creates meaningful rooftop terrace space in many amenity areas providing functional and necessary outdoor space for the residents. And finally, there's an off street parking violation. The building currently maintains an 18 space surface parking lot. One of these spaces is going to be converted into an enclosed, secured, and screened trash and recycling area, basically standard residential programming. This will leave 17 spaces, parking spaces, for the use of the building.

No additional parking can be added to the site. But this building is, as I mentioned at the top, located steps from Broadway Station on the red line. And perhaps more significant, the residents here will all be exchange program participants who, by the nature of the Bridge USA program, will not be bringing private vehicles to Boston from overseas and are highly unlikely to be buying or even renting a motor vehicle during the periods of their internships, range on an or have an average length of approximately eleven months. Additionally, the project will include a dedicated bike room with a minimum of 24 long term covered and secured bicycle parking spaces. The parking relief therefore is appropriate and is consistent with transit oriented development principles the city has been advancing for years.

The building, as noted, is within a multifamily residential local service zoning subdistrict, which is expressly contemplates multifamily residential development. The use is thus consistent with and allowed by underlying zoning. The surrounding neighborhood is characterized by a mix of multifamily residential, commercial, and mixed use buildings. Before I conclude, it is important that I address the inclusionary zoning requirements and how they apply to this proposed change of occupancy and future use. Only to the nature of that use, the building will not include on-site income restricted IZ units.

That's a departure from the standard framework, and I want to explain why. These 24 units are reserved exclusively for Bridge USA program participants and the on-site CIEE building manager. The income eligibility and tenancy requirements for conventional IZ units are simply incompatible with this program structure. This is not an effort to avoid an obligation. Rather, it is a direct and understandable consequence of the mission driven nature of this particular residential use.

In lieu of on-site affordable units and in full compliance with the requirements of Article 79 and as approved by the mayor's office of housing, CIEE has committed to a one time cash contribution of just under $1,000,000 to the city's inclusionary development fund to be used for the construction and preservation of affordable housing units across Boston. Finally, the project has undergone comprehensive article 80 review by the Boston Planning Department, including public notice and community input. And on March 19, the BRABPDA Board of Directors voted to approve this third notice of project change for this project and to recommend approval of the required zoning relief. With that, Madam Chair, I'll pause and take any questions that members may have.

Thank you. Hi. Go ahead. Did you have a question?

I do. I have two questions. So you said there are 17 parking spots. How many how many staff members will work here?

There will be some very good question, Mr. Darnaby. There will be one unit of this building for a dedicated CIEE building manager. In terms of the office use on the 5th Floor, that

is a

good point of distinction. There will not be people in office cubicles working for CIE in the 5th Floor. Most work is conducted remotely around the world, actually. The primary intended use for the 5th Floor office area is for periodic meetings of the board of directors of CIEE that happen a few times per year. But there will not be a five day a week corporate presence there in terms of people, for example, working in cubicles. It will only be periodically occupied and for, as I said, things like corporate meetings and board of directors meetings that are held periodically throughout the year.

Thank you. And then my second question is, what's the average length that someone will live here?

It's approximately eleven months. And it ranges from several months to sometimes a couple of years. There are currently CIEE program participants living all over Boston. So this is not a new this is not newly being introduced to the city. It's just that these are people who are essentially private housing units distributed around the city. So this provides an opportunity to have a dedicated residential use for the Boston program participants. And again, the average length, and that is across Boston and across the nation for that matter, is approximately eleven months for these business interns.

Thank you very much.

You're welcome.

Thank you. Any other questions from the board? Hearing none, 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 judge from this board some background information in community process. As you're aware, this went through a Boston planning led community process with a notice of change for the project starting their process in February, including a public meeting that was held on February 24 as well as the solution soliciting public comments from residents. These conversations were very positive.

We ended up receiving two letters of support that were glowing about how this applicant and the representation has worked really closely with the community to explain what changes are being proposed and as well as engaging with direct bodies to make sure they're comfortable with this project. We received those support letters from the West Broadway Neighborhood Association as some members of the board of trustees for Port 45, which is a neighboring building. We're presently unaware of any concerns. With that,

I'll defer to the board. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have Ashley from councilor 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. The team has worked closely in recent months with nearby civic groups and abutters to be responsive to any concerns and quality of life issues. They have also worked in good faith to also provide a full time live in building manager on-site as well. Councilor Flynn respectfully request that the proponent continue to work closely with neighbors on any quality of life issues. Thank you.

Thanks. We we have a minor Perez. Minor?

Thank you. Thank you, mister Ambassador. Madam chair, members of the board, Carpenter, Virginia would like to vote in record and support.

Madam chair, there are no additional comments.

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

Madam chair, I'll make a motion of approval.

Is there a second? Second. Mister Stembridge? Yeah. Mister Valencia? Yes. Mister Langham? Yes. Miss Wewell? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Mr. Burnett? Oh. Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Thank you.

Next, we have case BO818305 excuse me, 65 with the address of 87 Heath Street. If the applicant and or the the representative present, would they please explain to the board?

Yes. Thank you, mister Stembridge. Good morning, madam chair, members of the board. For the record, my name is Richard Lyndons. I'm returning with the business address of 245 Summer Street in East Boston on behalf of the petitioner Carlos Arias.

With me is Nick Landry from DRT who's our project architect. Mister ambassador, we can jump right down to slide three. Madam chair of the board, this proposal involves the redivision of several lots and the creation of a new approximately 6,100 square foot lot, which is located in area of Mission Hill that traditionally has held a mix of industrial, commercial, and residential uses. I'm not sure if we can get down to slide three, mister ambassador. Next slide, please.

Perfect. So in connection with creation of this new lot, the proponent is proposing to construct a new 14 unit multifamily residential building. This will include two inclusionary zoning units as required by IRL 79 code. The project also proposes to include a total of seven off street parking spaces located at grade. The units for this project will range in size from anywhere from 760 square feet up to about 1,800 square feet.

