Bpda Board of Directors - Regular Meeting

Recording in progress.

Good morning. The City of Boston Zoning Board of Appeal hearing for September 22, 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 it's also being live streamed. As with our in-person meetings, comments and support will be followed by comments in opposition. The order of comments is as follows. Elected officials, representatives of elected officials and members of the public. The chair may limit the number of people called upon to offer a comment and the time for commenting as time constraints require. For that reason, the board prefers to hear from members of the public who are most impacted by a project. That is those individuals who live closest to the project. Okay. If you wish to comment on an appeal, please click the raise hand button along the bottom of your screen in the Zoom webinar platform. Click it again and your hand should go down. When the host sees your hand, you will receive a request to unmute yourself. Select yes and you should be able to talk. If you are connected to the hearing by telephone, please press star nine to raise and lower your hand. You must press star six to unmute yourself after you receive the request from the host. Those called upon to comment will be asked to state their name and address first and then can provide their comment. In the interest of time and to ensure that you have enough time to do so, please raise your hand as soon as Mr. Stembridge reads the address into the record. Do not raise your hand before the relevant address is called or the meeting host will not know to call on you at the appropriate time. We ask that you keep your comments brief and all public testimony will be limited to 90 seconds per speaker. Okay, Mr. Stembridge.

Good morning, Madam Chair.

Good morning. Mr. Valencia.

Good morning, Madam Chair, present.

Good morning. Ms. Turner. Good morning, Madam Chair, present. Good morning. Can you hear me? I can hear you now, thank you. Ms. Panato. Good morning, Madam Chair, present. Good morning. Mr. Collins.

Good morning, Madam Chair, present.

Good morning, Mr. Bernal. Good morning, Madam Chair, President. Good morning. All right, the floor is yours, Mr. Stembridge.

Thank you, Madam Chair. To begin, we will go with the approval of the hearing minutes headed to 9.30 a.m. These are the hearing minutes from September 8th of this year.

uh with that i'll make a motion of approval for these minutes may i have a second and a second okay someone's echoing mr stembridge yes mr valencia yes miss turner You're on mute, Ms. Turner? Yes.

Can you hear me?

Yes. Ms. Panato? Yes. Mr. Collins?

Yes.

Mr. Bernal? Yes. Thank you. The Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Next, we'll move on to the extension scheduled for 9.30 a.m. There are seven cases. All of these requests appear to be reasonable. I'll read them all in one after the other and turn it over. If we have any questions, we can address Madam Chair and then go from there. First, we have case BOA 1563599 with the address of 9 Geneva Street. Next we have case BOA 1649869 with the address of 1020 to 1022 Bennington Street. Next we have case BOA 1590922 with the address of 131 Devon Street. Next we have case BOA 121-1031 with the address of 134 Terrace Street. Next we have case BOA 1589704 with the address of 117 Addison Street. Next we have case BOA 146066 with the address of 61 Brooks Street. And a final extension case is case VOA 1193863 with the address of 683 Columbia Road. Those are the extension cases that have been reported.

I have a question on 134 Terrace Street.

Is the applicant for 134 territory on or? Well, you can ask the question and we can see. Yes.

So my question is, given that it's the fourth extension and the site actually appears to be on the market. My question is, if this applicant is pursuing development, actively pursuing the development or simply trying to sell the site, And that's my question. And I think after four extensions, we ought to be limiting extensions to one year.

Well, is the applicant on to address that question? If not, then I'll encourage Caroline or Stephanie to reach out to them just to inquire. But in the meantime, I don't think we can answer that question at this time. Can you hear me now? Are you the applicant for this?

Yes, I represent Kirby Lou on behalf of Terrace Charlie LLC.

Great, can you address that question?

