Bpda Board of Directors - Regular Meeting

Recording in progress.

Good morning. The City of Boston Zoning Board of Appeal hearing for September 8, 2026 is now in session. This hearing is being conducted in accordance with the applicable provisions of the open meeting law, including the updated provisions enacted by the legislature this year. The new law allows the board to continue its practice of holding virtual hearings through June 2027. This hearing of the board is being held remotely via the Zoom webinar event platform and is also being live streamed. order to ensure this hearing of the board is open to the public members of the public may access this hearing through telephone and video conferencing the information for connecting to this hearing is listed on today's hearing agenda which is posted on the public notices page of the city's website boston.gov members of the public will enter the virtual hearing as attendees which means you will not see yourself on the screen and you will be muted throughout unless administratively unmuted when asked to comment. Board members, applicants, and their attorneys or representatives will participate in the hearing as panels, 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 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 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're 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. Are you here, Mr. Stembridge? Okay, I'll keep going. Mr. Valencia.

Good morning, Madam Chair, present.

Good morning. Ms. Turner. Good morning, Madam Chair, present. Good morning, Ms. Barbaraza.

Good morning, Madam Chair, present.

Good morning, Ms. Wewell.

Good morning, Madam Chair, present.

Good morning, Mr. Langham.

Good morning, Madam Chair, present.

Good morning. I'm going to circle back to Mr. Stembridge because I know they're here. Are you here with technical difficulty? Okay. We have a note that says Mr. Stembridge is present. So I hope we can hear you in a second because the floor is yours. All right. Waiting on IT for sound. Okay. We have to resolve that City Hall IT issue. All right, so let's wait patiently because we need Mr. Stembridge.

Madam Chair, just FYI, people are still returning to the intersection. So sometimes if you call them, they will be not allowed to give themselves. So once again, if you are in the attendance section, please make sure that you are in the panelist section. If not, if you are in the attendance section, and I will send you the request yourself.

Okay, so thanks for everyone's patience. Again, there seems to be a technical issue at ISD that is being addressed.

Yes, Madam Chair. My name is Craig Martin from Hyde Park. I thought a gentleman, I think he was a board member, just spoke something about if you call in, be sure to do this.

That is Jesus.

There was just a little advice that a gentleman just gave. I didn't hear who it was.

I think there are some people who are trying to.

Go ahead. Sorry, Madam Chair. Yes, no, you are allowed to unmute yourself because I think your phone, so it's not allowing me to promote. But you're all set. I'm all set, okay.

I thank you for explaining that.

No problem.

Are you able to hear me?

Yes.

Okay. Sorry. I seem to have had an audio problem. Okay. This is going to be a rough day. Okay.

Madam Chair, can you hear me?

Yes, I can. Eureka.

Bear with us. We're trying to move forward. But yes, I am present. Yes, I'm here.

Okay. Well, if you want to proceed without video, the floor is yours. If you want to wait, let us know.

uh we'll we'll uh we'll proceed without video for the moment and then i will try and get ourselves um together again once we get help from my team for sure okay that sounds good so bear bear with me please I'm still here. I'm just trying to get in the right place. All right. We will begin today's meeting with the approval of hearing minutes scheduled for 9.30 a.m. These minutes are from August 11th. And with that, I will put forth a motion of approval.

Thank you. May I have a second?

Second.

Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Pettibrasa?

Yes.

Ms. Wewell?

Yeah.

Mr. Langham? Yes. Chair votes yes, the motion carries.

All right, next we have Next we have the extension scheduled for 9 30 a.m. There are 12 cases scheduled. I will read through all of them and then I'll read through if there are any questions we can address those after I finish reading for sure. First, we have case BOA 1349675 with the address of 4 Deaver Street. Next, we have case BOA 1599560 with the address of 729 Park Street. Next, we have case BOA with the address of 10 Thompson Square. Next we have case BOA-115-3496 with the address of 59 Hillock Street. Next we have case BOA-162-5948 with the address of 115 to 121 Boston Street. Next, we have case VOA 667111 with the address of 151 Liverpool Street. Next, we have case VOA 136... 1369555 with the address of 2207 Norchester Avenue. Next we have case BOA 1626437 with the address of 58 Cedrus Avenue. Next we have case BOA 1348765 with the address of 155 Portland Street. Next we have case BOA 1552342 with the address of 43 Hutchings Street. Next we have case BOA 1552344 with the address of 43 R Hutchings Street. And finally, we have case VOA 1398736 with the address of 5 Warren Avenue. Madam Chair, those are the extensions scheduled for today.

Thank you. Are there any questions from the board?

Yes, Madam Chair, I have a question for Caroline, and also I wanted to ask board members if they have an opinion about this. The case for the address 151 Liverpool Street. This is the eighth request for an extension. So I understand that this case has been extended over a period of six or seven years. And for the record, I wanted to ask Caroline how many times a proponent or a project can be extended and then ask my colleague board members if they have an opinion about how many times we can just keep extending cases.

Well, I think the other question for Caroline is what's the alternative?

Yes, exactly. What is the alternative? Just for general information, I know this case, they have their motives to request extension. I read that, and that seems compelling. But just for general understanding of the process, I wanted to ask, again, clarification about this. Thank you.

Of course. So it's at the board's discretion to grant as many extensions as you would like. In terms of the Permit Extension Act under Governor Healey, any permit acted from 23 to 25 has an additional two years automatically. Um, so this would technically be like a formality. Um, but after 2027, um, the board, if for some reason the work, they still needed an extension, the board could grant it or deny it. And then, and if that case, the board did deny the extension, um, the permit would then be abandoned and they would have to reapply.

Of course.

Okay. Any other questions? Yep. Is that a question? Okay, if there are no other questions or discussion, may I have a motion to grant the extensions as requested?

Motion to grant the extensions as requested.

Is there a second? Second. Mr. Sammeridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Barabrasa? Yes. Ms. Wewell? Yes. Mr. Langham?

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Thank you. Next, we'll move on to the recommendations scheduled from the subcommittee. I'll read them all in. If there are any questions, we can entertain those at that time and then go from there. We'll begin with case BOA 1822390 with the address of 278 Washington Street. And I'll hold on and please let me interject that all of these cases were approved by the subcommittee as was this one. Next, we have case BOA 1839200 with the address of 587A East Broadway, which was approved. Next, we have case BOA 1807140 with the address of 269 Silver Street, which was approved. Next, we have case BOA 182-9000 with the address of 141-113 Northchester Avenue, which was approved. Next we have case BOA 183-3903 with the address of 107 Russell Street, which was approved with, um, with planning department design view. And Madam Chair, those are the recommendations from the subcommittee.

We see you guys. Nice to see you.

We're getting there.

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

Motion to approve. Madam Chair.

May I have a second?

Second. Second.

Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Betabraza?

Yes.

Ms. Wewell?

Yes.

Mr. Langham? Yes. Chair votes yes, the motion carried.

Next, we'll move on to the building, to a building case. Building code case scheduled for 9 30 a.m. This is case BOA 1877958 with the address of 4 Haynes Street. If the applicants and or the representative are present, would they please explain to the board?

Thank you, Mr. Stembridge. Thank you. Madam chair members of the board attorney Jeff Drago Drago and Toscano here on behalf of the applicant developer for Hain Street. I also have David freed from Choi who's here who designed the. Plans pretty straightforward case we're seeking building code relief. because this project, when it was originally approved, was approved for two private exclusive rooftop decks to be accessed by Hatch. That was something Zoning Board as well as the community had supported to keep the height at a reasonable level, and they frowned upon having additional bulky penthouses on top. This project was originally approved by a different developer and architectural team. The project was then sold upon after the project had already been granted an at-risk permit to Star Construction. It was re-reviewed. A new plans examiner, the old plans examiner, had left. found additional zoning violations that we actually had to come back to this board to grant relief. However, this building code variance request was missed. It was only brought up after the full permit was actually issued. So the permit was issued contingent now upon coming back to the board to grant that relief. And so to prevent a hardship, this building is already constructed. These are gonna be sold as condos. This is something that the community had asked for as well to keep to not have the penthouse the proposed alternative, which are shown in the plans is a low profile roof hatch access rather than. Full penthouse, the roof hatches bulkheads would be limited to approximately 30 inches above the roof deck, which is consistent with zoning limitations. Proposed 3 foot by 7 foot roof hatches. would have assisted opening hold hardware and all required guard rails as well this project was proved it was a four unit building and the top units these are exclusive roof decks as i mentioned only for those top floor units normally this could have been resolved at the board prior i understand but this was only brought to our attention after the was issued and we're hoping relief could be granted. I can pause the architects on the call as well. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there questions from the board?