If you can jump down to Slide 4, just to give the board an idea of the context of the surrounding neighborhood. As you can see here, each street does have a commercial industrial building located immediately adjacent to our site. In addition, there's a relatively newer multifamily residential building located at the corner. If we can jump out of Slide 7. Maybe further down. Yep. Just let's see. Caps. So it's a good place to stop right here. So this is a street view, illustrating the, vacant condition of

the lot. Our client

is the owner of, the vacant area as well as the building adjacent. And as I indicated, this involves a redivision of the lots create a new lot for the proposed structure. If you can jump down to slide 10, I can review the zoning relief that's necessary. Slide 10, please. Perfect.

So, madam chair, members of board, this property actually straddles two zoning subdistricts. We have the three f 2,000 for Mission Hill as well as a local industrial subdistrict. Because we are within two zoning districts, article six relief is necessary, so a conditional use permit is being requested with respect to having the property in two zoning districts. Regardless, ISD applied the more restrictive zoning to this this area based upon how transitional zoning is applied under the Boston zoning code. So we are operating under the controls for the 3 F 2000 District.

So we do require relief from several provisions of article 59. And beginning with off street parking, our proposal includes seven spaces, which is less than the one space per unit as required in article 59. I will note that in the recommendation, which was for approval by the planning department, they do cite that this location is in close proximity to rapid transit bus lines, including the Jackson Square transit stop, which is in relatively close proximity. Planning department believes this would be appropriate for a reduction in the minimum required parking, and certainly, they felt that the seven parking spaces being proposed was appropriate for this development. I would add that we do include a bike storage room at Greene as well, which is located just outside the garage.

Within the three f 2,000, an MFR multifamily use, anything more than three units is a forbidden use. However, once again, the planning department recognizes the character of this section of Peachtree includes a mix of the multifamily type uses. There is commercial industrial as well, and they believe that this would be an appropriate use for this location. With respect to the height and the FAR, in both instances, this project would exceed the maximum allowed under article 59. We are proposing an overall height all the way to the top of the elevator over on the 59 feet.

A total of 40 feet is allowed. With respect to the FAR, two point o is the max. We have a 2.98. Once again, the planning department's recommendation views these as acceptable for this area because it is consistent with the planning goals for the city, especially with respect to future planning and modifications along this corridor, of Mission Hill for Heat Street. Lastly, with respect to the rear yard open space and the buffering requirements, the planning department also recommended relief for this based upon the location and size of the project.

They did note that the 10 foot setback in the rear, although was less than the minimum required, was appropriate based upon the spacing for light and air. In addition, they did note that the open space, which can be achieved through balconies, roof decks, etcetera, should be looked at in connection with the design review that would be proposed as part

of any approval. If we

could jump to slide 11, please. I'm gonna ask Nick Landry to very quickly just go over the materials and design so we can talk a little bit about what this building would look like from from their perspective. Nick, if you could just jump in quickly on that, that would be helpful. Great.

Thank you, Richard. Good morning, madam chair, members of the board. Nick Landry from DRT. So on the left hand side here, we're looking at the front elevation. We're gonna have a full face of black or dark brick kind of from the bay windows down.

That's where you'll see the residential entry on the left, the the garage door in the center, and then the there's a bike entrance kind of hidden behind a tree on the right. The both of the bays will the the the plan is that the either some sort of cement board material, a black material, possibly aluminum. And the windows will all be black two over two in the in the center. And we intend to work with design review on on both of those details. The rear elevation, you can see we have a lot of glass in the center, the decks on either side. All of the units have some sort of access to outdoor space, whether it's a deck or the units in the front have Juliet balconies on the sides.

Perfect. Thanks. Quickly, I'll just run through the plans if we could just go to slide 13, mister ambassador. So this is our proposed site plan showing the redivision of the lots with respect to the location of the building. As you can see, we do meet the side yard setbacks in both instances. Minimum would be five feet or a little above five feet for both. We do propose a model alignment for the front of the building. So although the front setback may vary based upon where the location would be, We do intend to align this building consistent with the modal setbacks for that section of Heath Street. Next slide, please. Jump. Next slide, please.

One more.

Just our architectural site plan showing the orientation of the building as it relates to heat with the entrance off to the right. We have that garage entrance off to the right with the total of seven parking spaces located beneath the building in grade. We do identify areas around the building that would be available for permeable space as well as some buffering. Again, I know that was a specific concern of the planning department, and we're certainly happy to work with them through designer view to address any buffering concerns or questions they might have. Next slide, please.

We just have the floor plans illustrated. If there's any specific questions on that, we can always come back to that. I'll be jumping down to slide 22 just to incorporate the elevations into the presentation. Slide 22, mister ambassador.

Perfect.

As you can see here, the elevations that we do show that the garage space is located towards the rear. As you can see, there is somewhat of a great separation between Beech Street and the back of the property. We do have that as an open condition under the back of the building. However, that is identified as the parking area just so the board can see where that's located. Again, as I mentioned, the height, although we are in excess of the 40 feet that is allowed, planning believes that is acceptable height based upon future planning objectives for this section of Main Street. I believe that said, I can pause there, madam chair. If there's any specific questions, we do have reference to other plans if there's any specific

Thank you so much. Thank you. Alright. Are there any questions from the board?

Yes, madam chair. Mister Linz, regarding article 79, the IDP, could you clarify again what is the status of the conversations about the IDP units that the project would make a contribution for?

Yes. Thank you, mister Wamsi. So the requirements under article 79 is that 17% or at least 17% of the floor space would need to be dedicated to ICEE units. That comes out to 2.38. We will because it's less than 2.5, we will commit to the two units as required in article 79, and the balance of the point three eight would be paid into the affordable housing fund as required by article 79. Thank you. And for what income levels could be those units? So if this were a rental building, the average AMI would have to be 60%. I believe we are proposing homeownership at this time. So it's a range between 80 to 100%

AMI. Okay. Thank you.