Yes, so the property will be, the idea is to develop the property whether we are able to develop it or because it has been on the market. It would be advantageous for the extension to be considered again so that another developer will be able to proceed with the project and bring it to the community. If it were to expire, another developer would have to start over with the process and further extend the period in which improvements to the street would occur.

yeah i guess my concern is that it's it's been on the market a long time hasn't sold and it's you know holding up development so my uh so manager my motion would be an extension for one year on this one caroline question on that because obviously we usually vote as a bundle um yeah so you're definitely welcome to vote just um just to keep in mind the permanent extension act is still valid

So the applicant would still get an automatic two years from the time it expired, as long as the permit was active between 23 and 25. But after that, two years after that day is granted, then the Permit Extension Act wouldn't apply.

Okay. Well, if it applies anyway, then that's fine. So it sounds like we're going to vote them as presented.

Okay. We have a motion and a second. to grant the extensions as requested.

Motion to grant these extensions as requested.

Is there a second?

Second.

Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Yes. Can you hear me? Ms. Panato? Yes. Thank you. Mr. Collins?

Yes.

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

Next we'll move on to the recommendations scheduled for 9 30 a.m. The recommendations were brought forth from this recent subcommittee meeting. There are six cases. Five of them were approved and the sixth one I'll explain once we get to that in the last case. But in the meantime Next we have case BOA 185-5587 with the address of 34-36 Cohasset Street. This was approved. Next we have case BOA 182-5484 with the address of DTA Road, which was approved. Next we have case BOA-182-9505 with the address of 257 Cornell Street, which was approved. Next we have case BOA-182-7848 with the address of 615-619 Center Street, which was approved. Next, we have case BOA 1857490 with the address of 24 Rose Forge Street. Report is approved. And finally, we have case BOA 1783948 with the address of 1117 to 1125 Blue Hill Avenue. This case was deferred by the subcommittee until November the 10th. Madam Chair, those were the case reports from the subcommittee.

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

I put forward a motion. Go ahead, Shana.

Sorry, I put forward a motion to approve. Thank you. May I have a second?

Second.

Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

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

Yes.

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

Next, we'll move on to the hearing schedule today for 9.30 a.m. Before we begin with these, we'll ask if there are any requestable withdrawals or deferrals from the 9.30 a.m. hearing.

Yes, Mr. Stambridge, 196 Maverick Street, please. It's towards the end of the agenda of the 9.30.

uh um so that would be for kvoa 1862710 with the address called 196 fabric street would you go ahead and explain attorney

Thank you, Mr. members. Thank you. Madam chair members, the board attorney, Jeff drago drago Toscano on behalf of the applicant of 196 Maverick street. We went through a, what we thought was a complete community process. We were provided by the mayor's office, the appropriate, or which we thought neighborhood association we had in a butter meeting. also collected letters of support and we were able to get a hearing date after almost a year of going through process. It was just brought to our attention that due to an administrative error the boundary lines of the civic associations are very very close and it was actually the incorrect group. There is a meeting at the end of this month which we're going to get on and present and so we're asking for a very short deferral we really need if we can get the october date i know the board isn't meeting once in october just because of the circumstances which were out of our control if that's possible caroline yeah we could do october 6 at 9 30. great thank you okay well that may have a motion defer the motion to defer this case until october 6th

Second. Second. Thank you. Mr. Stembridge?

Yeah.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

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

I am on mute. Sorry. Yes.

Okay. Mr. Brunel? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. You then.

Thank you very much.

Any further request for a withdrawal or deferral from the 930 hearing? If not, move ahead and go to the first case, which is case BOA 1860757 with the address of 1200 Soldiersville Road. This is an Article 80 case. And with that, we'll ask if the applicants and who are the representatives are present.

