Bpda Board of Directors - Regular Meeting

Good morning, the City of Boston Zoning Board of Appeal hearing for July 28, 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 can provide their comment. In the interest of time and to ensure that you have enough time to do so, please raise your hand as soon as Mr. Stembridge reads the address into the record. Do not raise your hand before the relevant address is called or the meeting host will not know to call on you at the appropriate time. We ask that you keep your comments brief and all public testimony will be limited to 90 seconds per speaker. All right, Mr. Stembridge.

Good morning, Madam Chair, President.

Good morning. Mr. Valencia. Good morning, Madam Chair, present. Good morning, Ms. Turner. Good morning, Madam Chair, present. Good morning, Ms. Betabrasa. Good morning, Madam Chair, present. Good morning, Ms. Panato. Good morning, Madam Chair, present. Good morning, Mr. Collins.

Good morning, Madam Chair, present.

Good morning. Who is yours, Mr. Stembridge?

Thank you, Madam Chair. We'll begin today's meeting with the approval of hearing minutes scheduled for 9.30 AM. These minutes, these are the minutes from July 14th of this year. I'll make a motion of approval of these minutes.

Thank you. Is there a second?

Second.

Mr. Stembridge?

Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes.

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

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Next, we have the extension scheduled for 9.30 a.m.

There are seven cases this morning. They all appear reasonable. I'll read them in one behind the other. We can ask, we can see if there are any questions and then go from there. We'll begin with case BOA 149, 4349 with the address of 2 Dexter Rowe. Next we have case BOA 948352 with the address of 11 Heron Street.

Next we have case BOA 948354 with the address of 26 Heron Street.

Next we have case BOA

133-2592 with the address of 19 Woodville Street.

Next, we have case BOA 163-2235 with the address of 250 Siebel Street.

Next, we have case BOA 159-3053 with the address of 156 Wellington Street. And finally, for the extensions, we have case BOA 1593050 with the address of 88 Geneva Avenue. So Madam Chair, those are the extensions before us today.

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

Second.

Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner?

Yes.

Ms. Betabrasa?

Yes.

Ms. Panato? Yes. Mr. Collins?

Yes.

Chair votes yes, the motion carries.

Next, we'll move on to the recommendations from the recent subcommittee meeting. um they all of the all all of these were approved uh to with uh bpb design review i'll read through them and if there are any questions when i finish we'll take those up again with case boa 185 1850866 with the address of 85 Everett Street, which was approved. Next, we have case BOA 1819861 with the address of 203 Falcon Street, which was approved with the department's design review. Next, we have case BOA 1839249 with the address of 59 H to 59 Washington Street, which was approved. Next. Next, we have two companion cases, case BOA 1860034, with the address of 478 to 484 West Broadway, along with case BOA 1860029, which also has the address of 478-484 West Broadway.

Both were approved with planning department design review.

Next we have case BOA 1857382 with the address of 392-394 Geneva Avenue, which was approved. Next we have case BOA 1, 7, 1, 5, 1, 1, 5, with the address of 655 William T. Morrissey Boulevard, which was approved. Next, we have case BOA 185-5992, with the address of 163 Beach Street, which was approved. And finally, We have case BOA 185-1194, with the address of 16 High Rock Way, which was... Madam Chair, those are all the recommendations on the subcommittee.

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

Motion to approve subcommittee recommendations. May I have a second?

Second. Second.

Second. Second. Second. Second.

Second. Second. Second. Second. Second. Second.

This is case VOA 1857868 with the address of 46 Mystic Street. If the applicant and or their representative are present, will they please explain to the board?

Thank you, Mr. Stembridge. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board, for the record. Richard Lenz, the business address of 245 Summer Street, on behalf of the petitioners. With me today are my clients, Jamison Vasquez and Stephanie Crizzoli. They are the owners of unit one of the 46 Mystic Street condominium. Mr. Ambassador, we can jump down to page seven. That's probably a good reference point to start. And I'll let the board know just by way of brief background, my client purchased this property as a condominium unit in 2023. They were the second owner of this unit in the condominium that was established for the 46 Mississippi Street property. The other unit owners, also either the second or third owners of their units. None of these owners are the first unit owners of this condominium, nor were they involved in the development of this property. As we can see here from the photo, the building of 46 Mystic is one of a series of row houses along Mystic Street. This building was constructed sometime probably back in the 1800s, certainly before 1900. The legal occupancy of this building as a three-unit dwelling was confirmed by ISD in the 1990s. And this property was converted into three condominium units over 20 years ago, back in 2003. If we can jump down to page, let's go to page four. So what I'm showing the board here, Madam Chair, is the original master deed plan that was registered with the Suffolk Registry of Deeds in 2003. As we can see, Unit 1 actually occupies both the basement level and the main first level. So this is a bi-level unit. And within Unit 1, as we can see, there's a portion located in the basement off to the right side that encompasses the utility room. The utility room was a condition that was included back when the property was converted in 2003. Again, a condition that's existed for more than 23 years. One of the practical difficulties that we do see, and I'm sure as this board has seen many times before, is that buildings of this age generally have very limited access to utilities. And in this particular case, that would be not the exception for this building as well. We could jump down to page, I believe page eight might show or illustrate some of the practical issues that we're dealing with here. So we go to page eight. So what we're showing here, Madam Chair, is the rear of the building. As you can see, this, again, is a row house condition. There are crossover balconies for units two and three. Neither of those units have direct access to the rear of the building. The rear of the building is accessible through unit one only. And again, these are conditions that existed long before our clients purchased it, and certainly were conditions that existed when the conversion occurred in 2003. Because there is limited access from units 2 and 3 to the rear of the property. There really is no other way to access the utility room except through unit 1. And certainly understanding that the building code requires independent access. This again being a condition that has existed for more than 23 years. is something that is creating somewhat of a hardship at this point. Back in 2025, although this is something that I believe the city had dealt with more than a decade ago, our clients were provided a notice of violation for the condition with the utility room located where it's at. That is a condition again that they did not create, not something that they were aware of. And certainly when they purchased the property, not a condition that was a surprise to them, certainly because the condominium documents for this building since it was created actually accounts for access to that utility room. all unit owners in the building have access to the utility room they just have to pass through unit one and all unit owners do have the ability to access through the trustees which do have a key to that unit this has not created an issue at all for any of the unit owners i believe there is a letter that's been provided to the board that specifically outlines this condition it's something that all the unit owners have no objection to and certainly have not experienced any issues in accessing it If you look on the right side, you can see the lower portion of the first unit. And as you can see, there is very limited area to access either a door or some sort of bulkhead into that lower basement area. And so therefore, based upon a strict reading of the building code, this would be in violation of the code. However, I would point out, remind the board, a condition that has existed since the inception of this condominium in 2003. In order to address this particular violation that's been cited by the city, there really are not a lot of alternatives. Access alone creates somewhat of a barrier, especially from the back of the building. There is no access from the front of the building except for unit 1 and therefore the only solutions would be as follows. To relocate all the utilities out of the basement into the respective units, which is at an exorbitant cost. We've got contractors review this based upon the age of the building and certainly how the utilities are currently run. That would be a huge undertaking in order to make this comply. The second is to request relief under the building code for this particular condition, and again, a longstanding condition. now i'm certainly familiar as you know practitioner before this board that you know granting building code relief without some type of plan is never really the most optimal approach and i would point out that we do think there's a practical solution for this one is to allow for the status quo to remain as has existed for more than 23 years but with the caveat that in the event that there is any rehabilitation or substantial renovation of the building that compliance be achieved And basically the point, Madam Chair, is that to relocate these utilities by these particular unit owners, none of which had any responsibility in creating the condition would put a huge burden financially on them. And we believe that if in fact there is a renovation or rehabilitation of the building in the future, that is a more appropriate time for the condition to be corrected. And once again, I would point out that from a practical standpoint, it has worked. Any access that has been needed to get to the utilities is something that has not been an issue for the unit owners and the board has evidence of that in writing. And we believe that this condition can continue and certainly can be done in a way that is accessible by all unit owners i would point out that as you can see this particular building is landlocked while there may be emergency egress over other properties there's not a particular means of ingress to the backyard anyhow so even if we put it put a door into the back of the building uh there would be no practical means to access it you'd still have to go through unit one to get some utilities So those are just some of the quick overview items for this particular request. And again, I understand fully that the board is not necessarily inclined unless there's some alternative or plan that can be achieved. And all we're asking for is to allow for these units to remain marketable, both from a finance standpoint, from a saleability standpoint, from an insurance standpoint, that the violation that has been issued by the city be addressed through relief, with the caveat that in the event of substantial rehabilitation, that the condition would be corrected at that time, certainly when the costs can be addressed. I'm happy to address any comments or questions from the board, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Are there questions from the board?

Do we have a commissioner or someone from ISD to speak on this issue?

Caroline, do you want to weigh in?

I don't. I don't believe so.

I would just defer to the board's judgment on this one.

Okay. Has there been conversations in regards to correcting the action in regards to renovating the unit? You would have to remove some of the square footage of Unit 1 to remedy the situation?

It's a great question. Not only would there have to be a change to Unit 1, Units 2 and Unit 3 to receive the utilities, Ms. Betabarraza, would also have to be altered. There's not a real practical solution. We did have a contractor go through the entire building to determine whether or not this would be a feasible solution. Anything's possible. This is the way to look at this, but at great cost. This building being old with utilities where they're at would almost require a pretty substantial change from the building itself, both the plumbing and the electrical. And in order to do that, that would come at great cost and expense to the entire building. Not a condition to be created.

Right, there's only really two solutions because, as you noted, the lot is landlocked because I was looking at potentially having a bulk access at the rear, but that's not really possible because you can't really get vehicles back there. So I really see two solutions. One is for Unit 1 to reduce the square footage and leave the utility systems where it is, but to provide public access. And then the other is, as you mentioned, the other one I think is also significant, which is to replace the HVAC units and put them directly in each of the unit. It's a very difficult ask to ask a zoning board to allow a building code violation. due to the developer or the person that sold the property that was already kind of in violation. It's a big ask. I'm inclined to not support it and to potentially let you know that there is an appeals process that you can go through with the building code appeals board. Um, but that that's just my. My colleagues here might have a different take on it, but that's, I just wanted to give you my opinion.

