Bpda Board of Directors - Regular Meeting

Good morning, Madam Chair, present.

Good morning. Ms. Betabarraza. Good morning, Madam Chair, present. Good morning. Ms. Turner. Good morning, Madam Chair, present. Good morning. Ms. Wewell. Good morning, Madam Chair, present. Good morning. So just a note to applicants, we are a six-member board today. And with that, I will turn it over to Mr. Stembridge.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We'll begin today's hearing with the approval of hearing minutes scheduled for 9.30 a.m. These are the minutes from the June 16th hearing this year. I'll make a motion of approval for these minutes.

Oh, no, sorry, second. Mr. Stembridge.

Yes, ma'am.

Mr. Langham.

Yes.

Ms. Penebraza? Yes. Ms. Turner? Sorry, I didn't hear. Ms. Turner? Yes, can you hear me? Yes, thank you. Ms. Wewell? Yes. Excellent, and the chair votes yes, the motion carries. So I'm so sorry, I was so excited to get us going, I forgot to read the thing we're supposed to read at the beginning, if the ambassador wants to rewind to that. Thank you, sorry about that. Good morning, the City of Boston Zoning Board of Appeal hearing for July 14, 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 the screen and you will be muted throughout unless administratively unmuted when asked to comment. Board members, applicants, and their attorneys or representatives will participate in the hearing as panelists and they will appear alongside the presentation materials when speaking. Panelists are strongly encouraged to keep video on while presenting to the board. As with our in-person meetings, comments and support will be followed by comments 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 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. All right. All right. We'll turn it back over to you, Mr. Stembridge.

Thank you, Madam Chair. With that, yes, we'll go through the extension scheduled for 9.30 a.m. There are nine extension cases of the day. They all appear to be reasonable. So we'll vote on them all together. And if there's any questions, we can deal with that after I read them in. We'll begin with case VOA 1590502 with the address of 8 Vernon Street. Next we have case BOA 1175767 with the address of 16 to 22 Linden Street. Next we have case BOA 1175793 with the address of 6 Pratt Street. Next we have case BOA 1554601 with the address of 1662 North Beacon Street. Next, we have KBOA 1426452, with the address of 68 Terrace Street. Next, we have KBOA 1547315, with the address 268 to 274 Friends Street. Next, we have case VOA 162-7005 with the address of 238-240 Maverick Street. Next, we have case VOA 148-0626 with the address of 124 Dry Dock Avenue. And finally, we have case VOA 134 with the address of 146 M Street. Madam Chair, those are the extensions .

Thank you. Are there any questions from the board? May I have a motion to grant the extensions as requested? Motion to grant the extensions as requested. May I have a second? I have a second. Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Langham? Yes. Ms. Betabrasa? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Lewell? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

With that, we'll move on to the hearing scheduled for 9.30 a.m. At this point, we'll ask if there are any requestable withdrawals or deferrals from the 9.30 a.m. hearing.

Yes, Mr. Stenbridge, 1-1H Washington Place.

Thank you, Attorney Spitz. So this request is for case BOA 1846713 with the address 1-1H Washington Place. Would you like to explain?

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. We're here requesting an administrative deferral to allow the applicant to have a hearing in front of a full seven-member board.

Okay. Do we have any dates for Mr. Spitz?

We'll take the soonest date that we are expected to have a full seven-member board.

Asking Caroline. who's in there with you mr stembridge is it caroline or is it stephanie do we have a date that we can provide attorney spitz can folks hear me i can okay so okay just confirming so is someone in there with you mr stembridge who can provide us with a date Can you hear us, Mr. Stembridge? Okay, I'm not sure. Okay, so you cannot hear us. So can someone come back and assist? Mr. Stembridge with a sound. Sorry about that.

Oh, Madam Chair. Yes. Apologies. So there's, they're having some technical difficulties, but August 11 would be the next available date.

Okay.

Okay.

So with that, may I have a motion?

Motion to grant deferrals to August 11th. What is your date?

May I have a second? Second. Well, I don't know if Mr. Stembridge can respond. Mr. Stembridge? We can't hear you. Okay, we'll keep going. Mr. Langham? Yes. Ms. Betabarraza?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Wewell?

Yes.

Chair votes yes, the motion carries.

Thank you.

We'll see you then. Are there any other requests? It looks like we have to, for deferrals. Okay, well, it looks like we're waiting on technical support for Mr. Stembridge. So we're going to need to pause again. Caroline, can you check in with folks to see if they can, when they can provide the support?

Yes, Madam Chair. I believe two people from IT are on their way right now.

Okay, because we sure need our secretary. Yes, we do. All right, for those who are just joining, Please have patience. There are some technical issues over in our secretary's office. So let's give him a moment. but someone should probably stand by in case there's another issue.

Yes, in case you'd rather turn. All right. Excuse us, folks, but we were asking if there were any more requests for withdrawals of the girls from the 9.30 a.m. era. Hearing none. uh the first cases that occurred if i have it correctly until august 11th uh yes sir so we will move on to case voa 182 5908 with the address of 229 harrison is the applicant here to present for 229 harrison yes um

OK, please state your name and address for the record.

This is Kyle. I'm the architect for this project. Also, Rich Chen is owner. He's also here. Do you mind I use my PowerPoint?

So we cannot share your screen. So whatever you submitted is what we're going by. So please guide the ambassador as to where you want, what page you want.

OK, I also share with the ambassador PowerPoint. Is he open, okay to open that or not?

I shared another PDF.

Yeah, like maybe 20 minutes ago.

I don't think they're going to be able to share anything from 20 minutes ago. You needed to have said that.

OK, that's fine. If you go to the next page. So the address is 229 Harrison Avenue. The current use is two family with no parking. So our project is to change the use to a four family unit. As you can see, this is the existing basement plan, just utility space. If you go to the next page, on the top left is an existing plan. The existing use is two-family use. Each unit has four bedrooms. Our proposal is to change each level to a different unit. So each unit has two bedrooms with a full kitchen and two bathrooms and a living dining area. So basically, the first floor is unit one. Second floor is unit two. Third floor is unit three. And then top floor will be unit four. If you go to elevation, please. Essentially, each floor has the same layout. If you go down to the elevation page, as you can see, the existing fourth floor has a pit roof. Our plan is to demo the dormers and then rebuild the roof so the ceiling height is the same. But we are keeping the footprint, the area unchanged. And also the building height remains the same. I think that's our project. I have some existing photos on my PowerPoint. Existing condition is not very good, so we try to use better insulation. You'll make this building more energy efficient. and the existing building interior finish is also not good. So we also use the opportunity to improve the interior environment so the future occupants can have a better living condition. We also, during construction, we also follow all the requirements by the city and then by the building code to respect the neighborhood to make the the job site clean and safe for everybody. So this is what our presentation today. If you have any questions, please let me know.

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

Hello, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Emma Jones representing the mayor's office of neighborhood services regarding 229 Harrison app. Our office differs to the board's judgment. The community process was conducted, including in a butter's meeting help on 4926. That was lightly attended by the community. The proposal was also reviewed by the Chinatown neighborhood council on 42726, where some concerns were expressed about the plans, not being conducive to families. And on the Chinatown residents association on 4126 as well. Following the feedback from CNC, the applicant has updated their plans from three bedrooms to two bedrooms and an office. And at this time, the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services defers to the Board's judgment on this matter. Thank you, everyone, for your time and consideration.

Thank you. Next, we have Alex from the Council of Flint.

Good morning, my name's Ashley from Councillor Flynn's office. Councillor Flynn would like to go on record in support based on a lack of any negative feedback from neighbors and nearby civic groups. He respectfully asks the proponent to work closely with the community on any quality of life issues.

Thank you. Thank you.

Good morning, could I go? Can I? No. This is Councillor Murphy. Can I speak in support, please? Yes, ma'am. I just wanted to go on record and support and echo what Councilor Klim's office said, work closely with the community going forward, but like the plans and looking forward to the additional housing in the neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor.

Okay, next we have Debbie.

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board, Chinatown Main Streets. We are in support of this project. I have a long history of knowing this building since I was young. It's been over 60 years since any type of renovation has been done inside the building. I'd like to go on the record to support this, and I would like to request the members of the zoning board to grant their request. Thank you. Thank you.

Madam Chair, there are no additional comments.

Thank you. Any questions from the Board? Hearing none, go ahead.

I'm just trying to understand the front elevation. I can put forward a motion, but it would be good for the BPD design review to take a look at the front elevation. I just see kind of stairs kind of floating, and I'm just trying to understand if that's just a CAD error, because the plans are not detailed enough.

Would the architect like to? Yeah, if the architect is there, that would be great.

Just to clarify. Which, I think that's Firescape, let his work on Firescape, we are referring to. The Firescape? Yeah, let his work.

I think maybe you're cutting off the stairs because on your plans it shows that you have stairs leading out. And then your front elevation, they're just kind of floating.

Yeah, that's probably an error. We could get it fixed.

What? I was just pointing out this was on 8.1.2. I see the same thing.

Yeah, that's an error. We will, you know... Yeah, fixed and resubmit.

Right, so basically you have stairs going all the way to the landing, correct?

Right.

Yeah, and if you notice, you see that your proposed door is conflicting with your subgrade window.

Mm-hmm, I understand.

Yeah, so... I'm gonna make a motion of approval without any code violation.

With no building code relief, is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge? You're on mute, Mr. Stembridge. You just need to unmute yourself, Mr. Stembridge, I see it. Okay.

Okay, perfect.

Oh boy, those technical folks need to stay close. All right. Mr. Langham.

Yes.

Ms. Barabarraza. Yes. Ms. Turner. Yes. Ms. Lewell. Yes. Chair votes yes, the motion carries, good luck.

Good luck, and please do hire an architect to do detailed drawings for you.

Okay, thank you.