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

Madam chair and board members, Sigu Yance with the office of neighborhood services. This applicant completed the community process. Our office hosted an abutters meeting on 09/18/2025 in which a number of attendees expressed opposition to the proposal for reasons that included not enough parking being provided, which units would have the parking assigned to them, that a new curb cut would eliminate currently existing public parking on Key Street, concerns about rodents on the parcel, and desire for more affordability. The applicants met with the Community Alliance of Mission Hill, which is supporting this application. With that background, ONS defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have Tony Barris from consular Durkan.

Good morning, manager. Councilor Durkan would like to go in support of this proposal. Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam chair. Okay. We have Mayor Perez.

Thank you, Mr. Ambassador. Madam Chair, members of the board, Minor Perez with a Carb interceding. We'd like to go on record in support of the project.

Thank you. Madam Chair, there are

no additional comments at the moment.

Any other questions from the board? Ma'am? Motion?

I'll make a

motion off. That's right.

I'll make a motion of approval with a proviso that plans to be submitted to the planning department for design review with respect to the usable open space buffering and proposed year rear yard depth as well as the housing agreement to be executed by the mayor's office of housing.

Is there a second?

Second.

Mister Snubridge? Yes. Mister Valencia?

Yes.

Mister Langham? Yes. Miss Bewell? Yes. Miss Turner? Yes. Mister Burnell? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck.

Thank you very much. Thank you.

Next, we have next, we have case BOA1810466 with the address of 94 To 96 Saint Mark's Road. If the applicants and or their representative are present, will they please explain to the board?

Thank you, mister secretary. Good morning, madam chair, members of the board. My name is James Christopher of six eight six Architects with the business address of 10 Forbes Road in Raintree. I'm here today on behalf of Ray Butler at 94 To 96 Saint Marks Road in Dorchester. The proposal before you is to construct a to extend an existing curb cut to allow for two off street parking spaces for 94 To 96 Saint Marks Road and then to legalize an existing 3rd Floor unit.

So you can just scroll through the plans, mister Ambassador. There is no construction to take place on the project other than a new these are existing floor plans. So that the 1st Floor is a unit. The basement is currently storage out or remain storage. Next slide, please. Again, 2nd And 3rd Floors. The 3rd Floor unit exists that way, and it has existed that way since prior to mister Butler purchasing it. He's always operated it as a two unit building, but we we are here to legalize it today as a three unit building. This is our existing building section and roof plan, and then the existing elevations. Next slide, please.

So here's our proposed site use plan. Again, extending the existing curb cut. Our abutter is a corner lot. So there's no parking from that curb cut to the corner. So at that extension, we are able to get two parking spaces to the rear of the property. We are aware of the BPDA's recommendation for approval with design review with attention to the parking layout. We're happy to work with the BPDA on that. Next slide, please. So again, that's our architectural site use plan there. Next slide.

The building itself remains exactly the same. There's no interior construction to take place. The first and second and first floor and basement will remain. If you go to next slide, please. On the roof of the 2nd Floor, which is this plan right here for the porch, we're gonna add a small balcony for Unit 2 just to create a little bit of outdoor space towards the front of the property. But that's the only change to the exterior of the building. We will be adding a full fire alarm and fire sprinkler system. And that just shows the front elevation and side elevation there show the addition of the small balcony. And that's it. With that, we held an abundance meeting with the project, received support, and, the Saint Mark Civic Association provided support as well.

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

Hello, madam chair, members of the board. My name is Eva Jones representing the mayor's office in Neighborhood Services. Regarding 94 And 96 Saint Marks Road, our office defers his award's judgment. A community process was conducted, including an abutters meeting held on Monday, 03/02/2026 that was attended by two Dorchester community members, where the feedback they gave was supportive. And they mentioned some struggles with parking in the neighborhood, But we're happy to see a plan that helps alleviate these issues and by someone who has been a good neighbor to them.

The proposal was connected with the Saint Mark's Area Civic Association where they expressed that a vote was taken resulting nine in support and zero in opposition. All of Butters present, including nonmembers, were also in support. Additionally, six letters of support were submitted by director Butters who were unable to attend the Civic Association meeting. As a result, the Civic Association is in support of this proposal and provided a formal email submitted to the board. At this time, the mayor's office of neighborhood services refers to the board's judgment on this matter. Thank you everyone for your kind consideration.

Hello, madam chair, members of board, Liam Remus from council Fitzgerald's office. I also let go on record in support of this proposal. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you.

Madam chair, there are no additional comments.

K. With that, may I have a motion?

Motion to approve. Are

you adding the provisals from the planning department?

Yes, ma'am.

I'm sorry about that. Yes.

Okay. So to review with attention to redesigning parking layout and to preserve existing trees. Is there a second? I'm sorry.

Second. That's all.

Thank you. Mister Stembridge?

Yeah. You, madam chair. Yeah.

Mister Valencia?

Yes.

Mister Langham?

Yes.

Miss Wewell? Yes. Miss Turner?

Yes.

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

Thank you for your time.

Next, we have case BOA1703937 with the address of 2 To 8 Dyer Street. If the applicants and or their representative are present, will they approve the 20?

I think this is Joseph Luna. Do we have you now?

Yes, sir. Okay. Great.

Okay. Mister ambassador, madam chair, members of the board, my name is Joseph Luna. I'm the principal Luna Design Group Architects. I represent our developer of New Group Realty for proposed project at 28 Dyer Street. Can we go to the next slide, please?

This project actually was a single this parcel was originally a single parcel, approximately 6,926 square feet on the corner of Kappan And Dyer Street. 12 Kappan, which is the building to the left, has since been renovated and subdivision, and that project has been sold. We are now talking about the new parcel to the right, which is approximately 3,416 square feet, where we plan on constructing a four unit townhouse with approximate total area of around 9,500 square feet on a two thousand three hundred three hundred square foot footprint. We are providing ground floor parking, which with two car garages in a tandem configuration across across that. We were flagged for parking on the zoning violation, which one well, five is required.