Yeah. If I may, Madam Chair, and I fully understand Ms. Barabarraza's point, and we do respect the board's position on granting building code relief. I think what we're maybe asking here is sort of a hybrid. One is to recognize that this is a condition, and it's not just HVAC, it would be the water heaters, the heating system, plumbing, all plumbing, and electrical panels as well. And there is no other option for access except through the unit, whether it's through the back, if we could get to the back, or through the front, which is the current arrangement now. And the access into that area has been a non-issue for the other unit owners as long as, at least as long as my clients have owned it, and certainly as long as they've owned it as well. I believe what we're saying is in recognition of the board's you know, sort of as you mentioned, you know, an unusual if not rare instance is that the Board condition any relief on the requirement that to the extent that any future, you know, what I would define as any substantial renovation of the building itself at that time would be a more practical and cost-effective choice in order to address those conditions. But to simply require them to make this change now. Again, for a condition, none of these people were created in something that they certainly weren't aware of, at least until most recently in 2025 when the city. issue a violation, we don't understand why that occurred, especially after as long as this has been in existence. This is something that I believe we're looking for, for lack of a better term, a temporary bridge until such time as, you know, a renovation of that extent can be undertaken in the building and not something that burdens the current owners with a building code violation hanging over their head, which certainly affects marketability, insurance, and financing.

Great. Thank you. I don't have any further questions.

Where in unit one is the access for everyone? Like how, I guess, how intrusive is it?

It's through the stairs. If you look at the, can you go to the plans?

I can go to unit, go to the amended plan.

Can you zoom in? Yeah, so you have to go through the dining room to go down to the hall corridor.

Yeah, you would enter Unit 1 at the front. You'd walk down and down the stairs into the utility area. I have a question. All the trustees have a key to the unit. And again, the Unit 1 owner understands that that is an accessible issue. There's an arrangement that in the event that they're not even available at our home, trustees can make entry into the unit which is actually something that's pretty typical in all condos, regardless of whether our utility room is located there. Generally in condo docs, we have the ability of trustees to make access into the unit. So whether it's for service or for replacement or just access for maintenance, all of that is something, and again, outlined specifically in the condominium documents as well, that allows for that access from other unit owners.

It's very rare that you have to access another unit to get to their utility. Yeah, because that violates the code, but yeah.

I agree in this, you know, this is a condition, once again, that the original developer appears to have created more than 20 years ago. And as I said, we have multiple unit owners now, not even first unit owners that are owning units in this building that have, you know, lived with this condition for as long as they've owned the units.

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

Madam Chair, I'm going to put a motion for a denial. I think the project should go in front of the Building Co-Appeals Board because otherwise we would just be kicking it to the other, to future owners, the problem of this violation.

Madam Chair, if I may just briefly on that. If the board would grant the relief with the caveat, it technically wouldn't kick it to future owners. It would only, in the event that there's rehabilitation of the building, result in the change. And again, that would be a more practical time to make those expenditures. But the purpose would be that the violation would no longer exist pending any substantial renovation of the building.

Thank you. Is there a second? I'll second that. Mr. Stembridge.

I'm going to vote no on the motion. I think there is a more practical way to approach it, so I'll vote no.

Mr. Valencia.

Yes.

Ms. Turner? No. Ms. Betabrasa?

Yes.

Ms. Panato? Yes. Mr. Collins? No. The Chair votes no, the motion does not carry. Is there another motion? I'll make a motion to approve. Is there a second?

What is the motion to approve with any kind of caveat around future renovations requiring them fixing this building code issue?

Well, yeah, I would say that a larger renovation would trigger that they have to fix it. Not sure how to word that, I guess.

I can be creative, Mr. Collins.

Any suggestions, Caroline, about that?

I think you could just say what's substantial is renovation, because substantial means that there's going to be a financial, a large renovation. You can just say the word substantial.

I would even go so far as to say substantial renovation on Unit 1 alone. If Unit 1 is substantially renovated, then it has to be addressed, not even the entire building. Make it one hour. I'll make a motion to approve two.

to approve with a substantial renovation. Does that make sense? Unicum.

Okay, is there a second?

Second.

Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencio?

Yes.

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

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Thank you very much. With that, we'll move on to the hearing scheduled for 9 30 a.m. There is one case that's been marked as to defer. uh but at this time we'll also ask if there are any other cases to be um to be withdrawn for the group yes mr stembridge um i believe eastwood circuit is mine as well i know that's being moved to august 11th and with that people will go there first That being for case BOA 1856474 with the address of 43 Eastwood Circuit.

I'm turning lens. No, I'm sorry. I have to take you from this case.

OK. So we're a six-member board.

Thank you, Mr. Members, Madam Chair, members of the board. Richard Lenz, 245 Sumner Street, East Boston, on behalf of the petitioner. I believe we are moving this to August 11th. There was a notice requirement, but we've already worked that out with Caroline and Stephanie.

Sorry, Madam Chair, I also need to recuse.

Okay, we are a five-member board. Any questions from the remaining board? Okay, was that a question, Ms. Panato?

No, no, just I was going to make a motion to- Okay, let's go for it. Let's make a motion. Motion to defer to August 11th.

Second. Second, thank you. Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Betabraza?

Yes.

Ms. Panato? Yes. Chair votes yes, the motion carries, see you then.

Thank you. Next one, we have a 7-9 Murray Court. I want you to lose on for 9.30.

So that this would be for case BOA 1844018 with the address of 7-9 Murray Court. Okay, anyone?

Yes, thank you. Again, for the record, Richard Lenz, 245 Summer Street, East Boston, on behalf of the petitioner. This one we're seeking a short referral as well. We reviewed the recommendation of the planning department. We would like to go back and just see if there's anything we could do to address some of the comments. And I believe we had asked for August 11th on this as well, if that's still available.

Yes, thank you. Yes, okay. Any questions from the board? May I have a motion?

Motion to defer the case to August 11th.

Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Betabarraza?

Yes.

Ms. Panato?

Yes.

Mr. Collins?

Yes.

Chair votes yes, the motion carries.

and madam here there is one other case noted here the 930 that this being case boa 182 6508 with the address of 401a to 401 chelsea street attorney yes thank you again mrs stembridge i'm chairman of the board richard clinton's 245 summer street

on behalf of the petitioner. I believe we are looking for deferral to September 8th on this matter. That was noted here.

Can you elaborate?

Again, planning recommendation, and we do believe there are some errors in the analysis. We'd like to review those with our architect and team, and we believe we can address any departments concerns, including removal of some of the violations that have been cited by

Any questions from the board? May I have a motion? Motion to defer this case until September 8th. Is there a second?

Madam Chair, before I second, I want to ask Caroline if September 8th, the agenda is already packed or if we have a space to defer cases for that date?

We have space for a few cases.

Okay, thank you. Okay, was there a second? Second. Okay, Mr. Stembridge? Yeah. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Barabarraza?

Yes.

Ms. Panato? Yes. Mr. Collins?

Yes.

Chair votes yes, the motion carries.

Thank you very much.

Okay, is that another raised hand, Mr. Tevnin?

Yes.

For a deferral?

No, Madam Chair, I am here appearing on the next case.

Okay, are there any other deferrals or withdrawals for 930?

I saw Attorney Guerriere on wanting a deferral.

Yeah, the Attorney Guerriere, he was looking to refer one case, but I see a message in the chat as well, but I don't see him anymore.

Okay. Well, if he appears, we can do that. Okay, please proceed. In the meantime, we have a trifecta of competing cases. First, we have case BOA-185-9998. with the address of 97 to 97A Milton Street. Along with that, we have case BOA 1859995 with an address of 101A Milton Street. And along with both of those, we have case BOA 1859988 with the address of 99 to 99A Milton Street. If the applicants and their representative are present, they can point these cases to the board.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is Charlie Tettman. I'm an attorney at 15 Broad Street in Barton. I'm appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Sean Jordan, and the developer, the Cedar Grove Cemetery. This proposal seeks to construct three separate two-unit dwellings on a 15,876-square-foot lot. Six units in total, each having two bedrooms and two baths. There are two and a half stories proposed. The height is 30.6 feet. The size of each unit at 97 and 99 Milton Street. Is approximately 1200 square feet size of the each unit at 101 Milton street is approximately 1000 square feet. The 3 separate dwellings are designed to appear more like single family homes from the street, which ties well into the fabric and the history of the Cedar Grove neighborhood. By way of background. In 2024, representatives of the Cedar Grove Cemetery brought a petition to the City of Boston Zoning Commission to rezone this 15,876-square-foot parcel, a land which is unsuitable for burials due to the prevalence of ledge. The Zoning Commission granted the petition, and the land was rezoned to 1,500. Notably, this small portion of the cemetery has long been residential in nature. On St. Lot is an existing 100-year-old single-family residence for many years was set aside for the cemetery superintendent. However, the existing structure has been unoccupied for many years and is not habitable. The property is located approximately one half mile from the Ashpond MBTA station and approximately one quarter mile to the Neponset River bike paths. And is located just off granted Avenue, close to the Galvin Boulevard. The proponent, the petitioner has completed the enabled process in the above process with support from a number of butters and we have submitted. To the board, a letter of support from the city growth civic association. Which voted unanimously in support of the proposed project. We've also been in close communication with the Office of District Councilor John Fitzgerald regarding this project before, during, and after the community process. Looking at the surrounding context, we feel that this project is appropriate. There are mostly single family residences directly across the street as well as a number of two and three family residences nearby. We believe that the design respects the surrounding scale and character of the neighborhood and furthers city planning goals understand that the planning department has recommended approval of this project with design review and that the any department recommendation concludes that the requested zoning relief for this project is appropriate i do want to note for The board that the refusal letters contain an error that states that there is. A violation of insufficient frontage. But, in fact, the frontage is 147 feet. And frontage would be 50 feet, so that is not a violation, but just in conclusion. the proponent, Sean George, and Anthony Pachuli, the acting superintendent of the cemetery, are also available on this hearing to answer any questions regarding process or design-related questions. Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there questions from the board? Would you be open to a reduction of parking spaces as was recommended by the BPD? Well, we wanted to go down to 8 versus 12.

It, I understand. the that that is part of the recommendation and we would like to address it uh with uh through through design review i do want to note that parking was a major to with direct abutters and that to accommodate their concerns the uh the number of spaces set at 12 and if there is a A goal to have greater open space or permeability. By reducing the. The number of parking spaces, I do want to note that this parcel is surrounded. By 39 acres of permeable open space. And we think that we struck a balance. By accommodating and addressing the director butter concerns about parking. And all of these off street parking will not impact the director butters, but we would certainly. Address that with. To the board through the design review process.

Okay, thank you. I just wanted to hear your thoughts on that. I do think that the has some good comments in regards to the reduction of parking. I'm thinking more from a site planning perspective. If you were to reduce or remove the 4 parking space next to unit 7, a 7 B, you wouldn't necessarily have headlights into their bedroom units. So, I do think that there could be a very good exercise on site planning to allow also for open space. in the law. So thank you. No further questions. Other questions from the board?

