Bpda Board of Directors - Regular Meeting

Recording in progress.

Good morning, the City of Boston Zoning Board of Appeal hearing for August 11th, 2026 is now in session. This hearing is being conducted in accordance with the applicable provisions of the open meeting law, including 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 connecting to this hearing is listed on today's hearing agenda, which is posted on the public notices page of the city's website, boxton.gov. Members of the public will enter the virtual hearing as attendees, which means you will not see yourself on the screen, and you will be muted throughout unless administratively unmuted when asked to comment. Board members, applicants, and their attorneys or representatives will participate in the hearing as panelists, and they will appear alongside the presentation materials when speaking. Panelists are strongly encouraged to keep video on while presenting to the board. As with our in-person meetings, comments and support will be followed by comments in opposition. The order of comments is as follows. Elected officials, representatives of elected officials, and members of the public. The Chair may limit the number of people called upon to offer a comment and the time for commenting as time constraints require. For that reason, the Board prefers to hear from members of the public who are most impacted by a project, that is, those individuals who live closest to the project. If you wish to comment on an appeal, please click the raise hand button along the bottom of your screen in the Zoom webinar platform. Click it again and your hand should go down. When the host sees your hand, you will receive a request to unmute yourself. Select yes and you should be able to talk. If you are connected to the hearing by telephone, please press star nine to raise and lower your hand. You must press star six to unmute yourself after you receive the request from the host. Those called upon to comment will be asked to state their name and address first and then can provide their comment. In the interest of time and to ensure that you have enough time to do so, please raise your hand as soon as Mr. Stembridge reads the address into the record. Do not raise your hand before the relevant address is called or the meeting host will not know to call on you at the appropriate time. We ask that you keep your comments brief and all public testimony will be limited to 90 seconds per speaker. Mr. Stembridge.

Good morning, Madam Chair.

Present.

Good morning. Mr. Langham.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Present.

Good morning. Ms. Badarraza? Good morning, Madam Chair. Present. Good morning. Ms. Turner? Is Ms. Turner with us? Ms. Wewell?

Good morning, Madam Chair.

Present. Good morning. Is Ms. Turner with us? Does anyone know? Stephanie or Caroline? She should be, let me try to contact her for a second. Okay, thank you. Because right now without Ms. Turner, we are a five member board.

I think she's here.

Okay, well, let's make sure we're elevating her. Do you see Ms. Turner?

Yeah, she should be...

I apologize, Madam Chair, for having some technical difficulties. I'm here now. Awesome. Thank you. So with that, we are a six-member board, and I will turn it over to Mr. Stembridge.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We'll begin today's hearing with the approval of hearing minutes scheduled for 9.30 a.m. These hearing minutes are from July 28th. I'll make the motion to approve the amendment.

Is there a motion?

I think Mr. Stembridge made the motion to approve, so I'll second.

Okay, Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Langham?

Yes. Ms. Betabarrazzo?

Yes. Ms. Turner?

yes as we will yes chair votes yes the motion carries next we have the extensions scheduled for 9 30 a.m there are six extension cases i will read them all in one after the other

If anyone has any questions regarding them, we can address those to Madam Chair and we'll go from there. First, we have case BOA 1625031 with the address of 26 Lawrence Avenue.

Next, we have case BOA 1450131 with the address of 60 to 70 Geneva Avenue. Next we have case BOA 1526561 with the address of 1015 Hyde Park Avenue. Next we have case BOA 1553455 with the address of 1052 Hyde Park Avenue. Next we have case BOA 1019280 with the address of 1012 Hyde Park Avenue. And finally, we have case BOA 1598752 with the address of 308 Norwell Street. Madam Chair, those are the extensions before us this morning.

Thank you. Are there any questions from the board? May I have a motion to approve the extensions as requested?

Motion to approve the extensions as read.

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

Yes.

Mr. Langham?

Yes.

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

Next, we have a board final opportunity case scheduled for 9.30 a.m. This is case VOA-181-7132 with the address of 18 Dell Avenue. The applicant and or their representative are present. Will they please respond to the board?

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. I'm Nick Landry from DRT. We're the architects for the project. I believe we're also joined by the property owner, Paul Grant. Yes, I'm here. So we're here this morning to request the removal of a proviso that was issued on 18 Dell Avenue. There was a proviso requiring the three parking spaces in the rear of the property have permeable pavers. And if we scroll down, so this project, it's one lot with two buildings on it. So you can see this rendering right here, but the blue building on the left is 16 Della, which has already been approved and constructed. The building on the right is 18 Delab. It has not been constructed yet, but it's the same lot. And so when 16 Delab was approved and constructed, the entire site plan was submitted to Boston Water and Sewer with the stormwater management and the entire parking, all six parking spaces. So that was previously approved. If we scroll down, I think, to the slide after the next one. Go down two slides, please. You can, if we can shift down two pages on the PDF. One more page there. Yeah, so you can see here on the left-hand side, that's the original site plan that was approved by Boston Water and Sewer with all six parking spaces, the stormwater management and the catch basin. And the plan on the right just shows, it's the same plan. It just shows the new building dropped in and tied into those existing utilities. So we're asking for that renewable paper proviso to be removed because the current system has already been designed and approved by Boston Water and Sewer. I think you can stay on that page. Actually, if you go to the last slide, page nine, that also helps to keep going down right there. So you can see here, so the building in yellow along with the site was all approved previously, 16 Del Ave. And then the building next to it, 18 Del Ave, is the property we're here for today.

So just to clarify, so the yellow is part of the previous project that was developed, correct? And so is all that yellow surface, that's where the six parking spaces are?

Correct. Yeah, they're towards the back of the property, yeah.

So it already bridges the two lots?

Correct. Well, it's one lot. It's one full lot with two buildings on it.

Right. So what's the open space for the proposed project?

The open space for the proposed project is 287 feet per unit. So just under 694 feet.

Other questions from the board?

Yeah, yes, um, so, uh, 16. Sorry, I'm like, okay, 16. Um. That's already built. Correct. It's so interesting that Google Earth doesn't have it as a built structure yet. So that was built and along with that was the stormwater system, correct? Correct. So was the chambers, the leaching chambers installed in the driveway?

They were.

Huh?

That's correct.

They are. Okay, great. I think that your request is reasonable, that you had already Boston Water Sewer Commission review the plans and review your mitigation of stormwater runoff. And I don't recall the specificities when this project came in front of the board, whether that detail was given. I'm okay with the removal of the proviso because we already had an agency review that mitigation. Thanks. I don't have any further questions.

Thank you. And yeah, I'm sorry. I wasn't here for that previous presentation and I think you are correct. I don't know that that was specifically described during the presentation.

Thank you. Are there other questions from the board?

The request, the proviso was for permeable, to make the land permeable. Is that correct?

Yes, it was to, it was requiring the applicant to install permeable surface at the three off-street parking space.

Then my next question would be why wasn't that done?

The lot, this was done, the lot, all of this work was already done before the meeting. So we built the building, installed the water infiltration system, the catch basins, all of that was done before the 18 Del Ave meeting. because it was all approved. When we had 16 Del Ave approved, we designed the entire stormwater system knowing that this building would be coming along at some point, but we knew we needed to get a variance for this building. 16 Del Ave we did not need a variance for.

Can I ask when the 18 Del Ave parking was constructed?

So 16 yeah 16 Dell Avenue was constructed in the beginning of 2024 and the driveway was paved in you know late 2024.

So the parking behind 18 Dell Lab was constructed in 2024?

So the driveway and three parking spots the driveway that will be shared between 16 and 18 Was done and three parking spots behind 16 were done. We didn't do the pay.

We didn't do the asphalt line where 18 was going to go because of course we have to excavate that site and we just felt like that would get damaged in the process.

Yeah, I think I'm just trying to backtrack and see because I looked back at the plans that we received for the June meeting and. The buildings both had a label of either existing or proposed. The parking did not, so it was unclear whether that parking was existing or proposed or what the status was. And I also see on a satellite image that the 18 Dell building or parking. Wasn't there April 2026, so that was just so close to the June meeting that I just wonder. you know, the timing of everything and whether when it was constructed and when, you know, you knew you needed to come for the variance for 18 and, you know, that gives the board the ability to place reasonable conditions on it. So just trying to understand one thing kind of happened in sequence.

Yeah, it almost seems like we weren't given the full picture when it was in front of us. And now we're trying to see if it makes sense to just Partial component at the rear to make it permeable when you already have a stormwater. I think the intentions of the board is to preserve open space and to remove the heat island effect that usually tied to promote impermeable surface. But good observation, Katie.

All right, any other questions from the board. Is someone prepared to make a motion?

Madam Chair, I'll make a motion on the pool.

Is there a second?

Betabras is second.

Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Langham? No. Ms. Barbarosa?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? No. Ms. Wheelock?

I'm going to vote yes. I'm a little torn on this one, but ultimately, sometimes I question whether that proviso is appropriate for smaller projects like this one. The permeable pavers need to be maintained and vacuumed out that they remain permeable. And if they're not maintained, they then become... impermeable sorry i think i switched the language so i i'm going to vote yes i probably would have rather seen more opens on this site but just something for us to consider in the future the maintenance that goes into uh pervy's impermeable pavers thank you uh chair votes yes but the motion does not carry is there another motion

Madam Chair, I'll put a motion of denial.

Is there a second?

Second.

Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Langham?

Yes.

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

as we will probably yes and maybe that's another solution here that we're missing and can look at the site fresh chair votes yes the motion carries thank you

Now we'll move on to the hearing schedule for 9.30 a.m. At this point, we'll ask if there are any requests for withdrawals or deferrals from the 9.30 a.m. hearings.

Yes, Mr. Stembridge, this is Attorney Ryan Spitz. Madam Chair, I just want to confirm, is there still a six-member board?

We will be a six-member board today, yes.

Okay, great. So, Mr. Stembridge, 86 Walworth Street, please.

so that means this request is for hboa 178 7126 with the address of 86 walworth street

Would you go ahead and explain this? Yes, thank you, Mr. Stembridge. Madam Chair, members of the board, attorney Ryan Spitz with Adams and Maranci. Business address of 168 H Street, first floor, South Boston. I'm here requesting an administrative deferral to allow my client to be heard in front of a full seven member board.

Okay, we have thanks. We can do September 22nd, October 6th, or October 27th.

Sure, we'll take September 22nd, if that's the earliest date, please.

Yep. Okay, with that, may I have a motion?

Motion to defer till September the 27th.

May I have a second? Second.

Mr. Stembridge. I'm sorry, what was the date again? September 27th.

22nd, sorry. 22nd.

Sorry. Sorry. December 22nd, yes. September 22nd.

Okay, so Mr. Stembridge? Is that a yes?

Yes, that's a yes.

Okay, Mr. Langham?

Yes.

Ms. Barabrasa? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Is we will? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Thank you. Mr. Stembridge, I have one more. 425 East 3rd Street.

So this request is for case VOA 1749425 with the address of 425 East 3rd Street. Would you go ahead and explain and change this?

Thank you, Mr. Stembridge. Madam Chair, members of the board, attorney Ryan Spitz with Adams & Maranci, business address of 168 8th Street, 1st floor, South Boston. We're here requesting an administrative deferral to allow my client to be heard in front of a full seven-member board.