One question, Madam Chair. Can you hear me now?

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

Sorry, what was your question?

I'm sorry, my question is just to make sure we're back on track here.

Oh, okay, sorry.

I thought it was a question for attorney.

Okay, sorry. Any other questions from the board?

No, Madam Chair, I had a chance to review the plans and the request seems pretty straightforward.

Thank you. Okay, if there are no other questions or comments, is there a motion?

Madam Chair, I'd like to put forward a motion of approval to approve a building code relief to allow for the hatches as opposed to the penthouse. May I have a second? Second.

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

Yes.

Ms. Barabarraza?

Yes.

Ms. Wewell?

Yes. Mr. Langham?

Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck. Thank you very much, members of the board.

Next, we'll move on to the hearing scheduled for 9.30 a.m. At this time, we'll ask if there are any requests for withdrawals or deferrals from the 9.30 a.m. hearing. Mr. Currier? Yes.

Good morning, Mr. Stembridge. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Ernst Giroir. You're appearing on behalf of the applicant for 26-30 Bird Street. With the consent of the board, I'd like to ask for a brief continuance. Madam Chair, you may remember this matter. Sorry, can Mr. Stembridge read the case into the record?

I'm sorry. And actually, I'm sorry, you're asking for what? 26 Bird Street? 26 Bird Street, yes.

so you'll have to wait until mr stembridge uh asks about deferrals at the 11 30 time frame uh we're asking about the 9 30 time frame right now i believe it was scheduled for 9 30 madam chair but i don't know why that type um as mad chair said that is scheduled for the 11 o'clock here i'm sorry so So yeah, if you, if I can find it now for sure.

Okay, so are there any deferrals or withdrawals for the 930? With that, I'll turn it back over to you, Mr. Stemberg, then I'll see you.

Hearing none, we'll move on to the first case with the 930, which is case VOA 187. 3156 with the address of 8th Mark Street. If the applicant and or their representative present, would they please explain to the board?

I'm new. Good morning. Am I coming through?

Yes, sir.

Thank you. I just hit the panel there. thank you member madam chairman members of the board mr lemus owner of 8 lawrence street as per the refusal letter this is a restricted area for a roof deck and i'm seeking relief for a proposed roof deck on a flat pitched roof we submitted the the plans as pursuant to what we're seeing here with the survey And we, according to the analysis conducted by the architect, David Choi, we meet all the dimensional controls by way of height, setbacks in the front, and the total building. And so we're seeking relief of the restricted roof area houses located in Charlestown, Mass.

Can we talk about the size and the visibility from the street? How far is it set back?

That particular, if we can go back one slide, please. That particular picture is a good dimension. On the bottom is the abutter side. On the right side is the main street, and it has a setback. I can't read that right now, but it looks like it's about 10 plus feet from the front, which is Lawrence Street. And in the rear, it also has a setback.

and the total square footage is 250 square feet which remains within the far about 192. thank you other questions from the board hearing none may have a public testimony actually i i do have a question um and if it might be for bpd um are roof hatches allowed or would they need a relief as well for building code This is just the last case and it was missed. Are you on, Mr. Hampton? I see you.

It's my understanding, if I may, input from my architect, because if we look at the same slide, if you go upward, there's two air conditioning systems, the condensers, and if you stay within the height, we have the roof hatch that's already installed as a means of accessing the HVAC systems that are up in the roof. If you stay within a certain height requirements, which we are, but right.

I just propose correct.

It's, you know, it's, it's existing.

It's existing. Okay. I don't have any further questions. Okay, with that, may I have public testimony.

Madam Chair and board members, good morning. Siggy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This petitioner completed the community process. Our office hosted an abutters meeting on June 22nd at which no public comments were made. With that background, ONS defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Next we have Ashley from Councillor Flynn.

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

Madam Chair, we have additional comments.

Okay, with that, may I have a motion?

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

Second. Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner?

Yes.

Ms. Betabraza?

Yes.

Ms. Wewell?

Yes.

Mr. Langham? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck.

Thank you very much. Have a good afternoon, everyone.

Next, we have case DOA 1849569 with the address of 560 to 562 Tremont Street. If the applicants and or their representatives are present, will they please explain to the court?

Good morning. My name is Chloe. I'm the applicant. And first off, I just wanted to think there's any word of appeals members for being here today. I believe this will be brief as I received an email on Friday that my ISD permit denial, which I spent the past five months appealing, was given an error. So my permit never should have been denied. I was asked to withdraw from the hearing, but I reached out to ISD to ask to make sure that my process could be dealt with in a time sensitive manner. I haven't received any communication from their offices. So I let the zoning office know that I didn't want to withdraw until I heard anything from ISD. And so just wanted that on the record, but I don't think I'm gonna need a ruling today. because I'll be going back to ISD, but I just wanted to say thank you again for your time.

Okay, Caroline, can you confirm for the applicant? Yes, she is correct. We do not need to issue or refuse a letter. Okay, well, then do we need any motions here today? Nope. Okay, well, thank you for your time, and I'm glad it worked out. Thank you as well.

With that, we'll move on to case VOA. one eight six four eight zero eight with the address of 460 west brockway this is an article 80 case and if the rep is if the applicants and or the representative are present will they please explain

Yes, thank you. Mr. Stembridge, good morning, Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is George Maranci. I'm an attorney with a business address of 350 West Broadway in South Boston. I represent the petitioner Cedarwood Development LLC and its principals, David Winnick and David Mateo, in connection with the redevelopment of 460 West Broadway. Also joining today is the project architect, Shane Losey. This project is the adaptive reuse and construction of a two-story addition to the former South Boston Savings Bank building at 460 West Broadway in South Boston. This is a 1948 classical revival structure that is listed in the state's MACRIS inventory. The renovated and expanded building will become the new home of the South Boston Division of the Boston Municipal Court, together with office and administrative space for the Suffolk County District Attorney and the Office of Community Corrections under a long-term lease with the Commonwealth. This will replace the aging and outdated South Boston Court facility currently located at 55 East Broadway, a short distance from this location. On April 26th of this year, The board approved this project under article 80 E, small project review. The board memorandum that board members have in front of them sets out the development team design and community benefits in full. So I won't repeat those here, but I do incorporate them by reference. As I said, the project architect Shane Losey is here and he'll make a brief presentation on the design directly to the board and I'll therefore limit my testimony to the zoning relief the project requires. The project sits in an MFRLS multi-family residential local service sub-district within the South Boston neighborhood under Article 68. It is on West Broadway near Perkins Square. This is the neighborhood's principal commercial corridor where ground floor commercial uses and upper floor residential uses predominate. A courthouse and the accessory office space that comes with it is a forbidden use in this neighborhood, so the project does require a use variance. Preserving and reusing the historic bank building together with the two-story addition needed to accommodate the court and the office program also requires relief from the sub-district's height limitation, floor area ratio limitation, and yard depth requirements. Specifically, variants are needed for violations attributable to insufficient side yard setback, exceeding maximum building height, and excessive floor area ratio. The side yard setbacks are zero, which is an existing condition, whereas a three-foot side setback is required. The MFRLS sub-district's maximum building height is 35 feet, which I may say is almost entirely inconsistent with existing conditions on West Broadway. The proposed building height is approximately 49 feet, which is highly consistent with surrounding conditions. Likewise, the proposed FAR 2.85 is far more representative of the surrounding density than the 1.5 FAR allowed by code. Finally, the refusal letter cites a violation under Article 9, Section 2 for increasing by more than 25% the size of a building containing a nonconforming use. Here, the proposed courthouse use is the nonconforming use. This site sits directly on West Broadway where civic and institutional uses are already compatible with the surrounding commercial and residential mix. and the project preserves rather than demolishes a historic structure the development team worked diligently with the planning department the landmarks commission staff during article 80e review to ensure that the building's dimensions and design are contextually appropriate to the block and sensitively respond to the building's architecture. Madam Chair, if the Board would like a presentation on the design, I would turn the presentation over to Shane Locey. That is obviously the call of the Chair and the Board.