Good morning, Mr. Sandberg, Joe Hanley on behalf of the applicant attorney, McDermott, Quilty, Miller, and Hanley. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. I believe we do have a presentation titled 1200 Soldersfield Road. There you have it. I will take you through this very quickly. Next slide, please. With me is the developer from Thunderdome LLC, Jeff Fuhrman, is a very experienced developer, property owner in the Alston Bright neighborhoods. Also working with O'Sullivan architect, Jonathan Stone, who's on with us and will take you through the plans. Next slide. So 1200 Soldiers Field Road in Alston, unique location, great opportunity to introduce both some streetscape and public realm improvements, improve connectivity, but more importantly, much needed housing. You can see the site in the red hash line. Land top across from us is Artesani Playground and the DCR of vast parklands. in Storrow Drive, I'm sorry, across from Soldiers Field Road and the river. You'll see at the intersection, Everett Street. Everett Street goes up to, this is the base of Everett Street, goes up to Western Ave. And there is a new crosswalk that has since been put in by DCR that can get people across the street. Next slide, please. Just to let you know the amenities, I spoke about the Western Avenue corridor, which is obviously under revitalization, but within transit and services and public uses, grocery stores and the like, and you'll see that within this proximity of this area. Next slide, please. So existing conditions, plan right. This site was once part of WBC's campus. It's a two-story, nondescript annex building that was used for office purposes. And it'll be razed and replaced with the residential development, which we'll show you. Next slide, please. Just a project overview quickly. The site is 1,800 square feet. The proposal is for a little over 85,000 gross square feet of floor area. It would provide 58 new residential units, 10 of which will be designated as affordable. I think what's important to note here too is these are all full family-sized units, as you'll see. about half one bedrooms and a little less than half on two bedrooms. Again, all ones and twos, no studios. And a total of 70 bike parking spaces and 37 residential spaces and an interior garage. A plan right shows you the vast amount of public benefits that are derived from this and were part of the Article 80 approval process for the BPA. Next slide, please. So just in support of the variants, obviously we have an existing commercial structure that isn't easily adaptable and really doesn't contribute in its current use in architecture. We also have a site that you'll see here that runs on three compliant with that if not a little less or substantially compliant but need relief under the base zoning principally relief in the areas of far building height rear yard we're also within a green belt and that was processed through the article 80 process and we need a conditional use permit or the residential use on the ground floor which we would suggest is appropriate and allows for the scale of housing with the affordability. FAR base zoning is one. Wacker Z is 35 and 37, again, substantially consistent. The building height allows base 35, 135 feet in the Western Avenue in Wacker Z, and we're a little under 80, 79.10 for a six-story above parking. And finally, the rear yard, we're about six and a half feet, 20 is required. Again, what mitigates this variance and supports it is that we front on three streets and the relief is on McDonald, again, which is a private way that my client has rights to. So we would suggest that that supports the grant of that variance as well. Next slide shows you how this all comes together in the refusal letter. And the next slide, I'll hand it off really quickly to Jonathan Stone to take you through the plans. Jonathan.

I will encourage you to be pithy. We have four other Article 80 cases on top of our agenda. So please be kind.

Yes, ma'am. Thanks, Joe. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board, Jonathan Stoneman, Sullivan Architects. Just running through the plans quickly. As you can see, here is a site plan, as Joe mentioned, we're increasing the public realm around the whole site. We're going to have streets on three sides. North Soldersfield Road is to the left here, Everett on the lower side. McDonald to have the private way on the right. We're improving sidewalk conditions as well as landscaping around the site, providing new trees along Everett as well as Soldersfield Road. Next slide, please. These are the plans as you walk through the building. The first floor bottom plan on the right shows that there's parking at that level. There is parking below this, which is below grade. It's three residential units. This is where our main entrance for our vehicular access off the private street on the right would be McDonald Ave. And the main residential entrance located off of Everett towards the bottom of the page. As you move up through the building, as you can see, we have a fairly even split of units. The darker blue is the one bedrooms. There's six on each floor. And the lighter blue is the two bedrooms. There are... Five on each floor. As you move up to the building, they are similar in shape and size as we get from the first floor to the sixth floor. Slide, please. Thank you. So these are elevations. As we walk around the building, the Soldierfield Road is the top left. We have a mix of materials here, full brick veneer, metal panel in lighter and darker colors, as well as a wood composite look around some key entry points, as well as balconies. It's similar material as we go around. We have an angular bay, this white portion towards the corner of Everett and Soldierfield Road, where the building is shaped to kind of accent the shape of the site. And we have this lower canopy piece that is more of a pedestrian scale that will lead people in from Soldersfield Road down towards Western Ave. Slide, please. These ones give you a better idea of what it looks like for the renderings. As you can see, this is a corner of Everett and Soldersfield Road. Our main entrance was down here on the Everett side of it towards that white piece that touches the ground. And the river will be across the street to our left. Next slide, please. directly across soldier field road here you can see we have these angular shapes just portraying what the shape of the site is next slide this is towards the back we're looking up up everett down um mcdonald avenue the private way our vehicular entrance is off the private way to the right similar details around the building brick veneers and light and dark metal panel as well as the pedestrian realm and this is just a closer shot of the entry the residential entry with the accessible ramp and the bike room is off of this as well great job jonathan back to you madam chair thank you questions from the board garen nunn made a public testimony