Okay. And of those dates, are those still the same dates available? Yes.

22nd would be fine then, please. Thank you.

Okay. May I have a motion?

Motion to defer until September the 22nd.

Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge?

Yeah.

Mr. Langham?

Yes.

Ms. Betabraza? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Wewell? Yes. Chair votes yes, the motion carries.

Thank you.

I, we have a note on another one, but I'll ask if anyone has any further requests for which are all deferral.

Hello, hi, I'm the owner of 121 R River Street. I would be requesting a deferral at this time.

So this is for case BOA 1782691 with the address of 121 River Street. Would you go ahead and explain, please?

Yes, I'd like to request a referral as we've made some minor tweaks to the plans. So we'll need to re-advertise for the public.

Okay, and next, what are the dates, Caroline? We could do September 22nd, October 6th, or October 27th.

September 27th, 22nd works well for us.

Okay, with that, may I have a motion?

Motion to defer this case until September 22nd.

Is there a second?

Second.

Mr. Stembridge?

Yeah.

Mr. Langham?

Yes.

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

Thank you.

Any further requests for withdrawal to deferral from the 9.30 a.m. hearing? Hearing none, we'll move on to the first case, which is case DOA 1851830. with the address of 415-415A Hanover Street. If the applicant and or their representative would please explain to the board.

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. On behalf of my name is . Ristorante Lucio respectfully submits this proposal to the Zoning Board of Appeal requesting approval for seasonal outdoor seating at Fort 15 Hanover Street in Boston's North End. The proposed patio would operate annually from May 1st through October 31st and is the same outdoor seating area. that has been in place and operating since 2020 on private property. The patio has become an established and valued extension of the restaurant and proposed seating would allow Ristorante Lucia to continue its operation in a consistent manner. Thank you.

Thank you. Any questions from the board? 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 415 to 415A Hanover Street, our office defers to the board's judgment as our office does not conduct a community process on this type of proposal and we were informed that the patio is existing and we are unaware of any concerns related to this proposal. Again, 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 Gabriela Ramirez from Councilor Coleta's office.

Thank you.

Good morning Madam Chairman.

Gabriela Ramirez here on behalf of Boston City Councilor Gabriela Coleta Zapata's office. At this time the councilor would like to go on the record in support of this proposal.

Thank you. Thank you.

Are there any other raised hands?

Sorry, Madam Chair. There are no additional comments.

Okay. May I have a motion? Motion.

Go ahead, Eddie.

Motion to approve. May I have a second?

Second.

Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Langham?

Yes.

Ms. Betabrasa? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Lewell? Yes. Chair votes yes, the motion carries.

Thank you very much. Next, we have two companion cases. The first is case BOA-184-9656 with the address of 35 Braddock Park. Along with that, we have, there is case BOA-185-5050. but also with the address of 35 Friday Park. If the applicants and or their representative were present, then please explain the case report.

Yes, thank you. Mr. Stembridge. Good afternoon. Madam chair members of the board. My name is Justin Burns. I'm an attorney with Puccini and Norton business address 10 Forbes road, Braintree, Massachusetts. I'm here on behalf of the proponents for the 35 Braddock street product project. Samuel and Lauren made off with me today is John Paul, Jeannie managing partner of Virginia Norton as well as Chris worldly of Chris worldly design project architects. He'll be walking us through the plans. Sam and Lauren are South Bend residents currently living at 15 Braddock Park. Both are doctors with Lauren working at Children's and Sam working at the Baptist, so both working in the city. They purchased the existing single-family townhome at 35 Braddock Park with the intent of renovating it so they could stay in the neighborhood that they've loved for so long while providing additional space for their family. The proposal includes a preservation repointing of the front and rear facades, interior renovations, the creation of a green roof deck, and the construction of a detached carport with a green sitting area directly above. I want to note that this proposal has appeared before the South End Landmarks District Commission and has received approval for all work within the commission's purview. With that, I will pass it over to Chris to go over the plans in a little bit more detail, and I'm happy to answer any questions at the end of his presentation. Thank you.

Good morning everyone. Thank you for having us. Just to orient you to the plan quickly, the Braddock Parks street is to your page right with the rear alley public alley to page left. 33 Braddock Park is on the page at the top of the page with 37 Braddock Park, the adjacent unit at the bottom of the page. This is a five story renovation. It's all contained in the existing perimeter of the building, indicated by the thicker light gray lines, including bedrooms for the Madoff's children, primary living space on the first and second floor, as well as a roof deck on top. So everything is contained in the existing footprint for the renovations of the project. And then in the rear, um the because that garden level that first floor is one level below the the street level there's a sunken terrace and green space at that level with the elevation of the rear alley a half level of that so in this section you can kind of see sort of the the elevation changes that we're working with to maintain access of the garage for the cars both and then access to Get up to the first level of Braddock Park Street level as well as the garden level, tie and bolt together. The structure in the back that you're seeing there is held back from the property line by one foot, which is consistent with other neighbors on the street and sort of pause here and take a look. This is a rendering looking down that alley to the garage piece, which will house one car, trash storage bicycles the owners mostly bicycle to work and back rather than use their car and we really want to emphasize that this is a green space above that garage that sort of ties in and connects to the southwest corner which is where we're standing the perspective of this view and with that um okay thank you any questions from the board

Hearing none, may I have public testimony?

Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Siggy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This petitioner completed the community process. Our office hosted a well-attended abutters meeting on June 11th, where abutters were enthusiastically supportive of the proposal.

Okay, next we have Kristen Simonelli. Yeah, we couldn't hear you, Siggy, the rest of what you said, just FYI.

okay my apologies uh our office defers judgment to the board there was a well-attended butters meeting on june 11th where butters were supportive of the application we don't have anything further thank you good morning madam chair members of the boy christian simonelli boston groundwater trusts and we have both g card letters from the applicant thank you thank you from gonzalez office

Good morning, my name is Meg Leavitt from Councillor Flynn's office. Councillor Flynn would like to go on record in support based on no concerns expressed by neighbors and the Cosmopolitan Neighborhood Association. He respectfully requests that the proponent work closely with the community on any quality of life issues during the construction phase. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have somebody from the attendance section. Scott Romy. Let's go, if you can unmute yourself now. Okay. If not, then we have Ken.

Ken Crokemeyer? Yes, Ken, yes. Good morning, members of the board. I've lived on this alley for 59 years. I would like to say that I have not yet met a neighbor who is opposed to this project. I fully support it. And I would note that there is another garage sharing the alley from a house on Braddock Park that also goes back to the alley itself and has been in there since the 1800s. There are two other roofed carports with green roofs that are enjoyed by the neighbors because they are green rather than looking at the cars that are underneath them. And so I think this is a very appropriate addition to the alley and to 35 Braddock Park. I note that the purpose of The Zoning Board of Appeals is to care about the safety and utility for owners, for the neighbors, and for the city. And I think this project meets all of those expectations. Thank you.

Thank you. Chair, we have no additional comments.

Okay. Any other questions from the board? Hearing none, may I have a motion?

Motion to approve.

Is there a second? Mr. Stembridge.

You're mute. I'll try it again. Yes.

Thank you. Mr. Langham.

Yes.

Ms. Betabraza. Yes. Ms. Turner.

Yes.

Ms. Wewell. Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck, sir.

Thank you, everybody.

To The next two cases have been deferred. So that will take us to case VOA-182-5854 with the address of 57 Mount Vernon Street. If the applicant and or the representative are present, will they please explain the case to the board?

Is this, do you see anyone for not running?

I just promote somebody. Okay. The person with the Z is, did I just promote it? I'm not sure if you are presenting for this project.

Yes, I, no, I'm not presenting for this address.

Oh, sorry. So then, I don't see the applicant, so.

Okay, let's keep going then.

Okay, with that, we'll move on to case VOA-183-5605 with the address of 10 North Hampton Street. If the applicant and or the representative are present, will they explain?

Yes, thank you, Mr. Stembridge. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is George Maranci. I'm an attorney with the business address of 350 West Broadway in South Boston, and I represent Enterprise Holdings Inc., better known as Enterprise Rent-A-Car. This application seeks a conditional use permit to convert the existing building at 10 North Hampton Street in the Newmarket District from office use to a rental agency for motor vehicles to be operated by Enterprise Rent-A-Car. The project calls for interior renovations only with no expansion of the building. The proposed use requires a conditional use permit under Article 50. This site sits at the corner of North Hampton Street and Fellows Street. It is just over 13,300 square feet and lies within the Newmarket Industrial Development Area under the Roxbury neighborhood district. It consists of a one-story building on the southeast corner and a paved asphalt lot for the remainder of the parcel. The site is also urban renewal parcel 44 within the south end urban renewal plan area, which carries no additional use or dimensional restrictions beyond the base zoning. Prior uses of this location include a service station, a repair garage, open air parking for 47 vehicles, conference center for healthcare workers union, all before its most recent use as an office building. Rental car agency is, if anything, a lower intensity use. than several of those prior uses it does not involve fuel dispensing or vehicle repair operations on site it is in character closely related to the open air parking use this parcel has already accommodated for decades article 50 governs the performance standards applicable to all uses within the new market ida section 50-31 sets clear objective limits on uses within the sub-district or rental car agency conducting vehicle check-in checkout and administrative operations from an existing building generates none of the ill effects recited in and prescribed by section 50-31. The surrounding area context supports the granting of the conditional use permit. This stretch of North Hampton Street is, by the planning department's own description and its recommendation to the board, a mixture of manufacturing, residential, institutional, and commercial uses. A rental car agency is entirely consistent with that mix and introduces no new category of impact to the neighborhood. the planning department has reviewed the application and issued a recommendation of approval concluding that the project will have minimal impact on the surrounding area and that it is limited to an exalt alteration excuse me of the existing building and satisfies the conditions for a conditional use permit under section 6-3 as the article 6 standards themselves on good grounds we assert that the use will not be injurious to the neighborhood given its low intensity administrative character and the site's own history of higher intensity automotive uses. It's in harmony with the general purpose of the new market IDA, which contemplates a working mix of commercial and light industrial activity and will not overload the site or surrounding infrastructure since the building and water being used as they exist today with no expansion or alteration. Finally, the identity of the operator is worth the board's attention. This is Enterprise Rent-A-Car. It's one of the largest and most established vehicle rental operators in the world with decades of experience operating branch locations in mixed commercial and urban settings exactly of this kind. For the foregoing reasons, we would respectfully request that the Board grant the requested conditional use permit. I'd be happy to take any questions or comments from the Board.

Thank you. Any questions from the Board? Hearing none, we have public testimony.

Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Benberry. I'm the Roxbury Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process, which consisted of an office of neighborhood services notification flyer, notifying the voters of the proponent's intent. To date, our office has not received any community feedback on the proponent and completed the community process. Thank you for your time, and the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services would like to defer to the board for their judgment.

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

May I have a motion?

Motion to approve.

May I have a second? Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Langham?

Yes.

Ms. Betarraza? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Wewell? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck. Thank you. Have a good day.

Madam Chair, I need to recuse myself from the next case.