Yes, I want to just follow up from Ms. Barraza's comment. I'm looking at the map and Mr. Tipman, sorry. Yes. Yeah. During your presentation, you mentioned that the red line is very close to the property. It's probably 0.3 miles. So that is walking distance right to the to the red line or public transit. And just thinking about what this board has been approving over the last three or four years, we have been promoting environmentally friendly developments. And I see the recommendation from the planning department. I was thinking about two parking spaces per unit is fair. More than that, I think that's for my colleagues to make a recommendation. But for me at this moment, it's hard to support the amount of parking that you are proposing. So I just wanted to make that comment for the record.

Yeah, particularly since they're small units. And what about the tree canopy on the existing site? Can you talk a little bit about that? Would you bear cut the whole site to accomplish this development?

Not at all. The cemetery's goal is to preserve and protect the trees. The cemetery is really a community resource and it's like an arboretum. And So we will take every effort to protect the existing mature trees that are on the site. I did note that most of this site is ledge. So the number of mature trees, it's surrounded by numerous mature vegetation, but not on the particular lot.

Okay, thank you. Any other questions from the board? 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 97-100 Milton Street, our office defers to the board's judgment. A community process was conducted, including an abutters meeting held on Wednesday, November 19th, 2025, that was very well attended by the Dorchester community. Feedback from this meeting was that while the community wanted to support the Cedar Grove Cemetery, there were significant concerns regarding density in the neighborhood and the amount of parking possibly causing the residents of the proposed establishment to take up more street parking, which is already under stress in the neighborhood with residents requesting more parking spots. Additionally, we received one letter in opposition expressing many of the same concerns that were in the abutters meeting. The proposal was also reviewed with the Cedar Grove Civic Association at their meeting on April 8th, 2026. The association expressed support where all members voted to support the proposal and also provided a formal letter of support submitted to the board. 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 Liam Remus from Councilor Fitzgerald. Hello, Madam Chair, members of the board.

Liam Remus from Councilor Fitzgerald's office. The council would like to go on record and support the proposal due to the work they did in the community process to get support.

As I already mentioned, the parking issue is a big concern of the community to kind of get off street parking sites, so thank you.

Madam Chair, if there are no additional comments.

Okay, any other comments or questions from the board? Mr. Tubman?

No comments or questions from the proponent, Madam Chair.

Okay, with that, may I have a motion?

Madam Chappell for a motion of approval with a proviso that the project undergoes site planning design review with BPD to reduce the amount of parking and to increase the amount of open space. Is there a second?

Second. Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes, especially considering the reduction of parking as the planning department recommended.

Ms. Benavraza? Yes. Ms. Pernado? Yes. Mr. Collins? Yes. Chair votes yes, the motion carries. Chair, you forgot to call on me. Oh, I'm sorry. Ms. Turner? Yes. Now the motion carries, thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the board, and thank you, Mr. Ambassador.

Next, we have case BOA 1827377 with the address of 516 Harvard Street. If the applicant and or their representative are present, will they please explain the case a little more?

Yes, thank you. Mr stembridge and good morning. Madam chair members of the board for the record attorney medical with fletcher tilton on behalf of the applicant. Joining me today is Eric from context the project architect. The proposal that we're putting forward this morning and seeking relief for is to renovate the existing building located 516 Harvard street. And change the occupancy from a 3 family dwelling to a 4 family dwelling. The subject property is located on Harvard Street in Mattapan across from the Olmstead Green development and is in close proximity just up the street from Morton Street. The property is located in R2 zoning sub-district and we're seeking relief for the proposed use as well as the location of the main entrance to the proposed fourth unit. We're seeking to convert the existing lower level living space into a 4th, standalone residential unit. This space already has its own dedicated entrances and the project would include renovating that living space as well as installing window wells for the bedrooms. No changes are proposed to the existing upper level units, and we believe this is a good example of how you can take existing underutilized space within an existing structure to create housing, which is in line with Plan Mattapan. Overall, the proposed new unit would contain three bedrooms and one bathroom, as well as a somewhat open concept living room, dining room, and kitchen. The applicant did attend in a Butters meeting with the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services, as well as meeting with the Wellington Hill Neighborhood Association, who ultimately voted to approve the project. With that, I'll pause and take any questions the board may have.

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

Madam Chair and members of the board, my name is Jeremy Beverly. and community engagement specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. It has completed the community process, was insisted upon a photos meeting for solicited on April 15th with no error raised. Next, the proposal was presented to Wellington-Hill Neighborhood Association. To date, our office has received, has not received any further community feedback at this time, to my knowledge. Thank you for your time.

And then Ramparts of Neighborhood Services would like to devote to the board.

Madam Chair, there are no additional comments.

Okay, does that, may I have a motion?

Motion of approval.

Is there a second?

Second.

Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Betabrasa?

Yes.

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

Thank you very much. Next, we have case BOA 1855366 with the address of 32 Fisher Ave. If the applicant and or their representative are present, would they please explain the case to the court?

Good morning Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Luis Santana with HS Construction Consulting Services. I'm here on behalf of the owner, Karen Maher, on this existing three-family dwelling that we are converting into a four-dwelling unit. We will be seeking relief from five violations. One of them is office street parking. The use itself is not permitted in a three-family zone. We have a slight increase in the floor area ratio. Usable open spaces existing non-conforming and insufficient. And we have insufficient additional lot area. This is a large existing three-family occupying the first, second, and third story. It's an unusual building because this one roof configuration instead of a flat typical three-decker flat roof and is sitting on a 3,101 approximately square feet underside slot. The attic area which is very large because of the height of the hip It has been occupied and was purchased as a finished space when the owner acquired this property many years ago. It appears that it was constructed also many years ago. As part of the scope, since it's a finished already space, we are proposing to slightly modify it as you can see from this plan. the the secondary means of eagerness from the attic space by enlarging the landing of the stairs and also increasing the headroom for the stairs which is just slightly under 6'8 and that small shop dormer as you can see from the section will accomplish the required building called ceiling height for that stair. We are also adding a small rear deck to the property. Very straightforward, these are the only renovations. Everything else is existing. Existing as a two bedroom unit with a kitchen is owner occupied. They will be occupied by the owner of the building. and the relief is minimal we are increasing the far by a fraction of 0.01 and that is the result of increasing the headroom for the stairs to make it compliant the open space also although cited we are not altering that it's almost compliant deficient by about 100 square feet and the lot size which is uh an existing non-conforming narrow small lot for the area is the other deficiency and obviously there is no street parking. This is consistent with the character of the neighborhood. There are several multi-family residences in the area and the work in order to accomplish this conversion is minimal. At this point I would be happy to answer any questions from the board or members of the public. 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 petitioner completed the community process. Our office hosted an abutters meeting on May 11th at which no concerns were raised. The Community Alliance of Mission Hill is supporting this application. With that background, ONS defers judgment to the Board. Thank you.

Madam Chair, there are no additional comments.

That may I have a motion? I'll make a motion for approval. Is there a second? Better Brunson. Mr. Thunbridge?

Yeah.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Tarnum? Yes. Ms. Betabrasa?

Yes.

Ms. Panato?

Yes.

Mr. Collins?

Yes.

Chair votes yes, the motion carries. Thank you Madam Chair, members of the board.

Next we have case VOA 1848595 with the address of 320 Summer Street. This is an article 80 case and if the applicant and or their representative would please explain to the board.

Yes sir. Good morning, Mr. Secretary, Madam Chair, members of the Board, Attorney Joe Hanley, 28 State Street in Boston. Here on behalf of the petitioner, I'll take you through this presentation in front of you very quickly. Next page, our development team, Hanning Capital is the new owner and proponent of this office to residential conversion project. Willie Gao, who is The principal is with us. We're also here with Stantec architects, Erin Hodges. Next slide, just to give you a quick project overview here. This is a fairly significant scale and contributing office to residential conversion project. It's an adaptive reuse of the existing Combined historic structure at 320 summer street. We went through the city of Boston's. Office to residential pilot program and tax abatement and it was noticed by the secretary were approved under article 80 large project review. In May of this year, this is a simple use conversion of you'll see in the plan, right? These are 2 combined buildings that were built around 1900. And they were former Boston worth industrial buildings most recently. Utilized by log me in his office and they've been vacant since the pandemic. So key metrics, the building is approximately 130,907 per square feet within the combined structure. We're proposing 145 new residential units. I think this is the second largest of its type under the pilot program. 2398 square feet of amenity space there's also an existing roof deck on the top of the building that served the office but wasn't fully accessible we're making that accessible and including it into the program for the residents parking and storage is accommodated because of limitations of the building and being it not being able to get into it we're unable to create Parking in the building does occupy most of a lot. However, we have worked with the, the neighborhood knowing we're going to watch it up South station and in the area to include long term bicycle storage and a transit management plan. The units break down 46 studios, 76, 1 bedrooms. And 23, 2 bedrooms very much driven by the challenges of the adaptive reuse within the historic structure. Next. Slide just quickly, obviously key benefits here is taking an asset that. It's non productive and has been vacant since the pandemic creating much needed housing in a walk shed. transit-oriented neighborhood in the four-point section of South Boston. We are proud that 25 of these units will be income-restricted for affordable housing, which is a pretty strong contribution. Obviously, we'll be complying with pilot program sustainability redesign measures, new job creation for construction, and transit management planning. Next slide shows you the existing conditions. Um, as I said, the, uh, the, the total area of the building. Is a little under, uh, 18,000 square feet, just a footprint. A lot is 18, 820. so basically it covers most of a lot. Um, there is some unique conditions here. If you look at this plan up as North, um, there is a drop in grade. The main entrance of the building is on summer street to the South. It's 5 and 6 stories and then as it goes back along a street in the back is what is called sleeper street extension. It goes to 7 and 8 stories. And so along that a street elevation that is lower. We're also introducing 7,500 square feet of retail to activate that street front and contribute to the vibrancy of the area. The next slide shows you the zoning, the change of use, which again is supported by the pilot and the process to residential in this zone. Requires a conditional use for the existing building is nonconforming for is what's required. You will see in the plans that in order to accommodate a good residential conversion, we're including about 8000 square feet of mezzanine. Uh, area for the lot units within the existing building, and that does increase its, but it's not. Beyond the building footprint open space is also existing nonconformity. As I mentioned, we have an existing roof deck that we are now making accessible and obviously we don't have any other really ground level space to create. any significant amount of open space other than some street side cafe area for the retail along A Street. Finally, in the next slide, you will see the zoning code refusal letter. I'll also note that we're in a groundwater conservation overlay district. We have submitted the approved groundwater plans and Boston Water and Sewer sign off for that. Next slide, just have Erin quickly walk you through how these units come together and then we'll hand it back to you Madam Chair. Erin.