Next, we have case BOA 1840986 with the address of 500 Boyle Street. If the applicants and or the representatives are present, and if the equipment keeps working, would you please explain to the

Yep, my name is Daniel Brennan. I'm here with BPC 8 Stone Gate Lane, Salem, New Hampshire. I'm a consultant handling the Just Salads permits and licenses. Also joined with Jennifer Richter, Director of Construction for Just Salad. They currently operate two other locations in the city, one in Fort Point, one in Post Office Square. We're here today seeking relief for the takeout use. If you could go to the next slide, please. So that's our layout. So this space was formerly a retail space, Talbots, over at 500 Boylston. It was demised into separate tenant spaces, and we'll be taking one of them if this is approved. Our space is just under 2,000 square feet, so 1,830 square feet, consisting of a dining area, service counter, back kitchen, and two public restrooms. The current design has 12 stand-up dining counter spaces, but it may become 12 seats. Exterior work is just signage and it will be on separate permits. We feel that it fits in well with the community. There's many other quick service restaurants and this will give a nice healthy option to the area. Happy to answer any questions.

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

Madam Chair and Board Members, Ziggy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This applicant has completed the community process. This proposal is located in a commercial area where this use is common. The applicants have met with the Neighborhood Association of the Back Bay, and that group is in non-opposition. With that background, ONS defers judgment to the Board. Thank you. Thank you.

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

Thank you. Councillor Flynn would like to go on record in support. Thank you. Thank you.

Good morning. I'm sorry. I would like to go on record and support also.

So for the record, this is Councillor Anne Murphy. Oh, yes. Okay. Any other comments?

I don't see additional hands raised at the moment.

Okay. With that, may I have a motion? Motion to approve. May I have a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge. Yeah.

Mr. Langham?

Yes. Ms. Betabraza?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Wewell? Yes. Chair votes yes. Motion carries. Goodbye.

Thank you. Have a great meeting.

Next, we have case BOA 183-3097 with the address of 62-64 Baxter Street.

if the applicants and or the representative president they could to my support yes good morning my name is thomas krakalichi i am the architect for the project and i'll be representing kelly and nick the owners we are seeking approval of a new construction roof deck on a four-story multi-family, 40-foot height over one-story semi-enclosed parking structure. The existing conditions, there's an existing roof hatch that is to remain and there are some AC condensers and penetrations on the roof that's all to remain. Tight lock conditions are typical in the area, making functional private outdoor space difficult. So we're just looking to create a functional private outdoor space for an existing unit. There's no change in use density or occupancy. We're trying to maintain compatibility with the neighborhood character, enhance the overall site and building performance. And again, just maintain the existing building form, no change, respect the neighborhood scale and materials. There'll be minimal visibility from the street. And then we're trying to improve the visual appearance and cohesion. So just a brief summary of the proposed work. We're just looking to construct a minimally elevated 658 approximately square foot roof deck. There'll be a small pergola, and a 42-inch code-compliant perimeter guardrail at the perimeter of the structure. The deck will be constructed over the existing roof using a pressure-treated wood support curb system with minimal roof penetrations, runoff openings. It'll be fully flashed and waterproofed. And again, we're looking to have a seamless integration with the existing roof structure using hurricane ties and heavy-duty twisted structural straps that are secured to the existing I-joist roof framing. So that's sort of a breakdown of the structure, and then there'll be composite decking that'll be securely fastened, fully code compliant, and the pergola will have a lightweight visual profile. So it'll be open, non-enclosed, with minimal visual impact. We have design consultants on board, including a structural engineer. Wasn't able to submit the plans in time for this meeting, but we do have a certified structural engineer who has provided plans and details and notes as to how this will be achieved structurally. We also have a certified existing and proposed plot plan from a certified professional licensed land surveyor as well. And yes, I think that's mostly a summary of the project. And we've been in contact with the Neighborhood Association and we're granted support from them, from their representative as well.

Thank you. Can you talk about the pergola? How far set back is that? Is it visible from the street?

Yeah, it's about two feet setback. There's a small parapet that sort of obstructs it. So when you're standing on the street, you will be able to see it. It'll be sort of clipped off. But it's approximately two feet setback from the parapet.

And do you have any issues with possibly moving it? That was just like beyond visibility view from the street. That was a comment from BPD. Say that again, I'm sorry. Would there be any concerns about moving the setback further? There was a comment from BPD about the pergola and visibility.

It's, I mean, the, I think the building was constructed. They needed to seek a variance in order to build within the setback, but it's not encroaching anywhere.

The pergola itself, not anything else, yeah.

I'm not sure I'm understanding the question fully.

We'll move on. Are there other questions from the board? Hearing none, may I have public testimony?

Madam Chair and board members, Ziggy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This applicant completed the community process. ONS hosted an abutters meeting on May 7th where no abutters chose to speak. The City-side Neighborhood Association chose not to meet with this applicant. With that background, ONS defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, we don't have additional comments. Oh, we have Ashley from Cedar Council.

Thank you. Councillor Flynn would like to go on record in opposition based on his longstanding policy against new roof deck construction in residential areas of South Boston due to years of quality of life complaints from neighbors, including seniors, persons with disabilities, and young families. With South Boston having become a destination for young people on the weekend, neighbors and civic groups continue to call attention to roof decks as a source of disturbances and loud noise at all hours, as well as concerns on public safety with gas grills or trash removal issues. Thank you.

Thank you.

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

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

Madam Chair, I'd like to put forward a motion of approval with a proviso that the project undergoes BPD design review, paying special attention to the location of the deck and the setback from all building sides so that it is not visible from the street. Is there a second?

Second.

Mr. Stambridge?

Yeah.

Mr. Langham?

Yes.

Ms. Benavraza? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes.

Did you hear me? I said yes.

No, I heard you. I didn't hear Ms. Newell.

Sorry, I didn't hear you. Yes.

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

Next, we have H.B.O.A. 183, 4696 with the address of 556 East Broadway. If the applicant stands by their representative present, then please point to the board.

How's it going? My name is Nick Schiffer. I am the owner of the property as well as a contractor. We had previously gotten approval to add an additional floor to the building, which we have since abandoned. And we are simply asking to convert the building from a three family to a two family. All of the renovation work will be within the confines of the existing structure. No exterior changes will be made.

Okay, are there questions from the Board? We have public testimony.

Madam Chair and Board Members, Ziggy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This applicant completed the community process. Our office oversaw distribution of an informational flyer to all occupied parcels in a 300-foot radius, which solicited no comments to our office. The Gate of Heaven Neighborhood Association is supporting this application. With that background, ONS defers judgment to the Board. Thank you.

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

Thank you. Councilor Flume would like to go on record in support. He respectfully requests the proponent continue to work closely with neighbors on any quality of life issues during the construction phase. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we have Irene.

Hi. Thank you. I'd like to go in support and just wish the owner luck. Thank you. Thank you.

Madam Chair, we don't have additional comments.

With that, may I have a motion?

Motion to approve.

Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Langham? Yes. Ms. Betabrasa?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Wewell?

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck.

Thank you. Next, we have HGOA 183. with the address of 500 East 8th Street. If the applicants and other representatives are present, would they please decline?

Good morning. My name is Jeff Gannon. Thank you. Madam chair members of the board. I'm the architect and representative for David and Jill, the owners. Of 590 state. Just showing here on the slide is an existing condition. We can go to the next slide. that will also show the plans and the elevations. This is a two and a half story home. There is a minor renovation at the second floor and then an expansion at the third floor. If we could go to the next slide. There are three areas of relief. The owners have owned the building since 2013 and lived there. They are a growing family. They have three young girls, and they're looking to expand for that reason. There was also, unbeknownst to them, it is on record as a two-family so we are looking to change that to a single family as that is how it is laid out and being used and then we have a side yard setback relief request to basically expand on an existing condition and then a roof modification Here's the proposed design. You can see in the street rendering in the front elevation, it's dormering out the existing half story at the third floor. And then you can see on the site plan, we're calling for a full story at the smaller addition area on the back. Next slide. We'll just show the plans. Again, you can see the third floor, which will be able to house the bedrooms and the bathroom and the laundry area, and then the roof modification of that plan on the left in the last slide, please. The upper left is just showing the neighbors' buildings, also residences, and then showing the roof modification and the expansion upward. So happy to hear any questions or comments. Thank you.

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

Madam Chair and Board Members, Siggy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This applicant completed the community process. Our office hosted an abutters meeting on May 7th, where no abutters chose to speak. The Gate of Heaven Neighborhood Association chose not to take a position on this application. With that background, ONS defers judgment to the Board. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we have Ali from Consulate Friends Office.

Thank you. Councilor Flynn likes to go on record in support. He respectfully requests the proponent work closely with the Butters on any quality of life issues during the construction phase. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Chair, I don't see additional hands raised.

Could I, sorry, I didn't raise my hand. Could I go on record in support also? Thank you.

Yes, Councilor Murphy, please identify yourself.

Councilor Murphy.

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

Madam Chair, motion approval.

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

Yes.

Mr. Langham?

Yes.

Ms. Betabrasa? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Wewell? You're on mute. Ms. Wewell? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck.

Thank you. Next, we have KBOA 1855037 with the address of 100 Magazine Street. This is an Article 80 case. And if the applicant or the representative is present, they could explain to the board.

Is someone recusing themselves on this one?

Yes, I'm sorry. I'm recusing myself on this.

Thank you. So just to confirm, we are now a five-member board for this case. Is there someone to speak to 100 Magazine Street?