Absolutely. So let me see if there are questions from the Board. I don't hear any questions from the Board, so let's move on to public testimony.

and chair members of the board, Connor Newman with the mayor's office of neighborhood services. This time, the mayor's office defer to the judgment, this board, some background information, the community process. Uh, this went through a lengthy, uh, community process overseen by the Boston planning board. Um, it's involved for public meetings. Uh, last year, um, there were significant changes made after community feedback regarding the designer proposal. At 1 point, there was a residential component as well as concerns related to residents want to see more parking on site. The outcome made those changes. They worked extensively with gate of heaven, which is a non opposition to this proposal as well as meeting with St Vincent's lower end neighborhood association, which was very pleased. The existing facade was incorporated into the project. Presently we are, we understand that the community is very pleased with the direction of this project without defer to the board. Thank you.

Thank you. I'm sure next we have Ashley from.

Thank you. My name is Ashley from counselor Flynn's office. Counselor would like to go on record and support not only from the critical need for maintaining a presence for the trial court of the commonwealth. In our criminal justice system in South Boston. But also a community process with neighbors in a butters that resulted in a number of good faith compromises. This included removing the entire residential element of the proposal and 22 units originally proposed, reducing the height from six stories down to four stories, changing the design of the building and attention to other key quality of life concerns in the neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you.

Next.

good morning um board the um i'm from the office of historic preservation the proposed scope of work at 460 west broadway in south boston includes adaptive reuse of an existing historic structure the boston landmarks commission would like to state our full support for this project which preserves an important historic building while providing a much needed new space for the Boston Municipal Court system. The applicant worked very closely with the landmark staff throughout their design process, resulting in an adaptive reuse project, which will serve as an important precedent for Boston's future development.

Thank you.

Okay. Chair, we don't have additional comments.

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

Is there a second?

Second. Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner?

Yes.

Ms. Betabraza?

Yes.

Ms. Wewell? Yes. Mr. Langham? Yes. Fair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck. Thank you.

Next, we have case BOA 1838044 with the address of 42 Lambert Street. If the applicants and or their representative are present, will they please explain?

Um, thank you. Mr stembridge. Good morning. Madam chair members of the board Gary J. Webster, Jr development company. I'm also joined today by Dan for Gary senior associate at stack architecture and development. The proposed project before you is to combine the existing vacant lots at 40 and 42 language street and Roxbury. And to construct a new residential building with 2 townhomes and 1 off street parking space. On a combined 3,366 square foot lot. In a 3 at 4,000 zone, the violations on the consideration include insufficient off street parking lot area and an additional lot area. the floor area the floor area ratio is excessive an insufficient usable open space front yard and one of the side yard setbacks at this time i will turn things over to dan to discuss the design elements as they relate to the zoning violations but i'm happy to answer any questions you may have related to the project or community process at the conclusion of the presentation

Is your architect on?

Yes, he is on.

Jesus, is he a panelist?

I'm sorry. He said he's in the room waiting to be elevated. What is the name?

I'm sorry, again?

Daniel Fuggeri.

Daniel, I think I allow him to unmute himself.

He's still listed as a... Hello, can you hear me?

There we go.

Yes, we can.

Sorry about that. Yeah, so this is a two-family townhome on the parcel here. And there was a lot of back and forth with neighbors and... the neighborhood group before coming to this meeting on setbacks. And so we've revised the project a couple times to appease our neighborhood group and abutters. We can go to continue scrolling. So yeah, this is the site plan. We have the main entry. We can keep, if you go back one, or go to the ground floor plan, which is two slides forward. Yep, right here. So this is the ground floor plan with entries to the units in the middle here with recessed front stoops. When you get to the ground floor, we have a, bedroom office space on the towards the street with a primary shared bathroom and dead on the back the next floor up the on the right side as well as the existing curb cut which is going to remain with the parking on the right side of the park property On the second floor is the primary living space with a powder room as you come up the stairs, the dining, kitchen in the middle, living towards the back with a small deck for each unit off the back. This top floor, we have the primary bedrooms with the primary suite towards the rear of the home and a ensuite bathroom and then a secondary bedroom facing the street. with a recessed deck. The street wall elevation, although the unit itself is mirrored, the top floor is not mirrored so that to provide a little more variation along the facade and to reduce the casting shadow on the neighbor on the left-hand side. And these are the typical building sections.

Okay. 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 Pembery. I serve as the Roxbury Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Enabled Services. The applicant has completed the community process, which consisted of an abutters meeting facilitated on May 11th. With no opposition, many abutters voiced concerns such as parking, The proposal does not provide parking, but is filled to contribute to the congestion they currently experience. Another concern was the shadow the building may create, filling the size and scale is out of character for the neighborhood, as well as the design. Abutters pointed out the design's location of the first and second floor porches that are adjacent to the abutting property's bedroom windows, as well as the appearance of the front of the building that looks more suitable as the rear and vice versa. becoming more out of character for the neighborhood. Lastly, in a butter question, whether fewer units would be more suitable and if two units would be more in line with the neighborhood. Next, a proposal was presented to the neighborhood council who voted in support of the proposal. To date, our office has received three letters of support, including one from High Park neighborhood council. 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, I don't see any hand threats anymore.

May I ask the applicant to address any of those concerns?

Hi, Madam Chair. Those concerns articulated by Jeremy, our design was in response to that abutter's meeting. So that abutter's meeting took place prior to this revision. We were originally proposing a 3D family building with no parking, and we then adjusted the plans to be a two-town home building with one parking space as a result of that abutter's meeting, of which then the community group issued a unanimous support letter. Thank you.

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

Madam Chair, I'll put forward a motion of approval which provides the plan to be submitted to the Highland Park Architectural Conservation District Commission for design review.

Thank you. May I have a second?

Second.

Mr. Sembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner?

Yes.

Ms. Betabraza?

Yes.

Ms. Wuwo?

Yes.

Mr. Langham? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck.

Next, we have case VOA-185-6279 with the address of 66 Rutland Street. if the applicant and or their representative are present. Please respond to the board.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Stembridge. Madam Chair, members of the board, my name is Timothy Burke. I'm the architect for the project, and with me at the hearing today are the owners, Gaurav and Naya Mittal. They have purchased this single family house as their primary residence and have embarked on a wonderful restoration of the house, bringing it back to its original beauty. It had suffered some decline. As part of the work, we are seeking permission to add a projecting balcony at the kitchen level on the back of the house that would be six feet deep and supported on brackets. And then also to add a dormer and a small roof deck at the roof level that would be very similar to our next door neighbor at 68 Rutland Street. And this space would provide some much needed outdoor living space and some living space on the fourth floor due to the slope of the roof and it provides much better bedroom space. We can go through the drawings if you would like to show on the screen. These are the floor plans with the balcony on the left. And then the next page is the upper levels that shows the roof deck and dormer for the fourth floor. This is an elevation of the rear that you see on the left-hand side of the screen that shows, again, the balcony and then the proposed dormer and roof deck, which that would have to be reviewed by the South End Landmarks District Commission as well. With that, I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have.

Thank you. Are there questions from the Board? I do have one question. Can you please remind us What's the setback is for the roof deck railing from the building's edge?

Five feet is required, yes. Great, thank you.

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

hello madam chair members of the board my name is eva jones representing the mayor's office of neighborhood services regarding 66 redland street our office differs to the board's judgment the community process was conducted including an abutter's meeting held on 6 30 26 that was well attended by south and community members and feedback from this meeting was overwhelming support by their neighbors who felt that they were happy for the applicants and felt that the project was a good fit for the neighborhood Additionally, we did receive two letters in support expressing the proposal was a good fit for the neighborhood, and the proposal was not in the catchment area of any civic associations and was not required to meet with any organizations. 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, do I have additional comments?

With that, may I have a motion? I put forward a motion of approval. Is there a second? Barraza, second. Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner?

Yes.

Ms. Barraza?

Yes.

Ms. Rewell?

Yes. Mr. Langham?

Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck.

Thank you very much.