Thanks Joe, good overview. The existing facade of the building we are not touching for the most part. There is a few cases at the alley side of the facade that does have historic indication of historic opening that we will be restoring. The main facade on Summer Street and A Street will remain intact. The condition of the existing facade is very well maintained since it was recently occupied by the LogMe office user. And the footprint of this building is quite ideal for a residential conversion project since the dimension of the building widths falls within the ideal widths for a double-loaded residential corridor layout. And in this elevation along Summer Street, you can clearly see now the two building partition with the left and the right division in the middle. The accessibility of the existing office use does not conform with a few accessibility requirements, and we are going back and fixing all of those for the new residential use. Next page, please. This is a sectional diagram reiterating the programmatic uses and the access locations for the building in the long section along Summer Street. In the middle where you see the lobby amenity colored in yellow, that is going to be the main entrance that is consistent with the previous office use. That's where the residents are going to come in, have their lobby amenity, mail, package, and direct accessibility to elevators that will take you to all the floors. And right below this lobby amenity box, you will see the loft units that Joe had mentioned where we're creating the mezzanine levels. Next to those are going to be additional amenity space, including some fitness and cup rooms. And the lowest floor where we had labeled the peach color retail that will have direct access to a street and that will be the frontage for the retail as well to activate that piece of the the sidewalk frontage right under the summer street bridge. For those of you who's familiar with that side that that area needs quite a bit more activation in comparison to current condition. I think that we tell will benefit that neighborhood quite a bit. Then at the very top of this section diagram, you see the roof deck. As of now, no accessibility and we're adding a left or the other residents to be able to access that roof deck. Next page. This is an overview diagram showing you a typical floor layout. So double-loaded corridor with a few jogs, maintaining two existing stairs and two existing elevators, and the rest of the floor plate efficiently gets laid out with units ranging from small studios all the way to two bedrooms. I believe that's the extent of our presentation.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.

All right, thank you. Any questions from the board?

Yes, Mr. Hanley. I was looking at the memo and you filed the letter of intent in April. You filed the letter of intent for this project in April. So I'm just looking at the process and I think this was a very fast process. Yeah, yeah, I mean that's just want to give kudos to a city for moving this fast.

Yeah, I mean that's the idea of the pilot program right here in the in a housing crisis and the administration is. It's been a huge success. You know pro rata. If you look across the board, not just downtown, but in points for point in the like right so. You know, I think speaking for this project in particular, it's such a beautiful building and to sit vacant is really a shame, especially being at the foot of South Station and in such an area with, you know, vibrant neighborhoods, serving retail and jobs and the like. So, yeah, it moved. It moved very quickly and. That is the dividend of the pilot program through article 80 and really appreciate the in the mayor's office. For their leadership and guidance, as well as the South Boston elected officials and the neighborhood activists.

Thank you. And for the article 79, inclusionary development, you have 20%. Including 3%. 17% and then we have a portion of.

of HUD voucher programs. So yeah, the way that breaks down into 25 units with an AMI of approximately 60% of AMI. So, and obviously a blend of ones, two bedrooms, studios commensurate with that. So a pretty big impact. I think the largest one is on Washington Street that they've done, and this would be the second biggest with respect to the number of units. So it could help a lot of people that need

affordable housing all right thank you for the permission thank you any other questions or comments from the board do you do you have a sense of what the units will go for that are um i think the majority are your one bedrooms at 520 average um you mean from the affordability standpoint or just market rate market rate

Um, you know, I think I don't, I think it's it will be commensurate with where the market is now. Right. But with respect to the affordables, for example. You know, in accordance with 60% AMI and 1 pet from be about 1300 a month, which is. A good opportunity, right? And then, you know, we do not have parking. This isn't a full, you know, luxury full service building. It's very, and because of the sizes of the units, which really dictated by the, the uniqueness of the, of the property with inside and how it's put together. We do think this has got to serve the workforce really well. And. you know, is a great location for that. So that pricing, without giving you actual numbers, right, I would say it's not comping with, like, the super luxury places in the area. So it will, from a market rate standpoint, I think it will be more accessible as well.

Okay. I just, you know, you have over 130 units going out to the market. I just... The crisis is on affordability and, you know, the small square footage allows. For a quantity, and hopefully a reduction of price and so I'm sure you did the market analysis and it would have been nice. I understand the affordable part, which is the 29 units you're offering. But I wanted to also get a sense of. Your the market units, what are they going for in this area?

Yeah, I mean, I would suggest we don't just have an affordability crisis. We have a housing crisis across the board. And if we're not creating market rate units, that also burdens other aspects of housing that aren't available for other people to grow in a city that's Diverse with respect to demographics. So there's no question that, you know, as much as we talk about family style housing. There is a huge percentage of younger workers and empty nesters that are over house that are looking for this type of housing. And the bigger the units are, the more you're going to spend in rent.

Yeah, I mean, it's not a very simple question. You must have done that. You must have done the market. I'm just asking what the range is.

Yeah, I mean, it's competitive with base ranges now, right? So I don't know what that is because I'm not the broker. It's not really. But as far as demand goes, I don't think you're going to see a situation where these are going to be vacant. And, you know, we have built a lot of luxury housing on the waterfront. We haven't built a lot of apartments. baseline, really good attainable and reasonably sized market rate housing for rent at a transit node like this. So I think it's a superior product that is gonna be snapped up pretty quickly.

Okay, thank you. Was that Mayor's public testimony?

Yes, Madam Chair, members of the board, Connor Newman with the Mayor's Office and Ombudsman Service. At this time, the Mayor's Office has referred Tom Thresh from this board. I'm sorry, are you guys getting an echo?

Yes, I do. We sure do. All right. Okay, maybe we should go with Councilor Flynn's office first and we can come back to you, Connor.

Hi, my name is Ashley from Councilman's office. Councilman Flynn would like to go on record and support due to a good community process. At the same time, he will continue to work closely with the planning department staff on a home rule petition that would allow for Boston to join other municipalities in Massachusetts on affordable housing preferences for veterans and military families. Moreover, while the proponent and planning department included language to restrict resident parking, and participation in the city's RPP program. It is critical that the Boston Transportation Department and Office of Parking Clerk enforce that policy inclusion on an existing list of Article 80 projects currently maintained by the Parking Clerk. Councilor Flynn 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 Dylan Norris from the Planning Department.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is Dylan Norris. I am a project manager with the Development Review Division of the Planning Department and the project manager for the Article ADB large project before you today. The 320 Summer Street development team filed their project notification form on April 7th, 2026, which was distributed through the South Boston Distribution Lit. The Planning Department also sponsored a virtual public meeting on the 29th of April, 2026. The public meetings were posted on the Planning Department calendar, and email notifications were sent to all subscribers of the South Boston Waterfront Neighborhood email update list. Local elected officials and their staff were also notified of the meetings. The comment period associated with the project notification form closed on May 7th. project was then brought before and approved by the bpda board on may 14th 2026. i'm happy to answer any questions members of the board may have related to the article 80 review process and associated community process thank you

And the chair members of the board corner, new one with the mayor's office of neighborhood services. It's time to refer to the judgment. This board, as you heard from the Boston planning department. This went through their residential to excuse me, office residential conversion process. A small project review involving a public meeting in April 29th. The applicant engaged with the Four Point Neighborhood Association. They had some concerns related to the interior configuration of the building. They had a positive reaction to the outer facade of the building being preserved, and they appreciated the commitment to affordable units there, although they highly encouraged the applicant to make those units be affordable to artists honoring the historic tradition of an artist community in the Fort Point neighborhood since the 1970s. With that information, we'll defer to the board. Thank you.

Next, we have Christian Simonelli. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. Christian Simonelli, Executive Director of Austin Rural Water Trust, and we have both G-card letters from the applicant.

Thank you. We have Mark DeLazio. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the Board.

My name is Mark D'Alasio. I'm a business representative for the North Atlantic States Regional Council of Carpenters. We just want to be on the record as being in full support of this project.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, we don't have additional comments.

Thank you. Any other comments from the applicant? Any other questions or comments from the Board? May I have a motion?

I'll make a motion of approval.

Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge? Yeah. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Betabrasa?

Yes.

Ms. Panato? Yes. Mr. Collins?

Yes.

Chair votes yes, the motion carries.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Next, we have case BOA 1834698 with the address of 47 to 49 Gray Street. If the applicant and or the representative present, will they please explain to the board?

Good morning. My name is Julian Miller. I am the general contractor representing 47 Gray Street LLC. We are currently renovating this single family home. And we've submitted an amendment to our. To add a rear deck off the 1st floor of the existing structure. This rear deck is very much in kind with many of the other decks throughout the neighborhood. And importantly, it's only on the first floor. It is not multiple levels. If you scroll down to page 6, you can see some of the elevations of the building on the bottom right. You can see the rear deck off that first floor, and then the elevation that's directly above it is the elevation facing the rear. We have many letters of support for this rear deck. We also reached out to the Ellis Neighborhood Association, who opted not to review the scope, as it's in keeping with the many other decks currently installed in the neighborhood. We also complied with the GCOD requirement and executed a full proper drainage plan, which was approved by BWIC as part of our projects. And the deck is elevated, it's not on the ground, it's not a patio, therefore it is not impacted as noted by the refusal letter for a flood hazard district.

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

Hello Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is Emma Jones representing the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services. Regarding 47 Gray Street, our office differs to the board's judgment. A community process was conducted including an abutters meeting held on Wednesday, May 13, 2026, that was well attended by south end community members but not much feedback was shared additionally we did receive 16 letters in support and one letter in opposition from direct from a direct abutter of the applicant expressing concerns for privacy the scale of the deck and the ongoing construction that impacted their daily lives the proposal was also connected with the ellis neighborhood association that declined to meet with the proposal and does not provide feedback for residential projects 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 Ashley from City Councilor Flynn.

Thank you. Councilor Flynn would like to go on record in support based on a good community process and no concerns reported by neighbors or the Ellis Neighborhood Association. Thank you.

Next, we have Christian Simonelli.

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board, Christian Simonelli, Executive Director of Boston Groundwater Trust, and we have both G. Carlez from the applicant.

Madam Chair, I just put a comment from a body who was here earlier in the morning. I think she was concerned about the size of the decks.

Thank you. Does the applicant want to just comment on that before we proceed?

Yeah, I would just say the deck only protrudes the facade of the building by eight feet and it does span the full length of the building. Again, this is in kind with many of the adjacent decks and it is only on the first floor. It is not multiple layers levels, excuse me, like many of the other decks in the surrounding neighborhood.

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

Betabrasa, second.

Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Betabrasa?

Yes.

Ms. Panato?

Yes.