We actually have these garages are able to accommodate two, so I don't know specifically why they were flagged on that. But you can see that the those are standard sized cars that can fit inside there. Next slide, please. We will then have three stories on top of that, which will include four bedrooms, two and a half baths with rooftop decks. This is family style housing, and again, we're trying we're trying to maximize the number of bedrooms inside this to for this project to basically accommodate family families in the area.

Next slide, please. Keep going. We've got a little of the elevations. Okay. You can see the parking on the lower level. It's a contemporary style building with a combination of vertical siding with a lot of windows along along the Dyer Street facade. Because of the proximity to the side yards, the amount of windows is is very much limited. But we feel it's an attract an attractive building to building to the neighborhood. It provides much new family housing inside the city of Boston, and I'll be happy to answer any questions the board may have.

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

Good morning, madam madam chair and members of the board. For the record, my name is Jeremy Bembury. I'm the Georgia State Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process, which consisted of an abutters meeting held on June 24 during which no abutters were in attendance. Next, the proposal was presented to the redefining our community organization on September 18, completing the community process. Following this, the organization requested that the point of return for a second presentation, the opponent feeling they have satisfied the civic aspect of the community process declined. Afterwards, the Civic Association issued a position in opposition to the proposal. Thank you for your time, and the mayor's office of neighborhood services would like to defer to the board for the future.

Thank you.

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

K. Is there a motion?

I actually do have a question.

Oh, yes, ma'am.

So there's a note from the planning department that this should be in line with the neighboring buildings. Can you just show on the site plans once again what the what that looks like?

Can we go back to the slide?

Thank you.

Okay. The first second slide there?

Yeah. We don't have Line with

the alpha splitter? Yeah. We don't have a a model set. There's a rendering separate slide with the whatever that could

be pulled up. No.

It's a it's a separate file. I don't know

if it's in the in

the presentation here when we submitted to to zoning.

But they're not they're not in line with the neighboring buildings?

So, no, they're not.

Right. Thank you.

Do you I do you know what

the the distance is from the property line to the The property line to the building, we are right now about two and a half feet.

This is on Capen or on Dyer? On Dyer. On Dyer.

On Dyer.

And the two and a half feet is to actually, can you go to the next slide? That's slide number three. So just I turn out. Should

that's the cantilever condition. Let's go to

the next slide over. The two and a half feet is actually at the Upper Floor. You can see how it cantilevers over on the angle.

Okay. So you so you have

a a larger setback on the A larger setback along along the front. Okay. So if you go back to the first slide, you'll see how it's offset from the parking. That's approximately six feet.

Okay.

Other questions on this or anything else? Are we ready for a motion?

Yeah. Madam Chair, I'd like to put a motion of approval with a proviso that no relief be granted for the front yard so that front yard that so we there is at least

a front yard of five feet

on Dyer Street. We

have no objection.

Okay. May I have a second?

Second. Mister

Snubridge? Yes. Mister Valenzia?

Yes.

Mister Langham?

Yes.

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

very much. Thank you. Bye bye.

Are you you're on mute, mister Stembridge.

Okay. Let me try this again. Thank thank you, ma'am. Sure. This is case BOA1800604 with the address of 4 Adams Street. This is a mayor office housing housing project. And if the applicants and or their representative are present, will they please explain to the board?

Yes. Thank you, mister Stembridge, madam chair, members of the board, attorney Ryan Spitz with Adams and Maranti. Address of 168 8th Street, 1st Floor Of South Boston. Joining me today is the applicant, Reggie Woods, as well as the project architect, Jacob Levine. This was a mayor's office of housing property where an RFP was issued, and mister Woods was awarded the parcel.

The proposal is to raise the existing structure and erect a new three story, three unit residential building on a 6,100 square foot lot located within a two f 5,000 subdistrict. This triggers the need for insufficient lot size as this proposal is considered in other use which requires an 8,000 square foot lot rather than the 5,000 square foot typical requirement. It has also resulted in a use violation, but the relief being sought is very similar to the lot sizes and density patterns in this area. Further, the site is located adjacent to Clary Square and commuter rail, which makes it well suited to accommodate additional housing. Unit 1 will be located on the first floor consisting of approximately 1,391 square foot two bedroom unit.

Unit 2 will be located on the 2nd Floor consisting of approximately 1,414 square feet, another two bedroom unit. Unit 3 will be located on the 3rd Floor, consisting of approximately 1,414 square feet, which will be a three bedroom unit. Each unit will also have a small deck located in the front in the rear of the building that is set within the building itself. We have the following additional violations. We have a floor area ratio violation.

The maximum is a point five, and the proposal calls for approximately a point seven, which is aligned with many of the other neighboring buildings. We have a height violation both in feet and stories. The requirement is two and a half stories and 35 feet. The proposal calls for three stories, 39 feet. A three story building is consistent in this area with many of the other triple deckers. We have a side yard and rear yard violation. 40 foot rear yard, and a 10 foot side yard is the minimum. The proposal calls for 36 feet in the rear and 15.5 feet on the side. And on the other side, it is five feet. But consistent with other neighboring properties such as 6 Adams Street, 16 Adams Street, and as well as 1426 River Street, just to name a few.

We have open space violations, 1,750 square feet per dwelling is required, and this proposal calls for 785 square feet per dwelling with a lot size of 6,100 square feet meeting such a high requirement would be infeasible and is consistent with many of the other neighboring buildings. Further, the parcel is very close to Reservation Road Park and as well as the Smith Playground. Parking via insufficiency, two parking spaces required per unit, and the proposal provides one parking space per unit, again, which aligns with the mayor's initiative reducing dependency on private vehicles in a neighborhood that is very close to transit. At this point, madam chair, I'm gonna pause for any questions or comments from the board.