I will read it in and then return after we go through. Thank you.

So this will take us to a five-member board, and this will be for case BOA 18201. 3-6 with the address of 10-13 Harrison Avenue. If the applicant and or their representative are present, will they please explain the case to the board?

Yes. Hi, good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. Paul Momney with Gloucester Stores, 1 Post Office Square. Oh, sorry. My bad. on behalf of franklin uh the former bedroom franklin institute of technology down on his fc tech uh we're seeking conditional use permit for open air and educational uses at 1013 harrison avenue and nubian square um stephanie or jesus do you have our we prepared a powerpoint presentation i've submitted yes thank you So if you could progress to slide two, please. So we will make this as quick as possible. So FC Tech was founded in 1908 with proceeds of Benjamin Franklin's bequest to the city of Boston with a mission on educating working students, preparing them for careers in the workforce. For over a century, FC Tech was located at its south end campus on 41 Berkeley Street. But in January of 2026, the school relocated to a new campus at 1011 Harrison Avenue in Nubian Square, in which FC Tech made a significant investment in the neighborhood through construction of a brand new school building.

Next slide, please.

In connection with construction of the new campus, the board granted necessary dimensional relief and a conditional use permit for college and educational uses at 1011 Harrison Avenue, which I'll refer to in this presentation as Lot 1. The school owns the adjacent parcel at 1013 Harrison Avenue, Lot 2, which during the course of construction was used for staging and material storage. Construction is completed and the site has now been sort of hardscaped to its current condition but is otherwise vacant. The, although the future use of lot two is still undetermined, FC Tech would like to utilize this open space for open area educational uses ancillary to the adjacent college parcel. And thus in February, 2026 filed a conditional use permit application for college educational uses on lot two.

Both sites are located in the Nubian Square ADA within the Roxbury neighborhood district. And no permanent structures for site work are proposed for the site. In fact, no work is going to be required to do the open-air educational uses, which we'll describe in a minute.

We received letters of support from Councilor Culpepper and Santana, and we held a public hearing with the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services, which was well attended and which did not result in concerns from the community. So I'll briefly orient the board to the site. You can pause on that site plan there. One page up, please. Thank you. So so just to orient you to the proposed uses, you'll see on the left side of the plan. That's a lot. 1, which is the existing school building. Lot 2 is on the right.

It's really comprised of 3 main areas.

There is the. which is outlined in green, where there are 10 parking spots. This is not ancillary parking for the school, but rather vehicular storage for the school's automotive program. And there will be some outdoor educational opportunities on the vehicles in the corral. That's a fenced corral. You'll see there's a paved area that's sort of to the right of the corral where vehicles enter the corral.

That's the proposed path of travel is shown in yellow there.

And then sort of to the north of those two areas is the open space educational area where some of the uses that Kevin Hender from FC Tech will describe in a minute. So with that background, I will hand it over to Kevin Heppner, who is the CFO of FC Tech, who will walk through some of the uses and the vision for this space on behalf of the school.

Good morning, everyone. Thank you so much for your time. If you could advance to the next slide, please. So these pictures show you what the lot looks like currently. The top left is the car storage corral. This is where we store cars. These are cars either waiting to be repaired by community members, but mostly these are cars that are donated to the program to be used by students to learn auto repair techniques. And the lower right picture shows the lot in its current condition. Next slide, please. Thank you. So what are we proposing to use? What we find is we need outdoor space to augment programs that actually happen within our labs. We have clean energy labs and so students are learning and experimenting with wind, wind generation. and solar installations. These are utilized by our HVAC programs and practical electricity programs. So this site will give us the space needed to experiment with erecting and taking down these types of installations in a real world outside scenario. We also need space for our robotics program to program and test programming of our robots you see in the picture our robot pet dog so that they can learn to navigate and be programmed to navigate various terrains and so the other piece we already talked about which is the storage for up to 10 vehicles for the auto program we also have a virtual reality program where we program virtual reality of goggles, and so this gives open space for people using the virtual reality installation. The popular one is virtual reality for working on wind generation windmills, so it feels like you're actually climbing up a tower, et cetera. And then it also provides us temporary outdoor space for events. Next slide. So we hold, you know, during nice weather, these photos are from our Southend location where we hold lots of outdoor events, especially our admissions program and our student affairs program, barbecues for students, supporting recruitment and retention events, graduation ceremonies and receptions, and then orientation space for student activities in the summer months. Next slide. So benefits of improved and active use of 1013 Harrison Ave. Accessible to all students and faculty and directly is adjacent to our campus at 1011 Harrison Ave. We don't see any adverse neighborhood effects. It replaces the vacant lot with a secured educational use purpose. Well maintained. The site is secured by new fencing. No serious vehicle or pedestrian hazard across through an open existing curb cut with a locking and control gate with very little vehicle traffic except for the cars we spoke about. The property is professionally managed. We have security cameras that provide site lines to the property by our security staff within the building. And so there's good security of the site. It provides facilities for open air learning, secure storage for our automotive life vehicles. And again, it's a fenced lot with gates. Parking is for program vehicles only. It will not be used for staff or student parking. Next slide, please. Here's some kind of examples of how we see using the space. The top space is what we call our career exploration day where we bring high school students in and they can see various activities and participating activities in the area of interest so you can see a small solar array some heat pumps etc and then the lower picture is how we envision if we were going to use the space for events that you would have to tap etc and that concludes my presentation thank you any questions from the board

May I have public testimony?

Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Benbury. I am the Roxbury Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process, which is concluded in the abutters meeting facilitated on May 28th. During the meeting, abutters questions and inquiries were addressed and no concerns to opposition were raised. Following the abutters meeting, our office determined that no further community process was required. If we have time, the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services would like to defer to the board for their judgment.

Thank you. Next we have Camille Platt-Dacosta.

Good morning Madam Chair, Members of the Board. My name is Camille Platt-Dacosta. I am the Boston Planning Department Project Manager for the aforementioned project at 1013 Harrison Avenue. Very quickly wanted to say the Planning Department approved the project in December of 2021 and we are in support of the request. Thank you.

Madam Chair, we don't have additional comments.

With that, may I have a motion? Madam Chair, I'd like to perform a motion of approval. Madam Chair, I'd like to perform a motion of approval. Madam Chair, I'd like to perform a motion of approval.

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

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

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

Madam Chair, I'd like to perform a motion of approval. Madam Chair, I'd like to perform a motion of approval. Madam Chair, I'd like to perform a motion of approval. Madam Chair, I'd like to perform a motion of approval. Madam Chair, I'd like to perform a motion of approval. Madam Chair, 177-4508 with the address of 37 Kimball Street. Along with that, we have case BOA 177-4510 with the address of 39 Kimball Street. If the applicants and or their representative present, will they please explain the case as to record?

Oops. Share my screen.

So we're using whatever you provided? Yep.

Meaning we're not sharing your screen? OK.

Thank you.

All right, good morning, Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is Zachary Schmalz, property owner of 37 Kimball Street. Seeking relief on the maximum allowable curb cut of 20 feet without special permitting. And this right now is basically the existing site plan that you see. Kimball Street on the north top side of the page is parking. There's parking allowable on Kimball Street. On the sidewalks, I'm sorry, on the curves themselves for open use, the Orca Field is a one-way, no parking allowed. That is the entrance to our building. This right here is the proposed plan, essentially showing the extension of the curb cut off of Orcafield Street to a dimension a little bit obviously greater than 20 feet, but not necessarily the full width of the property, just to allow for parking to be taken off of Kimball Street and relocated to our private property. There was another slide that I have that doesn't, I don't know if it made it in here, but just to kind of orient everyone on the call, Kimball Street, like I mentioned, has parking allowable on two sides, but one side is not prohibited from eight to six. Monday through Friday. There are businesses in the area which have overflow of parking that do not fit in their respective parking lots and Kimball Street essentially gets more populated, more densely populated with on-street parking. Myself and residents are part of that equation and so with this Widening, it allows us to essentially just access the lot a little bit more easily. We do have more than one vehicle per unit per owner. There are six owners total. And Orcafield Street right now, there's two foot sidewalks on either side. of the street for pedestrian use. I'd say 75% of entire Orcafield Street sidewalks are deteriorating or unobstructable based off of lighting poles, telephone poles, vegetation, trash debris, things of that nature. we would be essentially it would be a betterment in my opinion not only to our property but the public right away to have at least this 60 foot section approximately become a new condition with you know concrete the appropriate you know percent slope and everything to make sure that it can be utilized Um, as a path of, of, of travel for pedestrians, most of the time, they're honestly walking in the street to get up and down the area, which I know is not necessarily an issue of this boards, but it is something that we deal with. uh dandy out and you know we're just trying to do right by the property and and improve the property if i could say that um and if this is just a small start uh to that you know that i think this will be beneficial for the street and for the neighborhood so can you explain why you need so much width Yeah, that curb cut it that you see on the screen there. It's, you know, essentially 10 feet clear. We exit and enter the one way is going. If you were looking at the plan there, the one way arrow is going towards the left. um of the page so that's the flow of traffic um it's difficult myself i'm okay but a lot of times we're hopping the curb to maneuver the cars in the way that they're shown diagram sorry excuse me diagrammatically there is the best way to park in this lot of having the the length of the cars go north to south so therefore we're constantly backing out into orcafield street and then going up the road to get the Dorchester Ave. So extending that allows us a better maneuverability of getting cars in and out. And that's primarily the reason.

Questions from the board? Do you have a question? What's the current parking situation on that street? And with this curb cut, how many off-street parking or on-street parking spaces will it be taking away? Thank you.

Hi. The parking on Kimball Street, well, I'll start with the second part of that question. There will be about five, I'd say, spaces or four or five vehicles that would come off of Orca Field and surrounding neighborhoods. And then the conditions of Kimball, it's wide enough for two-way traffic. However, at night or after 6 p.m., parking is allowed on both sides of Kimball. However, to allow for two-way traffic and manage this, we're sandwiched in between two one-way streets. Kimball Street is a two-way, I guess you could say, width-wise, dimensionally-wise. Orcafield and the other street to the north of Kimball are both one-way streets, so no parking on either of those. The nearest part of on-street parking is Dorchester Ave. So between the hours of 8 a.m. or sorry, 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., one side of Kimball becomes off limits for parking. So that one side gets overpopulated pretty quickly and you're really not able to find parking until work hours, normal business hours close for the day.

And is it the side that you're on that is restricted in the day or the opposite side?

The opposite side. Orcafield Street does not have any parking on the street permitted on either side of the street whatsoever.

And it looks like, are you creating six spaces?

We have six spaces where the next page shows just, you know, tandemly putting cars in line of each other and showing, doubling the spaces to 12. Or the allowable, I guess you could allowable 12, but we would, it's kind of spied. We have some owners that have more than a vehicle, others do not. So we probably- How many units in total are there in year two, 37 to 39? Six units total, three in each.

Three in three, okay. Other questions from the board?

Ben Shear, if the Planning Department is available, I'd like to hear their recommendation.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Stembridge. Good morning, everybody. Jeff Hampton, City of Boston Planning Department. We recommended straight denial on this appeal. If you look at just the sheer paving in the massive curb cut that they're asking. We think that this is an excessive ask. We understand that the neighborhoods are looking for more parking for these proposed projects, but when you look at the paving that has been done and the lack of open space, the number of cars that are in a tandem spot without really any sort of maneuverability in that area, we're going on the record as a straight denial from us.