That would be me, Madam Chair, Pat Brophy. Okay, how are you? Madam Chair, Mr. Secretary, members and staff of the zoning board of appeals. Good morning. My name is Pat Brophy and I serve as the vice president of state and local government affairs at Suffolk. We're proudly headquartered at 65 Alladin Street in Roxbury and I'm joined this morning by my colleagues from Suffolk, Suffolk Design and High Point Engineering. As you know, for over 40 years, Suffolk has been a collaborative partner in Boston and anchor business in the new market district. Our CEO John Fish is very proud to call Boston and Roxbury home and this renovation will support our anticipated growth, making it 1 of the largest employees in new market district. We employ almost 500 people at our national headquarters. And we're encouraged by recent city investments in Clifford Park, Roxbury prep, and the increased public safety presence in the district this morning. I'm here to introduce a major investment in our headquarters. This project was approved by the Boston planning board in December of 2025 and we're currently in construction. and plan to finish by october of 2026. this 30 million dollar renovation of 100 magazine street will transform our office and warehouse space into state-of-the-art office that will house suffolk's technology innovation research and product development teams when complete 100 magazine street will be the epicenter of artificial intelligence in the construction industry This plan reflects years of collaboration. Collaboration with the Planning Department, Transportation Department, the Boston Police, the New Market Bid, and local stakeholders. We've listened very carefully to community concerns and incorporate feedback into every aspect of our design. It directly supports the goals of Plan New Market, including the preservation of traditional industrial commercial uses, pedestrian safety and public realm conditions, especially along Magazine and Gemble Street near Roxbury, Propper, and Clifford Park, enhancing climate resilience through increased landscaping, which includes a significant public improvements of 48 canopy trees and a 1500% increase in campus green space. We're installing dark sky compliant lighting, additional security cameras at the request of Boston Police Department, and we're increasing our sidewalk widths. As part of the design process, we're proposing an eight foot high steel picket black fence. This fence will be screened by new mature street trees and significant plantings within the campus. The scope item has been reviewed and approved by the city's planning urban design team, and the fence will mirror the rest of the Suffolk campus, and its height is consistent with adjacent businesses and institutions within the new market area. We are respectfully requesting your approval for the 8-foot fence. In conclusion, I'd like to thank Stephanie Haynes, the city's planning department, ISD, and the ZBA staff for their guidance and professionalism throughout this process. We're hopeful that this... that this will demonstrate our commitment to the improved aesthetics in the neighborhood, and we look forward to your feedback and approval.

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

Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Bembery. I'm an engagement specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. At this time, our office will defer to the board for its judgment. The proponent has completed the required Article 80 review process, including the public meeting held on November 20th, 2025, and received report on 2025. The required Article 80 community process has been completed. Our office is not aware of any outstanding community concerns or issues related to the proposal. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Next, we have Councillor Erin.

Hi, thank you. This is Councillor Murphy. Just want to thank you, Pat, for coming on and also to Suffolk for all you do in the neighborhood. So I'm here to support. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor. Next, we have Nick Carter.

Thank you. Nick Carter here at the Planning Department. Wanted to echo ONS's sentiments and also go on record in support. Thank you.

Thank you, Nick. And next, we have Liam Remus from Council of Fitzgerald.

Hello, Madam Chair, members of the board. Liam Remus from Council Fitzgerald's office. The council would like your record and support this proposal. Thank you.

Thank you, Liam.

And I think we have somebody from the public. Mark Delazio.

Yeah, can you hear me? yes sir thank you madam chair members of the board my name is mark delacio i'm a business agent for confidence local 327 in boston and we just want to go on record as being in uh full support of this proposal thank you thank you and chair we don't have additional comments with that may i have a motion

Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion of approval as Suffolk is a long time good neighbor in the Roxbury neighborhood and a good business partner for the city of Boston.

Thank you.

Is there a second? Thank you, Mr. Stembridge.

Second. Mr. Stembridge?

Yeah.

Mr. Langham? Yes. Ms. Betabrasa?

Yes.

Is we well? Yeah. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck.

Thank you.

Next, we have case BOA 1821667 with the address of 610610A Trumont Street. If the applicant and or their representative are present, would they please explain to the board? Is anyone available for 610 to 610H from on the street?

I think I see the person on the attendee section. Michelle, Angel, and Michelle, if you can unmute yourself, please.

My name is Angel Carrasquillo. I will be the owner of... and our proposal is that for variants from a drugstore to a bakery.

Good morning, members of the board. Thank you. First of all, for your time and consideration, my name is Michelle, and I'm here with my father, Angel, who is the owner of Le Chamia Bakery and Cafe. Due to a temporary disability following a serious accident, I've been helping him to manage the project throughout the permitting process, and on the advice of ISD, the contact information for the application was updated to my name, There would be a consistent point of contact and just to keep things flowing while he's temporarily unable to move things along. But the ownership and the vision of the project remain unchanged. Before this space, before it became vacant, the landlord surveyed members of the Puerto Rican community to ask what type of business they wanted to see in this location, and the community chose a traditional Puerto Rican-style panaderia, which is, in Spanish, it's... It's just a bakery slash cafe and our family was selected to bring that vision to life by the residents. And we're honored by that trust and we're committed to creating a bakery that reflects our culture while serving the entire neighborhood. Our family also owns Mana Escondido Cafe, which is a few blocks away from this space. And there we proudly serve authentic Puerto Rican food since 2013. And this project Leche Miel is a natural extension of that commitment. And we'll offer fresh Puerto Rican breads, pastries, coffee, and other baked goods and lunch options. And we feel we'll be bringing a unique neighborhood bakery to the south end. We are committed to being good neighbors, creating local jobs and providing a welcoming space for residents and visitors alike. We believe Leche Miel will add something special to the south end by celebrating Puerto Rican culture and providing the Puerto Rican bakery that the community has asked for. We've also received letters of support from community leaders who believe that this bakery will be a positive addition to the neighborhood. We'd be happy to provide those letters at your request. And we respectfully ask for your approval so we can bring this vision to life and serve the South Bend community. Thank you for your time. 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 610 to 610A Tremont Street, our office differs to the board's judgment. A community process was conducted, including the distribution of a subcommittee fire on 5-20-26, which I did not receive any community comments. The proposal was ultimately not in the catchment area of any civic associations and therefore was not required to meet with any At this time, the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services defer to the Board's judgment on this matter. Thank you, everyone, for your time and consideration.

Next, we have Ashley from Consular Finance Office.

Thank you. Councilor Flynn would like to go on record in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have Consular Murphy.

Hi, good morning. Yes, this is Council Murphy. I want to go on record in support and just want to thank the owner and his daughter for doing just family work and seeing it forward and looking forward to visiting soon. So thank you.

Thank you. And next we have Nicolás Samantha.

Nicholas, thank you. My name is Nick. I am the senior planner with the Boston landmarks commission. Just a reminder to this applicant that this application. We will require review by the South and landmark commission, because this project is located. And the South and landmark district, thank you.

Madam chair, we don't have additional comments.

Well, that may have a motion. Yes, Madam chair, I'd be happy to put forward a motion for, which would be a really nice addition. the motion is approval. May I have a second? Second.

Mr. Stembridge?

Yeah.

Mr. Langham?

Yes.

Ms. Pettibrasa? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Wewell? Yes. Chair votes yes, the motion carries, good luck.

Thank you. Thank you so much.

Chair? Next, we have case BOA-185-5600 with the address of three blends applicants. The applicant and or the representative or president, please explain the support.

Yes, thank you. Mr. Secretary and good morning. Madam chair members of the board for the record of 30 minutes on behalf of the applicant. So joining me today is Eric from contacts, the project architect as well as Steve, the Dario, the project applicant. We're seeking to erect a new residential building at 3 Glines Ave with three units and two parking spaces on a currently vacant lot. The project sits on Glines Ave, which is in the Eggleston Square neighborhood of Jamaica Plain. Glines Ave is a dead end street accessed from School Street, and this would be the first lot on the right as you're going down Glines Ave. The site is just approximately a 10th of a mile away from both Washington and Columbus Ave, which are served by MBTA bus services, as well as half a mile from the MBTA Stony Brook Station, providing future residents multiple means of transportation to go along with the two parking spaces we are providing. These three new residential units will be offered for home ownership. And just to go through the floor plans briefly, the basement is common mechanicals and storage, as well as the sprinklers. The first floor would have the main entry, which provides access to all three units. Unit one, located on the first floor, is 810 square feet, a two-bedroom, one-bath, with a walkout rear patio. The second floor will house unit two, which is a 975-square-foot, two-bedroom, two-bath unit. And the third floor is designed the same as the second, so it will house unit three, which is also 975 square feet, with two bedrooms and two bathrooms. This project went through an extensive community process and the applicant work closely with both butters as well as the local civic associations. Some changes were made throughout the process, including to the design of the building as well as the location of the building. And at 1 point, we had proposed a roof deck, which has now been removed from the plans and is no longer part of the proposal. based on these changes we did submit four letters of support including one from the eggleston square neighborhood association and one from the jamaica plain neighborhood council with that i'll pause and happily take any questions the board may have thank you are there any questions from the board hearing none may have public testimony

madam chair and the board for the record my name is jeremy murray i'm the jamaica plain community engagement specialist for the office of neighborhood services the applicant has completed the community purpose which consisted of an abundance meeting uh facilitate september 23rd two of brothers expressed support for the providing the addition of much needed housing while recommending the inclusion of bicycle parking and an additional first Other abutters raised concerns regarding access to the rear yard for second and third floor residents, sidewalk replacement of windows in addition to the proposed setbacks, and whether a shadow study had conducted. One abutter said that they would support but expressed strong opposition to the proposed three-family use, citing concerns that it could establish a precedent for future development in the neighborhood. Following the board's meeting, the proposal was presented to Eggleston Square Neighborhood Association with . To date, our office has received four letters of support, including one from and Eggleston Square Neighborhood Association approving 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.

Next, we have Councilor Murphy.

Yes, good morning. Councilor Murphy here just wanted to go on record in support of this project. Thank you. Thank you.

Next, we have Nicholas and Martha.

Good morning. My name is Nick Armada. I am a member of the Boston Landmarks Commission Staffs Association, and I'm just speaking on record in support of this project. I've worked with Matt on several occasions and his team. and we're confident that he will come up with a beautiful project.

Madam Chair, we don't have additional comments.

Okay, with that, may I have a motion?

Madam Chair, I'd like to propose a motion on approval.

Second. Second? Thank you. Mr. Stenbridge? Yes. Mr. Langham? Yes. Ms. Pettibrasa? Yes. Ms. Turner? Ms. Wewell? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck.

Thank you very much.

Next, we have case BOA 1848048 with the address of 1422 to 1444 Dorchester Avenue. If the applicant is present, please explain.

I also need to thank you myself in this case, too.

Thank you. Thank you. So just a reminder, we are now a five-member board.