Thank you. Are there questions from the board?

Yes. I do have a question, mister Spitz. I believe there was a quest a letter submitted by the Accessibility Commission in regards to accessibility of the 1st Floor unit. Is there any plans to to make sure that the 1st Floor unit is accessible?

I am not aware of the letter as such. I haven't been told of any such, but I'm sure, you know,

if if, you know, I mean, if

you wanna make a couple of statements and hopefully I can just try to help address it.

Yeah. I'm I'm sorry. I don't I don't I don't have it available to me right right now. I I think I did notice that, but, you know, typically, a building this size would require the 1st Floor unit to be accessible.

Mhmm. I mean, we're happy to work together with that accessibility letter. We do have a project architect here as well. So again, you know, further in the process itself, again, we're we're happy to work together in addressing the

accessibility issues. What what what Andres is referring to, excuse me, is that Disabilities Commission says the building entrance the building entrance is not accessible. Since it is a three unit building, a common entrance and the Ground Floor unit must be accessible, and then it cites the the what what where that comes from.

Great. No. We're we're happy to comply, you know, with the correct request. We do have Jacob Levine here if if you would like some input on, you know, the possibility of how he could make it more accessible as well. He would just have to be elevated as a panelist. I believe he's under SL House.

I'm here. Thank you, Ryan. My name is Jacob Levine. My address is 27 Congress Street, and I'm the owner architect on the project for SL House Group. We were working with Carl Heckmave from the mayor's office of housing. He's one of the city architects on the project. And he was asking essentially to have the 1st Floor be accessible with a long walk or a ramp. So he was looking at either a one to 20 ramp or a one to 12 ramp. So he wanted us to lower the 1st Floor entry to 18 to 24 inches. I had it originally about three feet above grade.

And we never actually discussed, though, the 1st Floor unit itself being an ADA qualified unit or a handicap ready in the future unit. We just discussed that the main entry itself into the building be accessible by a ramp instead of steps. And that would actually set the building back further, which was something else that we were kind of talking about. Just one other thing to note working with Carl was also the height of the building. He actually proposed the gable being a little bit taller. So that's how we ended up on the 39 feet over the 35 feet. So the entryway being at at a slope ramp up was coming from the city.

And that's all we're mentioning as far as I can tell. So Okay.

Great. But, again, you know, just to show you, we'll continue to work on the accessibility issues. Fair enough. Fair enough.

Thank you. Other questions from the board? May may I have a testimony? Yes.

Madam chair, members of the board, with the mayor's office of neighborhood services. This time, the mayor's office would like to go on record in support of this proposal. Some background information in the community process, ONS conducted a Butters meeting on January 7. There were some Butters who raised concerns regarding the proposed parking ratio and also worried about the proposed density might be a burden on the electrical grid. There was also a neighbor on that meeting who voiced support for the proposal. Prior to the Butters meeting, MOH had solicited feedback from the Butters in the 2024 and also put out an RFP for this parcel. We understand that the HBNA voted in opposition to proposals, citing concerns regarding electrical capacity as well. However, we feel these type

of income restricted units are

going to be positive addition for the Hyde Park neighborhood as and ensure that families are gonna have an opportunity to own these properties and contribute to the community. We also feel that improvements continue to be made throughout the city, boosting the electrical grid. And we do not worry that capacity will be a long term issue. At this time, mayor's office of neighborhood services like to reiterate their support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam chair, I don't see additional comments.

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

Madam chair, I'd like to put a motion of approval with proviso that the proponent works with planning to accommodate all the accessibility requirements.

Is there a second?

Second.

Mister Stembridge? Yes. Mister Valencia? Yes. Mister Langham? Yes. Miss Wewell? Yes. Miss Turner? Yes. Mister Barnett?

Yes.

I see you. I just didn't hear a yes. Yes. Mister thank you. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck.

Thank you.

Next, we have two companion cases. The first is case BOA1807767 with the address of 1904 River Street. Along with that, we have case BOA1807763 with the address of 1900 River Street. If the applicants and or their representative are present, would they please explain the cases to the board?

Thank you, mister Stembridge. Good morning, madam chair, members of the board, attorney John Plagini, here on behalf of this proposal at nineteen hundred nineteen o four River Street in Hyde Park. With me this morning is Lucio Trabucco, who is the project architect. We want to thank you for the opportunity to present this proposal. I'll go over a brief overview and then turn it over to Lucio.

The existing lot at 1900 Dash 1904 River Street holds two one and a half story multifamily residential buildings with each containing eight units. They are one bed, one bath with 14 off off street parking spaces. The proposal before you is to change the occupancy of each of these buildings from eight to 12 units. This will be accomplished by adding one story addition upon the two buildings with four units to be located in the new floor. The building itself presents as a one and a half story building.

It's a bilevel building. Those old buildings, when you walk in, you can either walk down or walk up. All the new units contemplated in this project will also be one bed one bed, one bath, and the footprints of these buildings will remain as they currently are today. Additionally, this proposal, we'll create 10 additional off street parking spaces, so that will allow one to one parking ratios. The proposal allows for increase of much needed housing, and the developer is able to accomplish this with no prolonged displacement.

The rent at these two buildings are actually lower than IDP units since the only strategy is is to avoid vacancies by providing lower than market rent. The plan is to renovate each building separately so the building residents will be allowed to remain while the other one building is being worked on. Luckily, between the owner having other properties in this area as well as other colleagues of his, We can temporarily relocate the tenants and then bring them back when the work is completed. Gabriel, he's owned this building for twenty six years. Some it had all the units have to be refreshed.

So this proposal will allow for the rehabilitation of the existing units as well. Just want to go over, we have provided this board with the only three. We're on a corner of Ernest Street and River Street. The only three abutters have all signed letters to support this proposal, as well as the Boston Planning Department has recommended approval with a housing agreement and design review. At this point, I'll just turn it over to Lucio Trabucco just to go through the plans, and we're happy to answer any questions that you have. Thanks again. I don't know if he's a panelist, Jesus. Is he do you see him on?