Thank you. Am I allowed to comment?

I just want to see if there are any other questions or comments from the Board. Okay, so let's take public testimony and we'll circle back to the applicant.

Hello, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Eva Jones, representing the Mayor's Office and Neighborhood Services. Regarding 37 and 39 Kimball, our office differs to the board's judgment. A community process was conducted, including an abutters meeting held on 6-8-26 that was well attended by the Dorchester community. The feedback from this meeting was supportive regarding the proposal where community members expressed the heightened pressure of parking on residents and welcomed the project that would take even a few cars off of the street. The proposal was not in any catchment in the area of any civic association and was not asked to meet with any for that reason. 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 Liam Riemus from Councilor Fitzgerald's office. Hello, Madam Chair, members of the Board. Liam Riemus from Councilor Fitzgerald's office. The Councilor would like to go on record in support of this proposal. Thank you. Madam Chair, we don't have additional hints for the second one.

Okay, so we'll circle back to the applicant.

Yeah, just to follow up on the denial recommendation from the planning department. This property was, it's a single property now. However, the previous board in the 2019 era or 2018, somewhere in that neighborhood, this project was presented before the board for approval. As you can clearly see this on the handout I had that showed the two properties side by side. One of the properties on the right was an existing two-story house. There was a vacant lot on the left side, which is the building that we inhabit now. the amount of work or surface area that was created in support of that project i think created this condition and i don't know what um what actions were taken to challenge a project of this magnitude at that time being presented for approval without modifying the existing curb to enter and exit the property For my opinion, that curb cut that we're using today has not changed since there was people living in 39 Kimball Street when 37 was still a vacant lot. So we're dealing with this now. And I imagine that there's been a lot that's changed both personnel and policy wise between now and 2019. However, I believe that this is not degrading the area at all. We do have a catch basin that I'll make a point to mention. There's a catch basin in our parking lot, so water runoff is not an issue. There's probably one or two catch basins on Orcafield Street that are at the very far end where it intersects Freeport Street, and that's it. So we're contained for lack of a better purpose on what we need to talk about here, but I just wanted to kind of put that on the table as well for the board's consideration. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there other questions from the board? Hearing none, is there a motion?

Madam Chair, I agree with the Planning Department's assessment. I think that the curb cut request is accepted and I think it makes sense, you know, whatever was approved before, the amount of paving to access the six parking stalls. with this curb cut, you're kind of asking for double the amount of parking and I can't support that and just for safety and circulation concerns. So I'll vote no and no denial.

Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge.

I'm gonna vote no. I would hope that they reduce the size of the parking of the curb cut, but that's another story, obviously. So I'll just vote no for none.

Mr. Langham.

Yes.

Ms. Betabraza.

Yes.

Ms. Turner. Yes. Ms. Wewell.

Yes.

Chair votes yes, the motion carries.

Okay, next we have, the next case was deferred. So that takes us to...

Sorry, can we put a date for that? Can we do something for the 22nd? For what? Or 2-1-3, 2-2-1 voted?

The one that was deferred, it was skipped. That's fine.

Sorry, Madam Chair. The next case has been deferred, but we need a date to defer to.

So we can put it on for September 22nd.

Okay, may I have a motion?

Motion to defer to September 22nd.

Is there a second? Mr. Stembridge.

Yes.

Mr. Langham.

Yes.

Ms. Betabarraza. Yes. Ms. Turner.

Yes.

Ms. Wewell.

Yes.

Chair votes yes, the motion carries.

Now we'll move on to case BOA 1828690 with the address of 472 Ashmont Street. If the applicants and or the representative present, would they please explain the case report?

Thank you. Mr. Secretary. Good morning. Madam chair members of the board. My name is James Christopher. 686 architects. With the business address of 10 floors road and brain tree mass. I'm here today on behalf of Brendan Hussey, the owner of 472 Ashmont street. The proposal from before you is to construct a rear garage attached and change occupancy from two units to three units. It bears mentioning that at the start of this project, just prior to the owner engaging me, there was an existing detached garage here that was torn down because it was at the end of its life. That's why this is being proposed as a new structure. Uh, Mr ambassador, if you scroll to the drawings. Thank you. There's no change to the existing building. So we'll be constructing a 22 by 26 rear garage. Oversized 2 car garage. The curb cut will remain as it is largely the violations of pre existing non conformance is including. Front yard side yard, rear yard and. which we are worsening the FAR from .77 to a .99. Next slide, please. This is the proposed floor plan. As you can see, we would have a two-car garage at grade. The common curb cover will remain where it is. There'll be a stairwell accessed off of the garage that leads to a common mechanical space with a sprinkler room below. Next slide, please. And then the unit itself is a 811 square foot two bedroom unit. It's pretty traditional above garage unit. And then you can see our roof plan on the left here. Next slide, please. There's the new garage roof to the rear. You can see the relationship of the attachment, maintaining the existing lines. Next slide, please. And then this is the building in elevation. This is the building along Garner Road, which is the side elevations, the right side when facing the building. You can see the relationship of the building to the existing structure here and the new garage doors. Next slide. This is the opposite side, rear elevations. And with that, we'll answer any questions. Thank you. Are there questions from the board?

Madam Chair, I have a question. So I see the elevation with the garage doors, but I think on the survey I reviewed, I didn't see how that access would work. I think it's on the landscaping survey, but not the official plot plan. Could you take us through the access to this unit?

To the parking or pedestrian? Uh, parking, the curb cut doesn't change if you go to the, you can go to the proposed survey or the existing. There's an existing curb cut there is there was a, um. Uh, previously a garage there, so we're able to maintain the existing curb cuts. Mr ambassador, if you could go to the survey. So you can see the existing curb cuts here, which exist and will remain. And that's the vehicular access to the driveway there.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions from the board?

Yeah, I was able to read the Boston Planning Department's recommendation and I find the proposal very modest. They do set it back a little bit. In regards to the massing, the height seems to be within the zoning below 35. I really don't see any issue. Thank you.

Yeah, I saw that comment as well. Thank you. We're happy to work with the BPD on the design comments. I think we can satisfy the concerns.

Let's take public testimony. Hello, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Emma Jones. I'm representing the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services. We're running 472 Ashpond Street. Our office defers to the board's judgment. A community process was conducted, including an abutters meeting held on 4-16-26 that was lightly attended by Door Trust for community members. The proposal was not requested to meet with the Civic Association. 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 Liam Rivas from Consulate Fitzgerald.

Hello, Madam Chair, members of the board, Liam Remus from Councillor Fitzgerald's office.

The council would like to go on record and support this proposal. Thank you. Thank you. Madam Chair, we'll have additional comments.

That may have a motion.

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

Mr. Stembridge. Yes. Mr. Langham. Yes. Ms. Betabrazo.

Yes.

Ms. Turner. Yes. Ms. Wewell. Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Thank you for your time.

Next case has been deferred. So that will take us to case BOA 181. 7-5-7-5 with the address of 86 Brown Ave. If the applicant and or the representative present, would they please reply?

Yes.

Yes. Please state your name and address for the record. Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is Leslie Cheney and this is my husband, Jim. I have owned and lived at 86 Brown Avenue for 42 years. This is where we raised my daughter, where we've been active members of the neighborhood and intend to remain part of the community. For nearly 40 years, the first floor apartment of our existing two-family home was occupied by Teddy Corsilius, a fixture in the neighborhood whose dedication to maintaining the public pathway beside our property was recognized by the city and thus is now named the Teddy Corsilius Path. We postponed any major renovation because we did not want to displace him and he passed away at age 95 and now we have the opportunity to renovate what has become a very outdated building. This is our home, it's not an investment project by an outside developer. And we have approached this proposal with the goal of improving our property in a way that is financially feasible and respects the surrounding neighborhood. The street view photo shows the existing house and the large left side yard. Our proposal preserves and completely renovates our existing two family structure. Well, with an addition on the left side that creates 2 additional family sized residential units. And we do this by utilizing the existing 36 foot side yard on the left. As shown on the plans and renderings, the design preserves the residential appearance of the existing home through traditional roof lines and architectural features consistent with surrounding homes while modernizing the housing it contains. The two units on the first floor would have two bedrooms and the two upper units would each be two level and have three bedrooms. One important characteristic of our lot is that it is unusually large and wide. Although we are in a 2F5000 zoning district, the immediate area consists primarily of one, two, and three family homes on significantly smaller and narrower lots. We are proposing approximately 2,360 square feet of land area per unit while some by nearby near by three family properties on brown have at less than 1650 square feet of lot per unit and narrower than the required side yard setbacks in effect our proposal functions much like two attached two family buildings on a single oversized parcel while remaining code compliant side and rear yards. The proposed addition complies with all setback requirements and the cited rear yard violation only relates to a portion of the existing building that was constructed well over 60 years ago and is an existing non-conforming setback. The design also preserves significant open green space. The proposed off street parking is located beneath the building. So the side and rear yards remain landscaped and open rather than being converted to surface parking. We recognize that despite our careful design efforts, zoning relief is still required. and that is why we're here today seeking the board's approval. We respectfully submit that our proposed four family use is reasonable, compatible with the unit density per lot area of nearby uses, and that the proposed open space, approximately 1,500 square feet per unit, were 1,750 square feet. square feet is required and the proposed FAR of 0.68 are not out of character for the immediate neighborhood while also providing much needed housing in close proximity to Roslindale Square. We respectfully ask the board to grant the requested relief and would be happy to answer questions or respond to any comments. Thank you. Thank you.

Are there any questions from the board? Hearing none, I'll take public comments.

Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Benbury. I'm the Roslindale Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process, which consisted of an abutters meeting facilitated on April 13th, where abutters feedback reflected both support and opposition to the proposal. Abutters voiced concerns that the proposal did not demonstrate a unique hardship warranting the request of zoning relief, and that the neighborhood is currently being overdeveloped, creating more congestion. A concern for parking was voiced, feeling that a nearby school already placed a significant demand on street parking and that the proposal would further increase the existing parking issue. A supporter acknowledged the inconvenience with the existing parking challenges associated with the nearby school, but felt that those conditions should not actively impact the outcome of the proposal. An inquiry was also made for the future of a large week tree on the property. Next, the proponent presented to Prospect Hill Neighborhood Association and completed the community process. To date, our office has received letters of opposition, restating the concerns for parking safety, density, and maintaining the zoning code, as well as one letter of support, all sent to the board for review. Thank you for your time. And at this time, the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services would like to defer to the board for their judgment.

Thank you. Next, we have Thea informing.