Next, we have case VOA 1827453 with the address of 11 Ashley Street. If the applicant and or their representative present, please explain to the board.

good morning madam chair members of the board my name is michael chavez i'm the architect and co-founder of social impact collective uh address 26 on hill park in dorchester uh this project is uh owned by uh julia silva um it's a single family home and it's a multi-generational household so they're looking for an additional bedroom in the existing single family that's there now. I think the next slide, the second slide really kind of sums it up there. There's three variances that are being requested. Two of them are existing nonconformities, which is the lot area minimum and the front yard minimum. Our addition of the bedroom makes the FAR go up from 0.58 to 0.67 when the FAR is at 0.6. And then the bottom left corner, you can kind of see that the, where essentially what we're doing is we're infilling that little back Third floor area above the existing footprint to fill in that space for that additional bedroom as well as converting that existing small porch on the right hand side there into a little bit of a larger mud room with some balconies with existing bedrooms up above that and updating the porch and proper landing and entrance on that side. The proposal does not impact the existing driveway, existing off-street parking, or any of the other, you know, heights or net of the kind of zoning variances that would be required of the space. And then the subsequent drawings just kind of show the, you know, the floor plans that we're adding there with the first floor on the right-hand side, that mudroom space with the door. moving into that kitchen in the rear, and then the upper floors, essentially just getting a balcony on the second floor, and then a new bedroom on the third floor, up to that rear side, which is right above that existing bedroom on the second floor. And then we're just matching exterior finishes, siding, trim, everything is kind of essentially matched to existing. And I'll pause there.

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

Madam Chair and members of the board, my name is Jared Pembery. I'm 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 April 14th with no abutters present. Next, the proposal was presented to Jamaica Plain Neighborhood Council, who voted in support of this proposal. To date, our office has received approval from the Jamaica Plain Neighborhood Council. 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 a .

Okay, with that, may I have a motion?

Motion to approve.

May I have a second?

Second.

Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner?

Yes.

Ms. Betabraza?

Yes.

Ms. Wewell? Yes. Mr. Langham?

yes yes the motion carries good luck thank you all very much have a good day next we have case boa 186 8487 with the address of 388 opera if the applicants and or their representative president will they please what

Thank you, Ms. Stembridge. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. Attorney Jeff Drago with Drago and Toscano with the business address of 11 Beacon Street here on behalf of the applicant petitioner, Paul Bell. And with me, we also have David O'Sullivan from O'Sullivan Architects, who was the architect on the proposal. Pretty straightforward project in Jamaica, playing at 388 Arbor Way. We're proposing to change the occupancy from its existing form, which is a two-family dwelling, to a three-family dwelling by way of legalizing and expanding the... A basement unit. It's actually a garden level because it is elevated. The back of this building is a very steep decline that goes in the rear and then add some additional space into the unfinished basement area, basically combining those spots to create habitable living space and also improving egress with some minor. interior renovations note changes are proposed to the contours of the building so building will remain the envelope and structure will remain in terms of height and the boundary lines the project also has to note off of the arborway of three off-street parking spaces that can be utilized by the residents of the building my client recently purchased this property And this particular unit was already built out on that garden level. It's 840 square feet currently. With the proposed expansion, that would go up slightly over 1,200, about 1,240 square feet. I'm sorry, 1,407 square feet, which would add two bedrooms, two bath units. to the bill for legalize that space and add some additional space. If you go to the next slide, please. These are just the layouts of existing plans or if you could go through the plans thank you you can keep sliding through and this just shows this is actually if you go back one this just shows the site plans you can see off of the side of arborway is where there's a shared easement access for parking in the back of the property for those three spaces the new legalized unit uh would have 1407 square feet that would combine the 840 existing plus 570 uh in the basement uh the unit will have seven foot eight inch a ceiling height above and seven foot six uh below in the basement it'll be sprinkler unit uh 13d fire suppression system and completely code compliant uh with two egresses as well uh the uh bpda recommendation as you know was to support this fits right in their guidelines of keeping existing buildings but also adding residential housing where available this location is 500 feet from forest hill station so it makes it ideal for for commuters there's actually a lot of existing green space and the front insides of this property as well just to quickly go over the variances needed The use, because it is a 2F district, would be required for variance for use. FAR goes up slightly. Existing as 0.92 would be proposing 1.02. And then the minimum lot size, 7,000 required, we're at 6,167. So those were hit with for violations. It also mentioned Greenbelt Protection Overlay District because it does fall next to the Arbor Way. However, when you look in the code, because we're not adding a certain number of additional square footage or a new building mass, that actually, we believe, was incorrectly cited for that one variance. but we can deal with isd on that as well um we uh did get the jamaica plain neighborhood council support at subcommittee um and with that we can answer any questions that the board may have thank you thank you questions from the board hearing nine man public testimony

Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Benbury. I'm the Jamaica Plain Community Engagement Specialist for the Office Services. The application has completed the community process, which consisted of a voters' meeting facilitated on June 17th with one concern addressed and no opposition. The proposal moved forward and met with Jamaica Plain Neighborhood Council, who voted to approve the proposal. To date, our office has received one letter of approval from the Jamaica Plain Neighborhood Council. Thank you for your time, and the Mayor's Office of Neighborhoods would like to defer to the board for their judgment.

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

With that, may I have a motion?

Motion is approved.

May I have a second?

Second.

Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner?

Yes.

Ms. Barabarraza? Yes. Ms. Wewell? Yes. Mr. Langham? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck. Thank you very much.

Next, we have case BOA-183-7050 with the address of 17 Copley Street. It's the applicant and or their representative are present. Will they please explain to the board?

Yes, thank you, Mr. Stembridge, and good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. For the record, my name is Matt Echol, and I'm an attorney with Fletcher Tilton here on behalf of the applicant. With me this morning, I have Jennifer Ha from Hugh Architecture. We're here this morning seeking relief to renovate the existing structure, including erecting a rear addition and new dormers, as well as to change the occupancy from the existing two-family dwelling to a three-family dwelling. The project also includes expanding the driveway for a second parking space. the zoning district is a 2f4000 and the lot size is 4 000 square feet now the property as you can see here on the on the plan is located at the corner of copley street and atherton street with the front door on copley there to kind of the top right where the street dead ends the existing structure we has many unique features and architectural details so we'll be preserving most of that and maintaining it as part of the project however the renovations will allow for a more functional interior layout and the addition will allow for the existing cantilevered second floor porch to be squared off and provide more living space for all three proposed units The proposed third floor unit will be done with very little changes to the footprint. Again, there's a cantilevered porch that extends beyond the first and third floor currently, so we'll be squaring that off and it'll look not very different than what it is today other than being squared off at the lower level and the third floor level. The project also includes a new sprinkler system to make the building and neighborhood safer as well as energy efficiency upgrades. in terms of zoning violations the majority of the violations for florida ratio side yard and parking are all pre-existing we are also seeking relief for the use as this is a 2f district and we're seeking a third unit all three of the units are proposed to be three bedroom units with two bathrooms The basement will contain common mechanical and storage area. The first floor will house unit one, which is 11,000 square feet, and again contains three bedrooms, two baths. The second floor will have unit two, which is 1,061 square feet, and the third floor will house unit three, which is 1,024 square feet. This project did go through a community process, including in the Butters meeting, as well as meeting with the JPNC, the Jamaica Plain Neighborhood Council, who voted unanimously to support the project. With that, I'll pause, and Jennifer, the project architect, and I will happily take any questions the board may have.

Thank you. Go ahead. Good morning, Madam Chair and board members. My name is Jennifer Ha. I am the principal architect at Hugh Architecture located at 53 H Harvard Street in Dorchester. There is some technical problems on the platform this morning, so that's why I'm not a panelist. But let me know if you have trouble hearing me. So 17 Copley Street is an existing two family building built in 1900. and designed in classic Queen Anne Victorian style. The project is to convert the existing two family into three while strictly respecting the historical character to home. And so to achieve the design, we add strategic dormers and the rear addition that squares off an inefficient rear section of the building. So the priority is to preserve the signature hallmarks of the beautiful architectural style and create much needed housing. One of the best features of the property is the large, beautiful green space in the front and side yards. And so to emphasize, the project will entirely be contained within these existing setbacks and does not exceed the existing building footprint. If you go towards the floor plans, The basement level will be dedicated entirely to mechanical systems, utilities, fire sprinkler, and storage. The first floor, which is centered, is similar to the current existing condition where the residents will enter from the main front porch from Copley Street directly into a three-bedroom, two-bathroom unit. And on the second floor, which is accessed by a common stairwell, will also have a bright open concept three-bedroom, two-bathroom unit. And third floor is from the same common stairwell. And it's unique.

I think we're losing you, Jennifer. Attorney Echol, do you want to pause here since we...

Yes, Madam Chair. I think Ms. Sa was getting to the conclusion of her presentation. So if she comes back and wants to add more, but I think we can pause here and see if there's any questions 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 Benbury. I'm the Roxbury 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. It was very well attended. A direct abutter voiced concerns for parking specifically with their driveway and maintaining accessibility during construction. The construction timeline and noise were also a concern for abutters. Lastly, the current resident with a concern for displacement stated they were not notified of the proposal.