What is the name again? Let me check.

Lucio Trabucco.

Yes. Lucio, you are allowed to speak now. You can unmute yourself.

Thank you very much. Jesus.

What the hell? Hello. Can you guys hear me?

Yes. We can.

Yes, sir.

I'm

sorry. No. I'm just I can't I can't see me on the screen. That's why I was a little bit concerned. I apologize. Good morning. Yes. The project sets the existing condition right now is basically two one and a half stories two and one and a half stories structures containing 16 units. The units are one bedroom units, one bath, and there are roughly 550 square foot each. The it's a brick and mortar building, which then the, you know, sliding windows.

The site needs a lot of upgrade as well as the the existing units have upgrade. So part of the project is to upgrade all the units, landscape, provide new landscape, as well as adding two one floor in each structure consisting of four units, 500 the same configuration, same footprint of the existing units for each building and also introduce a proof, which is basically the same a proof that exists there right now on the the the existing buildings. The news the new structure will be around 34 32 feet from the peak of the roof to the grade, and it'll be two and a half it will consist of two and a half floors of residential structures. The the elevations, I mean, if you can go to the rendering, I mean, the I can, you know, just show basically that when we're proposing, that'll be the the the one of the last slides, please.

Bowen, I think he wants you to keep going. Keep going. Yeah.

Keep going. I'm sorry. That's it's nearly near the end. I just did the rendering so that you can visualize our proposal. Yes. Yeah. That's fine. That's fine. No. No. The other one. Yeah. That one. So, basically, again, this existing brick veneer with they will remain. We'll introduce a stone band to cap you know, to to end the brick veneer.

And then above that would be a part board and patent wall system just to capture the building and just distinguish it, you know, differentiate between the base building as well as the top building. Again, the roof would be a hip roof as for shingles. Be all new windows. All the the existing will be replaced on the existing as well and new windows on the new. So it'll be acceptable upgrades of all the units in addition to that top floor addition.

Any questions on this?

I do have a question. Do are is you there any landscape work or that is kind of that is being done or is the existing asphalt paving staying as it is?

The there is asphalt paving, but also if you see along the river in between the units, there will be additional landscaping. So they'll, you know, they'll be all landscaping on, you know Yep. In in between the units, the courtyard, as well as along River Street. Oh, the other thing we're doing is proposing a screen. There's a meter electric meters, which is basically it's kind of trying to find a nice word for it, but we'll provide a screen so that that that would be, you know, away from the view of the Street. That will be part of the, you know, part of the construction as well.

Any other questions from the board?

Yes. In some of the letters of opposition, they cited issues with trash. Can you walk us through how how you manage trash for this complex? Thank

you for that question. So that came up at the the abutters meeting. And one thing I will say, you know, working with the neighbors, we have all the abutters who would be impacted by any sort of trash or rodents supporting this project. This project is located I don't know if you guys know the area. It's located on the corner of Ernest And River Street, almost on the High Park Dedham Line. Directly across the street is a strip mall, which has a a commercial strip mall, which has a restaurant in it. So there was a dispute of where any of this is originating. But what we've done is we have pushed the trash to one side where it will be contained inside a a smaller type dumpster that will be secure so that there will not be any possibility that anything is associated with this proposal.

Thank you.

Oh, you're welcome.

Yeah. Thank you. One additional comment from the neighbors. There is concern about existing tenants losing their housing during the renovations. You mentioned that there is equipment to keep the tenants in place or move them to a temporary space and bring them back. Yes. You don't have real equipment. Are you not going to create any displacements?

No. No. So that's our plan. It's a very good question. We have and I think I put that in my initial presentation. These tenants have been with him a long time. They're below market rates, rents, and so what he wants to do is upgrade them, move them out temporarily. That's why we have a plan to do one building first where those tenants can remain. Then when the other one ends, they can move over to the new building, and then the other people can move back in. So, yes, we are working with them. There'll be five a minimum of five month notice to them. They're all tenant at will, but they're all invited back, and he will assist them in finding housing, as I stated, between other properties that he owned in the area as well as other of his colleagues that own property.

Thank you. And you also will be making a contribution of at least one affordable unit to the major office housing?

Correct. So it'll be an affordable unit as well as a significant contribution to the IDP fund. Correct.

Okay. Thank you.

K. With that, may we have further 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 consists of an abutters reading held on February 19 where a few concerns were raised. Abutters expressed dissatisfaction with the current condition of the property, citing issues with maintenance, including overflowing dumpsters and trash extending onto our neighboring properties. Concerns were also raised regarding ongoing road and activity attributed to improper waste management about as those that the incurred repeated cost for extermination services would eliminate success due to the continued presence of food sources on the property from the dumpster.

A rarer about to report the damage to our fence caused by individuals associated with the property and expressed concern that future repairs may not prevent recurrence. Additional concerns focused on parking, with the voters indicating that the area is already impacted by ongoing construction. They stated that construction related to the prop proposal may further limit parking availability and that the proposed one to one parking ratio may contribute to continued congestion after the project completion. Next, the project presented to High Park Neighborhood Association on March 5 where they voted to oppose the proposal. To date, our office has received two letters of support and one letter of opposition from High Park Neighborhood Association.

The association maintained the embores' oppositions with an additional concern regarding tenant displacement, noting noting that the residents of one building would be required to vacate without a guaranteed right to return. The association recommended improved waste management practices and urged the proponent to work with the office of housing civility providing advanced notice attendance to maintain communication during construction and offer a right to return. Thank you for your time, and the mayor's office of neighborhood services would like to defer to the board for the judgement.

Next, we have Mayno Perez.

Thank you, mister ambassador, madam chair, members of the board. This is Maynor Perez representing Carpenter City. We'd like to go on record and support of the parade.