Thank you very much. Hi, my name is Thea and I'm a direct abutter to 86 Brown Avenue. 86 Brown Avenue is the fourth house in from Cummins Highway directly across from the Edward Brooks School. It's an extremely congested area. It's not just the school that causes the congestion, but Brown Avenue is From Hyde Park all the way through become a path of convenience for people who were avoiding Cummins Highway and the square that increase in traffic has caused. Traffic to further spill into the very tight neighborhood we have with narrow streets parking on both sides so that it's. difficult to travel without sometimes having to stop, back up, let a car through, people drive up on sidewalks. So it ripples through is what I'm trying to say. I have a deep concern about the traffic. I also have a deep concern about the safety of maneuvering with school children going in and out and also the pedestrian pathway. It is, I live on John's Wood Road. It's above the staircase on that public pathway comes up. Parents park in front of my house to wait for their children, particularly if it's off hours. And I'm done. Thank you. Thank you.

Next we have Seth Roberts. Sorry, my camera doesn't work. Good morning, Madam Chair and all board members. We are direct abutters to 86 Brown Ave. This is not just an interior renovation. The applicant is seeking to add a very large addition to this historic quality building, more than doubling in size from 2,856 square feet Now it will propose 6,386 square feet, not even including the proposed rear decks off the first floor. This is not a simple accessory dwelling unit request. We have spoken directly with the majority of the abutters and neighbors and the overwhelming opinion is that the project is too large and out of character with the neighborhood. This holds true for the majority of the abutters within the 300 foot radius as certified in the petition we presented to you. We have spoken to many members of the Prospect Hill Neighborhood Association and while their policy is not to be pro or con, many members agree with this concern as well as the precedent setting nature of this request that it will irreparably cause irreversible damage to open space in our neighborhood. The applicant has refused to consider decreasing the proposed size of the addition. Numerous abutters have sent in and registered their objection with ZBA and Office of Neighborhood Services. This is not a double lot. The proposed building is too large and out of character with the neighborhood. There is no unique hardship to grant five variances, including forbidden use, excessive FAR, insufficient setbacks, insufficient open space.

Thank you. Are there any other raised hands?

Madam Chair, we don't have additional. Go ahead.

Thank you. Can I ask the applicant to address those concerns?

Sure. Well, as most people know, Seth and Thea are the house immediately behind us. So- I would want to say that in response to that, while this area does contain one, two, and three family houses in our area, our lot is substantially larger than the surrounding lots. Looking at this in relation to density, There are existing multifamily homes on much smaller lots. Our proposal is designed so the amount of land devoted to each dwelling unit is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. This functions basically as two family houses, like we were saying, combined together in a common unit on an oversized lot of 9,440 feet. This is not materially different than the three family homes that are down the street from us. There's a couple of three family homes next to each other that are on lots of less than 5,000 square feet. So that's two three family homes on less than 10,000 square feet. As far as the hardships and so forth, I'm just gonna defer on that one. So that's basically what I have to say as far as the density in the neighborhood. I believe that the amount of quality housing that would be created is in keeping with the neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you.

Any other questions or comments from the board? Hearing none, is there a motion?

Madam Chair, I'm going to put forward a motion of approval. Going from an FAR of 0.5 to 0.68 is not a large kind of dense project. It seems pretty reasonable and I do agree that majority of the lots nearby are much smaller. I think it's a reasonable request. Therefore, I'm approving it.

May I have a second?

Second.

Mr. Stumbridge?

Yes.

Mr. Langham? No. Ms. Betabrasa?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Wewell?

I'm voting yes. I think it's an additional two units about the existing conditions. The parking's accommodated on site. I didn't know any parking relief requested for this project, And it is one of the larger lots neighborhood. And I also share Ms. Betabarraza's observation that it's sort of a gentle increase in massing. So yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck.

Thank you. Thank you for your time.

Madam Chair, two things before we leave the 9.30 AM hearing. We did not state a deferral date for one of the cases, which is case BOA-182-0617 with the address of 722 East 8th Street. The deferral date that was given was September 8th, is September 8th of this year. Thank you. And then along with that, we'll return to and ask if there is any response for case VOA 1825854 with the address of 57 Mount Vernon Street. No one applied before, so we'll ask again if anyone is present to present this case.

Yeah, I think the applicant is supposed to be here. Eva sent me a message saying that the person was able to get in contact with the applicant, Madam Chair, but I'm not sure if he was able to sign on.

Okay, what is his name?

Cliff Stinson.

Do you see?

I do not.

I don't see.

I see him, I don't.

Okay, well, we need to make a motion to defer in that case. Do I hear a motion?

Motion to defer.

We could do September, sorry. Second. Do you want to get the date, Caroline? Yes, please. I'm sorry for interrupting. September 22nd, October 6th. Well, they're not here, so pick a date.

You're probably going to have to renegotiate it with them later. Okay, let's do September 22nd. You are loading us up with that, so I hope you don't add any more. We had a motion and a second. So, Mr. Stembridge. Yes.

Yes.

Mr. Langham? Yes. Ms. Betabrazo?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Wewell? Yes. Chair votes yes, motion carries.

And with that, we'll move on to the hearing scheduled for 11 a.m. First, we will remind folks that we are a six-member board today. Okay. And then we will ask if there are any requests for withdrawals or deferrals from the 11 a.m. hearing. Hearing none, we'll begin with case BOA 1860541 with the address of 118 License Street. if the applicant and or their representative are present, would they please explain the case to the board?

Yes, good morning. Thank you, Mr. Stenbridge. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. Richard Lins, Business Advisor 245 Sumner Street, East Boston. On behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Lucas Dunn, this is a relatively straightforward proposal that involves the renovation of an existing single family home in the Eagle Hill section of East Boston. cited only for roof structure restrictions which requires a conditional use permit anytime there is a modification to the existing roof line of existing residential buildings because this proposal involves the modification with the addition of dormers this was cited appropriately for roof structure restrictions The renovations and the proposed addition are all in compliance with Article 53. There is no zoning relief by way of variance that is necessary for this project. Probably easiest place to start is slide, I believe, 10. Maybe go back a few slides, I apologize. I had set the deck yet, so I'm not sure if that's not available to the board. Here we go. Next slide, please. If you can go back to the site plan, I have my numbers different because of the deck that I had sent in. So if we could just, there we go. So existing site plan, Madam Chair, members of the board shows the existing footprint of the building. We have existing nonconformities on the right side of the building. The building sits very close to the right property line. Under the provisions of Article 53, you can expand existing nonconformities vertically. You can also expand them horizontally as long as they don't create any new violations. If you jump to the next slide with the proposed site plan as well. Maybe it's a few slides down. Again, I apologize. I sent the slide back in. Numbers are a little bit different. There we go, perfect. Slide 11 has the proposed site plan. Jump back maybe one slide. Yeah, here we go. So you can see there's a proposed change in the footprint of the forward portion of the building, which allows for the expansion of livable area. This is occupied as a primary residence by Mr. Dunham and his family. But the extension of the footprint of the building does not violate any of the setback or rear setback requirements, side or rear setback requirements. Again, it's permitted to be extended under the provisions of Article 53. Go to the next slide, please. So the existing condition, floor plan, next slide. And the proposed condition with the modifications that would, that are represented by the addition that's being proposed, mostly to the west side of the building. Next slide, please. Again, existing floor plans, next slide. And proposed, next slide. So we have the existing conditions here for the elevations, all sides. If we go to the next slide. Show the modifications. And again, this is all completely as of right. The only relief that would be necessary is the conditional use permit for structural restrictions, something that is commonly an issue with any renovation of existing buildings in the East Boston neighborhood because of the provisions requiring relief of the conditional use permit. With that, I'm happy to address any comments or questions from the board.

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 Evan Jones representing the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services. Regarding 118 Lexington Street, our office differs to the board's judgment. A community process was conducted including the distribution of a subcommittee flyer. During the community comment period, I did not receive any feedback from local abutters. The Eagle Hill Civic Association reviewed the proposal and voted to support with a total of 10 yes and 3 no. At this time, the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services differs due to the board's judgment on this matter. Thank you, everyone, for your time and consideration.

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

Well, that may have a motion. Madam Chair, I'd like to put forward a motion of approval. I have a second. Second. Mr. Stembridge.

Unmute. Unmute? Yeah. Thank you. Mr. Langham.

Yes.

Is that a brazo? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Wewell? Yes. Chair votes yes, the motion carries, good luck.

Thank you very much. Next we have case BOA 1865030 with the address of 34 Vincent Street. If the applicant and or their representative are present, would they please explain?

Good morning, Madam Chair. My name is Gavin Driscoll. Business has 26 Corey Lane, Milton Mass. This is a renovation of an existing two-family home. Its owner occupied the applicant, actually renovated the first floor in 2014, and their family's getting bigger, so they're going to be renovating the second and third floor. It's just an extension of an existing dormer on that right side. We do have one violation of FAR. We are only actually increasing it about 70 square feet, but just because of the way that the dormer works, it makes that second floor a lot more workable. If you go to the next slide. This is just the proposed site plan showing the proposed dormer on the right side. And then there's the existing site plan. If you can just zoom in, there's gonna be no work on the basement first floor besides structural work. And then you can zoom into the upper floor. We're going to renovate the 2nd floor to pretty much match what they did on the 1st floor originally. And then just extend that dormer on the right side to add that additional square footage on that upper level. If you just go to the next slide, it will show the elevations. That's just a section to the building and then the roof plan. And then the next slide will show the upper left-hand corner is a dormer that will be extended on the right side there. Upper right-hand corner is the left side where there'll be no work. Bottom left-hand corner shows the new dormer. And then on the, my mistake, there's two front elevations here for some reason, but it's just a flip mirror of the same plan from the rear. And if there's any questions, I can take some questions.

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

Madam Chair and members of the Board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Bembry. I'm the Dorchester Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process, which consisted of an abutters meeting facilitated on June 3rd with one guest. No issues or concerns were raised. Following the abutters meeting, no further community process was required, and there was one who was allowed to move forward. Thank you for your time, and the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services would like to defer to the Board for their judgment. Thank you.

Madam Chair, we now have additional comments.

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

Second.

Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Rangel?

Yes.

Ms. Barabraso?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Wiewill? Yes. Chair votes yes, the motion carries. Good vote.

Thank you so much.

Next, we have case VOA 1838409 with the address of 27 to 29 Ballard Street. If the applicant and or their representative are present, would they please explain to the board?

Eric, you can unmute yourself now. Hi, good morning. Can you hear me okay?

Yes.

Yes, we can.

Oh, hi. I have not submitted in advance any slides. I failed to appreciate that this is the case for this hearing. I do have slides that have zoned to the ZAP, Zoning Board, which I can share with you if you prefer.

So we don't share screens. So what you submitted is what we have and what you should present from.

All right. All right, my name is Eric Katzavounidis. My wife and I are the owners of this two-family place in Jamaica Plain, and we have proposed to add a dormer on the left-hand side as you face the building. So what you see here at the front is the front of the building, and we propose to... at the dormer, at the third floor, and turn the third floor into living space, as well as turn the basement into living space. So this is a two-family that remains a two-family, but the attic, now with the dormer, is going to be part of the unit number two, with the second floor as the main floor. And then unit number one is going to be made up of floor number one, The existing one and the part of the basement that's going to be made part of that unit one. The building department identified two issues with our proposal. One has to do with the FAR. We go beyond the .6 FAR for the neighborhood. And the second thing that was identified was the side yard was as insufficient. The side yard to the left is, when added with the side yard on the right, does not meet the 17 feet requirement. We have very little, we have two and a little bit over two feet of side yard on the right. So as you, what you project right now to the right of that added to the, what is existing to the left adds up to about 15 with I believe the limit being 17. So And of course, thank you for bringing this up, but you can see the dormer to the upper left of the building and as part of the second unit that's now gonna incorporate the attic. I think that's all of the top of my head, unless you want me to address any specific questions or anything that is not. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there questions from the board? Hearing none, I approve the testimony.

Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Benbury. I am the Jamaica Plain Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process which consisted of an abutters meeting facilitated on May 18th with no opposition voiced. Abutters inquiries were addressed during the meeting. Next, the proposal was presented to Jamaica Plain Neighborhood Council where they received a vote of approval. To date, our office has received one letter of opposition concerned for the loss of sunlight from the domus if constructed. and one letter of approval from the Jamaica Plain Neighborhood Council requesting the board's approval for the proposal. Thank you for your time, and the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services would like to defer to the board for their judgment.

Thank you. Chair, may I have an additional comment?

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

Second.

Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Langham.

Yes.

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

Thank you very much. Have a good day.

Okay. And with that, we'll take a break until the 1130 hearings.

Recording stopped. Recording in progress. Mr. Stembridge.

Present, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Mr. Langham. Present. Ms. Betabrasa. Present. Ms. Turner. Present. Ms. Wewell. Present. Thank you. The floor is yours, Mr. Stembridge. And a reminder that we are a six-member board today.

And along with that, we will ask if there are any requests for withdrawals or deferrals from the 1130 AM hearing.

Mayor Mark Sullivan, are you?

Yes, good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. I'd like to request a defer for two of the cases. The first one being BOA case 1810.

Tell us the address and Mr. Stenberg will read it into the record.

Sure thing. 1 Hopkins Place, the first.

So this request is for two cases, the first being case BOA 1810051 with the address of 1 Hopkins Place. And along with that, the request is for case BOA 1810052 with the address of 2 Hopkins Place.

Would you go ahead and explain? Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is Mark Sullivan with Chew & Company Architects, business address 1 Billings Road in Quincy. We would like to request an administrative deferral for BOA case 181005, which is one Hopkins Place and 1810052, which is two Hopkins Place. There was a clarification issue on the case being grouped together, the two projects, even though they are two separate owners and two separate projects. So we would just request the time to clarify this to the public and also administratively resolve the issue between the ownership.

Okay, and just a reminder, the board had had some other questions that I don't remember off the top of my head, but they were important ones that we needed addressed as well.

Yes, Madam Chair, I believe they were tied into the two projects being considered together and the affordability aspect of it.

It was another question. I just don't remember it right now, but. Yeah, Madam Chair, it's Jeff. Thank you, Jeff.

Please weigh in. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the Board, Jeff Hampton, City of Boston Planning Department. One of the issues that had come up was because it was same representation, same architect, same time that these were, could be considered for inclusionary zoning because it's a total of nine units. rather than two separate and with the threshold being seven units. There was concern and I had let their council know about this concern and MOH was actually going to reach out to the council because there may be an issue IF IZ DOES APPLY BECAUSE THE CITY MAY HAVE OWNED ONE OF THESE PROPERTIES AT THE TIME AND IF THAT WERE THE CASE THEN I THINK INCLUSIONARY ZONING OR MAY DEFINITELY APPLY TO ONE OF THESE PROPERTIES OR SOME SORT OF AFFORDABILITY I KNOW THAT MOH WAS GOING TO HAVE A DISCUSSION YESTERDAY ABOUT THIS AND HOPEFULLY GET IN TOUCH WITH THE PROPONENT I'M NOT SURE IF THAT HAPPENED WE'LL SUPPORT THE DEFERRAL but there were Article 79 questions that needed to be addressed before this moved forward.

Thank you. What dates are we looking at? We think September 22nd or October 6th. Does that give sufficient time to resolve these matters, Mr. Sullivan?

Yeah, I think the September one will be sufficient.

Okay, with that, may I have a motion?

Motion to defer September the 22nd.

May I have a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Thank you. Mr. Langham? Yes. Ms. Betabrasa?

Yes.

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

Thank you.

With no further request for a withdrawal or deferral, we'll go to the first case for the hearing scheduled at 11.30 a.m., which is case BOA 181-1706 with the address of 360 Cunston Street. The applicants or their representative present. Could they please explain?

Yes, we're present.

Please feel free to proceed. Are you presenting or is someone here? Yes.

My name is Conan Lee. I'm the property owner and I am presenting. So thank you, everybody. Good morning. This petition is to allow the construction of a rear deck, which is allowed, but the deck extends slightly into the setback for the property. The setback between the rear yard and the deck should be six foot four inches, basically, based on the one third rule. And we are requesting to build the deck two feet, five inches into that space, allowing still a four inch, I'm sorry, a four foot setback. And the reason is because we need a 15 foot deck for the purposes of, yeah, as you can see, the egress, the second means of egress and the stairway. And, you know, we would like to just, request that additional space into the setback area. We feel that it still allows sufficient setback and also the deck is not visible from any of the streets. There are no trees in the backyard. We feel that it is a safe request. I guess I'll stop there and see if there are any questions.

Thank you. Are there questions from the board? Hearing none, we 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 360 Princeton Street, our office refers to the board's judgment. A community process was conducted including an abutters meeting held on 2-17-26 that was not attended by any East Boston community members. The proposal was also reviewed by the Eagle Hill Civic Association at their meeting on 2-25-26 and the association expressed support and has voted 8 yes and 0 no's. regarding the proposal. At this time, the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services differs to the board's judgment on this matter. Thank you everyone for your time and consideration.

Thank you. Madam Chair, we'll have additional comments.

Okay, 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 to allow them to review the size of the deck to increase open space. Is there a second?

Second.

Mr. Scunbridge?

Yes.

Mr. Langham?

Yes.

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

Thank you.

Next, we have Keith, DOA 184, 4-0-1-8 with the address of 7-9 Murray Court. If the applicant and or their representative or president would they please sign to the board.

Yes, good morning again, Mrs. Stembridge, Madam Chair, members of the board. Richard Lins, business address 245 Summer Street, East Boston. On behalf of Brad Greenberg, who is the petitioner in this matter, if we could jump down to slide four, the slide deck that I provided. It's by way of very brief background, Madam Chair, members of the board. I'll make sure we have the right slide back here. Hold on. This doesn't, again, this, here we go, perfect. Great. It's a good place to start. So Madam Chair, members of the board, this is a pre-existing non-conforming structure, pre-existing three-family non-conforming structure. Although the use is conforming, the structure currently sits on a lot where the rear and side setbacks are not conforming to the current code. The existing height of the building is also non-conforming as it The proposal here is to change use and occupancy from three to four units to essentially square off the existing pitched roof to allow for that fourth unit and all other changes that are being proposed are all internal. There is also a proposed roof deck, and this particular proposal does not really change anything with respect to the rear decks that are on the building, except for the addition of a new deck where you have the additional living space on the upper level. The proposal that's before the board went before the community. There was strong support for the alteration based in large part upon the existing context of the surrounding neighborhood. If we can go to the next slide, please. As we can see here, it's a relatively dense area of Jeffries Point, but it is surrounded by a number of buildings that do sit around four and some five-story buildings in the immediate vicinity. I do note that the zoning for this area allows up to three stories, 35 feet. As I mentioned, this already exceeds the height limit and the proposed increase would result in a total overall increase of about two feet. from its existing height to the proposed height and mainly involves squaring off that upper level. Next slide, please. Uh, just a different view here, and this is a pretty good place to stop as well. As you can see, the buildings in the. Lower proportion of the photo actually sit close to 5 stories. There's a 4 story building directly behind my report at the corner of Orleans and Webster and numerous 4 and 5 story buildings along that part of Webster street. And as I mentioned, Jeffrey's point is. relatively sensitive to heights in the neighborhood, but did review this proposal, and my understanding is that there was strong support for the proposal based in large part upon the existing context in the surrounding neighborhood. Next slide, please. We've got one more slide. good place to stop so this is murray court our building is located on the right hand side it's part of that series of row houses that exist for some time on that side of murray court just by way of comparison you do have directly across the street at murray court a four-story building that was relatively recently approved and built something that hadn't existed when the original Murray Court building at 79 was built. It's again, you give the board a little bit of an idea of the surrounding context. Four stories is not something that is unusual for this particular neighborhood. If we can jump down to slide 10, please. So this shows the existing footprint of the building, as well as the rear decks that exist. And as you can see, it's a relatively small site. The building occupies pretty much lot line to lot line. And we do have a relatively shallow rear yard with the existing decks that are used for egress. Next slide, please. Existing conditions. We don't need to go here. We can probably jump down to slide 20, please. So just showing the proposed changes that are involved with the upper level. This is the existing what I call the attic level, and you'll see that in the elevations in a moment. That would allow for a two bedroom unit to be located in that area with access to the roof deck off of the rear decks. Can we jump down to slide 21, please? So we do see the modified elevations here that involve that upper level. And again, you do have the rear decks that are already pre-existing on levels one through three. We would extend that deck up to level four. There is a parapet that is included, and I'm sure as the board's aware, parapets don't count towards the height. The roof deck would sit below that parapet, so it would be somewhat hidden from the surrounding and we would be accessing that from the rear deck, as you can see here in this elevation. If we jump back to slide 15, just for comparison purposes, I wanted to show the board the existing conditions. As you can see, we do have that pitched roof condition. As I mentioned, it's at about 39 feet to the top. That would essentially be the area that we squared off with an additional two feet of height to allow for that livable space above that third level. If we go down to, I believe it's back to slide, 21 or 22, yeah, perfect. Yep, perfect. So just showing the rear elevation. Again, that rear deck and that addition area is shown here towards the top of the page. And the violations are as follows, Madam Chair. We do have a height, which currently is non-conforming. So the existing non-conforming increased slightly up two feet. We do have a number of stories. Again, a pre-existing condition is a little bit above three stories now. We would be going to a full fourth story. We are cited for side yard and rear yard where normally under the amended provisions of Article 53, vertical additions on nonconforming buildings are permitted as long as they do not exceed any of the existing zoning regulations that are in effect or the existing nonconformities. In this case, because we would be two feet above the existing condition, we would require relief for those side and rear setbacks. If we can jump down, I think that might be close to the last slide. The last is use. So to change the occupancy from three units to four units, we do require relief for use. I would point out in the EBR 3 district, this is a little bit of a nuance, use for OPTA 6 units is not forbidden. It is actually allowed in the EBR 3 district. The controlling trigger is the lot width. uh any lot that is larger than 50 feet is eligible to go up to six units again i don't really understand the rationale behind that with issue but in this particular case i just do want to point out that the uses are permitted um provided that you have a lot with The building directly across the street, just by way of example, is a four-unit building. There are numerous multifamily buildings in the immediate context of the vicinity. So again, this is not a use that would be completely out of character for this section of Jeffries Point specifically. I will pause there and ask if there are any questions from the board to address. Thank you.

Questions from the board?

Would the roof access be accessible to all the units or just to the fourth floor?