Yes, Madam Chair, members of the board, Connor Newman with the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services. This time the Mayor's Office has deferred to the judge from this board. Some background information on the community process. This went through a Boston Planning-led community process involving multiple IEG meetings as well as a public meeting. The public comments were overwhelmingly in support of this proposal, feeling that this was the appropriate site for this type of density. Many residents were also pleased with the configuration of the number of rooms for the units. They also connected with the two civic associations for the Austin-Brighton area, the Brighton-Austin Improvement Association, which was in support, as well as the Austin Civic Association that was in support. You should have a letter from the ACA that came in this morning. They support the conditions of no building code relief. With that information, we'll defer to the board. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Next, we have Moira Trey.

Good morning, this is from Council Braden's office. The council would like to go on record in support of this project. Project will bring much needed housing units, 58 housing units and also 10 onsite IDP units to the neighborhood. Thank you.

Next we have Jack Gilman.

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Jack Gilman. I'm a project assistant with the development review team at the planning department. I just I'm here to speak to the in regards to the 1200 soldiers field road project in the article 80 process. Just quickly, I want to note that, you know, on March 27th, 2026, Thunderdome LLC filed their PNF with the planning department. Following that, the BPDA hosted their virtual public meeting on April 14th, 2026, and an impact advisory group meeting on April 29th, 2026. And then one last joint ING public meeting on July 9th, 2026. These meetings were well attended and well received by the public. And these events were noticed on the BPDA's events calendar and sent to the Allston neighborhood distribution list. And then ultimately on July 16th, 2026, the project was approved at the BPDA board. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we have Michael with the iPhone 2. Hi, I see that you have erased.

Michael on iPhone 2, are you here to speak on this project? Not on this project. Okay then, so let's keep going. Any other raised hands?

Okay. Yes. Next we have Annabella Gomez.

Madam Chair, members of the Board, Annabelle Gomez from the Brighton Also Improved Association. The Brighton Also Improved Association voted to support this project. Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, we have additional comments.

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

I'll make a motion of approval. Is there a second?

Second. Mr. Stumbridge?

Yeah. Mr. Valencia? Yes.

Ms. Turner?

Yes.

Ms. Panato? Yes. Mr. Collins?

Yes.

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

Thank you.

Next, we have case BOA 1836965 with the address of 25A Alabama Street. If the applicant is a representative or president, will they please explain the case to the board?

Hi, good morning. My name is Dexter Coy. I am the owner of 25 Alabama Street. I also live at 25 Alabama Street. I am proposing to build a two family house. I have the space and I will also be contributing to one apartment to the housing situation we have here in Boston. I'm just asking for the okay to go ahead with this project.

So can you walk us through the violations? Is the lot coverage excessive in permeable area insufficient?

That's what the CD was saying. But I believe my lots are big enough. And I could also, to make this problem go away, I could also do my parking area in gravel. That way, I will have more areas for water to be absorbed in the soil if it's necessary.

