Bpda Board of Directors - Regular Meeting

and Zoning Board of Appeal hearing for June 16. Recording in progress. For June 16, 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 live streamed. In order to ensure this hearing of the board is open to the public, members of the public may access this hearing through telephone and video conferencing. The information for connecting to this hearing is listed on today's hearing agenda, which is posted on the public notices page of the city's website, boston.gov. Members of the public will enter the virtual hearing as attendees, which means you will not see yourself on screen and you will be muted throughout unless administratively unmuted when asked to comment. Board members, applicants, and their attorneys or representatives will participate in the hearing as panelists, and they will appear alongside the presentation materials when speaking. Panelists are strongly encouraged to keep video on while presenting to the board. As with our in-person meetings, comments and support will be followed by comments and opposition. The order of comments is as follows, elected officials, representatives of elected officials and members of the public. The chair may limit the number of people called upon to offer comment and the time for commenting as time constraints require. For that reason, the board prefers to hear from members of the public who are most impacted by a project, that is those individuals who live closest to the project. If you wish to comment on an appeal, please click the raise hand button along the bottom of your screen in the Zoom webinar platform. Click it again and your hand should go down. When the host sees your hand, you will receive a request to unmute yourself. Select yes and you should be able to talk. If you are connected to the hearing by telephone, please press star nine to raise and lower your hand. You must press star six to unmute yourself after you receive the request from the host. Those called upon to comment will be asked to state their name and address first, and then can provide their comment. In the interest of time and to ensure that you have enough time to do so, please raise your hand as soon as Mr. Stembridge reads the address into the record. Do not raise your hand before the relevant address is called or the meeting host will not know to call on you at the appropriate time. We ask that you keep your comments brief and all public testimony will be limited to 90 seconds per speaker. Mr. Stembridge.

Good morning, Madam Chair.

Good morning. Ms. Turner. Good morning, Madam Chair, present. Good morning. Ms. Wewell. Good morning, Madam Chair, present. Good morning. Mr. Bernal. Good morning, Madam Chair, present. Good morning. Mr. Collins.

Good morning, Madam Chair, present.

And Mr. Langham.

Good morning, Madam Chair, present.

Good morning. The floor is yours, Mr. Stenberg.

Thank you Madam Chair. We'll begin today's meeting with the approval of hearing minutes scheduled for 9 30 a.m. These are the hearing minutes for June 2nd of this year and I will make the motion of approval for those minutes.

Thank you. May I have a second?

Second.

Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Langham?

Yes. Ms. Turner?

Yes. Ms. Wewell? Yes. Mr. Brunel?

Yes.

Mr. Collins?

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Next, we'll go to the extension scheduled for 9.30 a.m. There are five cases. There are five extension cases before us. All appear to be reasonable in their requests. i'll read through them and if we have any questions we can address them to manager go from there first we have case boa 109 4388 with the address of one everett street next we have case boa 128 9178 with the address of 40 b street along with that we have case We also have case BOA 152-1943 with address of 40 B Street. Next, we have case BOA 152-2524 with the address of 79 West Milton Street. For the last extension case, we have case BOA 1450603 with the address of 556 Cambridge Street. And those are the extension cases for us to do.

Thank you, Mr. Stembridge. Any questions from the board? Hearing none, may I have a motion to grant the extensions as requested? Motion to grant the extensions as requested. May I have a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Langham?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Wewell? Yes. Mr. Bernal? Yes. Mr. Collins?

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Next, we'll move on to the recommendation scheduled for 9.30 a.m. These recommendations are from the subcommittee hearing for last week, for June 11th. All of the cases before the subcommittee were approved. I'll read through them, and if you have any questions, go from there. First, we have case BOA 1822545 with the address of 527 Prescott Place in Buzzard Court. Next, we have case BOA 1, 8, 4, 4, 2, 7, 4, with the address of 68 Attenborough. Next, we have case BOA 1, 8, 2, 1, 5, 8, 4, with the address of 6 Rambo Road. Next, we have case BOA 1, 7, 7, 2, 1, 2, 6, with the address of 31 Bellow Street, which was approved. Case BOA 182-3198 with the address of 682 to 684 East 5th Street. Next, we have case VOA 183-3990 with the address of 306 Northern Avenue. And finally, for the recommendation case, we have case VOA 182-16 with the address of 16 Elm Street, which was also adopted. Madam Chair, those are all the cases of the subject. Thank you.

Any questions from the board? May I have a motion to approve? I make a motion to approve.

Second.

Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Langham?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes.

is we will yes mr burnell yes mr collins yes chair votes yes the motion carries next we'll go on to the hearings scheduled for 9 30 a.m and at this time we'll ask if there are any requests for withdrawals or deferrals from the 9 30 a.m time frame

Yes, we wish to defer to the next meeting. We need to re-advertise. 78 Bunker Hill Street, Charlestown.

Yes, this request is for case VOA-1817120 with the address of 78 Mulberry Hill Street. Please go ahead and explain.

Yes, so we had a second neighborhood meeting and we changed, we revised them to appease their butters. That was successful, but the old drawings, the new drawings were not updated in time. So it needs to be re-advertised because the advertisement had the old drawings to which was brought to our attention.

Caroline, do we have a date already or? July 28th. Okay, may I have a motion?

Motion to defer this case until July 28th.

Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Langham?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Wheelow? Yes. Mr. Bernal? Yes. Mr. Collins?

Yes.

Chair votes yes. Motion carries. See you then.

Thank you. Any further requests for withdrawals of the 930 hearings? Hearing done. We begin with the first case, which is case VOA 1716446, the assets of 178 to 182nd Street. the applicant and or their representative or president. Would they please respond in case we want?

Hi, can everybody hear me okay?

Yes, sir.

Hi, my name is Adam Ricci and I am here to present 178 Wells Street on behalf of my clients Ingmar and Melissa Sterling. And so I'm just trying to figure out how to share my screen.

So you're presenting from what you sent in. So just Let the ambassador know if you need to scroll.

Let me go back to... Oh, sorry, this is not... Oh, you have it up for me. I see. Thank you. So actually, we have since changed the design as per the neighborhood meetings. So would you like me to share those?

So we can only discuss what's before us. So do we not have the latest plans?

No, but... Adam, were the updated plans submitted to ISD to review?

I believe so.

More than two weeks ago? yes we submitted by email everything to the my liaison i believe to your liaison meaning you're at isd or do you mean the marathon at isd i suggest we come back to this case at the end and i can check with zpa staff

That would be great. So we're going to come back to this at the end of the 930s to see if they can locate your updated plans. Okay, great. Okay, so stay tuned.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

So with that, we'll move on to the next case, which is case BOA-1840878. With the address of 28. 32, Appleton street. The applicant and or their representative are present. They please explain to the board.

Yeah, Joseph is all.

Are you here to present on this case?

I am and may I share my screen.

So there's no sharing of screens to all applicants. Whatever you submitted is what we. are able to view. So if you do not, if we do not have your current plans, you cannot present today. So is this the plans?

The plans are current, I just have more. Okay, excellent. Okay, so I'm Joseph Azella, 3841 Washington Street in Roslindale. I am the owner and the manager of Colgate Development LLC. I own this building, this business and several others here in Roslindale. On this vacant lot on Everton Street, we intend to build a three-family house. The zoning is 2F, but we're surrounded by three-family houses. We think that the use is appropriate, but the difference is that we're doing a townhouse configuration. So instead of stacking the units, we're running them front to back. That allows us to provide for two parking spaces under the building for each unit for a total of six parking spaces. These will be condominium units. They'll be owner occupied. They'll have three bedrooms, two and a half baths. There'll be an office. There'll be open space provided behind the house and next to the house. We've had two community meetings, one with the neighbors that were sponsored by the mayor's office. And that went very well. We had no opposition. And then we went to the West Village Group. Also no opposition there. We did very well. We just, we believe that this use is appropriate given the surrounding houses. We have kept the size and we've kept the size consistent with these adjacent buildings. And we hope that you grant us relief so that we can move forward with our project. Thank you.

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

Madam Chair. members of the book of the record my name is jeremy vandery i am the rosalind deputy agent specialist for the office of immigrant services the applicant has completed the community process which consisted of an abundance meeting facilitated on march 5th with three attendees during the meeting of voters raised questions and concerns regarding the requested variances the anticipated construction timeline and the overall project management throughout the construction period specific concerns were raised regarding access to the street during the occur on weekends or require weekend permits. Our voters know that the street is narrow and voice concerns about the gentle traffic congestion, the lack of ways in maintaining access to residential properties throughout the construction process. Following the voters meeting, the proponent met with West Village and Neighborhood Association, which completed the community process. Thank you for your time, and the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services would like to defer to the Board of Directors.

Thank you.

Next, Madam Chair, next we have Anthony Ross.

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the Board. Awkwardly, I'm presenting the next case, but I also represent the owner of the abutting property to Mr. Vizella's proposed project at 26 Averton Street, and I'd like to go on record on behalf of the owner of that three-family in support of this proposal. Thank you.

Madam Chair, there are no additional comments. Okay. I think we have Richard Lentz.

Yeah, not so much a comment. I just wanted it for clarity. Would it be possible to just confirm what the total lot width on that property was and then what the required frontage would be? I missed it in the presentation.

The lot width is 60 feet, which is the required frontage.

I'm sorry, there were a total of three units?

Three units, yes.

OK. Thank you.