Madam chair, we don't have additional comments.

Any other questions from the board?

I'm sorry. I think there is one more person that just raised a hand. Willie.

I apologize about that. I thought my hand was raised and just noticed it wasn't. I currently own our 55 Sanford Street, which sits right behind the proposed project. So I I stated my main I got two concerns. One of them being the rats and rodents, and the current lawyer stated that they might be coming from those strips.

But I just had I've been having an exterminator coming to my property since about November, December. And he just came last week, and we found about four new burrows, burrows that are leading to that dumpster because the dump dumpster is always overflowing with trash. And not only the dumpster, but every time I walk my dog around that property, there's trash in the front of the of the building, the one that's currently on River Street. And then they're proposing 10 parking spots behind the one closest to me, and I'm I'm looking at it right now. And there's no way they could put 10 parking spots there unless they're taking land away from the property that's in between those two buildings and my house, which, if I'm not mistaken, the owner that's wants to do this project also owns that property.

So right now, they have, what is it, 12 tenants. Those 12 tenants, there's one that always parks on the sidewalk, which is illegal. So I'm pretty sure one bedroom right now, nowadays, a lot of how households usually have two vehicles. That's not gonna be enough parking. So, usually, I've had tenants from there park on my on my street, which is a private way, which is in communities for me now because I have to find parking elsewhere. But my biggest issue

wrap up your can you

wrap up

your concerns? Go

ahead. I'm done.

Can I just address

that just quickly, madam chair? Sure. I just wanna focus on the road. Are there any other basins? Okay. Go.

Okay. With respect to the rodent issue, the that was brought up initially at the Butters meeting by another resident. And the person who lives directly behind us with above the fence, that is she has submitted a letter of support for this proposal. We have a road remediation plan in place, and we'll continue with that and continue to work with the abutters as well as the city.

And the parking issues mentioned?

Parking is one to one parking. Right? I mean, it's it is not, you know, it's a total alignment with the city's goals of reducing auto dependency and one to one parking if this were an article 80 process project that would not even allow anybody to probably get to one to one never mind exceeding it. It's just that Hyde Park has a two to one parking ratio under their current zoning.

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

a clerk.

Put forward a motion of approval.

Any pro Miss Turner, oh.

So are are we talking about with the provisos as well or just approval?

I I'm asking if we

Oh, I'm sorry.

I'm adding Yes.

With with provisos with that the housing agreement be issued prior to issuing permits and plans to be submitted to the planning department for design review of the parking design.

Do you want to add, mister Brunell, anything about of the, green space you're concerned about screening a bathroom?

No. I think what miss Turner said is it it's sufficient.

Then may I have a second?

Second. Mister Stembridge?

Yes. Mister Lancia? Yes. Mister Langdon? Yes. Miss Wewell? Yes. Mister Turner? Yes. Mister Burnell? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Thank you, everybody. Thank you.

Next, we have case BOA1812434 with the address of 34 To 390 LaGrange Street. If the applicants and or their representative are present, will that fully explain to the board?

Hi. Good morning, madam chair and and the board. My name is Patricia Paolino, and we are hoping that today you will allow a change of occupancy to include body out in a body art in our hair salon, which will allow us to offer permanent makeup services only, not tattooing.

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

Madam chair and board members, Siggy Johnson with the office of neighborhood services. This applicant has completed the community process. Our office oversaw distribution of an informational flyer to all abutters, which solicited no comments to our office. The West Roxbury neighborhood council is supporting this application. That background, ONS defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Madam chair, there are no additional comments.

May I have a motion?

Madam chair, I'll put forward a motion of approval.

May I have a second? Start it. Mr. Stenbridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Gillingham? Yes. Ms. Wigel? Yes. Ms. Turner. Yes. Mr. Burnell. Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck, ma'am.

Thank you very much.

Okay. With that, we will take a break until 11:30.

Rest.

Mister Stenbridge? Present, madam chair. Mister Valencia?

Present, madam chair.

Mister Langham?

Present, madam chair.

Miss Wewell? Present, madam chair. Miss Turner? Aye. Oh.

Sorry. Present.

Thank you. Mister Marnell? Present. Thank you. Back to you, mister Stenbridge.

Thank you, madam chair. We'll now go to the brief discussion scheduled for 11:30AM. We'll ask at this time if there is any request for withdrawals or deferrals from this time frame. Mister Burn? Yes.

We'll be seeking a deferral for 183 Saint Patal Street.

K. How much time would you oh, go ahead. Read into the record. Sorry.

Yeah. If you can. So this request will be for case BOA1741777 with the address of 183 Saint Vatal Street. Yes. Would you go ahead and explain, please?

Yes. Good morning, madam chair, members of the board. My name is Justin Brains. I'm an attorney with Pulgeni and Norton Business address, 1010 Forbes Road, Braintree, Mass. We'll be seeking a deferral for this project as we are in an ongoing discussion with Landmarks as to some design components of the project. As we have been for the past few months, we believe that we are currently moving in the right direction, might have settled the issue soon, but we just need another month or two to iron out final details of that process.

Okay. Caroline, a month or two?

So, Justin, are you

looking more for June, July, or August?

Just to give ourselves a bit of a runway, can can we do July?

Yeah. We have July 14 or July 28.

We'll do July 28.

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

Motion to defer. May

I have a second?

Second.

Mister Stenbridge?

Yes.

Mister Valencia? Mister Langdon?

Yes.

Miss Wewell? Yes. Miss Tern?

Yes.

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

Thank you all.

So with that, we'll we'll if you have no further request for withdrawals or deferrals from 11:30, then we will go to case BOA1790078 with the address of 58 Fuller Street. If the applicant and or their representative were present, would they please explain the case?

Is the applicant form

bullet treat on? I think I see the applicant. It's general error. Your you can unmute yourself now. Okay. I think they are still in the attendees section.