Good question. This is a kind of Indian building, so this would remain exclusive to the upper level unit only. Although there would be access because we do incorporate this as egress, it would be exclusive to the unit floor only.

And would you be open to modifying, I think it's the home office, to have more of an internal stair to be able to have like a bulkhead or a hatch to access the roof deck within that unit?

If we can jump back to the floor plan, I believe that's at slide 20. 11. 11. Oh, yeah. Yeah, that's what's proposed. Yeah. So looking for, you see the home office here, just below the bathroom. As you can see, Ms. Betarraza, this is a relatively small unit. We do want to make this a livable unit. I think Mr. Greenberg is proposing to actually move his unit out to this, he would live in this unit here. You know, to the extent that we could make it work, I'm sure this is a workable solution, but I do understand the board's concern about accessing roof decks from common stairwells in the rear.

Exactly. Just from a safety and also from a noise point of view, you keep noise internally.

The width of that whole office is only about five feet, just the way the stairwell works. That was one thing that we kind of looked at early on was like, was there a way to get it internally?

Right around around stair.

Yeah, but it's, it's pretty tight there. The 1 thing that I'm sure we would do to make that so that, you know, it is exclusive, you know, is there would be some form of a, a gate or something that would be locked that really accessed, you know, feeling it for itself. And, you know, somebody from human freighter or anybody else couldn't get up to that roof deck. So I'm sure there was definitely a way that we could.

you know section that off so that that would remain exclusive to uniform uniform only okay and then um is uh have you had a chance to review the boston plan department recommendation

I do understand and certainly respect the planning department's position.

I just wanted to make sure that you did see it.

I feel this particular one, again, when we do see a negative recommendation, we do want to take that into consideration and weigh that against what type of support and opposition there is. And as I've done in the past, where there's strong opposition and a negative recommendation for planning, I do encourage clients to go back to the drawing board. In this particular case, I think there was a very positive response from the community, especially based upon, I think, Mr. Greenberg, you know, living in the area and having, you know, the support of his neighbors and not understanding that this was not an impact that they felt was, you know, unreasonable based upon the existing conditions that are there today.

Right. And I mean, I just wanted to point out to my colleagues that the new zoning is EBR 3.0. But as you already mentioned, the building on Orleans Street right in the corner is a four story and exceeds the height that you're proposing. And I don't necessarily see anything wrong with increasing two feet of height within already a non-conforming existing height that your building has. And then the building right in front is also very similar in scale. But again, it's an EBR three district. Okay. I don't have any further questions. Thank you.

That may have public testimony.

Hello Madam Chair, members of the Board. My name is Abba Jones, representing the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services. Regarding 7-9 Murray Court, our office differs to the Board's judgment. A community process was conducted, including an abutters meeting held on 2-24-26 that was well attended by East Boston community members. The feedback from this meeting was overwhelmingly positive support from neighbors who were happy to see the proposal align with the neighborhood character and to support their neighbor. The proposal was also reviewed by the Jefferies Point Neighborhood Association at their meeting and they expressed support and has voted eight in favor and one in opposition. 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.

Madam Chair, there are no additional comments.

Well, that may have a motion. Madam Chair, I'm going to put forward a motion of approval with a proviso that the project undergoes BPD design review, paying special attention to the access to the roof and to determine the size and location of the roof deck. and to explore whether an internal stairwell makes sense. The reason for supporting this request is because you have two buildings that are already in an EBR three district that is much larger than what's being proposed. And the request is, I would find very minutiae in regards to that exceeding two feet of height.

Is there a second?

Second.

Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Langham?

Yes.

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

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next, we have case BOA 184. 6713, with the address of 1 to 1H Washington Place. If the applicant and or the representative are present, will they close this point?

Yes, thank you Mr. Stembridge. Madam Chair, members of the board, attorney Ryan Spitz with Adams & Maranci, business address of 168 8th Street, 1st floor, South Boston. Joining me today is the applicant Richard Sokolow and project architect Tim Sheehan. This is a proposal to confirm the occupancy as a single family, preserving the existing single family structure and changing the occupancy to three attached single family town homes. Each with a private roof deck and outdoor patios. This is a unique true lot with dual frontage on Washington Street and Rutherford Avenue. The neighboring residence at 104 Rutherford Avenue shares a zero lot line condition with the subject parcel. site falls within a 3f 2000 sub-district each townhome will consist of a kitchen dining room in living room on the first floor basement will be mechanicals and a family room three bedrooms located on the second and the third floor um mr ambassador or madam ambassador if i could just ask you to kind of scroll through the deck as i as i speak that would be great please thank you all three residences will be equipped with a fully automatic sprinkler system Further, the fire department has reviewed this proposal and is okay with it as long as it is sprinkled. We have violations, we have three violations. One being the lot frontage. The sub-district requires a minimum of 20 feet of frontage. The lot has 14.47 feet of frontage along Washington Street and 19.5 feet along Rutherford Avenue. This is a unique true lot condition when compared to the standard surrounding parcels and that the existing 14.47 feet of frontage is adequate to provide functional driveway access to the lot from Washington Street. Next, we have a usable open space violation. We believe we were cited in an error. The requirement is 350 square feet per dwelling unit, and the proposal does provide 378 square feet of open space per unit derived from the roof decks as well as the patio areas. Lastly, the proposal calls for a conditional use permit for the roof structure restriction as we are providing roof deck structures. All three roof decks are designed with adequate screening and buffering from their respective roof edges and sit at an appropriate height so as not to impact any of the surrounding properties. In concluding, the proposal is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood context and its overall approval of the site, as well as consistent with the planning department's recommendation of approval. So Madam Chair, I'm going to pass it over to you for any questions or comments from the board.

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

Madam Chair and members, Siggy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This petitioner completed the community process. Our office hosted a well-attended abutters meeting on May 21st. An abutter had concerns about the setback, although the applicant indicated the setback was compliant with zoning. Another abutter had concerns about the project being subjected to demolition delay, which they felt it should have been. A handful of other abutters spoke positively about the design. Our office has received one letter of opposition that has been forwarded to the board. With that background, ONS defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Thanks. We have Gordon Caveira.

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board, Ronan Carey at Daugherty Law Firm, 50 Franklin Street, Boston. I represent the two directive butters at 39 Washington Street, Charlestown. My clients would like to go on the record of opposition of this project for a few main reasons, the first being that the applicant is not accurately represented, that they will be demolishing approximately 48% of the existing structure, and was not provided a demolition plan until questioned. But whether this should be subject to demo delay or not. 2nd, the project is too dense for this parcel. The lack of meaningful open space demonstrates that 3 units to be enforced onto a lot. That's more appropriately. So suited for 2. 3rd, the proposed front facing windows and roof decks of the project will create a direct line of sight into the rear yards and rear window of the neighboring homes. Particularly 39 Washington street resulting in significant privacy impacts. Finally, the applicant has provided no turning radius or vehicle maneuvering studies demonstrating that Washington Place can safely accommodate construction vehicles and provide adequate fire emergency access to these rare units. For these reasons, we respectfully request that the Board deny the requested relief Alternatively, if the board is inclined to approve the project, we ask that the imposed proviso is requiring that the applicant submit a complete demolition plan and obtain a demolition permit and provide vehicle maneuvering and turning radius studies, demonstrating adequate site and emergency access before any final approvals are issued. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you. Any other comments? Yes. We have a increase to .

Yes, Madam Chair, members of the board, my name is Chris Suris. This address is one federal street in Boston. I represent the owner of the property 104 Rutherford Ave in Charlestown, a direct abutter of this property. First and foremost, I want to agree with everything that Attorney Carrier just said in terms of the deficiencies and why the board should be turning this down. We clearly are in opposition to this as well. And there are three reasons that I think the board needs to consider. First of all, The issue of Article 85 is not an issue that should be taken lightly. It would be bad public policy for this board to go ahead and adopt zoning relief when the whole question of whether or not the property can even be demolished is one under the jurisdiction of landmarks, not this board. So by not having gone to landmarks first, by not even, I believe, having filed a proper demolition plan before ISD so it could consider it at the time that it issued its turndown letter, the whole thing is deficient from the beginning, and it runs roughshod over the policy and the demarcations between what landmarks is qualified to do and what this board should be doing. The property is 190 years old. Landmarks has the expertise to make the determinations as to what the impacts are going to be. That's number one. Number two, the issue of frontage is incredibly contorted. We've submitted an opposition dated July 13th. There's an exhibit C to that, which is the applicant's own assessment of frontage. It's interesting that they characterized it as unique through-lot conditions. There isn't such thing as through-lot conditions under the zoning code. We'd ask to consider that and look at the definition of lot frontage under Article 2 as well, and deny. Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, if I could just briefly respond to a few things. So a couple of things. One thing that the Mayor's Office Enablement Service forgot to mention, which I'm sure you do have on file. 7 letters in support from some of the director butters as well as some of the neighbors in here as well. So I do want the record to reflect that we do have support on this proposal. Furthermore, I know there was concerns surrounding the fire department again. Fire department has reviewed this proposal and is okay. As long as the buildings are being fully sprinkled and that is being done in this proposal. And again, to move on, I do have attorney Richie lens if there's any further questions regarding the landmarks that was brought up in demolition. One thing that I do want to work mentioning is that article 85 review is not required for this project. The applicable trigger here would be removal of more than 50% of the structure here. And we are removing less than 50%, so over 50% of that structure will be preserved. And this is an ALT permit. So therefore article 85 does not apply in this situation. But again, to some of the landmarks questions, I have attorney Richie Lins here who can work together with this applicant and rebuttal to those questions that we had surrounding article 85. So if the board does have any further questions pertaining to the landmarks in article 85, attorney Lins is here to answer those.

Thank you. Any other questions from the board?

Yes. If you can please tell me what is the FAR that's required and what's being proposed?

Sure. Tim Sheehan, are you here with us too? I am. Great on your drawings there, but you just I don't have it. I don't. Could you just tell us specifically what page that the zoning chart was on?

Oh, it's on my drawings on 81.

So the applicable, I do know here is a 2.0 Tim.

I mean, Tim, you know, exactly in front of me. 2.0 zone max we can go is 8586. Existing, that house there now is 2240 gross. We're going 6693, so we're under. Okay.

Can you just, sorry, can you just repeat again? What's the required FAR?

2.0. 2.0.

And what's proposed?

Yeah, it's about, I didn't do that. I have the square footage, but it's about 1.7.

Okay. And the existing that you have right now?

Is a 0.63. 0.63, okay. Yeah, a little lower. Sorry, I had to go for those numbers.

Yeah. And then we heard from one of your abutters. I didn't quite catch where that abutter lived. Can you, was it on the record? Maybe I'm asking the secretary. We had one abutter. I just would like to know which one was his property.

If you can see the site plan, basically when you come into our property on sort of the dog leg, I guess I'd call it, it's the house right there. You know, it's the blue, if you have Google Earth, it's the blue house, I think it's 37. And there's two houses that are on Washington Street itself. One's blue, it's...

So right now on your site plan, you have 104, Ruth and Ford, are they in support or in opposition?

No, they're in opposition.