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

I put forward a motion of approval with a proviso that the plans be submitted to the planning department for design review. and that the proponent work on enhancing the walkway and lighting and adding signage that clearly indicates the main entrance of where the units, the two and three units are located.

Okay, is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Langham?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Rewell? Yes. Mr. Bernal?

Yes.

Mr. Collins?

Yes.

The chair votes yes, the motion carries, good luck.

Thank you. Next we have case, excuse me. Next we have case VOA 1804456 with the address of 66 to 66A Cedrus Avenue. The applicant and the other representative present

Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is Anthony Ross. I'm an attorney with my office at 343 Belgrade Avenue in Roslindale, appearing on behalf of the owner, Hong Feng Yang. This proposal involves the construction of a new two-family dwelling on a vacant lot immediately adjacent to Ms. Yang's. existing two-family home at 6870 Cedrus Avenue. The vacant lot has been assigned an address of 66-66A Cedrus Avenue. Both properties are shown on the photograph, which is the first slide. The existing two families to the right at the very end of the dead end and the vacant lot is immediately to the left. As shown on the next slide, the existing two-family is the last house marked in the blue box. And as shown on this map, which is a portion of the city's use map, the surrounding neighborhood is comprised of a mix of single family, mostly two family, and three family homes. The proposed two family is an allowed use in this zoning district, a 2F5000 zoning district, and is consistent with the majority of the existing uses in the immediate area. The next map, the next slide after this legend is here, thank you, is a portion of the city's assessing map that demonstrates that the subject lot is nearly identical in size and dimensions to most of the nearby lots on Cedrus Avenue and the parallel adjacent parallel streets. The prevailing lot pattern in this area is approximately 44 feet in width and by 110 feet in depth with lot areas roughly 4,840 square feet, which is the lot size of the subject lot. Accordingly, the lot dimensions, the proposed setbacks, the zoning insufficiencies identified in the refusal letter, and the proposed two-family use are all consistent with the character of the immediately surrounding neighborhood. If we could move down to the next slides and keep going to the the architectural plans please um and uh i i for some reason the elevations are at the bottom um thank you the proposed two families also been designed to fit the character of the neighborhood context although the units are configured internally in a front to back arrangement the street facing appearance which is the next slide i think or the previous one Thank you. The street facing appearance is similar to that of a single family home with the entrance to the front unit appearing as the traditional front door and the entrance to the rear unit appearing as a typical side entrance along the driveway. Each of the proposed units in the two family will contain three bedrooms and two and a half baths. The existing garage at the rear of the property will be retained along with the existing driveway and curb cut. And we would be happy to answer any questions regarding the proposal of the zoning relief that's been requested.

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

Madam Chair and members of the Board, my name is John Redenberry.

I'm the Browsingdale Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services.

The applicant has completed the community process, which consisted of an abundance meeting facilitated on February 18th with three abundance in attendance. Concerns were expressed regarding the side yard setback, particularly because the area required relief directly abuts a neighboring property. Questions were also raised regarding proposed fencing and the preservation or removal of existing trees on the site. Abutters noted that the location of the side egress could create noise impacts for adjacent properties and suggested that it be relocated if feasible. Additional inquiries were made regarding the amount of usable backyard space that would remain after construction and whether the rear of the property would probably be utilized for parking. Further concerns included the size of the proposed garage, the anticipated construction timeline, and the overall height and scale of the structure. I've understood that the proposed building appeared taller than the surrounding homes and expressed concern that it may be inconsistent with the established character of the neighborhood. Following the above, resuming at the Proponent Village Neighborhood Association on April 23rd, completing the committee process. Thank you for your time. The Office of Neighborhood Services would like to defer to the board. Thank you.

And Chair, we don't have additional comments.

Okay, would Attorney Ross like to address the concerns that were expressed?

Yeah, so with regard to the side yard, Ms. Yang also owns the, now owns, since the abutters meeting, the property to the left side of the property. She does claim to retain the fence. The garage is existing, and with regard to the height, The building has been designed so that it is in compliance with the height of 35 feet, the height limit in this zoning district. The reason for the topmost story with dormers being a full story is just to maximize the living space of each unit. There are three bedroom units with approximately 1,850 square feet designed for family occupancy. And the reason the building doesn't have a flat roof, which is similar to some of the other three unit buildings in the neighborhood, is she wanted to put a pitched roof on to maximize the feasibility of installing solar panels for energy efficiency. Okay, thank you.

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

Madam Chair, I'll put forward a motion of approval. Is there a second?

Second. Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Langham?

Yes.

Ms. Turner?

Yes. Ms. Wewell? Yes. Mr. Bernal? Yes. Mr. Collins?

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck.

Thank you very much.

Next, we have case BOA 1749423 with the address of 26 Bourbon Street. It's the applicant's name and or their representative or president. Okay, please respond.

Chair, my name is Francis Guerrier. I'm an attorney in Boston and with a principal address at 299 Gallivan Boulevard. I represent the applicant, the contractor, Mr. David Allen, who's sitting to my right. Unlined are the homeowners, Mr. and Mrs. Best. Also joining with me this morning is the architect, Mr. Fred Monigot, as well as his partner, Mr. Joseph Diderot. Madam Chair, before I go into the design, may I have an opportunity to lay out the project for you? 26, yes, 26 slash 30 Bird Street is a single family home on two lots with the address of 26 and 30. We are proposing eight condominium units with eight parking spaces. located in the rear. The park is located within a residential district, roughly less than a three minute walk to Ashmont Station, and it is the very definition of a transient development. We seek relief all under Article 65, basically for insufficient lot size, floor area ratio, and parking spaces. I will not turn it over to Mr. DiDio to go over the design process with you. Before doing so, I should let you know we had an abundance meeting on October 20th, 2025. It was well received. We heard from the neighbors and some of their concern. We actually met with the neighborhood association on March 26th. I point out those dates because it gave us the time to actually work with the neighborhood to address all of their concern. I'm happy to report to you on March 26th, when we presented to the Ashmon Hill Neighborhood Association, it was unanimously approved. And we have a letter from Vicky Rugo, the association president in support of this project. At this time, I'd like to transfer the remaining of my time to Mr. DiDio or Mr. Monega to go over the design process.

Thank you, Irv. Good morning, everyone, Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is Joseph Diderot. I am a staff architect here with hierarchy. To walk you through the design, could maybe scroll back to the site plan, please. Are we able to go up? All right, site plan, take it down. as mentioned i think we're good here as mentioned we're combining two lots into what will be a larger lot with a frontage of approximately 73 feet lot sizes combined will be approximately 6 000 um square feet lot what we are planning to do is to erect a three story building and we'll have a pass through where we'll have parking at the rear of the property. If you can scroll down to a site plan that reflects that. I think we are good here to go back just a little. All right, let's go here. So we'll have a pass through in the center of the building and we'll have parking at the rear. The first floor level will compose of two two bedroom apartments, one on the left, one on the right, and a pass through for the common space and parking area through the building there. Let's go through the plans. The second and third floor is going to have two bedrooms, but three units on each floor plate consisting of a total of eight units. and the second and third floor. We have two bathrooms per unit. These units are largely and fairly sized and comparable to a lot of the units that are being built in the area. Let's go through. maybe to the elevation. The elevation is composed of cementitious siding with flat roof and metal windows. We are keeping in height with what exists in the neighborhood. We are targeting around 33 feet. We're not doing a basement slab and grade so that to stay within the height requirement and with what's in the neighborhood already. Let's go through. More elevations, some sections that we shouldn't talk about right now. Let's go through some of the renderings. To give you a flavor of what the view is like at the rear of the building where the parking area is, more views toward the rear area, as you can see. This is the front entry of the building. Again, I think the architecture is really in kind with a lot of what's happening in the neighborhood in Ashmont area, which is, again, about a few blocks away. I'd like to say two or three blocks away. So really keeping in kind with the architecture that is being presented in the neighborhood right now. And really, the massing and the height, I think, complement what exists and what is being proposed in the area. So with that, I'd like to turn it back to the attorney. Thank you.

Madam Chair, just one correction. The lot size is actually 6,901 square feet. Again, any questions from the board, we'd be more than happy to answer them, Madam Chair.

So can you, you mentioned this is in scale with other buildings in the neighborhood. So on that street, I don't see anything that looks quite that with that many units. Can you just sort of elaborate on that?

Yes, Madam Chair. In fact, at the beginning of the street, there is a recently approved a nine unit building. And at the bottom of the street, which is right on the corner, there's approval from the board for a much larger site. This was something that we took into consideration, looking at the neighborhood and designing the project to make sure that it was in keeping with what's been previously approved and keeping in the area. And that was taken into consideration in terms of the height. There are a number of three family units. This is on Ashmore Hill. So on the hill itself, there are a couple of three families or six families on the other side. And then the back of the building, there are much larger properties as well.

Questions from the board?

Yeah, I have one small question. I just wanted to know how many condos are located on this street?

Good morning, Mr. Langham. As I stated before, at the beginning of the street, there's just been, I think it was a nine unit condo. And at the end of the street, there's also another condo project. And right around the corner, there's been approved for a much larger, I believe it probably something like 25 or 26 condos. This is, again, right across the street from Ashmont Station. This is the very definition of transit-oriented development, and this will, in our opinion, provide much stability to the neighborhood by providing housing as well as home ownership. Thank you for your question, sir.

Thank you. I also have a question. We received a comment from our Director Butter about how this building would impact the shadows on their property. I know you said you did work extensively with the community. Were there adjustments made because of those types of concerns?