Bear with me, Madam Chair, because this is a companion case that has a companion case, which is case VOA 184. 8052 with the address of 22R to 24R Gwendolyn Street. And these are, and this one is an article 82 of both options.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Madam Chair, members of the Board, Attorney Joe Hanley, McDermott, Quilty, Miller, and Hanley, representing Beantown Companies, who is the proponent of this project. Next slide. I'd just like to introduce you real quickly to our team. Big Dot Realty Trust is a subsidiary of Beantown Companies. Mark Resnick, who's the principal, David O'Sullivan, and Arian Nicola are here as the project architects. This is a historic restoration and expansion project, so we are also working with a local historic consultant William Young, as well as historic tax credit consultants for this project. Next slide, just to bring you to the site. You'll see the white building. This is at the intersection in the heart of Fields Corner and Dorchester at the intersection of Dorchester Ave and Adams Street is uh the building which also runs along towards its rear along leonard street next slide shows you a little more in closer context this is looking at the existing building on dorchester avenue at that intersection the building is the former ahearn's warehouse building that was built around the early 1900s and became music hall at one point We have existing retail, including the post office that's remaining on the ground floor and underutilized office and commercial on the upper levels, which will be integrated into the addition, which we'll show you. Next slide, please. This is the view looking at the corner. You'll see the post office that is remaining and the next slide takes you for a few looking, if you will, up Adams Street. I don't know if you can go to the next slide. This is the view looking up towards Adams Street. You'll see up Adams Street towards Dorchester Avenue. Excuse me. You'll see part of this existing building in the music hall there once these grand windows that are being restored. You can see them in the facade there. And that's a huge driver of the existing renovation. Next slide, please. and a view from Leonard Street in the rear. So plan right. You can see, as Mr. Semper indicated, there are two cases. These are two parcels that are being combined. And the existing Leonard Street parcel in the rear is a unimproved surface lot that we are seeking to construct in addition for a new residential. And you will see in the foreground an existing building which is known as the CLAP Field House. It's believed to be built around the 1700s and relocated at this site. We've been working very closely with the BPD as part of the Article 80 approval as well as the Landmarks Commission to maintain and integrate that structure into the development, and we suggest that supports the zoning as well. Next slide, please. So just quick project overview, the amount of land for the combined site, a little over 26,635 square feet. The gross floor area is broken up between about 40,000 existing for the building and a 35,000 addition for 47,000 new residential units, both in the addition and in the underutilized upper levels of the existing music hall. Nine of the units will be affordable. There's a mix of ones, twos, and threes. We have 18 parking spaces and 72 bicycle parking spaces. Project benefits, we're very excited to obviously be to restore the music hall, but also retain the clap house to provide much needed support. Affordable and market rate housing in a sustainable development, which would be all electric and to remediate the heat island effect by removing the surface lot and creating a useful open space and a new public realm and the like. Next slide just takes you through the zoning real quickly. We were in a neighborhood shopping community commercial district. The principal relief that is necessary is a conditional use permit to allow for residential on the main level, which you will see in the addition at the back to the right. And as well as the floor area ratio, it's an existing non-conforming building today. We're combining the lots. One is allowed, 2.5 is proposed. The height, both stories and the elevation, four stories allowed and 40 feet. We are proposing six at the rear that is set back and approximately 68 feet in height. I will note that there's about a 12 and a half foot brain change. that goes back towards the site and that helps to mitigate the height as well we're in a walk shed which you saw the early on less than a quarter mile to the fields corner rapid rail redline train station along the bus routes helps to mitigate we are creating parking but helps to mitigate the relief for 18 spaces and the base code is two per Per unit is the requirement. The neighborhood design overlay went through article lady. We were approved in August of last year. And we now have 2 buildings on 1 was by virtue of combining these 2 parcels. And that is the result of keeping the clap field house as the. A new building, if you will, as an addition to the existing. So you see this now in the next slide, how this all comes together with the relief that's requested. And I have David O'Sullivan here, if you'd like him to take you through the plans and renderings.

Only briefly, please, do not go through every slide. Thank you.

David or Arion from O'Sullivan. Yes, hi.

Hi, Arion Micola from Sullivan Architects. We can quickly go through the floor plans. I'm not going to go into too much detail, but if you go to the next slide. You'll see this is again just a top down view of the entire site and the courtyard and the adjacent parking lot. The next slide. We'll show you the parking level on the left hand side is new building on the right hand side is the basement of the existing storage building, which will be occupied by the new bike room and some storage. Next slide will show you the 1st floor. This, this, these colored units are the residential units, and then we have a residential lobby coming off of Adam Street and Dorchester Avenue intersection. And then plan south there, you'll see the 2 story existing historic house to also be sort of restored into renovated into 2 separate units. Next floor up is the 2nd floor. Again, the left-hand side of the building, the historic house in blue as well, detached. On the right-hand side, the storage building with the existing commercial space to remain. The next slide, this one we could quickly skip is the mezzanine level of the second floor. And then now we're looking at the third floor. Now at this point, all residential units left-hand side new building, the right-hand side the existing storage building. And then the floor above is the same as this one, as the fourth floor. And then finally, if you go to the fifth floor, you'll see now the new building has one fewer units. The top floor is pulled back a bit. And on the right-hand side, you'll see the roof deck proposed and some of the amenity space on top of the existing storage building. And then the next slide is just a roof plan of the entire development. If you can go to the next slide. Yeah, here you'll see everything top down. And then finally, the A401, which was right before this, is the aside section just to sort of like show the relationship between the two buildings. And then what you're seeing on the screen is side by side, sort of like a real image versus a rendering of what the new project will look like, sort of like keeping the same angle. And that is this presentation. Thank you, guys. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Madam Chair, I have one question I just wanted to follow up on. In our materials in the memo, it says nine plus IDP units, and I didn't see any explanation for what plus stands for. Does anyone know what the plus signifies?

So the IDP requires 17%. We're doing a little over 19%. And so that equates to nine units plus they round. So if you're like under the 0.5, in other words, going to 10, you pay in based on a pro rata for that. So that's what that refers to.

Got it. Thank you.

Thank you.

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

Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Benbury. I am the Director of Community and Community Specialist Services. At that time, our office will defer to the board for its judgment. The proponent has required Article 80 review process. A public meeting held on June 24th, 2020. Community feedback reflected mixed views. Many of our members expressed support for the proposal, particularly the President of the Existence. However, concerns were raised regarding parking. While some residents of the addition of new housing units, they did not support the spaces. Next, the proposal was presented to Fields Corner Civic Association where the proposal was generally well received. Following the community meetings, the proposal was approved by the board on August 14th, 2045. This time our office is not aware of any outstanding community concerns or issues related to the proposal. Thank you for your time.

Next, we have Councilor Murphy.

Thank you. I just want to thank Joe and his team who came to my office over a year ago now, I think, and really explained what their vision and plan was. As a neighbor here in Dorchester, I'm excited to see this investment and looking forward to what it will bring to this neighborhood. So thank you for trusting our neighborhood, Joe and team, and just want to go on support and full support of the project. Thank you. Thank you.

Next, we have Liam Rimas from Consulate Futuro.

Well, Madam Chair, members of the Board, Liam Remus, and Councillor Fitzgerald's office, the Council would like to go on record and support this proposal. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we have Mark D'Alessio.

Yeah, Madam Chair, members of the Board, thanks for the opportunity to speak. My name is Mark D'Alessio. I am a business representative for the North Atlantic States Regional Council of Carpenters. And we just want to go on record as being in support of this project. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we have Nicolás Armata. Madam Chair, my name is Nicholas Armada, Senior Planner for the Boston Landmarks Commission. The proposed work at 1442-1444 Dorchester Avenue combines two elements which are essential to Boston. One, much-needed housing for Boston residents, and two, the preservation of two historic central to Fields Corner development, the 1772 Clapp Fieldhouse and the 1886 Dorchester Music Hall O'Harns Storage Building. The development team worked diligently with the Boston Landmarks Commission staff to change their initial design to pivot from demolition of the Clapp Fieldhouse and instead embrace the preservation and adaptive reuse of both of these historic structures. Therefore, the Office of Historic Preservation enthusiastically supports the zoning variances requested by this applicant. Thank you.

Next, we have Tyler Ross.

Thank you members of the allow me to speak here.

Um, just want to go on record and support. We're going to check a project manager from the planning department. We had. A couple attended newspaper. The counselor is on record and.

We'll go on record in support of this project.

Thank you. And I'm sure we don't have additional comments.

Okay, any other questions from the board? I just have a comment. I know that the project has been undergoing design review. I just want to make a comment here on the record and hopefully the project managers is listens to some of this feedback. I just I find the base along Leonard street. To be. very barrier-like, and what I mean by that is that you have almost a full story of just mainstream. I know that there's bikes right in front. If there's a way to make it a little bit more pedestrian friendly, so you don't feel like you're walking by a 10-foot wall along Leonard Street. Other than that, I don't have any other comments.

i make a quick comment um to that um the architect uh this has actually been addressed uh very briefly we have actually uh planting right along uh the building we have added detail to the break and also with a new stair coming down we have addressed that moment where you enter the building so hopefully that helps we have updated drawings that we share with you at some point

Okay, that's great. Just because there's a huge gray drop.

Yeah, yeah.

And I just want you to, I think detailing would benefit the project a lot. Thank you.

Absolutely. Thank you very much.

Any other comments from the board?

Madam Chair, I'd like to put forward a motion of approval. Is there a second? Second.

Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Langham?

Yes.

Ms. Betabrasa? Yes. Ms. Turner? Oh, sorry. Ms. Miro? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Thank you very much.

Good luck.

Next, we have case VOA. 183.5904 with the address of 105 Pleasant View Street. If the applicant and their representative present, would they please explain to the board?

Yes. Good morning, Madam Chairperson, members of the board. My name is Lorraine Moyo. I'm with Simba General Contractors representing our client, Victor Maxwell, the owner of 105 Pleasant View. We are requesting zoning relief to convert the existing owner-occupied one-story single-family home into a two-family residence with the addition of a second story. We're seeking relief for three zoning issues. The first one is excessive floor area insufficient front yard, insufficient rear yard. These conditions are largely the result of older zoning regulations and dimensions of the existing lot and not an attempt to overdevelop the property. Also many homes throughout the neighborhood share similar setbacks and lot characteristics. the property will remain owner occupied um and uh we have consulted immediate arbiters and they've expressed support for this project uh can i have she geezer there one please i don't know that is if that's easier it's okay All right, so this is what it will look like. So currently it's a single family, but this is what it will look like with the addition of the second floor. So the existing floor print of the house will remain essentially unchanged. We're building vertically rather than significantly expanding outward. The existing driveway access is maintained. Existing side circulation remains the same. The project is, designed to be a traditional two-family, consistent with the surrounding development.