Yes. I believe my architect is

is joining now.

I think he's also as a panelist now. Yeah.

If you can Hello.

Can you guys hear me?

Yes. We can.

These people

Thank you. Think the camera's a little dark here. I'm gonna turn around and get a little bit better light. So sorry about that.

Sorry.

Hello, everyone. Thank you for having us today. I wanna say thank you to chairman of the board. So this project is a is a five unit building, and we're proposing where we'll have a one unit on the Ground Floor, which is elevated a little bit so we can provide parking in the back of the building. And the other two floor will have four u four units, two in two units on each floor.

This project the the the units are basically identical for two bedrooms, two baths, about a thousand square feet. We try to keep the building in in terms of height comparable to the to many of the buildings that we see on the streets. There are there are a lot lot of large tree families that are at approximately the same the same height and and scale. We we we we we are dealing with a with a slope where where we we I think when we when we get to, you know, permitting that we may need to make some adjustments to. But I think what what we're doing here is okay.

Thank you. So as I and this is the cycling showing the unit on the Ground Floor and the parking being provided in the in the back inside of the building by by by using the current curb cut and and and going to the back for parking. Here are the units on the on the Ground Floor, two bedrooms, two bath, and the upper floors with Floors 2 And 3 identical. Again, two bedroom, two bath. And these are the elevations.

Elevation on Bowden Street and elevations on Bowden Street. I'm just missing detail that you guys are not being necessarily interested right now. So we have we goodness. Sorry. There was there a note here.

So if you can go in the last in the very last page. Okay. The these pages show some rendering that we did to kinda show the scale of the building, how it fits into the neighborhood. There are a lot of flat roof buildings. As a matter of fact, there's a building right next door to us kinda on the back of a building, which is a much larger apartment building, but that's but in terms of but in terms of height, our building would probably be slightly smaller while at the same time maybe being in the same scale of the building across the street.

Now you can see those wood frame, three families across the street that that are prevalent throughout the neighborhood. And and the final slide is just a foot elevation of the building on on. Actually, that'll be on Street. Thank you. With that, we're we're open to any questions that you may have.

Questions from the board? Hearing none, we'll take public testimony.

Madam chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Bembury. I am the justice community engagement specialist for the office of neighborhood services. The applicant has completed the community process, which consisted of an abutters meeting held on December 4 as well as a civic meeting with the Mont Bowden Beckerman Civic Association. The civic and the neighbors opposed due to poor relationships between proponent and the neighborhood, not satisfied with the answers the proponent gives. For example, unclear about location of trash and trash management as well as no green space. Lastly, voters did specify that they were concerned about the character of the building being in line with the alignment with other buildings on the street. To date, our officers received one letter of opposition from the Mount

Any any other comments or questions from the board? Is there a motion?

Before a motion, madam chair, can the applicants the representative respond to the comments that were just made?

Yeah. I would I like to to respond to that if I may. Uh-huh. We did have a few meetings with the neighborhood, and and one of the comments that we we heard was regarding maybe picking the building back a little bit to have some a little bit of more green space in the front. Also, the location of the of of the the trash, how you would be picked up.

We have since figured out that there are there are multiple ways we can do it. I know there were there were some conversation about some folks not not wanting large dumpster where where where you'll have a truck come in and making noise and picking up the tracks. Some people would prefer to have individual assists with this it's a fairly small building with four units. I mean, we'll have individual bends where they can actually come down and and and and use for their own purposes. So these are all items.

I mean, from from from the comments that we received from the neighborhood, they were pretty pleased with the building as it as as it looked. There were some issues about maybe providing a bit more green space and also regarding the trash location area. And it and and I think one of the first one of the issues that one of the things we promised the neighborhood is while while if we are sent to work with BPDA, these are the items that we will be glad to to work out with work out with the BPDA design officials in trying to modify the the design to to satisfy those concerns. We don't think these are hard. These are the top task.

We we can easily accommodate some of the concerns that what we've heard from the different meetings. Again, I we thought they were well received. There were a couple minor comments regarding those the items that I mentioned that we don't think we don't think there's an issue that we'll have any problem addressing. I think we would I think that the the size, number of units, the the fact that we're providing is five parking spaces for five units, I think those were well received. So we felt like the major hurdles we're able to accomplish and satisfy. So these minor items, I think, through the BBDA review process, we should be able to to get to a to a satisfactory conclusion.

Thank you.

Thank you.

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

Madam chair, I'll make a motion of approval with provisos from the

planning

department that the front yard's depths be increased at least four feet on the front on the lot frontages facing Bullard Street and Boden Street, and that the plan to be submitted to the planning department for design review with special attention to the site plan and parking design.

Thank you. Is there a second? Mister Stumbridge?

Yeah.

Mister Valencia?

Yes.

Mister Langham?

Yes.

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

Next, we have case BOA1800610 with the address of 1740 High Park Avenue.

And

Yes. I need to recuse myself from this case.

So will it be accusing myself from this case too?

Okay. We will be a five member board. I think, mister Spambridge, were you done reading it into the record?

Yes, madam chair. And Okay. The there is a note that that it does have a something from the from the planning department. So I would say this is our case. And with that, if the if the applicants and or the representative are present, will there

be Thank you, miss Shembridge. Good afternoon, madam chair and members of the board. Attorney Jean Paul Gino on behalf of this proposal is 1740 High Park Avenue. With me today is John Garland, the team architect, and we appreciate this opportunity to present this proposal. And yes, it is in article 80.

1740 High Park Ave, the zoning is local industrial. This lot size is 11,251 square feet. The proposal before you was to develop the currently underutilized construction yard at 1740 High Park Ave and construct a new five store new five storey, 42 unit residential building with on-site parking. The unit mix of the new building will be eighteen one beds, twenty two two beds, and two three bedrooms. Seven of these units will be affordable under the city's inclusionary development zoning policy.