Mr. Collins?

Yes.

Chair votes yes.

The motion carries. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the board.

Next, we have case BOA-181-4627 with the address of 97 Salem Street. If the applicant and or their representative are present, would they please explain the case to the court?

Yes, Mr. Stembridge. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the Board, Attorney Derek Small. I have a business address of 51 Dobson Road. With me today is Mr. Eric Luciano, who's the architect for the property. And we have the owners of the property online as well, Mr. Peter Alfay and Mr. Robert Bernardo. Madam Chair, we're here today seeking to change the legal occupancy of the building from retail store and offices to retail store and five residential units. The zoning sub-district here is the Salem Street Neighborhood Shopping District, which allows for the retail on the ground level and the residential units above. The violations, I'll start with building height. We are proposing a building height of 55 feet. The building code requires an elevator, access and rooftop access by way of a head house, which obviously conflicts with the zoning code, which requires by a patch. So we are in line with the mass and scale of the buildings on the site or in the neighborhood along Salem Street. FAR, the required FAR is three. We are proposing 5.2, which is very common in the north end due to the density in the neighborhood. Open space, we are providing a roof deck with 200 square feet of open space, where 250 feet are required, so we're approximately 50 square feet short of open space. Parking, with the five units, we are required for five off-street parking spaces. We are providing zero. However, we are running with transit-oriented parking or development as the site sits approximately two-minute walk to Haymarket T Station and approximately a five-minute walk to North Station. We redesigned the building and we removed the rear yard setback, which was original violation by moving the building in 10 feet to satisfy that violation. I'll turn it over now to Mr. Eric Luciano, who is the architect for the project and he can go through the plans.

So we have the building with a first floor retail component proposed as a bakery that includes, you know, basement storage space as well. Above that we have. Thank you. We have two one bedroom, one bath units. On the level above that, which would be the third floor, we have a floor through three bedroom, one and a half bath unit. And then on the preceding fourth, fifth, and sixth floors, we have back to front units where unit four and unit five are triplexes. There are approximately 1,600 square foot, four bedroom, two and a half baths. And as Derek mentioned, those have their usable open space on the roof. This includes a deck for each unit. We have an elevator head house and then two stair head houses that get to the decks. We are proposing that those would not be included in the building height due to there being under the 330 square foot allowable. So the proposed height of the building should be listed as under 55 feet, which is allowable in the neighborhood, in the area. The structure in the front that is the bay starts at approximately 17 and a half feet above the sidewalk so this should allow for no issues with fire access etc and that protrudes out three feet which also is allowed by a the balcony requirement and not requirement allowable as three and one third feet for balconies. So that would all be within that same code compliance.

And again, Madam Chair, we are at 55 feet with regard to the height. Again, the building code requires us to have the head houses on top for rooftop access for the elevator and for access to the roof. We'll stop there. We can answer any questions that the board may have.

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

Hello, Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is Eva Jones, representing the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services. Regarding 97 Salem Street, our office defers to the board's judgment. A community process was conducted, including an abutters meeting held on 3-26-25 and at 9-29-25. That was well attended by North End community members. The feedback from this meeting was concerns about the size and scale of the project, impacting neighboring buildings, light, and how the development of this project would already affect a small street. Overall, the community was opposed to the proposal. Additionally, we received two letters in support, letting me know that they support the proposal and would be happy to see new neighbors and new businesses on the first floor, and one letter in opposition who expressed the ongoing issues that neighbors have had with the different proposals that have been brought before them, which the community has been opposed every time. The proposal was also reviewed by the North End Waterfront Residents Association at their meeting on 12-11-25, and the association expressed opposition and has provided a formal letter in opposition to submit it to the board. Additionally, the proposal was also reviewed by the North End Waterfront Neighborhood Council at their meeting on November 10th and at their other meeting on December 8th, 2025, and the association has expressed support and has also provided a formal letter in 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.

If I may, Madam Chair.

Now you walk, see if there's any other comments. Okay. Thank you. I'll get back to that. Okay. Okay. Next, we have a Peter Alf.

Yes. So I'm one of the owners. We've been... trying to permit this building for 26 years. We've owned it since 1995. We've had a business next door in the North End since 1990. My partner was born in the North End. We've redrawn this building where we started with 10 units. The latest redraw, we wanted a 10 foot setback. We redrew it and we present it as we are today. We are planning on reopening our bakery that was put out of business by the big dig. It was Biscotti's. My mother, Ann Roberts' mother, used to work there. And we're planning on living on the top two units, two floors. We own Restaurante Uno. Our kids are working at the businesses. So this is more than just an investment for us. It's a place for our families to grow our business and live where we grew up and where my partner's family has been there for 100 years. We've backed over backwards so many times, redesigning. I mean, we are the only people in the North Bend that for 26 years, since 2000, have been trying to put up a building on our property. That was our business. We had an art import and specialty food business that was also put out of business from the big dig. And here we are today. Thank you. Thank you.

Any other public comments? Yes, we have a couple people. Then we have Darlene's. Yes, can you hear me? Yes, you have 90 seconds, please.

My name is darling Romano. I'm in a butter. I live at 90 Salem street. My issue is we haven't seen these plans that they proposed. Every time they come before us, they tell us they're not sure of what they're going to do, but they show us similar of what they want to do. Also, they're going so far back that they are blocking. about four buildings, all their windows are gonna be maybe six feet away from the buildings. So I am opposed to them building this until we can straighten this whole, what the building looks like and come to some type of agreement. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we have David Ubiak.

Yes, can you hear me? Yes, we can. Thank you. My name is David Kubiak, and I am testifying in behalf of the North End Waterfront Residents Association and its opposition to this appeal. The Residents Association had four times with the proponent regarding...

Wait, what?

What is that? I'm sorry, what? Please proceed. Someone was talking over you. Okay. Thank you. The residents association met four times with the proponent regarding redevelopment at 97 Salem street, twice on the original hotel proposal and twice on the current housing proposal. The presentation and discussion was held on December 11th, 2025 for residents. Association members and other North End Waterfront residents. At that meeting, Association members present voted to oppose the project as proposed. We planned then to send a letter to the Board of Appeal, but learned that no appeal had yet been filed. Instead, the association sent its reasons for opposition to the planning department's design review unit by letter dated January 6, 2026. Why? Because we had learned from the proponent at the December 11 meeting that the proponent was working with the planning department on design review. We understand that the proponent then filed an appeal on January 27, 2026. five months later on june 17 2026 we met with the planning department's design review unit and learned that the planning department had no knowledge of the project despite the issuance of a refusal letter and the filing of an appeal many months earlier we understand that the planning department initiated a review of the appeal only after our meeting with them on June 27, a month ago. The Residence Association sent a letter this morning informing the Board of Appeal of its opposition and attaching reasons, as we stated in our letter of January 6 to the Planning Department. While NURA recognizes the potential benefits of improving the existing one-story structure, including additional residential housing units, a more attractive building, and enhancement of the Salem Street corridor. Our opposition is grounded in substantive zoning, urban design, and neighborhood impact concerns that remain unresolved fundamental elements of the current proposal. The reasons include excessive building mass and density, failure to present massing alternatives, impacts on narrow historic and heavily trafficked Salem Street, shadow sunlight and ambient light impacts, and construction impacts. The project is unjustifiably and unreasonably too large. causing greater construction and long-term impacts to historic Salem Street and our residents. I thank the board for this opportunity to testify.

Thank you. Thank you. Madam Chair, we have two more people.

Okay, please try to add new information and keep it brief. Thank you.

The person with the Zoom user or the person with the iPhone. And now there is one more person. If you belong, Yeah, you can go.

My name is Ken Rothman. Yes, you have 90 seconds, sir. Yes, okay, thank you. My name is Ken Rothman. I'm a direct abutter to the property. I own the property at 85 to 95 Salem Street. I want to testify as to support of the project at 97 Salem Street. The owners have been working with me over the past year to mitigate some issues along the side of the building where they had windows originally, and they have removed those, and I believe housing is a very strong need in every community in Boston, especially in the North End. This would add five more units. The property has sat on our street unused and unrented for many years. It does not help the community or Salem Street's merchants or the residents for business development. The first floor will bring new business to Salem Street as first class retail and other shopping options for North End residents. The Salem Street streetscape will also be improved by filling in the open space between 77 and 99 Salem Street. Thank you. Thank you.

Next we have Lisa Tamaro.

yes hi my name is patrick tomorrow i am a owner and occupier of a building on henchman street i have known robert renier and peter alfie for over 30 years i know they're very uh strong businessmen who have been an asset to the neighborhood of the north end for for many many years I don't understand why the project has been hitting roadblocks all along the way because of the need for more housing and apartments in the north end with the lack of opportunities for people to move in. And it's a great neighborhood. They've been part of the neighborhood as business owners for many years. And I'm definitely in full support of this project and still don't understand what the roadblocks have been for 20 something years. I just want to go on record in saying that we've owned the building on Henchman Street for almost 75 years. My grandparents owned it, and it's definitely, I've been an occupier of it for over 30 years, and we definitely need more housing in the north end. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Chair, there is one more person. Okay, last one, please. If the person with the iPhone, now you can unmute yourself.

Hi, my name is Liza Garcia Regneta. I'm one of the owners, my wife to Robert Regneta. I just wanted to say we have made many amendments to our policy. project to appease the neighbors and to develop the area and we just don't understand why we keep getting the opposition that we are getting we've done shadow studies that does not interfere with any lighting to any other properties we've cut back the rear and there's no windows that will be blocked. So I just wanted to put that on record.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, any other feedback from

Attorney school, yes, I just like to say, with regard to. The office of neighborhood services and the support Mr. standards, you should have approximately 30 letters of support in the file as well as a letter from the neighborhood council supporting. The project, I don't know if that was read into the record, or if you have those available, but the development project at the site has been in the works for 15 to 20 years. It's taken many taken on many different forms. We're from 18 units to 10 to 8 to a boutique hotel to now where we are today, which is retail space on the ground level and five residential units. This probably is the least intrusive development project at the site as proposed. While keeping in step and aligned with Boston 2030, With residential goals, we're proposing a modest 5 units. At the site, and in concluding, I just want to say, we are aware of the recommendation. And we will work with them on their providers to to rearrange the head houses. And again, the height of the building is at 55 feet and. We are required to do the head houses as under the building code for a rooftop access. Thank you very much.

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

Madam Chair, I'd like to put forward a motion of approval with the proviso that the project undergoes BPD design review to review the exterior elevation of the building and to also review the penthouse and the locations of the deck, given that it's on a prominent street on Salem Street. it does need some design review on the exterior to kind of work with the character of the street. Okay, is there a second?

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

Yes.