Sheet A101, please.

I think it's the next one.

So here we have the existing first floor unit. The first floor unit dwelling remains substantially intact. improvements will include code compliance egress and modernized living space and structural upgrades to support the second floor. Sheet A102, please. All right, so the second floor will be approximately 1,140 square feet. It'll include two bedrooms, a full bathroom, open living room, kitchen, and dining area. So the layout will provide comfortable family sized housing while remaining compatible with the scale of the neighborhood. Sheet A21. All right, elevations here, you'll see simple residential architecture, pitched roof, consistent siding materials, balanced window placement, modest exterior stair locations, and it will resemble the neighborhood and many existing two-family homes found throughout Hyde Park. And the 301 place, A301, 302, So here's the new structural floor system, fire rated separation from dwelling units. We have solid insulation, roof construction, foundation relationship, and sheet S001, which is the last one. And here is just the structural part of a new LVL beam, reinforced floor framing, engineered roof framing, new bearing walls, and upgraded structural support. And that's it. So we respectfully request the board to grant zoning relief for this family, please.

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 Benbury, and I am the community engagement specialist for the Office of Liquid Service. That's completely the required community process, which consists of a meeting facilitated on May 14th. for stating that it is a logical expansion of the existing home. No additional community process was put into date. Our office has not received any further community feedback. Thank you for your time, and the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services will refer to the board.

Thank you.

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

With that, may I have a motion? I put forward a motion of approval. Second. There's a second. Thank you. Mr. Stembridge.

Yes.

Mr. Langham. Yes. Ms. Betabrasa. Yes. Ms. Turner. Yes. Ms. Wewell.

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck, ma'am.

Thank you so much.

Next, we have case BOA 183, with the address of 17 R Belkin Road. If the applicant and or their representative are present, would they please sign to the board?

Hi, my name is Steve Fine and I'm the contractor for this project. Thank you for your time. So this is a building owned by a local charity and they have had this garage since the building was built. The garage is in terrible shape and needed to be redone. And the proposal is to rebuild it in exactly the same place as the original, exactly the same size, same height, just taking down the one that was there in poor shape and replacing it with a new one.

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

Madam Chair and Board Members, Sigi Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This petitioner completed the community process. Our office oversaw distribution of an informational flyer to all occupied parcels in a 300-foot radius, which solicited no comments to our office. The Brighton-Alston Improvement Association is supporting this application. With that background, ONS defers judgment to the Board. Thank you.

Next, we have Nicolas Almada.

Nick Armato, Senior Planner for the Boston Landmarks Commission. The proposed scope of work at 17R Melton Road in Brighton includes the full demolition of the existing garage, which is more than 50 years old. The scope of work requires an application to be submitted to the Boston Landmarks Commission under Article 85 of the Boston Zoning Code. The proponent will need to complete the application for demolition online at boston.gov forward slash landmark and receive a determination from the Landmarks Commission staff. No demolition permit can be issued until the Article 85 process is completed. Thank you.

And we have a consultant Murphy.

Yes, wanted to go on record in support. Thank you.

Madam Chair, we don't have additional comments.

With that, may I have a motion? Motion to approve. Is there a second? Second. Mr. Sandbridge? Yes. Mr. Langham? Yes. Ms. Pettibraza?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Rewell? Yes. Chair votes yes. Motion carries.

Thank you. Madam Chair, it's 1055. Before we go to the 11 a.m. here.

Okay, we will take a five-minute break. See you then. Recording stopped.

Present, Madam Chair. Thank you.

Mr. Langham. Present. Thank you. Ms. Betabrasa. Present. Ms. Turner. Present. Ms. Whewell. Present. Great, thank you. Please proceed, Mr. Stembridge.

Certainly, Madam Chair. We'll begin by asking if there are any requests for withdrawals or deferrals from the 11 a.m. here. Hearing none, we'll move on to the first case.

Mr. Cambridge, I'm sorry. There is one person who's looking for a referral. Thank you, sir. Ethan, if you can speak to me yourself, please.

I can. Can everybody hear me?

Yes. What case are you?

Thank you. I'm here for 44 Granger Street. We still need to set up a City of Butters meeting.

I'm coordinating with O&S. Thank you. Mr. Stemmerich needs to read it into the record.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This request is for case BOA 183, with the address of 44 Granger Street. Would you go ahead again and explain please?

Certainly. So an initial City of Butters meeting was held on the initial plans that were approved, but they have since changed and no Butters meeting was held. So I've been interfacing with Mr. Newman as of last night. So with ONS, we're going to be setting up that City of Butters meeting. We should only need a brief deferral in order to finish coordinating that.

Okay. Ms. Caroline? They have August 11th, August 25th, or September 8th.

Let's aim for the 25th. I want to give myself more time than I need, if that's acceptable to the board.

Okay. May I have a motion?

Motion to defer this case until August 25th.

Second. Thank you. Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Langham? Yes. Ms. Benabraza?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. As we will. Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. See you then.

Thank you very much. You all have a nice day.

Thank you.

If there are no more requests for withdrawals and deferrals, we'll go back to case VOA 1834869 with the address of 231 Princeton Street. If the applicant, those that are represented are present, would they please go into the void? Is anyone present for 231 Prince Hill Street?

I see somebody. Zach Johnson, you can unmute yourself now.

Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Yes, I'm the homeowner at 231 Princeton Street.

Great. Can you state your name, address for the record, and please tell us what you're looking for?

Yep. My name is Zachary Johnson. My address is 231 Princeton Street. And I hired the contractor whose name is on the application, Aggie DeSouza, to help me basically add a flat landing to the back of our home and that that would become a deck and then we are looking to enclose the deck underneath as well for some usable space in the back okay questions from the board hearing none may have public testimony

Is there any public testimony on this?

Hello Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Elizabeth Jones, representing the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services. Regarding 231 Princeton Street, our office defers support's judgment. A community process was conducted, including an abutters meeting held on 5-20-26 that was lightly attended by the East Boston community members. where conversation was amongst neighbors and very productive. The proposal was also reviewed by the Eagle Hill Civic Association at their meeting on 9-27-25, and the association expressed support. 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. We don't have additional hands raised.

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

Second.

Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Langham? Yes. Ms. Betabraza?

Yes.

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

Thank you. Next, we have case BOA 170-4408. With the address of 191 Main Street. If the applicants and other representative present there, please explain.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Stembridge. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is George Moran. See, I'm an attorney with the business address of 350 West Broadway in South Boston. I represent the owner of 191 Main Street, Sigmund Chan, who is proposing to temporarily relocate the liquor store he owns and currently operates at Charlestown Liquors, 10 Thompson Square, which is nearby to the first floor of the building that he owns at 191 Main Street. The reason for doing this is because the 10 Thompson Square site where his current liquor store is located was approved in September of 2024 for a new three-story mixed-use building. Uh, after construction of the Thompson square building is completed, my client would plan to relocate this liquor store use back to Thompson square at this time of zoning approval is required because the liquor store use at 191 main street is a conditional use. There's also a cited off street parking violation on the zoning refusal letter, but it's worth noting that. The 191 main street building was approved by this board in. 2022, at which time it received an off street parking variance for a ground floor retail use. There's been no use in there since the building received a certificate of occupancy. This proposed use is in fact. A retail use under table E, article 62 off street parking requirements. Which leads me to conclude that the current off street parking violation was erroneously issued and unnecessary because the property already benefits from a variance. That being said. In conclusion, as noted in the Planning Department recommendation, we strongly believe that this site is an appropriate location for the proposed use. It will not adversely affect the neighborhood, constitute a serious hazard to vehicles or pedestrians, or create a nuisance. Mr. Chan is an experienced owner of this type of business and will maintain adequate and appropriate facilities for the proper operation of the use. With that said, I'll pause and take any questions that members may have.

Thank you. Any questions from the board? Yeah, I have a few questions. One, back in 22 when this building was first proposed, it seems like there were concerns, first of all, about how it got passed. But one of the stipulations was that there would be no liquor sold at this address. And so I'm just wondering a little bit of the history of this property. and a little bit about why back then there was that concession made about no liquor being sold at this address. And then second, there are concerns about loading zone and trash, and if you could address those as well. Thank you.

Certainly. I actually, and to be honest, I have no recollection of a conversation at the time when 191 Main Street was proposed of a liquor store use on the ground floor. I don't recollect that, and again, I don't remember why that would have come up because, as I said, my client at that time, and still does own a liquor store at Thompson square, which is very close. So I don't know why there would be any. Concern that he would be opening a liquor store here. I don't remember that. I am aware that there are no providers. on the zba decision if i had any recollection i would certainly let the board know but i don't and in terms of trash and deliveries like any neighborhood business on on main street or anywhere in the city and like the current liquor store at thompson square which is actually three times the the physical size of this a particular location, deliveries and trash would be handled on Main Street, again, like any other business.

Thank you.

So just to be clear, though, there's no point where there would suddenly be two liquor stores.

No, because to be clear, my client has one retail package store license. And that has to go through the Boston Licensing Board for transfer to 191 Main Street. And as I said, the Thompson Square location, that is a much larger location now. The new liquor store there is about 3,000 square feet as opposed to about 1,000 square feet here. So this is a bit of a stopgap measure. This license will be going back. My client is not applying for a second license here. It's the same license.

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

Madam Chair and Board Members, Siggy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This petitioner completed the community process. Our office hosted Anna Butter's meeting on April 15th of 2025, at which Anna Butter was concerned about the representation of the proposal as temporary and requested the applicant agreed to a sunset provision to ensure the store does move back to its original location as they represented. Another abutter raised concerns about a buildup of trash and mattresses behind the property, which the applicant stated would be addressed shortly after the abutter's meeting. The applicant did meet with the Charlestown neighborhood council, which determined at its May 5th meeting to take no position on this change in use. Our office received two letters of opposition, which have been forwarded to the board. With that background, ONS defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Madam Chair, we don't have additional comments.