Okay, are there questions from the board?

I mean, I think he needs to walk us through the plans and we need to see exactly what the violations are.

So can the applicant walk us through the plans that are being shown?

What page should matter? This is my existing property. I have a two-family house right now on the property. On the other side is the other lot. There's lot 14 and 15. I had it divided. This is what I'm proposing to do. This is the specs. I have off-the-street parking. It's the same size as the existing house right now. So this is what I'm proposing right now. It's a two family. The first floor is three bedrooms. The second floor is two bedrooms and I got a attic with a master bedroom.

Yeah, we typically see a chart that shows the violations.

um which doesn't appear to be on the set of plans so i think it's hard for us to make a decision without the information well all right go ahead who was speaking mr stemberg uh that madam chair is uh is someone on from the uh if i'm jumping ahead uh some someone off in the planning department

Mr. Hampton, are you with us?

Can you? Yes, thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board, Jeff Hampton, City of Boston Planning Department. uh as you saw in our recommendation we're not opposed to the two family per se but it did raise questions on exactly how much of this lot was being covered and what materials were going to be used for the parking area one of the things that we noticed that was in the proposed new site plan there adding parking spaces to 25 Alabama. We didn't know if this was part of the same project or whether or not there would be a new violation on 25 Alabama in addition to 25A. Our concerns really are with the coverage of the lot, whether or not the material that's going to be used for the parking area is going to be permeable. But based on the plans, we could make that decision. So that's why we recommend it to now without prejudice.

So there's not sufficient level of detail in their plans, correct?

Yeah, I mean, I think I would agree with that. I mean, there's two things missing. There's not enough information in the site plan as you're looking at the plans. And then we also don't have the denial information in this presentation.

Okay, let's have a public testimony and circle back with a motion.

Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Benbury. I am the Mattapan Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process, which consists of an abutters meeting held in person, where abutters inquiries were addressed during the meeting. Following the abutters meeting, no further community process was required. Today, our office has not received any further community feedback at this time. 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 additional hands raised at the moment.

Okay, well, that may have a motion.

I'd like to make a motion of. right uh deferral um without prejudice he did not want prejudice uh we just need more detail i believe um in terms of what what's going to be we hear what's going to be done um i for one just can't see it so um okay thank you may have a second i'm sorry we've got a deferral or a

Are you asking for a denial without prejudice or a deferral?

Denial without prejudice.

Denial without prejudice?

Correct. You can do either, by the way. You can do a deferral and give him the time to buckle back.

That sounds great.

Let's go with the deferral then. A second time.

yeah may i be excused may i ask what what could i um so let us finish voting and then i think you you should circle back to the staff for what's missing okay and so we're giving you an opportunity to come back with that information so i heard a motion and a second uh mr stembridge yes mr valencia yes uh but do we have a date for the federal

We could do November 10th, if that's enough time, or November 17th.

Mr. Coy, does that give you enough time to circle back with? Whatever you guys need, ma'am.

Yes.

Okay. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Panato? Yes. Mr. Collins? Yes. Mr. Brunel? Yes. Chair votes yes, the motion carries. We'll see you on November 10th, and if you can circle back to the staff to ensure that you fill out what's missing from what you've submitted. Thank you. Thank you.

Next, we have case VOA 1837747 with the address of 98 Mount Hope Street. If the applicants and or their representative present, would they please explain to the board