Ms. Betabarraza?

Yes.

Ms. Panato? Yes. Mr. Collins?

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. Have a good day.

Thank you. And with that, I think we are done with the 9.30s, and I will see you at 11.30. Yes.

Thank you, guys. All right.

Thank you.

Present, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Mr. Valencia. Present, Madam Chair. Ms. Turner. Yes, I'm present, Madam Chair. Thank you. Ms. Betarraza.

Yes, present.

Ms. Panato.

Present, Madam Chair.

Mr. Collins. Present, Madam Chair. Excellent, thank you. Back to you, Mr. Stembridge.

Yes, Madam Chair, we'll move on to the rediscussion cases scheduled for 1130. At this time, we'll also ask if there are any requests for withdrawals or deferrals from the 1130 time frame.

Mr. Stanbridge, Attorney Guerrier, appearing before you on behalf of the owners of 26 Birch Street, we've had substantial discussion with the neighborhood and I would like to ask for a brief deferment, if possible.

With that, I'll read the case in verse. which is case VOA 1749423 with the address of 26 Birch Street. Anything else you'd like to say about it, Attorney Guerrero?

Yes, I would just briefly just like to greet Madam Chair and thank you for allowing me to time the last time we met with the Civic Association. I've written to them and I just believe that further discussion would benefit both my client and the board. With that, I'd leave it to the board to make the decision.

Thank you.

Caroline, do we have? September 8th or September 22nd?

Would one of those give you enough time? Yes, September 8th would be perfect, Madam Chair. Okay, with that, may I have a motion?

Motion to defer this case to September 8th.

Is there a second?

Second.

Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Turner?

Yes.

Ms. Barabarraza?

Yes.

Ms. Panato?

Yes.

Mr. Collins?

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries. See you then. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Mr. Stambridge.

You're welcome. And with that, we'll ask again if there are any requests for further withdrawals or deferrals from this time frame. Thank you. Hearing none, then we will move on to case BOA 17947.

with the address of 34 Spring Garden Street.

If the applicant and other representative are present, will they please explain to the board?

yes thank you mr stembridge and good morning once again madam chair members of the board for the record attorney matt eckel from fletcher-tilton on behalf of the applicant we are before you this morning seeking to change the occupancy of the existing structure at 34 spring garden street to a three-family dwelling and to renovate the building including a rear addition The project also includes raising the existing garage, which shifts on the back right of the property and to create two parking spaces at grade beneath the proposed addition. Just by way of brief background, 34 Spring Garden Street is a 3,230 square foot parcel, which is located near the end of the street where it intersects with Harborview Street in Dorchester. Spring Garden Street and the surrounding areas contain mostly residential housing, a mixture between everything from single families all the way up to multifamily residential, and is located less than a quarter of a mile from the JFK UMass MBTA station. The project, as proposed, would create three new residential units, which would be offered for home ownership. Just to briefly walk through the floor plans, the lower level would contain individual storage units, one for each of the three units. It would also include living space for Unit 1, which would have two bedrooms and a bathroom, as well as a family room with rear egress and egress windows. The first floor would contain the upper level of Unit 1, which would have living room, dining room, kitchen, as well as an additional bedroom and bath. The first floor would also have the sprinkler room as well as the main entrance. The second floor would contain Unit 2, which would be a 1,360 square foot unit with two plus bedrooms and two and a half bathrooms. And finally, the third floor will contain Unit 3, which will be approximately 872 square feet with a living room, dining room, kitchen, two baths, and two bedrooms, as well as a rear deck above the addition below. Just to give a little further background, this project went through extensive design review with the abutters. It was carefully designed to largely align with the recently approved project, which was completed directly to the right. And we worked diligently with these abutters on the final design, which led to the kind of extended one-story addition at the second level as opposed to a full three-story addition to preserve a lot of the light and air as well as views. We did meet with both the Columbia Hill, Savin Hill Civic Association Planning Committee, as well as their full membership, both of which voted to support the project. So at this time, I'll happily pause and take any questions the board may have.

Thank you. Are there questions from the board? Hearing none, may I have public testimony? Can you just show the parking, the site plan with parking?

uh if you scroll up mr ambassador the first of the eight pages and that right there too that elevation from the side that shows you the two spaces underneath the building i know that's not the aerial view but it shows you oh they're under the building correct yes any other comments or questions from the board we have public testimony

Madam Chair and Board Members, Siggy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This petitioner has completed the community process. Our office hosted an abutters meeting on December 10th, which was well attended. The feedback from this meeting was concerns about the impact on the parking situation in the neighborhood due to the increase in density. This proposal was reviewed by the Columbia Savin Hill Civic Association. The membership voted 18 in support and 11 in opposition. This group has emailed a letter of support to the board to be added to the file. With that background, ONS defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Next, we have Liam Ramos from Councilor Fitzgerald.

Hello, Madam Chair, members of the board. Liam Ramos from Councilor Fitzgerald's office. The council would like to go on record and support this proposal. Thank you.

Thank you. And there was one remote person, David Freer. I'm not sure if you're looking to speak on this case. If not, there's no additional comments, Madam Chair.

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 maneuverability and access to the rear parking spaces. May I have a second? Second.

Mr. Sunbridge.

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

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

Sorry, I'm unmuted. Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Thank you very much. Next, we have case BOA 181.

4618 with the address of 163 to 165 hillside street if the applicants and or their representative present will they please explain yes thank you mr stembridge madam chair members of the board attorney ryan spitz with adamson morancy business address of 168 8th street first floor south boston uh joining me today is chris mcgugh and chris pro from the development team and the project architect who is eric zackerson The proposal here seeks to convert an existing two family dwelling into a three family dwelling by maintaining the footprint of the building and providing interior layout changes that converts the basement into a unit. The proposal is closely aligned with the city's by right conversion of internal spaces to accessory dwelling units, except that is not owner-occupied. Postle falls within a 2F3000 sub-district, which requires the relief for the proposed forbidden use. Unit 3, approximately 1,150 square feet, will be located in the basement, consisting of a three-bedroom, one-bath kitchen, dining, and living room, not to mention that the basement will be a full walkout in the rear yard. Unit 1, approximately 1,175 square feet located on the first floor, consisting of a three-bedroom, one-bath kitchen, dining, and living room. Unit 2 will be a bi-level unit, approximately 1,900 square feet located on the second and the third floor, consisting of four bedrooms, two bathrooms, dining, kitchen, and living room. The proposal will also contain parking for two vehicles in the rear. We have additional violations for FAR. A 0.9 is required by the code, and this proposal calls for a 1.3, which is much consistent within this neighborhood for a lot size of this size. The proposal is compliant as to the fee, but needs relief as to stories due to the creation of livable space in the basement. Along with the drop in the elevation in the rear yard, the proposal is considered a three story building. open space their code requires 600 square feet per unit and the proposal calls for 396 square feet per unit this type of small lot makes it challenging for any two to three family structure to meet those requirements and lastly we have an off-street parking for design access of the two proposed parking spaces in the rear at this point madam chair i'm going to turn it over to the board for any questions thank you are there any questions from the board hearing none may i follow testimony

Madam Chair and Board Members, Siggy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This petitioner completed the community process. Our office hosted an abutter's meeting on February 19th where one abutter expressed support for the application. Other abutters expressed concerns about abandoned vehicles on the property that they felt were not being addressed. an additional concern about an increase in density as they felt the neighborhood had already undergone an increase in density on nearby parcels the applicant indicated they would work with the abutters to provide them updates on the abandoned vehicle issue the applicant met with the community alliance of mission hill which is supporting this application with that background ons defers judgment to the board thank you next we have tony baez from consular turken

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. Here on behalf of Councillor Durkan, who represents Mission Hill, she'd just like to go on record in support. Obviously, you heard that KMH is also in support. Thank you.

Next, we have Eric Sacrosan.

I believe Eric is the architect.

Oh, yeah. Just in case there are questions. Thank you. Right, so Madam Chair, there are no additional comments.

Okay, may I have a motion? I'll make a motion of approval. Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Betabarraza?

Yes.

Ms. Panato?

Yes.

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

Thank you. Next, we have case BOA 1575425 with the address of 62 L Street.

If the applicant and or the representative present would please expand case to report.

Yes, good afternoon Madam Chair and members of the Board. My name is David Luciano. I'm the applicant and one of the homeowners of 62 L Street, which is a three-family home in South Boston. The plan we're seeking approval for today is to remove an exterior wooden staircase spanning from the top floor, which is our Unit 3, down to the backyard, and replacing this with a 8 foot by 13 foot rear porch off the second level of the rear of the building. seeking a variance cited as insufficient rear yard setback down to the first page of the drawings the next page there um on this uh on this page of the drawing on the left hand side of the screen is a straight on view of the rear of the building the proposed deck is off the second floor with access from the rear interior staircase of the building. The remaining plan drawings are different vantage points, including side views and aerial views of the new and existing structure. This is an aerial view here of the existing structure that will be removed. That's the extent of our plans. It's just the removal of the back staircase and I'll stop there for any questions from the board.

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

Madam Chair and Board Members, Ziggy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This petitioner completed the community process. Our office hosted an initial abutters meeting on April 30th, 2024. A subsequent meeting was held on July 1st, 2024. A third abutters meeting was held on June 24th of 2025. Following this, the proposal was reworked to move from a deck to a balcony, and our office hosted an abutters meeting on the most updated application on June 15th. where there were questions and discussion about the proposal, but no opposition was stated. The City Point Neighborhood Association took no formal position on this iteration of the proposal. And with that background, ONS defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

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

Thank you. Councilor Flynn would like to go on record in support based on a good community process and good faith compromises with neighbors and the City Point Neighborhood Association to remove the roof deck. We respectfully request that the proponent continue to work closely with neighbors during the construction phase. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have Luann.

Yes, good afternoon. Can you hear me? Yes, ma'am. Okay, Luann O'Connor, president of the City Point Neighborhood Association. The community process has been fantastic in giving credit to both the homeowner and the direct abutters. They were able to work together to remove the roof deck, turn it into a porch off of the second floor. So everything worked out well. We are taking no official position because the dates of the deferrals always did not coincide with our official meetings, but the community process was satisfied. Both homeowner and abutters are satisfied. So good to go. Thank you. Thank you.

Any other questions from the board? May I have a motion? May I have a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Betabarraza? Yes. Ms. Panato? Yes. Mr. Collins? Are you on mute, Mr. Collins?

I am sorry about that. Yes.

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

Next, we have case BOA 174-1777 with the address of 183 St. Pataw Street. If the applicant and or their representative are present, would they please explain the case to the board?