And Madam Chair, I'm sorry, just to address once again, Ms. Turner's questions. I actually went back while Siggy was testifying to my saved notes from my presentation to the board back in 2022. I made no mention of a liquor store in my main presentation. And I don't know if there was testimony, but there was nothing in my presentation about no liquor store going into 191 Main Street. And as I say, there was no proviso on the decision.

Thank you. I appreciate that. I just want to bring up some of the concerns of the abutters.

No, I understood. And that was the first I heard that there may have been a representation made at that time. So I just wanted to double check.

Thank you. And certainly a proviso could be added to ensure that only one of those locations has a liquor store moving forward. So with that, may I have a motion?

Madam. Madam Chair, I'd like to vote for a motion of approval.

I'll second that. And yeah, I'm not sure we could gun another property's kind of liquor license or kind of property separately. So I would not do the proviso.

OK. Mr. Stumbridge?

Yes.

Mr. Langham? Yes. Mr. Barraza? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Weill? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Thank you.

Next, we have case BOA-185-7327 with the address of 769 Columbia Road. If the applicant and or the representative present, would they please vote? Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the Board, Attorney Jeff Drago with Drago and Toscano with the business address of 11 Beacon Street. Here on behalf of the applicant, the 15 Fenton Street LLC and Fernando Del Fiora, who is the owner of 769 Columbia Road. This is a straightforward proposal. The description is to renovate. Completely got renovate the interior of the building and right now this building is an existing large 3 family, double wide 3 unit building in Dorchester. The proposal is to add a small rear addition to each unit and then change the occupants. If you could just remain on this slide, please. Yeah, that's fine for now. Thank you. To change the occupancy from three units to six condominium units and also add living space in the basement. Besides the small rear addition, all of the existing structure would remain and all of the work would be within the interior of the building. And this gives us the ability to create some additional units. There's also, if you go to the next slide, please, Mr. Ambassador. Thank you. There's also an existing curb cut, 12 foot curb cut on the property. That leads to a very dated garage structure in the back. We would also propose to remove that existing garage that only houses one spot and that would create three rare parking spaces as well. This slide is actually a helpful slide. It just shows sort of the building layouts along Columbia Road and you can see, and that is why we got the recommendation of approval from the BPD. And their recommendation is that if you look at the streetscape, you can see many of the buildings in this area go back in the rear of the property, farther in the rear than our building. And so what we're proposing in that three-story rare addition, it's just 228 square feet in the back of each unit for a total of 684 square feet. of the rare addition the lot size is 5310 square feet and you can see it we have a very large front yard area with green space that will remain and we put a new landscape plan together as well the composition of this area is mixed if we could go to the next slide please can just see in this slide that i provided there's condominium units and rental buildings multi-family up and down this corridor many of which are similar utilizing the large basements and also utilizing of converting from three units to six units there's a number of six unit buildings within the immediate area that have been condoized as well If you can go to the next slide, please. These are existing three-bedroom, one-bath units. What we would be creating is utilizing additional space in the basement. That would have seven-foot, six-inch ceiling height minimum. The unit one and two would be three-bedroom, two-bath proposed at 1,115 square feet and 1,130 square feet. So we'd be making those family size units. Units three, four, five, and six would all become two bedroom, one bath unit. Now, even with the addition of the small rear addition. Our FAR would still be under the allowable FAR for this area, which is 1.3. We would be at 1.11. Our height would still remain and be allowable under the code. The areas we would be seeking variances for is additional lot area. We would be about 700 square feet under. Open space would change slightly in the formula, so we would need a variance for open space. And then off-street parking as well, although we're creating more parking. We are in a great spot for public transit. We're 500 feet from Dorchester Ave, which has multiple MBTA bus routes on it. And we're also approximately 500 feet from the JFK UMass MBTA station, which houses the red line, which makes this great for those folks that would be commuting as well. With that, I can pause and answer any questions that the board may have. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there questions from the board? Yeah, public testimony.

Madam chair and members of the board for the program. My name is Jeremy memory. I'm the Roxbury community engaged specialist office of neighborhood services. The applicant has completed the community process, which consisted of an abundance meeting facilitated on April 23rd, where concerns were raised regarding the size and proximity of the proposed building to the adjacent property at seven 71 Columbia road, which with abundance expressing concerns about private overall scale of the proposal. Residents also voiced concerns about construction-related noises and the potential impacts on the surrounding neighborhood throughout the duration of the project. Butters also expressed a lack of confidence in the current property owner's ability to responsibly manage the property. Butters noted that the property has approximately 27 recorded violations, that this reflects a long-standing pattern of poor maintenance and inadequate property management. Butters further described persistent issues including excessive trash, fire safety concerns, and a significant road infestation, expressing concern that these existing conditions have not been adequately addressed. Several residents said that the proposed development would improve conditions given the property's current state. Thank you for your time, and the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services would like to defer to the Board for their comment.

Next, we have Liam Remus. Madam Chair, members of the Board, Liam Remus from Councillor Fitzgerald's office.

Due to strong concerns expressed through our office that how LA previously from both Neighbors of Project and the local civic association, our office would like to go on record in opposition to this proposal.

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

If I may respond. Yes, please. So there was a prior property manager. First, my client was unaware of the tickets. They were not being sent. They were trash tickets. And the moment they found out about it, they actually removed the prior property manager. They hired a new property manager. They also have an exterminator that has come by the property. There is no rodent issue directly caused from this building. There seems to be a rodent issue in the general area. He also hired the company. The exterminator has been abating just as a precaution as well. As part of this proposal, we are converting these to condominiums. So this will be, I know there was just concern about the folks had to ask, could we update the property? And that is part of the general plan as well. This will be completely changed to a new building as well.

Thank you. Mr. Bunbury, do you want to add comment?

Yes, ma'am. I failed to add that the proposal was also seen by the Columbia 7 Hill. They all received overwhelming opposition at that time.

So, if I may also point out the Columbia 7 Hill group has a zoning subcommittee that we 1st presented to the recommendation of the subcommittee was for approval based on the zoning variances needed being minimal. And the project being reasonable, it then did get denied by the full group. But again, and based on the variances we're asking for, which are minor, it's a, it's very commonplace to have this kind of a building up and down the corridor. And I know it was mentioned that some folks said the development was excessive. This is a minimal addition in the back to 284 square feet. It also keeps family units and adds some additional space. And as the BPD mentioned, all of this, we maintain the building and there is a strong recommendation on the architectural integrity of this area. It was mentioned, I know, in their proviso, if approved, if a proviso for BPD design review would be kept on because this is a historical area because of the design of the buildings up and down the corridor. But we are keeping right in line with the other buildings in this area. Thank you. Thank you.

Any other questions or comments from the board?

I only have concerns with a little bit of lack of open space. Given that you're increasing the occupancy and. You have a very tight driveway of 8. Close to 9 feet, 8 foot 10, and I'm concerned with the maneuverability. Of a car getting into parking 3. So. If this project moves forward, we should we should. ask BPD to review the amount of parking and to ensure safety and maneuverability for the cars.

And for understood, we are removing the garage and is better Barraza. So we do open up that area, but obviously it's, it's true.

It's asphalt, right? It's all for parking.

It is now as well. Most of them back there. So, but yes, we would be happy to change the parking scheme in the rear as suggested. We just wanted to try to get additional parking spaces and for the community.

And you're open to reducing it to parking space if the BPD determines that it's a safety issue in regards to mobility?

Absolutely.

Okay, great. Thank you. I don't have any further comments.

Thank you.

May I have a motion? Madam Chair, I'd like to put forward a motion. of approval with BPD design review on the amount of parking and balance with open space, and to also review the exterior to comply with the characteristics of the neighborhood.

Is there a second? Second. Mr. Spembridge?

Yeah.

Mr. Langham?

Yes.

Ms. Betabrasa? Yes. Ms. Turner?

Yes, but I would encourage the applicant to really reach out to the neighbors and make it clear that their concerns will be addressed. Thank you.

Understood. And we will do that. Thank you.

Yes, we will.

Yes. Fair votes yes. The motion carries. Thank you very much.

Next, we have case BOA 1824479. with the address of 128 G Street. If the applicant is or their representative present, the police is going to report.

Anthony, I think you can.

Yep. Can you guys hear me all right? Yes, we can. All right. I would throw my camera on here. I don't know where I have the ability to do that. And would you guys mind unmuting my dad as well? We're co-owners in this property. So I'd appreciate it if you guys could find him.

So can you let Hazers know his name?

Bob Reynolds.

Okay. Are you ready to proceed?

Yes. Okay.

Please do.

Okay, so I had some slides here, but we can work off of this that my architect had provided. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is AJ Rinaldi. As I mentioned, I'm the owner of 128 G Street with my father. And our ask today is to approve a basement unit that is fully furnished right now. It would put us from a two unit house to a three unit house. As I mentioned, the unit as it stands right now, as we had bought the house, is fully furnished with a bathroom, kitchen, and a place where you could put a bed as well. So it would be identified as a studio unit. On top of that, we would be adding the necessary utilities as well. So that would be its own electric meter and water heater as well. As well as that, I did go through the process and I worked with to get approval from the necessary communities gate of heaven community and Dorchester Heights where I went in person and met with these these groups. Presenting these plans, and I received nothing but positive feedback from them as well as that. I did do an abutters meeting on April 7th. Where we received. support from them as well so no opposition up to this point hopefully we're we're able to gain your guys's support and i'd like to point out to my father and i we're not we're not developers nor are we architects so if i'm missing anything in this process um please you know i'm happy to answer any questions but please point it out and we'll we'll uh you know get everything cleared up so it's really how all i have for today dad i don't know yeah i was just gonna yeah i was just gonna add a couple things if i could to what aj said so uh as

the records indicate this property that the previous owners had owned for quite some time had been recognized, I think from a tax record standpoint for a three family for 20, 25 plus years. I'm not sure if that's consequential in any way, but it has been recorded again, tax-wise as a three family property. Maybe the other thing that AJ and I should call, it's really more AJ than me. He lives up the street at 62 G Street. So he's not an investor, but he's really a member of the G Street community as a young 26-year-old person, you know, really wanting to make the best out of the neighborhood and improve it in any way that he can. And so we, yeah, and maybe just the last thing in closing, we're just... It's probably go without being said, but the approval from you all to get this 3rd unit. Approved would allow us. Not just as property owners, but for people that are seeming to badly need a place to live in South Boston, we would have. The ability, obviously, to provide that to them, which we think we'd like to think is sort of a win win. Good for us as property owners, but also good for the city of Boston to have. A fully ready unit that someone could move into tomorrow or whenever you would provide such approval to us. And that, I think, is all we have to say.