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Eileen Rosa. This opportunity, I'm representing the owner, Mr. Alfred Mortar, for this proposal. This project consists of a new construction for a two-family dwelling with a garage at 98 Mount Hope Street. And the violations we are facing, it's about 10 of them. The first one, consisted of greenbelt protection overlay, load area insufficient, load width insufficient, load area ratio excessive, building height excessive in terms of storage, open usable space, front yard, side yard, rear yard, and lot frontage insufficient. So if we can scroll down to the next page, we'll see the table with the proposed setbacks and also what's required in this area. This is a two-family zone in a 5,000 square feet area, but however, the lot here is 2,297 square feet. In regards to the lot width, the requirement is 50 feet, ours is 32.90, as well as the lot frontage. Open usable space requirement per unit is 1,750 square feet, and we're proposing 500 square feet per unit. For front yard, the minimum is 20 feet. Our proposal is five feet, which is relatively consistent with the model alignment in the area. As far as side yard, the requirement is 10 feet. Our proposal at the shoulder spot here is three and a half. For the rear yard, the requirement is 40 feet. We're proposing around 16 feet. For building height in terms of feet, the requirement is 35 feet. We're proposing 20, about 30 feet. And in terms of stories, it's two and a half. We're proposing three because of the square footage, even though the house does look as a two and a half story. And for floor area ratio, the requirement is 0.5 and we're proposing 1.7. The proposal is intended to fit in the area naturally within the surrounding neighborhood. The building has a traditional residential appearance. with a front porch, pitched roof, residential-scale windows, siding, trim, and architectural shingles. Here we are also committed to quality and durable construction materials, and the plans call for durable exterior materials and a properly detailed wall assembly, including sheathing, insulation, air filtration protection, and vapor barrier. Each unit, it's about 2,000 square feet. The first unit, it's throughout the first floor and lower level with three bedrooms, two bathrooms. And the second unit, it's on the second floor and that third upper floor, which we call the attic, but because of the square footage, it's considered a third floor with a total of four bedrooms and two bathrooms. Overall, the intent is to create a will maintain attractive residential property that blends into the existing neighborhood and provides functional housing while respecting the surrounding residential character. That's all I have for now. Thank you for your time and consideration and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Are there questions from the board?

Do you go ahead?

I'm just going to ask about the curb cut. It looks like you have a garage sort of right there. Do you know the intentions on how to deal with the curb cut?

The intention is to apply for a curb cut while they're in the process for accessibility to the garage. That is correct. okay so okay that's just not in the drawings at this moment that's good okay and do you have any landscaping plan do you have a site plan that shows landscaping or existing trees uh we don't have any one there is an existing tree that we understand is right at the uh but it's not part of this uh lot it belongs to the neighbor but it's very it's technically aligned with the property line but there's no landscaper set.

Can you speak to what you do with landscaping?

For landscaping, the open space, it's honestly pretty limited, as you saw in the open usable space. But for now, the intention is to deal with some arborvitaes for privacy purposes and grass overall, and maybe some evergreens throughout as needed. Thank you.

Thank you. We have public testimony.

madam chair and members of the board for the record my name is jeremy memory i'm the rosenthal community engagement specialist for the office of neighborhood services the applicant has completed the community process which consisted of an about his meeting facilitated on may 26th with two guests in attendance a concern for preserving green space was voiced next the reporter was encouraged to present to the civic association mount hope canterbury neighborhood association on may 14th which completed the community process to date our office has received four letters of support for the proposal Thank you for your time, and the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services would like to defer to the Board for their judgment.

Thank you. Next, we have Yusuf here.

Uh, Yusuf from Council Royal's office. The Council would like to go on record supporting this project. It increases housing opportunities. They did their job receiving community input and keep the character of the neighborhood in this project.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, we don't have additional comments.

With that, may I have a motion?

Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion of approval with a proviso to submit plans to the Planning Department with a special attention to the site plan and tree canopy. We have a second? Mr. Stembridge?

Yeah.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

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

Yes.

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

Next, we have case BOA 1851272 with the address of 1519 to 1521 Hyde Park Avenue.

if the applicant and or their representative present would they please this is charles latour i am the uh representative for the owner we are here looking to receive uh relief for this project the project uh breakdown is attic renovation as well as an addition in regards to the refusal letter the project does not expand outwardly it's going up and some of the the issues were existing part of the existing footprint already and I'm here to answer any questions that you may have.