Thank you, Mr. Sturbridge. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board, attorney John Polgeni here on behalf of the applicant for 183 St. Patel Street. Joining today is David Freed, the project architect. 183 St. Patel Street, the lot size is 1,997 square feet. Zoning is the St. Patel Street protection area. 183 St. Patel is an existing three-story, four-unit residential building. There's actually kind of two proposals before you, but the proposal before you seeks to change the occupancy of the building from four to five units by the construction of a fourth floor addition to accommodate that new unit. There'll also be an addition on the existing third floor, which will enclose a rear deck and convert it into living space. As part of the new work, a new egress stairway will be constructed on all floors in the rear of the building, which removes a fire escape that is coming down the front of the building currently. The new unit on the fourth floor would be 909 square feet. It's a two-bed, one-and-a-half bath. And it would have access to a roof deck that would be on the front of the building. At this point, I'm going to turn it over to David Fried. He just walked through the plans, and I'm happy to answer any questions once he completes his presentation. Thank you.

Great. Thank you very much, John. We can start on this sheet. Thank you. Basically, there is presently a small deck on the back of this extension here, which we are proposing a two-story addition. So that would increase this from a two-bedroom to a three-bedroom unit and increase the unit size from 805 square feet to 909 square feet. Next slide, please. And then finally, we would add a unit on the fourth floor that would be a two-bedroom unit, about 900 square feet, and then that would have access to a new egress stair in the back, so the building would go from a single means of egress building to a two means of egress, and provide a code-compliant egress for this top floor unit. Next slide, please. As this is in a landmark district, we looked at sight lines from across the street and sculpted the front of the edition so that it would be out of view from the street. Next slide, please. The left drawing is the existing elevation. The right drawing is our proposed elevation. And you can see, aside from this turret, that the rest of this addition would be out of view. Next slide, please. The left side is our existing elevation and the right is our proposed, which shows our addition in the back, the two-story addition, plus our new egress stair. Next slide, please. Existing side elevation. And then the next slide, please, would be proposed. So the addition would be clad in copper, standing seam clad in copper to be consistent with the other rooftop additions in the neighborhood. Next slide, please. And that's the existing other side elevation. Next slide, please. And then the proposed. We can't, because these are party walls, we can't have openings in these walls. And so that's why the elevations are just, are blank. Next slide, please. And then we just have some 3D renderings here of the proposal. And you can see aside from that turret, the rest of the addition would be out of view from the street. Next slide, please. So that's it. Okay. And that wraps up my presentation. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there questions from the board?

So has this gone to the St. Petolf architectural conservation district,

Very good question, Ms. Panato. It actually, David Freed is working with them currently, and we have to get our zoning in order before they'll take a deep dive into it. So we have been working with them with different markups of setting the fourth story back so it's not visible from the street, but that's an ongoing process. So as I stated when I first started the presentation, it's really two presentations, two parts of this, one being the simple rehab of the existing building and the enclosure of the rear porch for the third floor unit that abuts the rear alleyway. And then the other would be the fourth floor addition, which has to go through that. So even if it would be approved today, I would suggest a proviso that will be subject to approval by the Landmarks Commission to answer your question. Okay, thank you. Appreciate it.

Thank you. Other 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 petitioner completed the community process. Our office hosted an abutters meeting on July 28th of 2025, where there was a question about the adherence of the proposal with landmarks district regulations, concern about where the trash is stored. The St. Patel Neighborhood Association is aware of this application and took no formal position. With that background, ONS defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we have Christian Simonelli. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the Board. Christian Simonelli, Executive Director of the Boston Groundwater Trust. And we have both G-card letters from the applicant.

Madam Chair, there are no additional comments.

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

Madam Chair, I'll put forward a motion of approval with a proviso that the project undergoes review by the St. Baltimore Area Architectural Conservation District Commission. Is there a second?

Second.

Mr. Stumbridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

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

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Thank you, everybody. Enjoy your day. Thank you.

Next, we have case BOA 1817120 with the address of 78 Bunker Hill Street. If the applicant and or the representative present, they please explain to the board

Hello, my name is Tim Shannon. I'm an architect here in Charlestown at nine Wall Street. My clients purchased 70 Bunker Hill Street. It's officially a single family, but it was at the time when they bought it. And I mean, I don't know how long it's been an illegal, illegal three family with an illegal basement apartment and three kitchens. So Our plan is to convert, you know, we're coming to zoning here, to convert it to a two-family because it's officially a single. If you look at the existing conditions, it's, you know, there's three kitchens there and, I don't know, four or five bedrooms. It's kind of a mess in there. Our plan is I can put it to a duplex. So, you know, take that basement ground floor on the existing first floor, make one three-bedroom unit, and then the top two floors, the second and third floor, would be another three-bedroom unit. You know, the ground, you know, the lower duplex would be about 1150 net square feet, and the upper unit would be 1280 net square feet. We deferred, actually, because last time, We had put new drawings in from working with the neighbors just to get rid of a roof deck and a small balcony at the second floor level at the, you know, at the L. And there was confusion at ISD. They had said we had another violation. Turns out we had fewer violations. But regardless, we're here asking for relief. You know, we're going to, if you look at the existing proposed elevations, A2, That's what's there now. There's a dormer front back, and that back L has sort of a steep slope roof. What we'd like to do is add on to that L, put another floor there for another bedroom, basically match up to what they did next door at number 80. And then we would be asking for a 10-foot rear deck with a spiral staircase for our egress from the second unit. And that's basically it, I'll leave it to your questions at this point.

All right, thank you. Any questions from the board? Hearing none, we 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 March 10th at which three direct abutters were opposed to the application with concerns about poor conditions of the property and encroachment across the property line by a deck. The applicant's leader worked with the direct abutters to make revisions and our office received a letter from the most direct abutter that their opposition to the proposal had been withdrawn. With that background, ONS defers judgment to the Board. Thank you.

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

Okay, does that mean I have a motion?

Motion to approve with the proviso that plans are reviewed by the planning department. Special attention to size, scales, and contextual nature of the design. And to the proposed dormant.

Thank you. Do I have a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Barabrasa? Yes. Ms. Panato? Yes. Mr. Collins? Yes. Chair votes yes, the motion carries. Thank you, everybody.

Next, we have case BOA 183, 7592 with the address of 3 Moore Street. If the applicant and other representative present, would they please explain?

Yes, Mr. Stembridge, thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the board. Richard Lins on behalf of the petitioner, business address 245 Summer Street in Spotsland. I believe James Christopher is here with us for 686 Architects as well. If we could jump down to maybe slide three. Madam Chair, I'm gonna have to recuse.

Okay, thank you. We're a six member board now.

Thank you. So just a quick overview. This property is located in the Harborview, Warren Heights section of East Boston. It's an existing single-family dwelling on a 5,000-square-foot lot located adjacent to McCollum Highway, directly across the street from the Shepherd School Apartments, a converted old school building, now multifamily housing. Go to the next slide, please. It's just a bird's eye view to give an idea of what the surrounding context looks like. We have Byron Street screen right, McCollum Highway is towards the screen top. Next slide, please. I see the existing building here. Typical lot size for this neighborhood is anywhere from 2,500 to 5,000 square feet. It is located in the EBR3 Zoning Subdistrict, which is the relatively newer sub-district for East Boston for this area. Next slide, please. Just a street view. And again, you can see the multi-family across the street, Shriver School Apartments. Next slide. And again, another view of the street. Next slide, please. So indicating that, again, this is an EBR 3 district, and I'll run through what the zoning issues are that are involved with respect to this particular site. But I'd like to jump to slide 10, please, if we can go to that. So I do include this typically, Madam Chair, when we have a 5,000 square foot lot in an EBR 3 district. With the amendments to Article 53, there is no longer minimum lot size and minimum lot width requirement. This property can be divided into two independent lots, each able to accommodate a three family dwelling with no parking. the total number of units at the end of the day can be a total of six would just require a subdivision the distinction here is that we're proposing a single six unit building which i would point out the board isn't allowed use in the ebr3 district the only limitation is the lot width would have to be in excess of 55 feet again you know having participated in the planning spots and discussions We still don't understand the rationale behind the 55 foot wide lot when you could easily subdivide this into two separate lots and still yield six units and require no parking. We think the single six unit building is a much more efficient design for the site. It certainly allows for a better amount of square footage, it allows us to incorporate a mix of two and three bedroom units. And so we do require relief for two items and I'll review that in a moment. If we could jump down to the proposed plan at slide 13, please. As you can see here, we do meet all of the other setback requirements in the zoning sub-district. The minimum of three feet is required, one-third of lot depth, as well as some of the other regulations include maximum lot coverage, permeable area, as well as building depth maximum. We need all of the dimensional requirements regardless, and as I showed you in the previous slide, we could do the same by simply slicing the lot in half and create two separate three families on each flat independently. Next slide, please. just showing our architectural site plan which does incorporate some of the screening and buffering that we would put in the front of the building as well as illustration of the amount of permeable open space that we would have on the site as well next slide please A quick layout for our floor plans. You can see that on the ground level, we just have a mirrored unit. I believe these are two bed, two bath. We go to the next slide, please. A mix of the two and three bedroom units here as we move up the building to the second and the third level. So this would also be within the height limit that's permitted under Article 53. We don't exceed the 35 foot total. And this is considered zoning-wise a three-story building. Next slide, please. Showing the private roof decks for the upper two levels, or the upper two units located at the third level, and again, also permitted under Article 53 of the Mended Zoning Code. Next slide, please. Building section plan, we don't incorporate any out of the space in the lowest level. Because this site does slope significantly, we do actually step up our foundation as you look towards the back of the property. Next slide, please. Elevations, again, illustrating the slow to the site, and you can see from the front elevation as well. The main entrance and that buffering and landscape would be proposed. And if we jump to slide 21, we have some renderings just to illustrate how it would look in context. And again, this would otherwise be permitted as a right design if there were 60 more inches of frontage. I would point out to the board, and I have raised this previously, and certainly recognize that the code is the code. However, it's very uncommon, especially in neighborhoods like this, to have a lot 55 feet or more, or more than 50 feet, I should say. Typical lot layout is 25 or 50. 55 is almost nonexistent in many of the neighborhoods where this PDR3 distinction applies. I would submit to the board that the difference of whether a lot is 50 feet wide or 55 feet wide really has no practical impact on abutters. Most abutters or most people in the neighborhood wouldn't know the difference between 50 or 55 feet unless you actually measured it. In this particular case, we believe that the impact was negligible. And again, because the code would allow six units total on the site, especially with no parking, we believe that this design, this proposal is a far better layout of the building, much more efficient in the build and certainly for the cost and would make it relatively more inexpensive for the actual overall sale of the units. So I'll pause there and answer any questions from the board, but we believe that this is a product that certainly fits with the spirit and intent of the code for this neighborhood. Thank you.