Ah, Mr. Turner, absolutely. Not only do I do work within that community, that community actually abuts Bailey Street, and 58 Bailey Street is owned by my wife and I, so I'm very familiar with the neighborhood, very familiar with the neighbors and everything. As I stated, if you remember during my presentation, we had our abutters meeting in October. We didn't have the association meeting until March. That gave us the time to actually We worked a plan and the whole nine yard, things like fencing, shadowing and stuff like that. We did address them. And in addition to that, I did provide any and all the butters that appeared. And if they had any questions to just contact me and prior to our meeting, and I believe that the neighborhood association sent out letters to all their butters and it was publicized for them to have another opportunity to come in and address that. And we addressed all of their concern And I'm happy to report to you, at that association meeting, it was unanimously approved.

Thank you very much.

I also have a question for the architect. Sure. Yeah, so looking at your site plan, there's a striped area in the driveway, essentially, that would be taking cars to the back. What is this striped area? Meant for? Can we go back to a site plan maybe?

Maybe talking about the walkway here is it the site where that connects both buildings?

Right yeah right that it crosses oh there was a previous drawing. Right it was a previous drawing. Yes, so it's marked as striped pathway, so in your plans, is the purpose?

Right, so it's basically an access that allows pedestrians to walk over and safely cross the parking area.

But it's just mostly striping on the asphalt?

Correct, correct. We need to maintain the asphalt for the cars. So it's just a demarcation of a safe way for the tenants to go from one building to the other.

But you're expecting tenants to have a path into the units and into the stair directly, not to have to go through the driveway, correct?

Correct, correct. There's direct entry from the ground level. As you can see here, there's a walkway towards the right that leads you directly into the unit.

And in the back, we have eight parking spots. Are you feeling, what's the dimension between the parking spots on the sort of planned left and planned right? just to make sure that those cars can actually turn around and move out and we actually do have the eight parking spaces.

The dimension, we test out those dimensions and a car can comfortably, a full-size car can comfortably back up and exit the property. I'd like to point out that this is a transit-oriented development. We are targeting eight parking spaces, but I think folks that live here will be using the train system and relieve the burden of having a lot of parking spaces at the rear of the building. I think one of the things that we want to do, and if it's okay with the communities maybe, swap over some of the parking spaces for green space. I think that's a conversation to be had. We are open to doing that. I think we have plenty of parking spaces in the back and we can make that work architecturally.

So can I ask, you're showing a lot of shrubbery outside of the fence, the fencing. So is that also your property? Are you providing that green space then?

We are, again, I think the shrubbery is based on conversations to create a buffer zone within the two properties. It could either be the fence can either be on the left-hand side of the shrubbery or the right-hand side. We just chose to put on the other side of the property just to create a buffer and allowing the neighbor or giving them the opportunity the luxury of having.

Yeah, that's why I just wanted to confirm that that was part of your property and that you were providing it.

It's part of, yes.

Madam Chair, it's completely our property. Right now, there's a hard fence there and that surely would be in our property. Thank you.

And what's the material for the parking? Because that is a lot of, looks like asphalt, so I don't know.

Right, it will be permeable asphalt. Okay.

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

Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Pembery. I'm the Georgia State Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process which consists of an abutment meeting facilitated October 20th During the meeting, Abutters expressed concerns that the proposed building could cast shadows and reduce sunlight to neighboring homes. Abutters also commented that the proposed front setback, approximately five feet from the street, appeared significantly closer to the sidewalk than surrounding properties and could affect the safety at the corner. Additional concerns included the height of the proposed building, which some Abutters felt was excessive, as well as the inconsistency of front yard setbacks along the street. Abbott has expressed that the proposed setback differed from the established development pattern of the neighborhood and viewed as out of character with the surrounding properties. Abbott has also questioned the driveway configuration beneath the building and expressed concern that the proposed eight parking spaces may be unnecessary given the property's proximity to the Ashmont train station. Concerned with further ways regarding the building's proximity to the adjacent properties, whether the units would be rental or ownership housing, and at what market level, and the anticipated construction timeline. Following the Board's meeting, the component met with Ashmont Health Association, and to date our office has received one letter of support from the Ashmont Health Association in support of the folks. Thank you for your time, and the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services would like to defer to the Board for their judgment.

Thank you. Thank you. Madam Chair, next we have Anastasia from City Council of Boroughs.

Right, yes, Madam Chair, members of the Board, thank you. Anastasia on behalf of Council of Boroughs, who represents District 4. We're aware that this development does have support from Ashmont Hill, who took the lead on this, but we have heard some issues from Ashmont Valley members as well as neighbors. So at this point, councilor Weill would like to defer to the board. Thank you.

So Anastasia, can you tell us which association does this property rest in? Is it Ashmont Valley or Ashmont Hills?

Yeah, to my understanding, and I think I'd like to go and confirm that before giving you the official answer, but my understanding is that it's kind of on the line between both. Okay, thank you.

Thank you. Okay, next, we have a mark of one.

Could you speak up? I'm sorry. Okay, thank you.

Thanks next week. Jeff. Hi, Jeff. Yes, I think we are coming.

Okay, is Jeff Park attempting to speak? Or are you here on? Okay. State your name and address for the record and state your position.

My name is Jeff Perk. I'm at 20 Fuller Street, and I'm opposed to this development. As Attorney Guerrero should know, since he's on Bailey Street, this property is part of Ashmont Valley Neighborhood Association, and the developers have not made any effort to present to Ashmont Valley Neighborhood Association. And contrary to his assertions,

development is very out of character with the the immediate block also it should be noted that this is two properties that have been merged and the city when it deeded 30 Burt Street to the owner of 26 Burt Street did so

intent in the deed that it not be developed so as to preserve green space within a neighborhood that is fairly dense and lacks green space.

That is all.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, there are no additional comments.

okay so can we hear from the developer about the um i'm sorry i think there is one more person i'm not sure if it's okay yep last one can you hear me yes ma'am i just wanted to i'm a neighbor on bailey street i live across from 58 bailey street and i just wanted to piggyback on Jeff of asking, is there still a restriction on 30 Birch Street? Is the city ignoring those or removing those? But I'm pretty sure it was sold through the yard lot program that D&D has. And so I'd like that to be, it'd be great if the owner of 58 Bailey would also invest in that site because it's quite messy. It's dirty most of the time. It's So we'd like to see that owner as being a good neighbor on Bailey Street as well. Thank you.

And do you have a position on this hearing or are you just asking about whether the city's lot program?

I haven't followed it as closely as others. So I'm just primarily wanting an answer on the yard lot program.

Thank you. Okay. So I'm going to turn it back to the applicant. There are quite a number of things that were raised. If you could try to address those.

And yes, so I will address the issues for you. Number one, Jeff, thank you for your comment. I would submit to the board that 24th Street is quite a ways away from Bird Street. That's actually literally three streets away from Bird Street going the other way. And right on... Fuller Street, in fact, in designing the building, we actually went and looked at all of the development that was going on on Fuller Street, 60, 20, as well as the two other ones that were consistent. With respect to the lot size, we thought combining the two lots would make for an excellent proposed development in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. I did not address the issue of the shadow simply because this is the first time that that came to us, but I'm more than happy to work with the neighbor to make sure that this is an issue that we can resolve. To be frankly honest with you, that was not presented to us. That's not an issue that we vetted prior to coming to you.

So I think the question was regarding a D&D program that may have preserved it for open space. That was the question. And are you aware of that? Can you answer that question?

To be frank with you, Madam Chair, I am not aware of that. I believe the two lots have been in the family for quite some time. Combining the two spaces, be willing to reduce the parking spot, the number of parking in the site.

Is Mr. Hampton perhaps aware of this issue or not?

Or is that something we should confirm? Thank you, Madam Chair. Members of the Board, Jeff Hampton, City of Boston Planning Department. I'm aware of the program that existed. I don't know whether or not, if there is any deed restriction on 30 Burt, and if there was, was there a certain time limit? I think it's an important part of this case to make sure that there is no deed restriction on this, but that's not up to the Planning Department to you know, enforce, if you will. So if there is a question about any sort of deed restriction, maybe deferral until that is finalized or, you know, there is an answer, a definitive answer given, a short deferral might be in order.

Thank you. Are there other questions from the Board?

I don't have a question, but I'm looking at the greater Ashmont Main Street. They have a map of the neighborhood associations and it looks like Ashmont Hill Association and Ashmont Valley Neighborhood Association overlap right over that property. So it seems like they would both have an interest in what's going on here.

Okay, and only one of them has been approached as we are hearing, correct? From the applicant?

Madam Chair, just so you know, and by the way, Jeremy and the city did an excellent job. Since we had a butters meeting, they directed us to Ashman Hill. So I was not aware that the other, the Ashman Valley would have had an interest, happy to work with them, happy to engage them in discussion and happy to address any concern that they have. But as you know, the city directed us and that's where we went and presented our project.

Thank you. Is there a motion?

In light of deed and neighborhood issues? Madam Chair, I'd like to put forward a motion of deferral for those issues that you just cited.

Also for dates, there's July 28th, August 11th, or August 25th.

And if there is a more convenient date, I guess the most recent date or the closest date, what is that? July 28th?

28th, thank you. Does that give the applicant sufficient time to address the deed issue and the reach out to the other association? Absolutely, Madam Chair. Okay, is there a second?

Second.