Thank you are there questions from the board.

So this is moving forward, you like to convert from a two-family to a three-family?

Correct. Yes.

So as a three-family and you're adding sprinkler systems?

We don't, we come to this call not knowing whether or not that needs to be done. So the answer is we don't know.

Okay. What's the ceiling height in the basement?

Is it called out, Adrian, on the diagram?

I know. I'm trying to see. I can pull up our apartment set, too. When we had the architect through there, there wasn't any indication that he thought there was going to be any issue with ceiling height. As any basement, it differs in certain areas. But it's...

it seemed like it was maybe uh eight and a half feet of ceiling height i don't want to i don't want to put a number out there that i can't stand by but it wasn't uh it wasn't a a drastically low ceiling height yeah eight aj um sorry madam chairman members of the board this is eric's action the architect um i happen to be but couldn't find my mute button um yes the ceiling height is uh it varies quite a bit but it's at least eight feet in places

And Eric, you answered the question because when you're going to a three-family, you have to have a minimum of seven foot six. So thanks for that. What about going to three-family and adding sprinkler?

We understand that we will, at a minimum, be sprinkling the new unit and the sprinkler equipment and are not asking for any fire code or building code.

Okay, great. Thanks, Eric. Glad you were on. Thank you.

Thank you.

With that, may I have public testimony?

Madam Chair and board members, Siggy Joxton with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This petitioner completed the community process. Our office hosted an abutters meeting on April 7th at which no concerns were raised. The applicants met with Gate of Heaven and Dorchester Heights Neighborhood Associations and were not aware of any concerns from either group. With that background, ONS defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Next, we have Ashley from Consular Refugees Office.

Thank you. My name is Ashley from Councilor Flynn's office. Councilor Flynn would like to go on record and support based on a good community process and positive feedback at the meeting with the Dorchester Heights Neighborhood Association. We respectfully request the proponent continue to work closely with the community on any quality of life issues. Thank you.

Next, we have a Consular Murphy.

Thank you. Wanted to go on record in support of this project, followed the community process and happy to see that. And also just want to go on record to thank my staff is on a well-deserved summer vacation. So thank you for bearing with me on this. Now I know how hard our staff works on these Tuesdays. So thank you everyone. Thank you.

Madam Chair, we don't have additional comments.

Okay, with that, may I have a motion?

I put forward a motion of approval.

Is there a second?

Second.

Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Langham? Yes. Ms. Betabraza? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Wheelow? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Give up.

Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have case VOA. with the address of 63 Telegraph Street. If the applicant and or their representative are present, would they please explain to the board?

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. I'm Nick Landry from DRP. We're the architects on the project. The owner, Michael Norton, isn't able to join the call today. So I'll be running through the presentation. So we're here today for 63 Telegraph Street, which is the white building shown here in a rendering. It's located toward the top of Telegraph Street near Dorchester Heights. We're requesting relief for four violations, I think two of which might be an error. We go to the next page. So the, if you wanna, I don't know if you can zoom into the zoning code refusal letter, but so the first violation we have is off street parking. We have an existing two family building here. We're gonna be keeping it as a two family. We're just doing a small addition off the rear of the building so the use doesn't change. So the existing two family has no parking and the new project at the end will have no parking. There's a roof structure restriction because we are changing the profile of the roof line and extending the third floor back about four and a half feet. There's a side yard violation, because again, because we're extending the rear of the building, we're just continuing the profile of the existing footprint, which creates a side yard violation on the left-hand side of the building. And there's a rear yard violation here. I think we have a shallow lot. So I think that violation may be an error. We're keeping the existing footprint of the building and the deck. We're staying within the existing footprint of the building and the deck. And we can go to, we can see that on the next page. So the left-hand side here, we have an existing survey. You can see there's a deck in the rear and a stair in the rear, and then there's a second story bump out in the rear and the third floor kind of steps back. What we're proposing to do is rework the existing stair. It doesn't connect all the way up to the top floor. So we're gonna be removing the stair, running that all the way up to the top floor, and then installing two new decks, but we're not getting any closer to the property line than the existing deck. We go to the next sheet, please. So, as I mentioned, it's an existing two-family. The drawings on the top show one unit on the first floor and then a second unit on the second and third floor. The unit on the first floor will stay unchanged. The basement is unfinished. There's mechanical space down there. The second and third floor unit will change. We're going to be infilling the back right portion of the second floor. You can see on the upper plan, there's a stair coming down. We're going to rework that stair so we can square off the back of the building, which is causing that side yard violation. And then on the top floor, we're going to be pushing the rear wall back about four and a half feet and creating an exterior walkout deck, which will access that second address stair. Any other next patients? Again, this is the existing view of the building on the left-hand side. So you have that first floor unit and then the second, third floor is the second unit. We're gonna be changing the roof to a mansard, adding some dormers and residing the entire house. You see that on the right-hand side. We're gonna go to the next sheet, please. I'll go through these elevations quickly. I think this is a good one where you can really see the dashed line on the left-hand side, that's the proposed elevation. You can see we're extending that top floor about, like I said, four and a half feet, and there'll be a walkout jack that'll connect to that new egress there. And where you see the two windows on the east elevation, the existing elevation, we're gonna be boxing that area in, and there won't be any windows on that side because we are so close to the property line. But I think if we wanna flip through the next few slides, So again, front elevation, we are going to be raising the roof height, but we're still about four feet below what's allowed. Go to the next slide. Again, this is a view from the west side of the left side of the house. You can see that extension on the third floor. If we go to the next slide. kind of so here we can see the back so you can see there's that the third floor uh deck that with their egress stair that we'll be putting in connecting all the levels down go to the next slide please i think this is the last one that's relevant for today now you can kind of see that's so that's the finished product we have a third floor extension the new man's out of the dormers and some decks on the rear with a new egress stair connecting us the ground level and that's all thank you are there questions from the board

May I have public testimony?

Madam Chair and board members, Siggy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This petitioner completed the community process. Our office hosted an abutters meeting on May 12th at which abutters were supportive. The applicant met with the Dorchester Heights Neighborhood Association where the proposal was well received. With that background, ONS defers judgment to the board. Thank you. Next, we have Councilor Tiesel.

Thank you Madam Chair and Madam Chair of the Board. This is Sydney from Councilor Flynn's office. Councilor Flynn would like to go on record in support based on a good community process and positive feedback at the meeting with the Dorchester Heights Neighborhood Association. We respectfully request that the proponent continue to work with the community on any quality of life issues.

Thank you. Thank you.

Madam Chair, we don't have additional comments.

Okay, well that may have a motion.

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

Second. Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Atlano?

Yes.

Ms. Betabrasa?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Lewell? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck.

Thank you.

And here we have passed the 1130 So I will ask if there is any request for a withdrawal or a deferral from the 11.30 p.m. time frame. Hearing done. Continue with the 11 o'clock hearing. And that takes us to case BOA 1857936. with the address of 151 Lenox Street.

And I need to recuse myself from this one. This is the last time today dates.

Okay, thank you. So for this case, we are now a five-member board.

This is also an Article 80 case, and we'll ask if the applicant has the representative present to explain.

Good afternoon Madam Chair, members of the board. Jacob Taylor here from Klein Hornig. I represent Tenants Development Corporation. Klein Hornig's business address is 101 Arc Street and we represent Tenants Development Corporation with respect to the 151 Lenox Street project. Tenants Development Corporation is a local nonprofit developer and owner with a 50-plus year history of providing affordable housing. in both the Roxbury and South End neighborhoods. And the 151 Lenox Street project represents an opportunity to turn a vacant city-owned parcel into 38 units of affordable housing for local seniors. The project's on a corner lot at the intersection of Tremont and Lenox Streets, and it's located in the Multifamily Residential and Local Services Subdistrict within the Roxbury neighborhood district. It's also in the Coastal Flood Resilience Overlay and the Boulevard Planning districts. The surrounding area contains a mix of commercial and residential uses and the location is close to the retail and commercial hub at Mass Ave in Tremont. We're before the ZVA today seeking dimensional relief under Article 50, Section 29, with respect to additional lot area per dwelling unit, floor area ratio, building height, usable open space, and front, side, and rear yards. As I mentioned, this building is on a corner lot. We're also seeking relief under Article 50, Section 43, for off-street parking and loading. We are in the GCOD so we need a permit there and we need relief with respect to screening and buffering and traffic visibility across the corner. The applicant has incorporated community feedback into the design and presented the project to neighbors at three community meetings, all of which were well attended. It's received overwhelming support and we're submitting over 30 letters from neighbors and members of the community in support of the project. The project triggered small project review. That's been completed by the BPDA in December of last year. And we have submitted the engineer certification and the Boston Water and Sewer Letter for the GTOD approval. I'll turn it over now to our project architect, Laura Chalamot from Davis Square Architects, and she's going to provide more information regarding the program and the design of the project.

Thank you, Jacob. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Laura Chalamot. I'm a principal at Davis Square Architects, and we are the architects for 151 Lenox Street. Jacob described the context a little bit, but I wanted to show the proposed building in context right here at the corner of Tremont and Lenox Streets. The parcel is 4,700 square feet. And with the project, we're proposing sidewalk improvements for the site. The proposed building will total just over 30,000 gross square feet and will be seven stories, which allows us to fit 38 affordable apartments for seniors and the support programs that are needed on site. I'll quickly run through the plans and elevations. This is the ground floor where we have the main entry and support spaces, including a community room, office, package room, laundry, and bike room. There are two units on the first floor, two sets of stairs and two elevators to get you up to the upper floors, each of which have six units and a mix of one bedrooms and studios. So the total is 38 units with 32 one bedrooms and six studios. In addition to the units themselves, the project will offer enhanced accessibility, which will promote aging in place by local seniors and the support services needed for them. The building is proposed to be seven stories. We worked closely with the city and as Jacob said, had many community meetings to achieve the two important goals of providing affordable rental housing for seniors within a building that is contextual to the environment. So here's the view. the east elevation and the view on Lenox Street. And then I'll just split back to the view on Tremont Street and the north side. I'll hand it over to the board to answer any questions. Thank you.