Okay, and then what about 39 Washington Street, right behind your property? Are they in support or in opposition?

we did get one letter from i believe 39 the hobes um mostly about the tree and drainage so sort of post zoning stuff that we would deal with um they were worried about drainage right you have two offenders one is i would like to clarify that 39 is in opposition to this that that would be edward daugherty and regina cleveland sorry yes we are in opposition okay and then 37 washington street is that the same it seems like there's two

um two lots that have that house so they're probably the same owners okay i just those are the those are the um buildings that are most impacted so i just wanted to get clarity in terms of who was in support and how's that opposition thank you no further questions

So Ms. Barraza, if I could just add, so just to kind of highlight which the Board does have it. So it's 33 wrote a letter of support, 35 wrote a letter of support, 29 wrote a letter of support, and as well as another one from 33 as well.

Okay, thank you. Are there any other questions from the Board or Coleman? May I have a motion? I'm sorry. Were you trying to speak up for anyone?

Yes, I manage. I just want to be clear for the board. I know there were some comments made by 2 of the attorneys with respect to our belief. I just think it's important for the record. I believe 5 is as this board is well aware. Is a specific provision that is not triggered through zoning review. It's triggered through application for demolition permit with the inspectional service department. The Boston Landmarks Commission has no jurisdiction over this. This is not a designated landmark. It's not a pending landmark. There is no specific designation that has occurred. So therefore landmarks jurisdiction would not be invoked until such time as a demolition permit were filed. The question on whether or not a demolition permit is even necessary is completely within the purview of the commissioner of inspectional services. And in this particular case, although we don't necessarily agree that there's a percentage threshold, commissioner Joseph has indicated that at 50%, that would then be. a requirement for a demolition permit. I think Attorney Spitz and Mr. Sheehan have indicated that the amount of demolition in this particular instance is less than 50%. So even by Commissioner Joseph's standards, a demolition permit isn't even necessary. I just wanted to be clear that I know that when Article 85 gets raised, a lot of times that issue becomes somewhat confusing because it intends to insinuate that there is landmark jurisdiction. I just want to be clear with the Board that there is no jurisdiction here until such time as a demolition permit as required by ISD is filed and landmarks cannot administer Article 85 until such time as an application has been submitted. So just to make that clear for the record. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other questions or comments from the Board? May I have a motion?

Yeah, sorry, I was just trying to find the unmute button, even though it hasn't moved. I will put forward a motion of approval with a proviso that plans are submitted to planning for design review. with focus on parking and alignment of the residential units. I just want to make a comment, you know, on this case, we are tasked with the zoning violations. I think there are other ordinances at play and I trust that the city staff will follow the proper procedures for making sure those are followed. And we only see that if there's sort of an interpretation request. So this motion is focused solely on the zoning. Moving approval with that proviso.

Is there a second?

Second.

Mr. Stumbridge?

Yes.

Mr. Langham? Yes. Ms. Betabraza?

I'm going to vote no and it's for these following reasons. One is um the two abutters that are adjacent to the property property are going to be the most impacted by the proposal and they do not necessarily support the project the second is why do you acknowledge that the law has unique characteristics for which to request a variance It doesn't necessarily mean that you have to fill it to get to the zoning allowable amount of units, which I think it is by right, like you should have three units, but the way that it's going about it is I think poor planning and it impacts many of the units. Those are the reasons that I'm saying no. Ms. Turner? No.

Ms. Weill? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion does not carry. Is there a different motion?

I'm going to propose a motion to deny without prejudice. to allow the applicant to come back, to propose three units, but to work with better accessibility to parking and to allow some open space to make the project work.

Is there a second? Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Wyman?

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

Yes. Ms. Wiewald? Yes. I was hoping the issues could work out in designer view, but I would like to see them come back with something different.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Thank you.

Next, we have case VOA 1833514 with the address of 176 L Street. If the applicants and their representative present, would they please explain to the board? Madam Chair, I'll just make a note that there are some changes that are being, going to be addressed and I'll leave it there for them.

Okay. Good morning Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is James Christopher, 686 Architects with business address of 10 Forest Road. Here today on behalf of the Hogan family for 176 Ellis Street. I received an email just now from the board stating that I have to defer because there are decks the decks have been a part of this project from the beginning uh they were presented that way this project was discussed last month or two months ago and deferred uh so i'm not sure how the board would like me to proceed with that and i'm not sure if it's the decks the the walkouts on the upper level or the rear decks that are in question yet

yeah so my concern is just in terms of open meeting law in order to comply with it the purpose need to have stated that there was a new construction of a deck on the fourth floor because currently the purpose just states the homeowner seeks to erect a four-story addition to increase living space with no change to occupancy so the applicant has two options they can defer to next month and make that change in the purpose so we can re-advertise with the correct purpose or the applicant can move forward. And if the board chooses to approve the project, I would just ask that there's a proviso that there's no fourth floor decks.

Okay, so Mr. Christopher, no fourth floor deck or deferral?

I'm just gonna shoot my client a text, Madam Chair. because I don't think I can make that.

Well, I think it's a short deferral, so is it- I'm sorry, I beg your pardon.

Frankly, yeah.

Okay, well, we need you to decide which way you want to go.

Okay. I think we'll proceed without the decks, Madam Chair. OK. Okay, so the proposal here is to construct a float story addition, which included. Rock out balconies at the front and rear of the property, but those will be removed. You can go ahead and scroll to the drawings. There's no real change. Mr ambassador.

Getting mess in your school. or tell him or her what you want?

Well, the proposal is to construct the floor story addition with no change to the set first and second floors. The third floor will become a bi-level unit with the construction of that upper level. If you could scroll down, please. Again, so no change to the footprint of the building. That's our existing survey. And then that's the proposed survey, which shows the fourth story added on there with the mansard roof and some shape that was added during the community process. Next slide, please. These are the existing floor plans. You can scroll through these. Go to the A drawings, please. I don't know. I'm not sure what number that would be. Keep going. The A drawings. Right there. All right, so again, on the first and second floors, there's no change. If you scroll down, zoom in on that floor plan there, please. So you can see that the third floor will become the primary living space with two bedrooms on that level, a home office, and then a large kitchen and living area to the rear. And then on the fourth level within the new addition, you would have a primary bedroom with a family room facing L Street. Next slide, please. In elevation, we've proposed to incorporate a parapet wall along the front elevation to bring that wall up and shield the front of the building and extend the height there. And then we'll have the mansard-style roof behind it. During the community process, this was a design element that was changed. We had a more boxed and angular addition. And at the request of the Civic Association, we were able to come up with this design, which I think fits more appropriately. Next slide, please. This is the broadside elevation. Again, those decks are gonna just stay the way they are. There'll be no change to them now. Next slide, please. This is the opposite side elevation. You can see the relationship of the manside roof to the parapet wall. Next slide, please. This is our building section, which shows the overall height. And then the next slide is some renderings. This is comparable for the building that we were proposing and have discussed as such the whole way, which included some walk-out balconies on the upper level. There was some discussion whether this property, whether that exists in the neighborhood, and it does. Here's several examples, but that point's moot now. Next slide, please. then this is the building in view from bell street by bringing up that parapet wall we helped to hide the man side and the additional level from the street and i think the next slide is a nice aerial view recording stopped um additional look like next slide recording in progress go to the end there i think that's it So yeah, again, the proposal is just construct that fourth story addition, reorganize the existing living space to create a three bedroom with a home office. And for a long time, Boston resident, South Boston resident firefighter, who's looking to just stay and raise his family here. So with that, I'll answer any questions.

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

Madam Chair and Board Members, Siggy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This petitioner completed the community process. Our office hosted an abutters meeting on October 29th of 2025 where one attendee expressed support for the application and two other attendees expressed concerns about the violation for excessive building height. how it could create a precedent in the area our office received one letter of support from an abutter that signed an address in the abutter's radius and a petition in support with nine signatures eight of which signed an address in the 300 foot abutter's radius which have been forwarded to the board the applicant has met with the city point neighborhood association which is opposing this application laying this application would set a new precedent along this corridor and does not align well with existing conditions with that background our office defers judgment to the board thank you is it the height the decks both or do you have are you speaking in regards to the butters meeting or the civic association if you're talking about the civic association i'm sure that their membership is on hand to provide you the most accurate information in public testimony okay thank you next we have a make from conspiracy office

Thank you Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is Meg. I work in Councillor Sloan's office and Councillor Sloan would like to go on record and support.

Next we have Moran.

Yes good afternoon Madam Chair and board members. I'm a little confused here so I do just want to give some background. They did come in and present and at that time I thought they were going to present with just the addition. and to remove the roof decks based on that conversation what i had said on the last meeting where they deferred is that i think that this is a conversation that needs to be held with our elected officials and in community because that will forever change the landscape uh on that part of bell street and as we well i believe um um uh the board better barrazo was not available so you were actually able to go in and look at google earth and came to the same assumption so i think it's wonderful that they are willing to remove uh the front roof decks there um that's was something that the community asked for it's not um a great thing to have on l street it's the main corridor but if they're going to revamp their plans as we initially asked them to i would like to see this come back through a community process and perhaps we can garner support and have that conversation if we're going to alter the L Street corridor, because this will in fact set precedent. A lot of it is absentee landlords, a lot of it is rental properties, and this will absolutely allow profit for those people. So let's have this conversation and see if this is something we can work together on. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have Linda Novich.

Hi, can you hear me? Yes, we can, ma'am. Okay, thank you. I am greatly opposed to this project for several reasons. That Luann had mentioned. This is going to greatly change. It's going to set a precedence on Elstreet and it's going to greatly change the architecture. And as for the design of this roof, that design has absolutely nothing to do with the design of a three-family building. Two completely different types of architecture there and You know, I also have an issue with the parafit because what is the height of that going to be, just out of curiosity of the parafit?

Can you scroll up to this section? I can tell you I don't know off the top of my head.

Can you keep going while he's looking for that? Okay, so my concern with the height of these parapets is that there may not be a roof deck allowed there, but when you've got a parapet that looks like it's probably at least three, four feet high, goodness only knows what you can hide behind that. And that could also set a precedent for in the future people saying, well, it's there, why can't we? And I think there's going to be too many precedents set without complete community involvement. And this needs to go back to more community involvement, more community discussion, because this is going to ever change the face of L Street. And it's taken away some of the heritage of this community when you do changes like that, especially when it comes to the architecture. And we need to have this considered. This needs to be for the community. I understand it's great. I understand him being a firefighter. I spent 33 years with EMS, so I also want that consideration.

Thank you. Thank you. Just on the design comments.

So, if I may, are there any other raise hands? 1st, there are no additional comments. Okay, please.

Thank you. Madam chair. Just real quick on the design elements. We did have a more traditional square structure on this building that as we went through the conversation with the community was not well received. I would say that this design iteration was much more much better. Well received. The, and, you know, at this point, the decks have been removed and I believe that. As part of the discussions that I was involved with, with the community, that was the biggest stumbling block. And if you scroll back up to that other illustration that shows the other L street addresses, it's very clear that this style of housing exists all over L street.

Any other questions or comments from the board. Hearing none, is there a motion? You can defer, you can approve, you can deny. Is there a motion? Hello? I'm not sure who's speaking, but the board is voting. If anyone is willing to vote.