Are you on your phone number or something? Thank you.

Go ahead.

Please proceed.

Last resident with a concern for displacement stated that they were not notified of the proposal and would not have taken the property if they were aware of the upcoming construction. The residents said they would need more time if the proposal was approved to move a second time at least one year. To date, our office has received one letter of support from Akerson Square Neighborhood Association and one letter of approval from Jamaica Plain Neighborhood Council. 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. Okay. I'm sorry. Go ahead. I saw somebody raising their hand. Sorry. Probably not in this case.

Okay. Any other questions from the board? Do we have a motion?

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

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

Yes.

Ms. Turner?

Yes.

Ms. Betabrasa?

Yes.

Ms. Rewell?

Yes.

Mr. Langham? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Thank you very much.

Next, we have Pace VOA. 1747507 with the address of 32 Wycombe Street. If the applicant and or the representative present, will they please explain?

Yes, thank you, Mr. Stambridge. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board, Attorney Derek Small. I have a business address on 51 Dobson Road in Braintree. Madam Chair, we're here today seeking relief to change the legal occupancy of the building from seven residential units to eight residential units. actually not just to confirm the eight residential units we went to pull permits to do work on the building and there was an error at isd with regard to the occupancy of the building so we are here to square away the records at isd and legalize the basement unit if you scroll down one uh slide or maybe two you can see from the picture on the left Down one more please. On the top left, it is a walkout. The building sits on a hill and the topography is such that the rear means of egress and most of the basement units are above grade. And so we are here again to legalize the unit. With regard to the violations of the violations are pre existing non conforming again as the units do exist currently. And we are not proposing any work outside of the scope. or the mass of the building. Just to note the violations that would probably be most interested in the board would be the FAR, which the requirement is 0.8 and we are proposing 0.16. Again, it's already existing and we're just seeking to legalize that unit. I'll stop there to answer any questions that the board may have.

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

Madam Chair and members of the board, first of all, my name is . I'm the Roxbury Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process, which consisted of an abutter facilitated on March 11th and was lightly attended. An abutter expressed concerns regarding the current maintenance of the property, noting that they thought the property could be better maintained. Additional concerns were raised regarding the proposed occupancy and whether eight units would be excessive for the property. Parking and traffic congestion were also concerns, particularly given the number of development projects currently taking place in the surrounding area and the potential overall impact on the neighborhood. Next, the proponent was encouraged to reach out to Roxbury Path Forward, where a few inquiries were made and addressed. To date, our office has two letters of support, one from Roxbury Path Forward and one from Roxbury adding an additional unit would exacerbate tenants living on the property, loud noises after hours, no snow trash or property maintenance complaints that go unaddressed without a known property manager. Thank you for your time and the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services would like, excuse me. Thank you for your time and the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services would like to defer to the board.

Thank you. We'll have additional comments.

Okay, with that, may I have a motion?

Madam Chair, before I make a motion, I wanted to see if an applicant had anything to say around some of the concerns that Mr. Benbury just brought up.

Sure, Madam Chair, members of the board. Most of those issues were addressed. They came up at the abutters meeting and subsequently we met with the local neighborhood group, which is Roxbury Path Forward. And I know that Lorraine Wheeler and the group had conversations. submitted a letter of support for the project as most of the issues that were brought up by Mr. Bembry were addressed later on. We met several times with Roxbury Path Forward and some of the Director Butters. addressing such issues as the trash and we removed the satellite dishes that were on the front of the building and we also did a number of repairs to the exterior of the building so work is ongoing and we will continue to work with the neighborhood group and the abutters on any outstanding issues thank you um with that i'll put forward a motion of approval thank you i have a second second mr scumbridge yeah

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner?

Yes.

Ms. Barabrasa? Yes. Ms. Wewell? Yes. Mr. Langham? Yes. There are votes yes. The motion carries.

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

Next, we have case BOA 186-31796. with the address of 772 to 778 Adams Street. If the applicant and or their representative are present, would they please explain to the board?

Yes, thank you. Good morning. Madam chair members of the board. My name is Edward Brooks and I'm the property owner at 772 Adam street and also the owner and operator of the business. At 772 out of street landmark public house. I'm here today, respectfully requesting the board's approval to continue operating our outdoor patio at landmark located on private land at the rear of our building. I think it's important for the board to know that this patio is not new. We've been operating it approximately for five years during COVID when outdoor dining became an important part of keeping restaurants operating. We have successfully operated this patio for the past five years without any issues or problems with our neighbors. This year we went to apply, we were informed that we needed to come before the zoning board because the patio is determined to be non-conforming use. Since then, I've worked closely with the city of Boston's outdoor dining program, led by Adam Lesko, to make sure we follow the proper processes and did everything that was required to get us to this point today. We've also gone through a neighborhood process, which I'm very proud of the support we've received from our director Butters, as well as Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services and City Councilor John Fitzgerald's office. Landmark's been a part of this neighborhood for 10 years now and a responsible neighbor, and this patio is extremely important to us. It's simply an extension of our existing restaurant and provides the customers with a great outdoor dining option when business is somewhat tough in the summertime. I believe our fire beer... track record of operating the patio while the issue is the best demonstration of um that this works well at this location and we can coexist with the surrounding neighborhood and i respectfully uh asked to be granted the relief as needed by the board um that's it i'll stop there thank you very much for your time and consideration i'd be happy to answer any questions um anyone may have thank you any questions from the board hearing none may have public testimony

Hello Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Eva Jones, representing the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services. Regarding 772 to 778 Adams 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. Our office is aware of support from the local neighborhood and the Cedar Grove Civic Association, who are all eager to see the applicant continue through with the process and have the patio open. Again, at this time, the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services differs his board's judgment on this matter. Thank you, everyone, for your time and consideration.

Thank you. Next, we have Leon Rimas.

Hello, Madam Chair, members of the Board, Liam Remus from the Council of Fitzgerald's office. The Council would like to go and record strong support for this proposal as Landmark's strong community partner in the neighborhood. Thank you.

Madam Chair, there are no additional comments.

Okay. With that, may I have a motion?

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

May I have a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge. yes mr valencia yes miss turner yes it's better yes is we will yes mr langham yes chair votes yes the motion carries good luck thank you next we have case boa 184 7298

with the address of 97 Milton Street. If the applicant and or their representative are present, would they please explain to the board

Hello, this is Christopher McEachin. I'm the owner of the property. It's a single family home. What the proposal is to do is there's existing structures on the property from the kitchen on the first floor, and it's a walkway. And on the second floor right above this walkway is a balcony attached to the bedroom. The proposal is just to enclose the structure so it will create additional living area. Okay. 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 DOE Justice and 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 8th, with two supporting abutters present. We saw no issues with the proposal. Next, the proponent presented to greater comments for a neighborhood association, completing the community process. Thank you for your time, and the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services would like to defer to the Board for the job.

Madam Chair, there are some additional comments.

Okay. May I have a motion?

Motion to approve.

May I have a second?

Second.

Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner?

Yes.

Ms. Pettibrasa?

Yes.

Ms. Wewell?

Yes.

Mr. Langham? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Goodbye.

Madam Chair, I have a question for the applicant for what I believe are the next three companion cases that should be read together.

Yes, that's correct, Mr. Stembridge.

Thank you, Chair Koji. So with that, then we will go to case BOA 1834435 with the address of 72 Reedville Street. Along with that, we have case BOA 1834445 with the address of 74 Reedville Street. And along with those two, we have case BOA 183-4452 with the address of 5 Waterloo Street.

if if the applicant and or your representative attorney pulgini uh i'll explain to the board thank you mr stembridge um uh good morning madam chair members of the board attorney john pulgini here on behalf of the uh three properties 72 and 74 reedville street as well as five waterloo street and high park the zoning in this neighborhood is two family five thousand With me this morning is Michael Bannon, who is the owner of the property. Michael is a lifelong Hyde Park resident, as well as currently a Boston fireman, and he actually lives in 5 Waterloo Street. The proposal before you is to combine the two existing lots, of 74 Readville Street and 5 Waterloo Street, and then subdivide those into three lots. Each of the new lots will be approximately 4,130 square feet. Of these new lots, the 5 Waterloo two-family home will remain as is with no work contemplated on that. On the other two new lots, both which are front Readville Street Two new single families homes will be constructed. They will be addressed as 72 and 74 Readville Street. This is a small single family house. It's a one bed, one bath currently there that will be taken down. Both of these new single families will be two and a half stories. They will include four bedrooms. They're approximately 2100 square feet. Each will have garage at the ground level. of the building. These new homes will provide home ownership opportunity to Hyde Park and will serve to improve and better utilize this lot. Happy to answer any questions. Appreciate your time.