Mr. Stembridge?

Yeah.

Mr. Langham?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Wewell?

Yeah, and I'll just give the applicant sort of my thoughts on this. So when they come back, maybe it'll be more successful. I do think there needs to be more work done around sort of being more contextual with the neighborhood. I know it's right near the Ashmont station, but I do think it could go a long way to kind of do some tweaks that would make it fit better into the neighborhood.

Thank you. Mr. Bernal. Yes. Mr. Collins?

Yes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Next, we have case VOA 1806734 with the address of 501 Talbot Avenue. If the applicant and other representative present, please explain to the board.

Hello. Yes, we're all present. It's a pleasure to present to you today Madam Chair and members of the Board. My name is Sophia. I'm the architect for this project representing our client. Our contractors are also on this phone call. If you just help me please zoom in into that clouded area over there to the left. Include the photo of the image above. The house is on Talbot Avenue and it's this three-story building that our client had purchased about a year ago, unit three in that building, which is the top unit. She had originally bought it with the intent of extending it into the attic, which was part of the kind of purchase documents, and we had done some work to extend the level three unit directly into the attic. So if you just scroll up, if it's possible on that image, you'll be able to show the building itself. Yep, and the attic space would be right up in that roof. So the work that we have done is essentially increase the FAR scroll down again I'm sorry to that yep to that table you'll see that in the current zoning the FAR maximum is 0.4 the existing is 0.87 which is already non-conforming and we are proposing a 1.0 FAR The other thing that I would like to mention, and if you can now scroll through the plans, next page is just general. Go through number three. Yep, please zoom out. You can see that currently there is a unit on the third floor with two egress stairs and the upper level attic is actually just empty. It seems like there was some effort to have some space in rooms in there, we have to get rid of the demising walls. And what we have to do is reinforce the entire attic floor and roof structure in order to have the correct loading on that floor. If we go to the next page, you'll be able to see that in order to do this, We actually have to raise the roof one foot in order to have a clearance headspace clearance for a little habitable space. And for that reason, you know, we also have to kind of do quite a bit of the work on the roof in order to get the large enough beams and all the structural components into the space itself. We are proposing skylights along the edge of the roof only on the sides of the building, not on the front facade. If you scroll down one more, you will see the proposed layout of the unit space above. And this would include, you know, an additional bathroom, another stair kind of in the middle of the plan, an additional bedroom and some storage space. Increase and improve the living arrangements and living layout for for our client here she has unanimous approval from the other two units in the building and we've also received supporting letter from the ashmont hale association. approving this project and this design. As far as what this does to the street front, it actually will not make a lot of change. We're not changing the exterior. We're not proposing to change the look of the building on the outside. We are simply trying to make this attic space more livable. and with that um the only other thing that i'd like to mention is you know with dorchester i live in dorchester i'm right down the street 10 minutes from this building i think that this is a great way an opportunity to increase living area and space that is not currently usable and improve the livability of this building as well as allow the other residents to benefit from a sturdier and better roof that either way needs upgrade. So with that, I'll leave it for comment. Thank you. Thank you. Questions from the board?

Hearing none, may I have public testimony?

Madam Chair and members of the Board for the record, my name is Jeremy Membry. I'm the Dojesta Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process with the assistance of an abutters meeting facilitated on March 12th with no guest in attendance. Next, the proponent presented to the Ashmont Hill Civic Association on March 26th where they voted in support of the proposal. To date, our office has received one letter of support from the Ashmont Hill Association in strong support of the proposal. Thank you for your time and the members of the services .

Thank you.

Madam Chair, we don't have additional comments.

With that, may I have a motion?

I make a motion to approve.

Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge? Yeah. Mr. Langham? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Wewell? Yes. Mr. Brunel?

Yes.

Mr. Collins?

Yes.

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

Next we have case B-O-A-1-8-2-8-9-4-5 with the address of 19 Brenham Street. If the applicants and those who are their representatives

Good morning members of the Board. My name is Darwin Fortuna and I am the Registered Architect representing Juan on this project. If you could pull up the presentation that we have. All right, so yeah, once again, Darwin Fortuna, business address of 50 Grove Street in Salem, Massachusetts. So this is a pretty straightforward project that we are partnering and serving our client on. He currently owns that property on the right, which it will be called 15 Green Oak, and the lot to the left will be 19 Green Oak. It's one of those interesting opportunities to essentially activate missing tooth within the fabric of the neighborhood, which is, you know, all of the other properties around there are pretty much the same character, size, and dimensions. So we thought, well, why not improve this neighborhood by, one, addressing the housing crisis that we have, but addressing it in a very much contextual way. I mean, we're essentially taking all of the inspirations and look and feel and, you know, elements, architectural elements of the neighborhood so that In terms of that, it really just blends in. The only thing with that was we would like to have a different color other than the beige colors that all of the other properties have. This is a triple-decker style building that addresses all of the needs of a new time. It will be fully sprinkled building. It will provide fully accessible unit on the ground floor as required. And it's still dignifying, still has decks and volumes that the neighbors could use, that the users can use and have access. Again, pretty straightforward approach and strategy, and the units are three bedrooms for the upper three, and the lower unit of the lower floor would be a two-bedroom open concept and good-sized units, again, matching and essentially filling that missing tooth of the neighborhood. And we have Mr. Roberto Green and Juan on the call if they would like to talk. But for the most part, this is, again, a pretty straightforward project. Thank you.

Questions from the board?

Mr. Fortuna, I do have a question. There is a comment from the Disabilities Commission about your common entry. I do see that in your plans that there is a ramp that provides an accessible entry to the first floor unit. However, the Disabilities Commission is pointing out that the main entrance also needs to be accessible. Are you aware of this comment?

I am. We're trying to figure out a possible way of addressing that. And again, the lot is not too big. It's just shy of the minimum requirement. But we mitigated it. We've done a similar approach in another project, and we had to get a bit of a variance from the MAB because of the conditions. I mean, we get a ramp up there from the front. It's a very big challenge. I know this is a new construction instead of infilling a new system building, but still it's challenging. It is that balancing act between dignifying units that have proper spacing, and a front entrance to the ramp, which also dignifies the user to that ground floor. All of the other units are convertible to accessible if we ever do an elevator on this property. But at this point, that was the approach that we could muster in the design process. Yeah.

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

Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Bembry. I'm the Joe Chestnut Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services.

The office consists of an abutters meeting facilitated on April 30th with no concerns raised. Following the abutters meeting, no further committee process was required, and the proposal was approved to move forward in the process.

Thank you for your time, and the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services would like to defer to the board.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, the animation will come.

Okay, any other questions from the board?

May I have a motion? I'd like to put a motion of approval with a proviso that the applicant submits drawings to the planning department for design review. For review in particular for adequate site yard conditions and as mentioned the accessibility issue on the common entrance for all units.

May I have a second?

Second.

Second. Mr. Stembridge? Sorry, did I hear Mr. Stembridge?

Yeah, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Mr. Langham? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Wewell?

Yes.

Mr. Brunell? Yes. Mr. Collins?

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Thank you.

Next, we have case BOA-182-5902 with the address of 24 Alaska Street. If the applicant and or their representative present, would they please explain to the board?

Good morning, Madam Chair and member of the board. My name is Daniel. I own 24 Alaska Street. We're looking at currently a single family, six bedroom, two and a half bath, single family. We're looking at making a two family with converting the basement. The basement is a walkout basement towards the rear. And what we're trying to do is make it a two family bi-level units. The 2nd and 3rd floor being 1 unit and then the basement as well as the 1st floor being another, we're looking to do. 4 bedroom to 4 bedroom, 2 and a half bath. For the 1st unit within the basement and the 1st floor, as well as a 5th bed at 2 full bath on the 2nd unit. Uh, this particular project that, um, we're doing, um, does not change the layout or how the property looks from the exterior. Um. Every entirety of the work we're conducting is going to be within the inside of the property. So, like, the, the layout of the, the layout of the neighborhood, the streets, um, are not going to change as, uh. From the exterior, basically, if you don't mind scrolling down. These are obviously, as you can see in front of you, these are the plans that we have currently and. We did the community meeting with the help of Jeremy Bunbury from City Hall. We set up multiple, I believe I did three community hearings. We had zero opposition. Everybody was in support of the project. That's basically what I'm looking to do. This particular project only adds on about 842, I'm sorry, 847 square foot of living space by converting the basement into a finished unit along with the first floor. That concludes my presentation and I'm grateful for your time and consideration of this appeal. I hope that the Board will find favor of granting all requested variances. Thank you.

Thank you. I'm just curious if you're aware the other buildings that are adjacent to yours that are similar are those? two families, single families? Do they also have basement units?

So there are five, to the best of my knowledge, there are five row houses, the Brumstones. I am the corner to the left if you're looking at the property in front of us, in front of you. And I believe two of them, one of them including another one is a single family and everything else is multi with two of them I believe being two family and one of them three family.

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

Madam Chair and members of the Board of the Record, my name is Jeremy Fenbury. I'm the Roxbury Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process, which consisted of an abutters meeting facilitated on April 8th, with one abutter in attendance. The abutter expressed support for the proposal, citing the anticipated beautification of the neighborhood through improved property management and enhanced landscaping. Following the abutter's meeting, the abutter presented the proposal to Nine Streets United, which voted in support of the project. Thank you for your time, and the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services would like to defer to the Board of Directors.

Thank you. Madam Chair, we do have additional comments.