Are there questions from the board?

Can you talk about the tree canopy on this site? What kind of goes away with this new development?

Yeah, this is a relatively large tree towards the rear of the immediate building. We will do what we can to immediate existing building. We will do what we can to preserve any tree canopy, especially on the rear portion of the site. Any tree that will be removed, Ms. Bonato, we can certainly incorporate into the site. We have plenty of space available towards the rear of the site, but also we would be amenable to street trees and making a contribution of trees, which has done an incredible job of adding tree canopy to the East Boston community. And a lot of our projects find that making that contribution is a worthwhile effort for tree canopy expansion.

Other questions?

I think I just wanted to compliment the deck. I actually think you guys did a really good job comparing the new zoning and what would be allowed under that zoning and the slight variances that you're requesting. I just think you made a very good case why we should provide you relief. Um, my only comment would be. That you have, um, 2 interesting buildings of budding the building. Uh, and and I would just recommend that. Bpd works with you a little bit on the kind of exterior massing. So that is complimentary to your abutting. Um, typologies that's off, but that's that was the only comment that I had.

Any other questions or comments from the board?

Yes, could you please show page number eight? Is that eight? You mean 10 or do you mean eight? I mean the site plan that is all, keep going down, please, to the site plan that is all green. That one. Yeah, so those two boxes to the left and right, it says, Anyway, or anyway, what is that?

Is the window well, right?

I believe so, because there was a slope towards the rear, Mr. Valencia, and I believe James Christopher is on. He can explain that in more detail, but I believe that lower level based upon the way the design of the foundation works that it creates the window well.

Yeah, that's correct, Richie. If you scroll, I believe we have a building section that shows the elevation grade change. The grade rises fairly dramatically. So as we get to the rear of the building, the grade comes up by those first floor windows. So we would install those areaways to allow access. There you go. So you can see that dotted line, which continues the grade at the first floor. So those areaways are just to create egress and light from those rear bedrooms.

Okay, so about the setback from the properties to the left and right. Are those structures going to prevent people from walking and going to the backyard? Because you only have three feet setback from both properties. So is that a structure that I just mentioned? going to prevent people from going to a backyard walking, or how that works? I don't understand this section.

There is not a pedestrian footpath around the building. We've done it in the past where we've incorporated grates into those areaways so that a pedestrian access could be incorporated around the building, or we could try to accommodate it through the building.

So right there, there is no setback, technically, I mean. Inches. One foot or something?

Yes.

Yeah, and I believe this is reviewed for building code compliance and no citations for any of the code issues.

Okay, I'm not sure if my colleagues can provide more ideas about if this is allowed, having just one foot sit back from the left and right.

The area would not be considered a structure, so it would not trigger any setback violation. It would just simply be considered an open area, just a grade separation, grade difference.

So the only way to go to the backyard is through the building. You cannot go around.

I believe that's correct, unless grades are incorporated into the area where. OK.

Thank you.

Okay. May I have public comment?

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 April 1st, which I'm told was not attended by any abutters. This proposal was reviewed by the Harbor View Neighborhood Association. That group has voted three to 11 to oppose this application. With that background, ONS defers judgment to the Board. Thank you.

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

Okay. Any other questions or comments from the Board?

The nature of the opposition, is there any more detail on that?

Mr. Piggy, are you able to address that?

Yes, Ms. Panano, you're talking about, I'm told the upvoters meeting did not have any public comments made at it.

Oh, okay. I thought there was a second.

Oh, yeah. No, my apologies. The civic association has voted three in favor and 11 opposed. No, unfortunately, I don't have additional context as to what their concerns were.

For the chair, I can add some during the civic process. Generally, this has become an issue pretty much throughout East Boston. Anytime it's even projects don't require relief. Off-street parking seems to always be a concern, even though under amended zoning, off-street parking for three units, if we propose that three separate units would not, we would not require an off-street parking. It could accommodate six units under an hazard rights scenario. because the building is being proposed as a single six unit building, the parking requirement does get triggered over three units. And that seemed to be one of the key issues. This particular neighborhood doesn't have a substantial, I guess, dense parking demand. There is adequate on-street parking. We would be closing up an existing curb cut on the site as well.

Okay, thank you. Off of that, I do have a question. Do you know where the nearest bus or train station is?

I do. So the closest, Ms. Turner, the closest bus line is less than two blocks away at Bennington Street. The intersection of Bennington and Moore Street, that is less than two blocks away. Within a four block, four to five block walk is Wood Island T Station, so relatively close to public transit in two particular nodes.

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

Madam Chair, I'd like to put forward a motion, a motion of approval with a proviso, with two provisos. One being that the project undergoes BPD design review, paying special attention to the exterior. In regards to design, and then the 2nd proviso is to have BPD provide input to the architect and the interior layout. So that. The window well is potentially positioned at the rear. Because I, because I do think, given Giovanni's observations, I do think you can actually. locate a little bit, move things in regards to the bathrooms and the kitchen in such a way where the two bedrooms can take advantage of potentially the rear window well. So I just would like for BPD to take a look at that with the architect so it benefits both the potential unit owners and the abutting properties. Thank you.

We can certainly accommodate that.

Yeah, I think so too.

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

Yeah.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes. Ms. Turner?

Yes. Ms. Barabarraza? Yes. Ms. Bonato? Yes. Chair votes yes, the motion carries.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And next, we have two companion cases. The first is case BOA 1482368 with the address of 87 Morris Street. Along with that, we have case BOA 1482374, also with the address of 87 Morris Street. If the applicant and or their representative present, will they please explain to the board?

Yes, thank you again, Mr. Stembridge and Madam Chair, members of the Board. Richard Lins, business address at 245 Summer Street. On behalf of the petitioner, Carolina Linares, this involves the renovation of an existing two-family dwelling on Morris Street. If we can jump down perhaps to slide two or three. So we see the existing condition of two-story building. We are proposing to change the occupancy from two to three units, and the change would involve extending living space into the lowest level basement. This is not located in a flood zone, and sea fraud is not applicable in this particular case based upon its location and the timing of when the application for permit was filed. This is subject to GPOD. We do have the no harm letter and the BWSC letter, and I'm sure Mr. Simonelli will confirm that when given the opportunity. If we could jump down to perhaps slide nine to look at the floor plan and section plan. Maybe just a little bit. So a couple of things I will point out. This sort of appropriate based upon our earlier discussion regarding utility room. You can see that we do incorporate a separately accessible utility room that we access from the exterior of the building. So the entire building would have access to it. I do note that we have some building code matters in the companion case. We are not seeking building code relief. A number of reasons why we have taken some time to get this before the board was to address the number of building code items. So we are no longer interested in seeking any building code relief for the project. We believe this can be accomplished entirely without that relief that was originally being cited by the examiner. Our ceiling height is 7 and a half feet, which is compliant under the code for purposes of establishing appropriate ceiling height for 300 buildings. We certainly will comply with any other requirements, including to the extent a sprinkler needs to be added to this level for purposes of compliance with the. life safety requirements. Because this was filed prior to the implementation, I thought we had all of these cases behind us, but this seems to be the last legacy item that was filed under prior zoning. Most of the violations, if not all of the violations that have been cited by ISD are no longer applicable. And I can run through those briefly for the board. So first is the off-street parking. The change from a two to a three would result in this being a three-unit building that is exempt from the parking requirements under Article 53, amended zoning. I-PON is no longer applicable as the amended zoning has been adopted. There is no longer a minimum block area, and therefore any citation for lot area minimum has been eliminated. The same applies for floor-to-year ratio under amended Article 53. There is no longer a maximum FAR And then the open space requirement that was required under the prior version of Article 53 is no longer applicable under amended Article 53. Those are all the items that we were cited for, but because this is a pre-existing non-conforming structure, any of the new requirements on Article 53, including permeable area, lot coverage, and building floor plate, would not be triggered even under current zoning because this is a pre-existing structure. In essence, Madam Chair, members of the board, this is a GHAD-only case, but we've submitted this simply because of having this already filed with ISD and reviewed, we felt it was appropriate to spring the matter before the board with respect to the conditional use permit on GCOT, but to point out to the board that these remaining items that have been cited are no longer violations on the current amended zoning, so a relatively straightforward proposal. Happy to answer any questions of the board.

Thank you. Is Mr. Hampton here to weigh in?

uh thank you madam chair members of the board jeff hampton city boston planning department um would have been better to weigh in back in 2025 when this first came before the board and all this stuff was applicable um i don't know what to to really say to any of this i mean council's right most of this doesn't even apply anymore uh but this board had deferred them eight times on this so i don't know what you really want me to say in terms of recommendation our recommendation was based on you know uh the submittal that yes it did uh predate the new zoning but that's what our recommendation was done based on and that recommendation hasn't changed in the past nine months so thank you

What about this notion that the living space is below the sea level rise design flood elevation? It seems to be unclear about that.

Yeah. So I looked at our survey indicates we are not in a designated flood zone. And if to the extent and certainly the difference between sea fraud and flood zone, There is a distinction. Not all properties that are outside the flood zone are exempt from CFRAD. CFRAD can find its way into areas that are not necessarily in Flood A or Flood AB. Flood X definitely has CFRAD involved. However, the important distinction is CFROD applicability of Article 25A was only applicable to projects subject to Article 80 prior to amended zoning in East Boston. The amended zoning in East Boston triggered a... an applicability for all projects within CFRAD. So this would still remain exempt because it was filed prior to the implementation of new zoning for East Boston and therefore is not required to comply with CFRAD unless it is an article 80 size project.

Other questions from the board or comments? Hearing none, I'll take public testimony.

Madam Chair and Board members, Ziggy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This petitioner completed the community process. Our office hosted an abutters meeting on August 22nd of 2023, at which I am told no public comments were made. This proposal met with the Maverick Central Neighborhood Association, and that group is supporting this application. With that background, ONS defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Next, we have Kristen Simonelli. Madam Chair, members of the board, Christian Simonelli, Executive Director of the Boston Groundwater Trust, and we have both key card letters from the applicant. Madam Chair, there are no additional comments.

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

Madam Chair, I feel like we should be supporting units, additional units and basement areas for increasing the housing supply. For these reasons, I'm going to put forward a motion of approval.

Is there a second? I'll second. Mr. Stumbridge.

Yeah.

Okay, thank you. Mr. Valencia. Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Betabarraza?

Yes.

Ms. Panato? Yes. Mr. Collins?

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Thank you very much. Have a great day.

Okay. Unless I'm missing anything. Thank you all.

Have a good day.

Have a good day. Have a good one.

Thank you. Have a good day.

Thank you.