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

Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Benbury. I'm the High Park 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 4th, during which the majority of attendees expressed opposition to the proposal. Primary concerns centered on the scale of the project, which many felt was too large for the lot and surrounding area. But it has also raised significant concerns regarding parking and traffic congestion, noting existing vehicles obstructing driveways, particularly near 72 and 74, making egress challenging. The street was described as already congested and further impacted by its designation as a bus route. Additional concerns were raised about the introduction of two new driveways on Tarikville Street, which Nevada believed would reduce available on-street parking and exacerbate traffic conditions. Overall, the proposal was viewed by several attendees as an over-development of a relatively small site. One attendee expressed support for the project, noting that it presents a positive opportunity to accommodate more families in the neighborhood. Next, the proponent presented to Reedville Watch and Neighborhood Association, who reached a three-way split, with a third opposed to the entire project, a third recommending a duplex as opposed to two family homes, and a third okay with two homes provided the curb cut on Reedville Street that decide would need to be reworked to have the curb cuts on Waterloo where they currently are for access to the property. to date our office has just received two letters of support thank you for your time in the mayor's office of papers just would like to defer to the board for their judgment thank you any other raised hands yes next we have a laura good morning

Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is Laura A. Sims. I live at 75 Readville Street in Hyde Park, directly across from the proposed new construction. I oppose this construction vehemently. I've lived here all my life, and this home construction would be Detrimental to the street area, we would lose parking on the street for the residents who do not have a driveway. The curb cuts would be directly across from my property at 75 street as well as. the property at 73 Readville Street. This new construction is in a corner lot of Readville Street and Waterloo Street. So far this summer, there have been two car accidents directly in front of 74 Readville Street and Waterloo Street. One was a car that was parked on Readville Street going the wrong way. a parking and a car rammed into his front end and another was parked on waterloo street in which a u-haul truck could not make the turn correctly reedville street is a cut through street to a state road defensive valley parkway please wrap up ma'am Yes, thank you. Two car accidents, buses and school buses use this property and this street constantly. We are opposed against it. Thank you. Thank you for your time.

Okay, next we have the person with the number that ends on 445.

Yes, good morning Madam Chair. This is Craig Martin of Reedville High Park. Yeah, it's just not the practice of the support to take two appropriate sized parcels, combine and subdivide it into three undersized parcels. I was suggested to the proponent of the neighborhood meeting that to get closer to allowable plot size, let's do a nice duplex on this, at the 7374 location instead of the two single family homes. You'll get the two units, And you can engineer it to have one curb cut to refill street instead of the two that are currently proposed, which would surrender parking spaces, which are very limited at this location. As the prior caller just said, this is a cut-through street to a state roadway on the Plaza Valley Parkway, and we should do the best we can to maintain the street, to make it doable. And so I suggest that we, again, send this for... a two a duplex development which will leave more open space and what and and and it's much more manageable at this location rather than subdividing this lot to three undersized lots let's do it to two smaller lots not legal but at least closer to legal and i think that's the best interest for the neighborhood and be more in harmony with the current construction thank you thank you

Next, we have Beth.

My name is Mary Beth Benson. I live at 73 Readville Street, directly across from the property. While we feel that tearing down the existing house and building something new would be an improvement to what is there right now, we feel that the plan to cram in as much space building on two lots and make three lots out of it is excessive and not in the best interest of the community. In addition to the driveways and the bus and the traffic patterns on our Readville Street, I just think that it doesn't do anything to add to our community of Readville to have two big houses crammed on that property. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. And we have one more person, Jeremy.

Hi, yes. My name is Jeremy. I live at 71 Readville Street. I'm actually in favor of this proposal. I'd like to say that turning this lot into two houses and tearing down the existing one is only netting the street positive one house. So I think this is a great idea. It'd be great for this neighborhood to have two new single families.

uh thank you thank you thank you madam chair and the applicant addressed the concerns about curb cuts the loss of parking and spies etc that's true uh first of all the current single family that we're talking about is is a one bed one bath is a tiny little bungalow that is not habitable for a family or anybody more than two or three people We have two off-street parking spaces with garage parking. So when we did the community meeting, everyone was talking about how Reedville Street's a heavily traveled street. It's not a heavily traveled street. You can look it up on your tablets, you'll see that it's Basically, there's street parking everywhere in addition to that, we're providing off-street parking. If you look at the BPDA recommendation for approval, it states clearly that it's consistent, that there's several buildings on this lot, there's several houses on this street that are sub-5,000 feet. Additionally, we have a 16-unit building basically to our left if you were looking at the building. If there's any issue with respect to access off of Readville Street, I would just say that any sort of proviso to continue working with the Boston Planning Department with respect to access would be warranted. But in all, like that last gentleman stated, building two single-family houses. We're not cramming anything on the lot. If you look at what the violations are, we have a .5 FAR requirement. We are at a .52. That is certainly not cramming anything onto the lot. And again, rely back on the BPA recommendation wherein it states that this is extremely consistent and recommends approval. Happy to answer any questions the board may have.

Thank you.

Questions from the board?

just kind of an observation I do feel that with the amount of land the density seems pretty appropriate in terms of the size of the two single family residents. It's literally underneath 35 feet in height is two and a half story. The construction seems pretty conventional. So I just wanted to address, is this the appropriate type of density? I think it is. So it's just kind of some observations. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions or comments?

May I have a motion?

Madam Chair, I'm going to put forward a motion of approval in that the project undergoes BPD design review to take a look at ways of enhancing um says to car in terms of the site planning i i do believe that two separate stories i mean two separate structures is the is the appropriate kind of urban use of the lot um but i do think if there's a way that the garage access and site planning can just be reviewed by bpd to minimize any um

issues with maneuverability being close to that corner lot thank you thank you uh is there a second um i think with uh board member better barraza that the um show with the other uh dwellings in the area as well as lots i said okay mr stembridge yeah

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner?

Yes.

Ms. Barabrasa? Yes. Ms. Wewell? Yes. Mr. Langham? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck. Thank you, everybody.

And next, we have case BOA 183.

Sorry to interrupt, Secretary Stambridge. Do you want to ask about 11 o'clock?

Thank you for the reminder, Madam Chair. As we have passed the 11 o'clock hour, are there any requests for withdrawals or deferrals from the 11 a.m. area?

Yes, Mr. Stambridge.

Be with me.

Well, Mr. Guerrero, yours is at 1130. It's part of the 1130 rediscussion, so you just need to wait 30 more minutes. No problem. Again, my apologies, Madam Chair. That is okay. Mr. Attorney Spitz?

Mr. Stembridge, 350 Athens Street, please.

So this request is for case BOA 1827083 with the address of 350 Athens Street. Would you go ahead, Attorney Spitz?

Yes, thank you, Mr. Stembridge. Madam Chair, members of the board, Attorney Ryan Spitz with Adamson Maranci, business address of 168 8th Street, 1st Floor. We're here. We just became informed of the planning department's recommendation, so we'd like to make changes based upon their recommendation. So we're looking for a short deferral, please.

Okay.

Caroline?

We can do October 6th, October 27th, or November 10th.

October 6th would work perfect, please.

Okay, with that, may I have a motion?

Motion to defer this case until October 6th.

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

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner?

Yes.

Dr. Barraza?

Yes.

Ms. Wewell? Yes. Mr. Langham?

Yes.

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

Thank you.

If there are no further requests, we'll withdraw.

Yes, correct.

Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Stembridge. Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, members, George Maranci, I'm an attorney with the business address of 350 West Broadway in South Boston. I represent the petitioner on the matter of 336 E Street, which unfortunately was advertised as 336 East Street. Inspectional Services Department is aware of that. ZBA staff, I believe that a new hearing date has already been assigned of September 29th. I guess we could let Caroline speak to that.

okay well can we read the address incorrectly as we've been for the record uh this request is for what's listed as case boa 183 3292 with the address of 336 east street so yes madam chair um

George is correct. So we did schedule it and it is already advertised for September 22nd.

Okay, so with that, may I have a motion?

Motion to defer this case until September 22nd.

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

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner?

Yes.