With that, may I have a motion? Motion of approval. That's second. Thank you. Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr. Langham? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Whewell?

Yes.

Mr. Bernal? Yes. Mr. Collins?

Yes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Next, we have case BOA 1827322 with the address of 35 Notre Dame Street. If the applicant and other representative present, will they please explain to the board?

Thank you, Mr. Stembridge. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Mike Ross. I'm an attorney of the law from Prince Lobel. This is a proposal for 35 Notre Dame, also known as 35-37 Notre Dame in Roxbury, which is presently vacant land within an MFR sub-district. The plan is to build six homeownership. You can stand there, Mr. Ambassador. The plan is to build six homeownership units within a three-story structure on the site. So starting with this site plan, this lot you see here is 2983 square feet, which is very typical for these size lots in this area. One of the reasons we're seeking zoning relief is the size of this lot. MFR sub-district requires for 4,000 minimum square foot for the first three units and then 3,000 for the next three units. While I'm mentioning zoning relief, I might as well go through it. We're also cited for insufficient lot width and frontage, which is 40. Here you see 35. We're cited for the FAR, which is allowed for 1.0. We're at 1.82. For front yard, 20 is required and we are at 5. For side yard, 10 is required. We're at 5. For rear yard, this is a shallow lot. For rear yard, 12.5 would be required. We're at 10. And then finally, there's no parking with this proposal, so we are required to have one space per unit. We do not have parking. So we're cited for parking. You can sit here at this slide, a 001, shows the proposed ground floor with Notre Dame, the street on the right. The entrance to the building is both at the front, but also at the side. The front of the building allows you access to the front unit, which is unit two. And then along the side allows you access to unit two and all the other units, the other five units in the building, total six. Unit 2, the front unit, is smaller than the other units on account of the mechanical rooms. There is no basement with this proposal. And it is, therefore, a two-bedroom, one-bath at 596 square feet. Unit 1, the unit in the rear of that previous slide, is 818 square feet. It's a three-bedroom, two-bath. Here you're seeing the two other floors with the second floor at the bottom and the third floor above it. Unit 4, which is the bottom front unit, is 675 square feet. It's a two-bedroom, one-bath. And the rear unit, which is the bottom rear unit, is 877 square feet. It's a three-bedroom, two-bath. And above is the same, roughly the same configuration with a two-bedroom and three-bedroom, two-bedroom in the front, three-bedroom in the rear. And each unit has ample roof open space, and each bedroom actually has its own balcony. There's nothing on the roof. These are your elevations. The next slide shows the axiomatic images. Working with the Eggleston Square Neighborhood Association on the next slide, we worked through questions around landscaping and buffering. And we provided, therefore, a landscape plan for this project. Even though it's just a six-unit plan, that's on the next slide. I don't know. Maybe the ambassador is not able to pull the – was that the last slide you had there? No, there you go. You have it right there, the landscape plan above. There it is. We provided a landscape plan to the board for their review. That just shows the addition of trees and shrubs on the site. And there currently is only one tree on the site. It's a vacant lot. And then if you go to the rear, You have some renderings that we produced. You can zoom in on those if you'd like. And that's all I have, Madam Chair. I'm happy to pause. Thank you.

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

Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Benbury. I'm the Roxbury Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process, which consisted of an abundance meeting, facilitated on April 13th. During the meeting, several questions and concerns were raised and addressed by the proponent. However, no opposition The proponent subsequently presented to Eccleston Square Neighborhood Association, which brought in the support of the proposal, subject to the following conditions. Incorporating landscaping buffers wherever feasible, sharing updated design and landscaping plans as they are developed, and making reasonable efforts to keep neighbors informed of construction activities that may impact the surrounding area, including weekend work and material deliveries. To date, our office has received one letter of support from Eccleston Square Neighborhood Support. Thank you for your time and the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services would like to defer to the board with the judgment.

Thank you. Madam Chair, we don't have additional interest.

Okay, do you want to speak to any of those feedback, Mr. Austin?

Yeah, I mean, he kind of cut out at the end. We have a letter of support from the Eggleston Square Neighborhood Association. We've cooperated with all their requirements.

Okay, any other questions from the board? May I have a motion?

Motion to approve.

Is there a second?

Second.

Mr. Stembridge?

Yeah. Actually, can we add a proviso to that approval? Yes. What would you like to add? Well, I would like to, as a provisor, to submit to Boston Planning for a design review. And I would like to emphasize the design of the building. It seems like there is something that the design can actually be improved a lot. So I guess that's it.

Acceptable, Mr. Langham? Yes, ma'am. Okay, and who seconded? Or can someone second? Second. Thank you. Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Langham?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Wewell? Yes. Mr. Brunel? Yes. Mr. Collins?

Yes.

Chair votes yes. Motion carries.

Thanks a lot. Have a great day.

Next, we have case BOA 1817132 with the address of 18 Dell Avenue. If the applicant and or their representative present, please explain.

Are you presenting, Mr. Carvalho?

Yes, I am.

So can you state your name, address for the record, and proceed?

Yep. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Nick Carvello. I'm from Design Resource Team representing the client and owner of 18 Del Ave. Here we go. So here on the left, we have an aerial view of the property shown right at the corner of Del Ave and Seawall. On the right, we're showing a proposed rendering of 18 Del Havre along with 16 and 20 on either side of it, which are both owned by the client here. Same client for all three buildings. If you want to scroll down to the second page. We have the zoning code refusal here stating that we're violating more than one dwelling on the same lot, floor area ratio, and usable open space for the property. The proposed building stays within the setbacks and the height. here we have some of the feedback that we've received throughout the community process this far and how we've addressed them three main concerns were that the basement level may not receive enough natural daylight it could feel dark and our response to that is we've increased the windows in the stairwell leading down to the basement and then the The first floor was the second and third floor have decks. The first floor did not, so that we could create a well down into the basement to provide some more light. The second comment was they'd like to see the... We can show the decks on the plans and the elevations when we get further down, but if you want to go back to the comments page on number three, Um, so the second comment was that they'd like to see unit 1 be a 4 bedroom instead of the 5 and we went ahead and made that change. And the final comment was that there was some. They wanted to clarify the status of some outstanding code enforcement violations for other properties that the owner. Um, the project property owner owns, and he's been working with the city to. work through those code violations, there were a few properties in question that were no longer owned by this property owner and there was a few properties in question that were never owned by this property owner at all. He's been working with the code enforcement office who I believe were supposed to send over a letter to the EPA before this meeting stating either that all the codes were resolved or in the process of being resolved. If you'd like to go to the next page that shows this site plan. I think it's a few up, number four. So here we just have the existing and proposed site plan. It's empty lot today on the left. On the right you see the proposed building. Six total spots in the back. Three of them are existing, belong to 16 have three mirrored on the other side that will belong to 18 Del Ave. Here we just have an existing proposed rendering of the site. You can see the empty lot on the left and the proposed building on the right consistent with the surrounding home's scope and character. Here we have the floor plans. You can see unit one is basement and first floor. That was the unit that was originally five units. We dropped it to five bedrooms. We dropped it to four bedrooms. You can see levels two and three have the decks. Level one does not. And level two and three are both three bedrooms, two baths with decks off the rear. Self elevation. You can see those two decks up rear and on the first floor West elevation. Same thing could sit through decks. And then North elevation shows the front of the building and the East side elevation shows the so we have a double window there. In the stairwell, which will allow more aren't coming down to the basement. Here's just a material sheet showing some proposed materials to be used on the site consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. Quick 3D view showing both the buildings on the site, 16 and 18 Dell. And a shadow study is showing the existing buildings and the proposed and how the shadows will affect the site and the nearby buildings.

You are. Can you talk about a couple of things? One is you mentioned four units, but I think, no, sorry, not four units, four bedroom for one of the units, but I believe what you submitted says five. So that's one question comment. And then there was some feedback about insufficient open space and impervious surfaces. Can you talk about that as well?

The original submission was on unit one was for a five bedroom during the community process. That was some of the feedback that we got. They would like to see it reduced to four. So the current proposal and this presentation shows unit one as a four bedroom. And it will remain a four bedroom. The open space comment we are being called for insufficient open space i think the required is 400 per unit and we're providing 287 per unit that's one of the violations we're seeking and then the parking space effort the surfaces um i think The plan is to look into some sort of pervious material. I'm not sure exactly what it would be, but we'll try to reduce the amount of total asphalt back there.

Thank you. Other questions from the board?

Yes. The first floor unit, the one that you mentioned that went from five to four bedrooms, Some of the bedrooms are in the basement unit, right? So this is a two-story unit. Yep, repeat buses. Okay. So are you aware that the Disabilities Commission commented on this unit as, you know, this being the first floor unit needing to be fully accessible, and they have commented on this. Are you aware, and do you have a plan to address this?

Yeah, so the first unit is fully accessible. We have a, or the first floor of the first unit is fully accessible. We have a ramp off the street and the adequate requirements for that first level, which also includes two bedrooms to be fully accessible.

Well, the unit needs to be accessible, not just the first floor, the unit.

Um, okay. I was not aware of the comments from them, um, but we can look into making, yeah, yeah, we can reach out to them and figure out how we can make those updates.

Thank you. Okay. Did you have, sorry, did you have any other comments or questions? All right. Thank you. May I have public testimony?

Madam Chair and Board Members, Siggy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. Our office hosted an abutters meeting on February 26th, at which there was a question about staging of construction equipment, but no opposition was stated. The Community Alliance of Mission Hill is supporting this application. With that background, ONS defers judgment to the Board. Thank you.