Are there any questions from the board? Do I have public testimony?

Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Membry. I'm the Roxbury Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. At this time, our office will defer to the board for its judgment. The proponent has completed the BPDA community engagement process, which included a public meeting held on September 29th, 2025. The proposal received 34 letters of support, including two from elected officials, Senator Miranda, Representative Moran, and Councilor Culpepper, excuse me, three from elected officials, including Councilor Culpepper. and was approved by the board on December 11, 2005. The project proposes 38 units of 100% affordability for senior housing, providing opportunities for aging residents to remain in the city and continue to be a vital part of the neighborhood. There is no civic association within the project area, and at this time, our office has received one letter of opposition from the legal representative of the abutting neighbor. The letter of opposition states that the proposed seven-story, 84-foot building is significantly larger than the surrounding neighborhood. exceeds the zoning code's district's height limits, and is incompatible with the area's existing scaling character. The abutter also objects to the building's location along the shared property line, citing concerns regarding this lack of setback, loss of natural light, increased shadow impacts, reduced property value, and potential safety issues resulting from the height difference between the buildings. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Next, we have Kristen Timonelli.

Good morning Madam Chair, members of the Board, Christian Simonelli, Boston Groundwater Trust, and we have both G-card letters from the applicant. Thank you. Thank you. Next we have a call.

Okay, so I'm on here for a different project, 146 M Street, my apologies.

Okay, thank you. Okay, from the public we have a Robert Moran. Robert, if you can unmute yourself.

Good morning. Can you hear me?

Yes, sir.

My name is Robert Moran. I'm an attorney at Gilman McLaughlin and Hanrahan. My office is at 101 Merrimack Street in Boston. And I represent 888 Tremont Street, LLC, the abutter and Frank Williams, the principal of the abutter. Basically, this project is the applicant is trying to put an enormous project, enormous building on a tiny lot. The lot is 4,709 square feet. for a 38 unit building in this district, you would need about 38,000 square feet. That's talking about an enormous difference. This lot is tiny and There's almost no dimensional requirements that the project complies with, lot area. It's 4,000 square feet for the first three units, then 1,000 square feet for an additional, each additional unit. That would require, as I said, somewhere around 38,000 square foot lot. The height.

Can you keep it tight and get to your point?

We can tell you're opposed, so. Sure. And the point is that the project is very large and it's not compatible with the district and the applicant hasn't met the requirements for a variance. There are no special circumstances. This is just a tiny lot. There are plenty of tiny lots in the area. 792, 794 Tremont Street, just down the road. It has all the aspects that the applicant complains about. It is on the corner of a couple streets and it's a small lot and it's attached to another building. So there's not, so there's no special circumstances two this isn't the minimum relief the reasonable use of the site could put a much smaller building here this is an unreasonable use of the site and it it affects the neighborhood and the building is is enormous in it and the applicant has tried to downplay the size of it by comparing it with the smokestacks of adjacent buildings, the church steeple, but we're talking about 84 feet. 45 is allowed.

Please wrap up. We have 90 seconds a speaker. You've likely exceeded that. Please wrap up.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have Jason Farrell.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Jason Farrell, and I'm a project assistant at the planning department. I'm here on behalf of Camille Platicasta, the project manager at the planning department for the 151 Lenox Street Article 80E small project. The project filed their small project review application with us on September 8th, 2025. A virtual public meeting was held on September 29th, 2025, which was well attended. The project was approved by the BPDA board on December 11th, 2025. The planning department is in support of the project moving forward. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we have Mark Delacio. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Mark Alasio. I'm a business representative for the North Atlantic States Regional Council of Carpenters, and we just want to go on record as being in support of this project. Thank you. Thank you.

Madam Chair, we'll have additional comments.

Okay. Any other questions from the board? Does the applicant want to address concerns that were raised?

I'll just note that the applicant has worked closely with the abutters. We understand they have some concerns around the scale of the project, but they did work with them and incorporate some feedback into the design, trying to space out their building from the abutting building as best they could while still providing a significant number of units of senior board housing.

Thank you. With that, may I have a motion? Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Lino? No. Ms. Betabrasa?

Yes.

Ms. Wewell?

Yes.

Chair votes yes, the motion does not carry. Is there a different motion?

Madam Chair, I'm wondering if the appropriate next step is to defer, given that a member had to recuse herself and we're down four members. You can feel free to make that motion. All right, motion to defer.

Is there a second? Second. Okay, Mr. Stembridge. Yeah.

Mr. Langham.

Yes. Ms. Benavraza.

Yes.

Ms. Wewell.

Yes.

The motion carries.

August 25th or September 8th?

Mr. Taylor? Sorry, it was August 25th you said?

Yes.

Or September 8th? Yeah, I think we would prefer the earlier meeting, so August 25th.

Okay, thank you. We'll see you then.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, a couple of things. The next case has been deferred and we do have an interpretation case coming up at noontime. We'll wait or shall we proceed?

Okay. I mean, we should just hear the next case and then we'll take the interpretation. Okay. Is there anything?

Yeah. With that then, We will go to case BOA 1837040 with the address of 3 Worcester Street. If the applicant is representative of the president, please explain the case to the court.

Good morning. Almost afternoon. Members of the board, Madam Chair, this is Mike Ross, attorney of the law for Prince Lavelle. I'm here on behalf of the appellants, Brian Jason Chavez, Dorchester residents, who are seeking to add basement living space to an existing non-conforming two-family home located at 3 Bruce Street in the Dorchester Neighborhood Zoning District in a 1F5000 subdistrict. The project was originally approved by this board in May of 2024 and then later amended through the Board of Final Arbiters. The appellant pulled a building permit earlier this year and began construction of the project. During construction, it occurred to the team that the vast basement area, which is not very submerged, would be a good candidate to convert the ground floor one bedroom unit into a family size four bedroom duplex. And so that's what the team pursued through the community process and now is back here in front of the board. We're here on one single violation, FAR, as it relates to the additional living space in the basement. You can fast forward, because this is internal work only for the most part, to slide 7, which is also called ZV.0. And you can see that's perfect. Thank you, Mr. Ambassador. Slide 7. Yeah, that's right. So what you see here is the conversion of the basement from storage to living space. The net increase is 1290 square feet, resulting in an FAR of 0.67, where 0.5 is allowed. Here, the basement floor is being lowered an additional 12 inches, which will result in a 9-foot ceiling height. New full-sized windows will be installed in the basement, and then the internal stairwell leads to the upper floor of the duplex, which you'll see on the next slide, Z5.1. This is showing the before and after. The right is what we're proposing, showing the first floor of the plan, now connected to that lower level of the duplex, which will result in this four-bedroom unit which will be 2,588 square feet from what was, I mentioned, a previous one bedroom that was 1290 square feet. If you go to slides nine and 10, it shows the upper second unit, which is just slightly reconfigured, which is an existing, will be a five bedroom unit, and it will remain a five bedroom unit. Slide 11, which is called Z6.0, Actually, you were just on it, Mr. Blasser. One back, please. These axons there, small changes to the existing external stair of the building, as well as an open air patio that's coming off the side of the building. You can see right there. Next slide, please. Here on the south and east elevations, you can see minor changes to window fenestration throughout the building, as well as that full-size basement window at the basement level. The next slide shows you the north and west elevations. And you will see the basement's a walkout basement. It's not deep into the ground. And the additional full-size windows that will be created, as well as other minor fenestration Also, the Board should have received a notice of unanimous support from the St. Mark's Barrier Civic Association. And with that, I'll pause if there are any questions. Thank you.

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 3 Bruce Street, our office defers to the board's judgment a community process was conducted, including an abutters meeting held on 5-11-26 that was well attended by the Dorchester community. One attendee expressed support for the proposal's bedroom count, noting that the inclusion of family-sized units was preferable to a greater number of smaller units. The proposal was also reviewed by the St. Mark's Area Civic Association at their meeting on 5-26-26 and have expressed support. At this time, the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services defers to the Board's judgment on this matter. Thank you, everyone, for your time and consideration.

Next, we have the Consulate Murphy.

I thank you. I just wanted to go on record in full support. I live in the neighborhood and have been driving by the renovation and it looks beautiful and happy to hear that they're taking this opportunity to extend and expand living space in the neighborhood. So I want to go on record in full support. Thank you.

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

Okay, for that we have a motion.

I put forward a motion of approval.

Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge?

Yeah.

Mr. Langham?

Yes.

Ms. Betabrasa? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Newell?

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Thank you very much. Have a great day.

So at this point we will go to the interpretations case scheduled for noontime. And this would be case BOA 1852440 with the address of 142 Harlem Street. If the applicants and or they represent of the present their first client case or what?

You think somebody, Michael? The person who was just a, as a panelist, I'm not sure if he's, I am here.

Are you here for 142 Arlington Street? Yes, I am. Okay, please state your name, address for the record and proceed.

It's Michael Kim, registered architect, address 1 Holden Street, Brookline, Mass.

Okay, please let us know what you're presenting.

Okay, we have a rejection from ISD on three points. and we feel the three points are inaccurate. As stated in my appeal and letter or memo, The first violation cited is off-street parking insufficient. This permit is simply to make a former now abandoned illegal park basement apartment a living space for the owner of the building it is essentially a man cave therefore there is no change of use and the parking on the site has a two-car garage There is a requirement in the 2 at 5,000 zone. For 1.8 spaces in the property, the garage suffices. So. We don't we believe that parking is sufficient and. With this permit, there's no change to the party. The second is related. They say the use is forbidden. It is currently a two-family house. The basement space is finished but abandoned. This simply changes it to usable space. It's still a two-family. So a two-family isn't allowed use. So how the use is forbidden, we don't quite understand. And then, finally, usable open space insufficient. We had the site re-plotted or a new plot time set out. We measured the outside growth square footage of the site. We've stamped it there as sufficient open space. So we feel that these three violations are, in fact, not correct.

Okay, is Mr. Joseph, Commissioner Joseph or someone else available from ISD to speak? He's on, if some person can elevate him.

Jesus, can you elevate Joseph?