Ms. Barabarraza?

yes as we will mr langham yes chair votes yes the motion carries thank you any further requests for withdrawal of the referrals from the 11 o'clock here and then in that case we will return to the 9 30 hearing going to case voa 183 0082 with the address of 21 couture street if the applicant and or their representative are present yes thank you mr stembridge and good morning once again madam chair members of the board for the record

Attorney Matt Eckel with Fletcher Tilton on behalf of the applicant and I have a business address of 100 Franklin Street in Boston. We're here this morning seeking approval to erect a new single-family home at 21 Katuit Street in West Roxbury. 21 Katuit Street is currently a vacant lot which contains just under 4,000 square feet, approximately 3,800 square feet. Katuit Street itself is a small side street which intersects with Baker Street on one side and overlooks VFW Parkway as it dead ends on the other side. The street is predominantly made up of similar sized lots, all with single family homes located on them. And this is kind of the one missing tooth left in the street. We're proposing a new two-story single family home with two parking spaces. In terms of the floor plans, just to run through them briefly, We're proposing an unfinished basement for storage and mechanicals. The first floor will have a garage at grade, which will contain two parking spaces, as well as living space, which includes the kitchen, living room, dining area, a half bath, and a laundry area. The second floor will have the primary bedroom and bathroom suite located above the garage. And then towards the rear of the proposed building, there'll be three additional bedrooms, as well as a playroom. This project went through a community process which included meeting with direct abutters several times as well as a formal official abutter meeting. We also presented twice before the West Roxbury Neighborhood Council. We did implement some changes to the project, including that second parking space, as well as reducing the overall size of the structure, which increased the side and rear yard setbacks. Based on these changes, the West Roxbury Neighborhood Council did vote unanimously to support the project.

but with that i'll pause and i'll be happy to take any questions the board may have thank you any questions from the board all right um i i'm curious as to why are elevations missing of the project um part of our job on the zoning board is to review kind of the character of the proposed structure relative to the neighboring context. And I find it, the application incomplete for me to even begin to provide feedback in regards to whether I find it to be appropriate to its neighborhood.

Any other comments or questions? Do you want to respond to that, Attorney Echol?

sorry apologies for any confusion or oversight um this is a proposed two-story structure the majority of the structures along katuit are similar in two stories with kind of this a similar um you know couple steps entry gradual entry into the first floor i'm not sure exactly why those elevations are not included within the set but it is a fairly standard two-story building that you know aligns with the current streetscape

with that, 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 April 16th, at which there was some discussion, but no opposition was stated. The West Roxbury Neighborhood Council is supporting this application. With that background, ONS defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

We don't have additional comments.

Okay. Any other questions or feedback from the board?

I'm sure the project has merit. I would like to put forward that the project be deferred to the next hearing until we are able to see the project in its full. Is there a second? My colleagues might disagree, but that's... No, I'll second.

I don't think we want to unnecessarily delay anything. It's really important that we have the... they should make our decisions that are pretty important.

I also want to make a comment about that. I'm reading the recommendations from the planning department and there is a proviso about special attention to elevations as well. I'm wondering if maybe Jeff Madam Chair, can you hear me? Yes.

Yeah, but I think, Giovanni, I think that sets a bad precedent because then we're going to be always getting incomplete drawings in front of the board. And it's a lot of it. Sorry. Go ahead. That's fine. Love to hear from you, Mr. Hampton.

so our recommendation was based on the fact that it was a one family right the one family in a one family district we we went back and forth here uh in the department and i would completely understand and agree with you if you want to defer this to see uh the elevations but because it was a one family that's why we put that specific proviso in there but i I will agree with you that it's rare that we never see elevations. Um, so that's, I just wanted to explain why we put it in there because it was a one family. Thank you.

That is helpful. Okay. So there is a motion and a second, uh, I will proceed and, you know, you can decide if, uh, the recommendation from PD Stans or you want a deferral?

I don't think there was a motion forward. I was just putting an observation.

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought that was a motion. Okay, well, let's try again. Is there a motion?

I would like to, Madam Chair, I'd like to put forward a motion to defer the project to the next hearing so that we can review the project as a whole. Is there a second? Second.

Okay, Mr. Stembridge. Yes. Mr. Valencia.

Yes.

Ms. Turner.

Yes.

Ms. Betabraza.

Yes.

Ms. Wewell.

Yes.

Mr. Langham.

Yes.

Chair votes yes, the motion carries. Caroline, is there a,

Yeah, so would September 22nd or October 6th work best in terms of timing to get the elevations? I guess that's a question for Matt.

I'm confident we can get them submitted by September 22nd. Obviously, that's two weeks away, so as long as Inspectional Services is okay, it's not going to be any changes to any advertisements. So let's go with September 22nd, please.

Okay, we'll see that. If possible, could you send those directly to me as well so that we can take a look at them? Of course. Thank you. Thank you.

See you then.

Thank you.

Next, we have case BOA-184-8753 with the address of 24 Stimson Street, to the applicant and or their representative or president. Will they approve the complaint to the board?

Thank you, Mr. Stembridge. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board, Attorney John Pagini, here on behalf of the owner of this property, Andreas Wong. Thank you for having us here this morning. 24 Simpson Street, the lot size is 20,097 square feet, zoning is name put shopping. Originally, it was a three-story condominium building with 13 residential units and a first floor with 21 off-street parking spaces and a first floor commercial space that was designated as a daycare center. As it went forward, the daycare center pulled out and the lender Was concerned because this area of Simpson streets kind of really not a business district. It's more residential. We're kind of on the. The edge of the residential, and they thought it would be make more sense as a residential unit. The plans were submitted to again to convert the 1st wall commercial into a residential space of a 2 bed to bath. uh unit um it satisfies the parking requirements however as you all know in a neighborhood shopping district uh residential on the first floor is a commercial uh excuse me conditional use uh the neighbor when we went to the community meeting as well as the west roxford neighborhood council the neighborhood was very supportive of this because you can imagine a single family or a single unit know two-bedroom uh condominium unit would be a lot less traffic in the neighborhood than you know just say 15 children in the morning 15 parents dropping off picking up whatever leaving coming back picking up and leaving and then when we presented to the west russia neighborhood council because it was just a change of use and it made sense to them we received their unanimous support happy to answer any questions thank you are there any questions from the board

Hearing none, may I have public testimony?

Madam Chair and Board Members, Siggy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This petitioner completed the community process. Our office hosted an abutters meeting on June 2nd at which no public comments were made. The West Roxbury Neighborhood Council is supporting this application. With that background, ONS defers judgment to the Board. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Chair, we have no additional comment.

Okay, with that, may I have a motion?

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

Is there a second?

By the hand.

Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner?

Yes.

Ms. Pettibrasa?

Yes.

Ms. Whewell?

Yes.

Mr. Langham? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck.

Thank you, everybody.

Next, we'll move on to the hearing scheduled for 11 a.m. We'll begin with case VOA-1840166 with the address of 90-92 Elm Street. If the applicants and or their representative are present, would they please explain to the board?

Hello, can you hear me?

We can hear you now.

Oh, perfect. That was muted. All right. So, hello, my name is Don Juan Campos. I'm working with the owner to present the project is what used to be an existing laundromat that the owner would like to turn into an ice cream an ice cream fro-yo, actually, to be more exact, a fro-yo shop. So as you can see here, he's gonna be using and reutilizing the existing space to create the fro-yo shop. The business hours are gonna be from, sorry, 11 to 10. The reason why we're here, Marcantile is, It's not an allowed use, so we would like to do that change of use for this project. I don't know if there's a way I can share. I also managed to get a couple, some rent ideation for this project, but this project is gonna look on the inside. I don't know if there's a way for me to share that. I can share that if you'd like as additional information.

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

Madam Chair and Board Members, Siggy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This petitioner completed the community process. Our office hosted an abutters meeting at which comments were made supporting the concept. Some abutters raised concerns about traffic in the area caused by other food pickup businesses. concern about whether mitigation is needed due to the former use of this site as a dry cleaner, and a concern about the possibility of street tables congesting the sidewalk. The City Point Neighborhood Association voted to support this application. With that background, ONS defers judgment to the board. Thank you. Thank you.

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

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

next we have anyone yes good morning board uh loanne o'connor president of the city point neighborhood association this is exactly the type of business that we want in our neighborhood it's something for everybody all ages it doesn't contain alcohol the seating on the sidewalk was taken off the table so the owner committed to no outdoor seating and insofar as parking This is on the L Street corridor, and there are more businesses in this particular section because it's very close to our business district of East Broadway. So this is a perfect business for the community, and we fully support this type of establishment in our neighborhood. Thank you.