Any other raised hands?

Madam Chair, we don't have additional comments.

Okay, any other questions from the board? May I have a motion?

I'd like to make a motion of approval with no building code release.

Is there a second?

Second.

Mr. Stembridge? Yeah. Mr. Rangel?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Wewell?

although yes but i was also wondering if mr collins would be amenable to a proviso to increase open space on site and even if that means removing parking i think it's from my perspective it's a little inappropriate to remove parking in this area but i'd be okay with like impervious services or something of that nature so do you want to add impervious surfaces i mean to your

Motion?

Yeah, we can do that. So we can add the proviso of parking must be... On permeable surface?

Correct. Okay, so we'll continue. That was a yes from Ms. Wewell. Mr. Bernal? Yes. Mr. Collins?

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Thank you. Next we have two companion cases. The first is case VOA 1834035 with the address of 25 Upton Street. Along with that we have case VOA 1838331 also with the address of 25 Upton Street. It's the applicant and the representative at all present with their truth, lies and war.

good morning madam chair john moran alpine advisory services with the mailing address of 130 beach road orleans mass madam chair we have both zoning and building code relief this is a project the scope of which is to change the occupancy from a two-family to a three-family with full interior renovations fully sprinkled to construct a roof deck for the exclusive use of the third unit and three rooftop condensers and to erect three cantilevered rear decks projecting six feet into the rear yard. The revised The zoning refusal letter cited three violations. One, the extension of the rear townhouse decks. If we could scroll to A201, which would show the proposed 201. I'm sorry. Shows the proposed which extend, which are cantilevered and extend six feet, conforming to the accepted design criteria, and we request the appropriate conditional use permit for the erection of these decks. Next, we were cited for restriction of the use rooftop restriction on the proposed roof deck. We would respectfully suggest pursuant to section 64-34 paragraph two that a roof deck may be constructed as a matter of right if it conforms to certain dimensional requirements. being set back six feet from the roof edges that it be no higher than a foot above the deck itself be no higher than a foot above their high ridge line that it be accessed by a hatch and that it not violate the building code height restrictions we would respectfully suggest that A-103 and A-301 show that the proposed deck conforms to this proviso in section 34 and may be constructed as a matter of right and would ask the board to make a finding that relief is not necessary, that it may be constructed as a matter of right or what the board deems appropriate. Last, we are cited for rear yard insufficiency. Does the board want me to review the proposed deck?

Let's see if we have questions. Are there questions from the board? Hearing none, I'll take public testimony.

Madam Chair, there's one more item that I need to address. Okay, sorry. And that's we were cited for a rear yard insufficiency. If we could scroll down to the proposed site plan, which would show the setbacks Up one. We're almost there. Here we are. This shows the proposed and existing site plan. The lot is 74 feet in depth. There is a shallow lot proviso in the neighborhood code 64 section 34 subsection seven, which provides for every foot that a lot is less than 100 feet in depth six inches uh shall be deducted from the required rear yard setback of 30 feet in this case the lot is less than is 74 feet or less than 64 26 feet in depth Adjusting under the calculation of the shallow lot, the required rear yard becomes 17 feet rather than 30 feet. in the proposed rear yard is 32.8 feet which conforms when adjusted and is sufficient to conform to the zoning code and again i would request that the board make a finding that the rear yard is sufficient or whatever the board deems appropriate During the community process, there was broad-based support for this project. No opposition was cited, and there are letters, seven letters of support for the project. In reference to the building code relief, the building is four stories, which triggers the requirement that a penthouse be installed rather than the proposed It would suggest that the requirement would trigger the need for a variance and would alter the uniformity of the street profile, which is one of the defining historic district characteristics. The hatch is a common means of approved access for roof decks. It would not create an unsafe condition. It is an acceptable compliance alternative. The three family will be fully sprinkled. There's no hazard to the occupants if the relief is granted. The building will remain with an all firefighting equipment and safety materials and the granting of the variance would be appropriate. With that, I would request that the Board, in reference to the zoning cited violations, that they make appropriate findings in relief. Thank you.

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

Madam Chair and members of the Board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Vendore. I'm the Roxbury Community Engagement Specialist for the office. services completed the community process, which consists of in a brothers meeting facilitated on April 30th with the vice president of the neighborhood association present, no issues or concerns were raised with the general request to respect the neighborhood and be mindful of noise. With the civic president of their brothers meeting, no further community process was required. And to date, our office has received five letters of support from the proposal. It goes to note that of the five letters, one letter contained three individuals where a total of seven individuals in support of the proposal. Thank you for your time, and the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services would like to defer to the board for their judgment.

Thank you.

Next, we have Ashley from Councillor Flynn's office.

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

Thank you. Madam Chair, we don't have additional comments.

That may have a motion. I'm sorry, is someone else speaking?

Yes. Hi. Yes, you can go.

So my name is M. B. Flanders. I'm in a butter. I live at 38 Union Park, which is catty corner across the alley from this property. And I understand that there was a meeting on April the 30th that was not made public knowledge. There was no. There was no posting of this meeting on the doors of the abutters, which is usually customary. I don't know where this meeting was posted. I will say that the alley is a very congested place and that these lots are, I think that this lot in particular maybe backs up to some garages, which would make the turning radius very difficult to exit and enter from these parking spaces. And again, because they're I'm not aware that there was a public process. If the Union Park and Neighborhood Association was in attendance, it wasn't made public to the abutters, as far as I know. Thank you.

Okay, does the applicant want to address that comment before we make a motion?

yes madam chair the photographic requirements of the posting was sent to jeremy the property notices were appropriately posted and within the boundaries required and directed by moms and that there was a full hearing that the neighborhood association is in support and that all of the immediate abutters left and right of the property support the relief.

Thank you. Any other questions from the board? Hearing none, is there a motion? Motion of approval, Madam Chair. Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge?

Yeah.

Mr. Rangel? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Wewell? Yes. Mr. Bernal?

Yes.

Mr. Collins?

Yes.

Chair votes yes, the motion carries.

Thank you. And here, the next case has been deferred until July 28th.

And with that,

for the 11 a.m. hearings. We'll ask if there are any request for withdrawals or deferrals at this time from the 11 o'clock hearing. Hearing none, then we'll return to the 9.30 a.m. hearings.

I think the gentleman who was part of the 9.30s, I don't know, are you trying to defer?

No, I'm not trying to defer. I just want to make sure that I'm OK. Yeah, we're going to make sure we didn't forget about our case.

No, no, we didn't. You'll be at the end of the 930s.

All right, thank you. So with that, we'll move on to case BOA 1833678 with the address of 65 to 71 Main Street. If the applicants and or the representative were present. Please explain the case to the board.

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. Attorney Ryan Gosdahl on behalf of the appellant with a business address of 28 State Street, Suite 802, Boston, Mass. With me on the call as well is Robert Walsh, who is the property owner. We're here this morning to discuss an appeal of refusal letter for a change of use and occupancy for the building located at 65 to 71 Main Street in Charlestown with an AKA address for the rear of 1 to 3 Monument Ave. Presently, the CEO of this property recites the use of retail catering offices for apartments in a Pilates studio, which we are seeking to update to retail offices five apartments in a Pilates studio. The first floor of this property was previously a restaurant catering and commercial restaurant space that was operated by the Figs Restaurant in excess of 30 years at this site. However, following the restaurant vacating the space, That approximately 1,800 square foot space on the first floor has now been subdivided in half with a Pilates studio on the front along Main Street with a proposed fifth residential unit in the rear with an access along Monument Ave. The fifth unit in the rear is technically conditional use given the frontage along Main Street in the neighborhood shopping sub-district, but it's generally in keeping with many of the other majority residential units in the direct vicinity of the property. So long way to say that by this appeal, we're seeking to legalize the fifth unit in the rear of the property with no other proposed changes at the site. Prior to coming before the board today, we did host an ONS abutters meeting on April 21st. And as we've come before you all today, we're unaware of any opposition in the neighborhood, but we're certainly happy to answer any questions you might have.

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

Madam Chair and board members, Sigargear Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. Our office hosted an abutters meeting on April 21st, which had no attendees. With that background, ONS defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Madam Chair, there are no additional comments.

With that, may I have a motion?

I put forward a motion of approval.

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

Yes.

Mr. Langham? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Wierow?

Yes.

Mr. Bernal? Yes. Yes. Mr. Collins.

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Thank you.

Next, we have case BOA 1817787 with the address of 450 William F. Connell Highway. If the applicant and or the representative are present, will the police explain to the board?