Thank you. Chair, there are no additional comments.

May I have a motion?

I'll put forward a motion of approval.

Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner?

Yes.

Dr. Braza?

Yes.

Ms. Luewell?

Yes.

Mr. Langham? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck. Thank you.

The next two cases have been deferred. So that will take us to case BOA 1857851 with the address of 368 Athens Street. Excuse me. If the applicant and or their representative are present, would they please explain to the board.

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. I represent the petitioner David Winnick, the owner and developer of 364-368 Athens Street. This property is located one block northeast of West Broadway. It is currently used as employee parking for a local bank. My client proposes to legally combine the two parcels constituting the site into a single site of approximately 4 325 feet square feet and to replace the existing surface parking with the four-story six-unit building it would be three two-bedroom units ranging in size from 980 square feet to 1044 square feet and three three-bedroom units uh two at 1241 square feet and one at 1,660 square feet. The surrounding area is developed with a number of parking lots serving West Broadway commercial uses, as well as numerous dwelling buildings ranging from two to four stories, with a five-story mixed-use building located directly across Advent Street from the site. as to zoning the proposed project requires variances for insufficient site in rear yard setbacks insufficient lot area and insufficient parking with respect to setbacks the mfr sub-district here requires a minimum side yard of three feet and a minimum rear yard of 20 feet which is reduced to 15 feet pursuant to the provisions of the shallow lot exception on the right side of the lot a near zero first floor side setback is proposed with the upper story set back approximately two feet the left side setback is compliant because this lot is l-shaped there are effectively two rear yards and two rear yard setbacks a five foot setback along the majority of the property and a 10 foot setback to the rear of the deepest portion of the building where the setback area accommodates a patio and a small rear yard. The upper stories are also stepped back in the rear. As the planning recommendation notes, near-zero lot line conditions are prevalent in this area, and the majority of this lot is, in fact, only 45 feet deep. With respect to minimum lot size, Article 68 requires a minimum lot size of 7,000 square feet in this MFRI district for a six-unit residential building. There are not. many 7,000 square foot lots in the neighborhood, including those on which multi-families of six or more units currently sit. These combined parcels total approximately 4,325 square feet with lot sizes in the neighborhood ranging or averaging about 2,000 square feet as the planning recommendation notes. Finally, with respect to parking, there are two violations arising under Article 68, Section 22. First, the project will provide six ground floor parking spaces beneath the residential units, three fewer than required. And a second violation with respect to parking is that each space is proposed at 9 by 18 feet, which is less than the 20-foot standard depth required under Section 33, which permits up to 50% of the spaces to be built as compact. Here, the proposed design and parking count are calibrated to allow for new housing creation with adequate off-street parking, in this case set at 1 to 1 parking. which conforms with city residential parking policy and i would even suggest with the um with the desires of this board in terms of previous cases with that madam chair i'll pause and be happy to answer any questions that members may have thank you are there questions from the board

Hearing none, may I have public testimony?

Madam Chair and board members, Ziggy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This petitioner completed the community process. Our office hosted an abutters meeting on June 29th, at which two abutters supported the proposal. The St. Vincent's Neighborhood Association is supporting this proposal. With that background, ONS defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have Ashley from Council of Things Office.

Thank you. Councilor Flynn supports based on a good community process. He respectfully asks that the proponent continue working closely with the community during the construction phase. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have David Nagle. David.

He's muted. Are you able to unmute him?

Yeah, I allow him to unmute. David, if you can unmute yourself, please.

Hello, this is David Lenhart with Coolsign Stores. I think I just heard that I should be Unmuted, is this the right David? There are more Davids in the world.

No, it was for another person.

This is for public comment for 368 Athens. Is there anyone else looking to speak? Okay. Any other questions or feedback from the board? Is there a motion?

madam chair i like to put forward a motion of approval um with a proviso that the project goes through the bpd design review just paying special attention to the extra material on the first story and then the continuation to the top story so that it works with the neighboring contacts is there a second

Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner?

Yes.

Ms. Pettibrasa?

Yes.

Ms. Wewell?

Yes.

Mr. Langham? Yes. Fair votes yes, the motion carries. Good luck.

Next, we have case BOA, 185-5511 with the address of 555-567 east broadway if the applicants and or their representative president will they please explain to the board good afternoon madam chair members of the board my name is francis adams i'm an attorney with the business address of 350 west broadway in south boston

I represent the owners of the property, Eric Fitzgerald and Nam O'Byrne, the current owner-archivists of the property. This property is a six-unit townhouse condominium that was approved by this board about three years ago. I represent the owner of this last particular unit here. It shows a roof deck. We are seeking relief for a variance for excessive building height, which this board has previously granted, and a conditional use permit for the roof deck. As you can see from the plans, this is an existing roof hatch. The deck is proposed here. There are no rare staircases or any other access to the roof. It's exclusive use to the unit owners, used by the two people that live there right now. It will not be shared. As I said, it's not a common deck. It will provide valuable open space to the homeowners. It's not a large deck. It's 10 feet wide by 16, not including the walkway right here. And it's set back from Broadway about five feet, as you can see from the dimensions. And on this side, it's set back a little over a foot as shown on the plans. As I said, we're seeking a variance as well as a conditional use permit for the project. We are aware of the planning department's recommendation for approval as well as to add a guardrail set back a little closer to the deck, and our project architect is committed to, if approved, submitting plans to ISD showing the guardrail in the appropriate location in accordance with Article 68 of the zoning code. With that, I will open it up to any questions the board may have.

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

Madam Chair and Board Members, Ziggy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This petitioner completed the community process. Our office hosted an abutters meeting on June 17th, at which three direct abutters were opposed to the application due to quality of life concerns. The Gate of Heaven Neighborhood Association does not support roof decks in their catchment area. With that background, ONS defers judgment to the Board. Thank you.

Next, we have Ashley from Consulate Friends of Oasis.

Thank you. My name is Ashley from Councilor Flynn's office. Over the weekend, Councilor Flynn sent a letter to the CBA in the city requesting a deferral due to a no abutters meeting or community process. In recent weeks, the city informed Councilor Flynn's office that the Office of Neighbor Health Services will now decide what requires community process within an abutters meeting and what does not. Respectfully, with the presence of zoning violations, In Article 68, updated as of 2019, Councillor Flynn believes ONS should not be making subjective determinations on what deserves public process for his neighbors and taxpaying residents. Similarly, this past spring, the City disregarded the concerns of City Point residents and Councillor Flynn on having an abutters meeting. The ZBA both deferred and denied that project over the course of two hearings due to the very same issues of community process. This is not about Councillor Flynn's concerns on roof decks. It's about what's always been traditionally shared values, our respect for transparency, public process, and residents of a neighbourhood deserving a say in what takes place there. Councillor Flynn will be filing legislation to require a butters meeting for all proposals seeking zoning relief so that neighbours are able to provide feedback to the city. He believes we cannot leave the door open for human error or questions regarding whether all proposals are being held to the same standard. Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, any additional comments?

Can someone from ONS respond to the...

Yes, Madam Chair. I'm somewhat confused by the commentary as an abutters meeting was hosted which was attended by myself and the petitioner's attorney at which the proposal was discussed with the community. I'm not sure if the testimony was intended for a different case or...

I would also like to add, Madam Chair, we have an email and a letter from the Gate of Heaven Civic Association who declined to have a meeting on this particular project. So in accordance with the current practices of the mayor's office, we did complete all parts of the process. We had the abutters meeting, as well as a request for the Gate of Heaven Neighborhood Civic Association, and they declined to have a meeting on this project. As stated, they oppose every roof deck. in the City Point neighborhood, I mean, the Gateheaven Civic Association. So they don't believe it was important to have a meeting on this particular project. So I respectfully decline with the statement made by council of Flynn's office.

Okay, any other public testimony?

No comments.

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

Motion, I make a motion. With the provision that the gut rail be set back from the roof edge in accordance with Article 68, Section 29.

Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge?

Yeah.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner?

Yes.

Ms. Betabraza?

Yes.

Ms. Wewell?

Yes.

Mr. Langham? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carried. Thank you very much, Floyd. Appreciate it.

And as we have now passed the 1130 AM contract, we'll ask if there are any requests for withdrawals or referrals from the 1130 AM here.