Madam Chair, members of the board, good morning. My name is Timothy Fraser from the law firm of Dane Torpey, 175 Federal Street in Boston. I'm here today representing my client, Dent Wizard International, which is seeking approval for a variance to update the current use at 450 William F. McLennan Highway to include minor dent and cosmetic repair of vehicles in the Hurt fleet of rental cars. We're in the East Boston neighborhood, so we have one violation that was cited on our proposal, which is that the vehicular service use, particularly the cosmetic repair of vehicles, is forbidden in this area. But by way of some background, Hertz already operates a satellite rental car location at 450 McClellan. These Hertz operations are located, you probably have never seen them as you drive by the site because they're located behind existing commercial and airport support business operations. It doesn't actually front on McClellan Highway. So what Dent Wizard is seeking is permission to perform minor cosmetic dent work at the location. So this would be like fixing door dings and minor scrapes to the Hertz vehicles. It would not be collision repair or any kind of body work or things like that. We also won't be establishing a customer facing, you know, we won't be open to the public, so to speak. This is just only to service the Hertz fleet of regular cars. So we've worked with the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services to meet the community process requirements. And to date, we haven't received any comments or opposition from the abutters or neighborhood groups. And I'll just also add that BPDA in reviewing our proposal has recommended it. With that, I can turn it to the board if you have any questions. I do have, I believe, folks from Grand Wizard on the line if there's any specific technical questions. Thank you. Any 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 of Neighborhood Services. Regarding 450 McClellan Highway, our office defers to the board's judgment. The community process was conducted including the distribution of a subcommittee flyer on 4-10-26. During the community comment period, I did not receive any emails expressing any comments or concerns regarding this proposal. This proposal is not in the catchment area of any civic association and therefore was not required to meet with any group. At this time, the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services differs to the Board's judgment on this matter. Thank you, everyone, for your time and consideration.

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

Well, that may have a motion.

Motion to approve.

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

Yeah.

Mr. Rhino?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Wewell? Yes. Mr. Bernal? Unmute.

Mr. Bernal? Yes, yes. Thank you.

Mr. Collins?

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, members of the board.

So at this point, Madam Chair, We'll return to the first case for the 930s, which is case VOA 171-6446 with the address of 178 to 180 Wall Street. I believe the gentleman was inquiring about a couple of minutes ago.

And Madam Chair, is UBA staff to check they did not receive any updated complaints?

I'm sorry, I sent Wednesday, March 11th at 4 p.m.

Yes.

The person who I sent it to is present today.

Who did you send it to? Siggy Johnson.

So those plans have to be- So that's the concern I had earlier. Yep, I asked you if you sent it to ISD or to mayor's office. So that's two different things. So that means what that sounds like is ISD does not have it.

Okay. Well, I wasn't aware that that's what I was supposed to do. So what's the next steps?

So submit the updated plans, yeah, to isdboardofappeal at boston.gov. And then IC will have to review those plans.

Okay.

So I would suggest we defer until August 11th to give enough time for plans review and for advertising.

Okay. What do you mean by advertisement?

So it has to be placed in the newspaper, the zoning violations, as well as the purpose of the project. But it's received notice, you know, et cetera. Correct, yeah. So with the updated plans, there could be additional zoning code violations. And so we have a duty to state those in our advertisements under open meeting law.

Okay. And then do we go right back to this meeting? Because we've already had neighborhood meetings, right?

So that's the August 11th. Yep. So if you could please submit those plans to the appropriate place, we will see you then. So with that, can I have a motion? Motion.

Go ahead, Katie.

I'm sorry. Someone. Motion to defer to August 11th. May I have a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge. Mr. Langham?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Wewell? Yes. Mr. Bernal?

Yes.

Mr. Collins?

Yes.

Chair votes yes, the motion carries. So please do submit those to the appropriate spot in ISD and we will see you on August 11th.

Can you please, just to be clear, can you please tell me the appropriate spot in ISD to make sure I don't make a mistake?

Yep, ISD Board of Appeal at boston.gov.

Thank you.

Thank you. With that, we'll move on to the hearing scheduled for 11 a.m. We'll ask quickly again if there are any requests for withdrawals or deferrals from the 11 a.m. hearing. Hearing done, we'll move on to case BOA-182-4666. with the address of 61 Brookline Avenue. If the applicant is a representative present, would that please apply to the board?

Yes, thank you, Mr. Stembridge. Madam Chair, members of the board, Attorney Ryan Spitz with Adams & Maranci. Business address of 168 8th Street, 1st floor, South Boston. I am here today on behalf of my client, Broadway Restaurant Group. The proposal in front of you today is seeking to add live entertainment after 1030 to its current occupancy. This establishment is known as Loco Fenway, which is directly across the street from Fenway Park and Lansdowne Street. Local Fenway has been applying for one day licenses for nearly three years without any known issues with the city of Boston. The licensing board has now requested the proponents to add this live entertainment after 10.30 to its current occupancy. The operator has a stellar reputation in this community as well as many other neighborhoods in the city of Boston. The live entertainment after 1030 is a conditional use in this sub-district, but it will not be any different than any of the other establishments with live entertainment in this neighborhood. The operator is proposing live entertainment from Thursday through Saturday from 10 a.m. to 1 a.m. and then again on Sunday from 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. Windows will be closed by 10 p.m. when the live entertainment occurs. Live entertainment will consist of a DJ and up to four vocalists. The plans clearly designate the DJ live music locations within the floor plan at four different locations, demonstrating thoughtful placement consistent with egress and patron flow. At this point, Madam Chair, I'm going to turn it over to the Board for any questions or comments.

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

Madam Chair and members, Siggy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. Our office hosted an abutters meeting on March 25th at which residents of 61 Brookline Ave were opposed to the application citing concerns about noise with the existing one-day licenses. Although a number of residents expressed an openness to a permanent entertainment license only on weekends if weekdays were excluded, the operator made a concession that the live entertainment would only be Thursday through Sunday and on Sunday would cease by 10 p.m. We request that the board consider adding a proviso that recognizes this compromise that was made as part of the community process. The applicants engaged in a dialogue with the Fenway Civic Association, and they have no opposition to this proposal in light of the compromise. With that background, ONS defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Okay, next we have Tony Baez.

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Tony Baez speaking on behalf of Councillor Sharon Durkan, and she'd just like to go on record in support of this proposal. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Chair, any additional comments?

Can the applicant respond to the comment about the time limit?

Yes, we did in our presentation. We did agree to that again, as I stated earlier. So a Thursday through Saturday would be from 10 a.m. To 1 a.m. And then Sunday would be from 10 a.m. To 10 p.m. And again, anytime that the music live music is going to occur, windows will be shut by 10 p.m.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments from the board? Would that, may I have a motion?

I put forward a motion of approval with the proviso that Thursday through Sunday, the live entertainment will be Thursday through Sunday up until 1 a.m. and then Sunday will stop at 10 p.m.

Okay, so may I have a second?

Exactly.

Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Langham?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Whewell? Yes. Mr. Bernal? Yes. Mr. Collins?

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck.

Thank you. Next, we have two companion cases, the first being case VOA-181-0052, with the address of 2 Hopkins Place. Along with that, we have case BOA 1810051 with the address of 1 Hopkins Place. The applicants and other representatives present, please explain the cases to the board.

Good morning, Madam Chairwoman and members of the board. My name is Steven David. I'm an attorney with the address of 436 Washington Street in Westwood. With me today is Mark Sullivan from Chewen Associates. I represent both parties, both at 1 and 2 Hopkins. These properties are both vacant land, and we propose a six-unit dwelling on 1 Hopkins and a 3 unit dwelling where my clients are going to reside on 2 Hopkins. I think it's best now to turn it over to Mark Sullivan, who's going to go through our project. And at the end, obviously, I'm available to answer any questions. Thank you.

Mark. Thank you, Steven. Mark Sullivan with Chewing Company, American Pigs. So to start, we'll go through the proposed three family. This, we are seeking a total of three violations. One is for the log coverage, one is for the yard requirement, and one is for also the building use. So the design of this is in such a manner that it is, take a look at the plot plan here, but that it is three stories with one unit on each floor. We do have a small basement space that is dedicated to the first floor unit as well with a small utility area at the front, as you can see on this plan. This is the basement plan. If you go to the next floor plan, So Hopkins Place comes down off of Fonce Road, kind of at the bottom of the street and turns into a current dead end corridor. And again, this current proposal is showing three stories with each unit being, one being a four bedroom unit and the other two being three bedroom units. We are also providing four parking spaces for the units ample enough for what's required at this location. Next slide, please. If you could just scroll down to the typical unit plan just to get an idea of the units.

Again, this is showing three unit with an office area. This is a typical upper floor, so the second and third floor units are just south of 1,500 square feet.

Next slide, please. And then we really tried to emphasize the materiality that's found in the neighborhood around us. Very traditional kind of residential materiality, fiber cement lap siding, changing the exposure from the ground floor to the upper floor, having a bay on the kind of front side as you come down Hopkins Place and turn the corner, which you can see at the bottom of the screen there. Again, fiber cement lap siding with some fiber cement paneling detail. 4 inch window trim and corn boy that's not very typically in the neighborhood surrounding us. And then if I'm not sure if you want us to go through the six unit as well at the same time as their units, but.

That's fine, you can go through both.

So jumping to one Hopkins Place, so this sits directly to the left of that proposed three family we just looked at. So this, the only violation that we were requesting is for the use being a multifamily within the single family zone. This is set up so that there's three units on each side. Again, three stories mirroring the building we just saw on two Hopkins Place. And then if you scroll down, we can kind of get an idea of the site on the site plan. Um... Yeah, one more, sorry. So the three unit that we just saw, the proposed building is on the right side here. So you come off Fonce Road and down Hopkins Place. Again, the six unit we set purposely back as we have a decent amount of site to work with on what appears to be the rear side here, but by definition actually the side yard. Again, ample parking for this, including additional parking for guest parking spaces. Our attempt was at least in the site plan design was to incorporate new street tree plantings and landscaping around the site to further enhance That buffering area, but also the outdoor space for the units. Uh, and then very similarly to the three units, well, uh, we kind of use very similar styles in the elevation to include, uh, the fiber cement flat sidings and bays on the front with fiber cement paneling, um, uh, kind of more traditional fiber cement, um, corners found in flat roof typologies. Um, but again, very similar in design to the three unit to, to almost coincide with both projects together. And that concludes our presentation by me. Happy to answer any questions from the board.

Thank you. So can I ask, so is there an IDP unit in this since there are nine units?

No, these are, Madam Chairwoman, these are owned by two separate owners. Dr. Richard Harris owns the six-family parcel, and Justin Harris and Tiana Curran own the three-family parcel. So these have been permitted separately. For purposes of the presentation, we thought it would be easier for the board to just locate both units and we could explain them. So they are separate buildings owned by separate people.

Okay, well, we should probably not be voting on them together then.

I agree.

It appeared that they were together. That's what we did.

Presentation package did have them both together, Madam Chairwoman, again, because we felt it would be easier for the board to sort of look at that.

Okay, so they're different owners that are using the same development team.

That is correct, Madam Chairwoman. That's the best way to explain it.

Okay, other questions from the board?

Madam Chair, if someone, if Mr. Hampton is available to explain the request from the planning department about the parking layout.

Mr. Hampton available?

I am. I'll have to pull up the plans. Mr. Stembridge, could you give me a minute, please? I certainly can do that.

And Mr. Stembridge, are you talking about the parking layout for this sixth unit?

Both? Well, we looked at them as companion cases, unfortunately.

Well, it sounds like we shouldn't be. So they should not have been submitted together. That's where our confusion is.

And there are comments about parking on both of them.

COUNCILMEMBER WRIGHT- Madam Chair, if I could also throw out a question. I'm not sure if anyone will know the answer. I know with some inclusionary policies, if two sites on contiguous lots are being developed together, that will sometimes trigger that. as familiar with that here in Boston, but I'm wondering if anyone has a quick answer for that.

I already asked that question, so he answered it. They are two separately owned parcels that, for convenience, he submitted together. Right.

But, yeah, I was maybe wondering if Caroline knew or something. Is your question whether two owners should be required? No, like location-wise, and they're submitting everything together. There's, I think, some...

Well, if I may, these weren't submitted together. These are two separate ERT permits and they are two separate BOA applications. So again, the presentation memorandum and plans were submitted for purposes of convenience, but they are definitely separate owners and separate properties.

Right. I'm just aware of other inclusionary policies that look at contiguous parcels, meaning they share a boundary.

Contiguous parcels can merge. I understand what you're trying to say. I don't believe that's applicable in this scenario.

Katie, I can look into that and get back to you. Sure. Thank you.

Okay. I know, are you still looking at the plans, Mr. Hampton? Are there other questions?

Yeah, so I'm sorry, Mr. Stembridge, what exactly is your question?

At first, it didn't, since they are separate, I was trying to see which comments apply to which, but I guess they can actually see that now.

Okay, so you're withdrawing your question?

Yeah. All right. I will withdraw my question.

Okay. Any other questions or comments from the Board? May I have public testimony?

Madam Chair and members of the Board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Membry. I'm the Madden Pan Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process, which consisted of when the Butters meeting facilitated on April 8th. With no Butters present, no concerns or issues were raised. preceding their voters, meaning the opponent went with River Street Civic Association where the vote were made divided. Thank you for your time and the mayor's office and neighborhood services would like to defer to the board for their judgment. I would like to note for the record that our office too was under the impression that these were manual cases due to the verbiage of the producer. Thank you.

And I'm sorry, can the applicant, so who are the owners?

So the owner of the six family lot is Dr. Richard Harris. And the owners of the three-family lot are Tiana Curran and Justin Harris. Tiana Curran and Justin Harris live in a two-family next door to this property. Their intent is to occupy one of the units in the three-family as their home.

And the other one I heard of Harris also.

That is correct. That's Justin's father, Richard.

Okay, so... What we have in front of us seems to list both Justin Harris and Tiana Koren for both.

That must be an administrative mistake, Madam Chairwoman.

We definitely want to clarify that because that affects the IDP question. Mr. Hampton?

Yes, thank you, Madam Chairman. This is Board Jeff Hampton, City of Boston Planning Department. I would like to get an answer from Caroline first before the Board actually votes on this for that question because Article 79 does say, you know, a series of proposed projects. So this is kind of confusing, especially when it says, please review with one Hopkins or please review with two Hopkins. And if they are related, you know, this does sound like a good trigger inclusionary zoning. So I prefer to wait for an answer from ISD on whether or not it does indeed trigger article 79, or even if there's some sort of consultation with the mayor's office of housing on this.

Thank you. I would agree with that. Is there a motion?

Madam Chair, can I also point out the agenda, and I'm sure this is what you picked up on, but the agenda lists the same owner for both. That's what I, yes. Okay. So motion to defer.

Is there a second? Second.

Mr. Stafford. And for, sorry, just for a date for this motion, Could we do it for August 11? Is the applicant available?

We're available. We're available.

Okay, so where was I? Mr. Stembridge? Yeah. Mr. Langham? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Wewell?

Yes.

Mr. Bernal? Yes. Mr. Collins?

Yes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.

Next, we have case deal. Sorry, Madam Chair. We have passed the 1130 model. There are a number of notations for the vote. I'll ask if there are any. Quest for withdrawal from the 1130 time frame.

Yes, Mr. Stembridge. Good morning. It's Richard Lins, 87 Morris Street, East Boston. So that would be for two comparing.

I believe two comparing cases. First being case VOA 148-2368. with the address of 87 Morris Street. Along with that, we have case VOA 1482374, also with the address of 87 Morris Street. Would you go ahead and explain it to anyone?

Yes, good morning Madam Chair, members of the board. For the record, Richard Lins with the business address of 245 Sumner Street, East Boston. On behalf of the petitioner, Madam Chair, we just recently got back updated refusal information including building code items that I'd like a little bit more time to go through because I believe there's some compliance that can be achieved on the building code. So we'd like to avoid having to do the building code relief requests, if at all possible. And so I'm hoping perhaps July 28th would work. I know I have a number of matters on that day.

Okay. Caroline? We'll do July 28th.

Thank you. Okay. May I have a motion? Motion to defer these cases until July 28th.

Second? Second.

Mr. Stembridge? Yeah.

Mr. Langham?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Wewell? Yes. Mr. Brunel?

Yes.

Mr. Collins?

Yes.

Chair votes yes. Motion carries. See you then.

Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair. Yes. 34 Spring Garden Street, please.

So this request is for case BOA 179. Excuse me folks. Case BOA 179-4725 with the address of 34 Sperm Garden Street.

Would you go ahead and explain? Yes, thank you Mr. Secretary and good morning Madam Chair, members of the Board. For the record, my name is Matt Echol and I'm interning with Fletcher Tilton on behalf of the applicant here this morning seeking a deferral for the proposed project at 34 Spring Garden Street. This deferral is being requested based on revised plans being submitted through ISD, which have been reviewed, but this case will need to be re-advertised. It's our understanding that the case will be re-advertised for July 28th. So at this time, I respectfully request the case is deferred until that time, if that works for the board. Happy to take any questions if the board has any.

Thank you. Does that, is that a court?

Okay. Yes. So I will make a motion to defer this case until July 28th.

May I have a second?

Second.

Mr. Stemmeridge.

Yes.

Mr. Langham?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Wewell? Yes. Mr. Bernal?

Yes.

Mr. Collins?

Yes.

Chair votes yes, the motion carries, to you then.

Thank you very much. Mr. Stenbridge, 163 Hillside, please.

Chairman Spitz, we have that as case VOA.

one eight one four six one eight with an address of 163 to 165 hillside street could you go ahead great thank you mr stembridge madam chair members of the board attorney ryan spitz with adam zamorancy business address of 168 8th street first floor south boston um as you can probably see that this is the second time requesting a deferral the first time was based upon the revised set of plans were not reviewed yet however they've been reviewed But unfortunately, the updated refusal was missing an FAR violation, so this will have to be re-advertised. So we'd like to request a short deferral, please.

Okay, Caroline? July 28th.

Perfect.

Okay, with that, may I have a motion?

Motion to defer to July 28th. We have a second?

Second. Mr. Stembridge?

Yeah.

Mr. Mangum? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Wewell?

Yes.

Mr. Bernal? Yes. Mr. Collins?

Yes.

Chair votes yes, the motion carries. See you then.

Thank you. Madam Chair, there are two additional notes, one for deferral and one for withdrawal. Okay. for case VOA 1575425 with an address of 62 L Street. Here is a note, and I don't know if anyone is present to explain that.

Sorry. Yes, this is David Luciano.

Sorry, yes. This is David Luciano. I'm the owner of 62 L Street. Yeah, I was contacted this morning by the zoning board at the DBA office. They indicated that the advertisement on the DBA website was incorrect and did not reflect the updated refusal letter. But I did want to point out that it was properly fliered. We did go through the butters process. Councilman Flynn's office and our local civic group, the City Point Neighborhood Association has been informed in ample time prior to this meeting of the changes. And it's just simply what was posted on the ZVA website that was updated.

Okay, Caroline. So we have, we'd like it to be deferred till July 28th. Are you available then, sir?

Sorry, I understand the request. This is the fourth time we'll have to defer this. And this is, we've just been going through this process for three years now for this one permit. I just respectfully asking if the fact that I'll,

of others and- I understand what you're asking, so I'm gonna defer to our legal counsel, Caroline.