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

Madam chair and members of the board. For the record, my name is Jeremy memory. I'm the Hyde park community engagement specialist for the office of neighborhood services. The applicant has completed the community process, which consisted of an about his meeting held on June 18th with Noah, but as present next, the proposal was presented to Hyde park neighborhood association on July 9th, where they voted in support of the proposal to date. Our office has received one letter of support from the Hyde park neighborhood association. 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.

May I have a motion?

Motion to approve. May I have a second?

Second.

Mr. Stembridge?

Yeah.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

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

Yes.

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

Thank you. Next, we have case VOA 1870785 with the address of 1702 Hyde Park Avenue. This is an article 80 case. If the applicant and or their representative present, would they please explain to the board?

Thank you Mr. Stembridge. Good morning Madam Chair, members of the board, Attorney John Pagini, here on behalf of developer Thomas Garrity with respect to this Article 80 Lodge project located at 1702 High Park Avenue in the rebuild section of High Park. With me this morning is David Freed, the project architect from Chew and Company. Thank you for the opportunity to present this proposal. 1702 High Park Ave is located in a LI2 zoning sub-district. The lot size is 22,030 square feet, and this is an area of High Park in between Clary Square and High Park, Clary Square, excuse me, and then Walcott Square in Readville. So it's kind of an industrial area that has been identified as a high growth area in Plan 2030, as well as the Fama Indigo Planning Study. Some background on this project, you may look familiar. It was originally filed with the Planning Department under small project back in 2021. And it was approved at that date in 2023 for a five-story mixed-use building, 44, Units and ground floor commercial space. After that approval, there were 2 of bloody neighbors bars who actually went through the process as well and increased the height of their building significantly over this 1. As a result, the planning department worked with developed to redesign this building to conform to the heights of the body properties. And which would also add more housing stock and increase the number of much needed home ownership opportunities in high park. A notice of project change was filed with the Planning Department earlier this year, and that proposal is before you. It's a seven-story mixed-use building, 2,500 square foot of ground floor retail space, and there will be 68 residential homeownership condominiums. Twelve of those will be affordable. Thirty-four parking spaces will also be included, and it received the approval from the BPA Board this past April. In addition to the development, the development team worked extensively with the planning department's transportation personnel as well as the Boston Transportation Department in the enhancement of the pedestrian experience by granting an easement to the city that will allow for an increased sidewalk width, street trees, street lighting, and furnishing zones. This design was coordinated with the abutting development proposals, which have already been approved, with the goal of widening High Park Ave as future development occurs on this high-growth corridor. As I stated, it's basically industrial now, but there's not many new businesses going into that area. this project project is directly proximate to the reedville community rail station as well as they have bus transportation in front of the building to forest hills and beyond i will now pass it off to david freed who will go through the plans and will be happy to answer any questions once he's completed appreciate it david Do you guys see if David Freed on the call? He may be muted.

I'm sorry, I'm muted. I apologize. John, you really took us through the project pretty thoroughly. As John described, the building is a new seven-story multi-family building with one commercial space. of about 2,500 square feet, 68 units, and 34 parking spaces. The front of the building will be brick. It will be a brick facade. And as the building turns the corners facing the rail yard, the cladding will be more industrial, such as textured metal panels and fiber cement panels. We widened the sidewalk substantially to create a really nice pedestrian experience for people to walk directly to the Greenfield Community Rail Station. That's really it in a nutshell.

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

Yes, Madam Chair, members of the board, Connor Newman with the mayor's office of neighborhood services. This time, the mayor's office deferred to the judgment. This board. Some background information, the community process just went through a Boston Langley community process. Most recently with the notice of project change to public meetings were held. The applicant also presented to the Reedville Watch Neighborhood Association, which expressed opposition to this proposal. I understand that their chief concern was they felt that there should be more parking for this particular proposed development. That information will defer to the board. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we have Jack.

Good morning again, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Jack Gilman. I'm a project assistant with the development review team at the Planning Department. I also just want to speak to the 1702 Hyde Park Ave project and the Article 80 process. John covered some of this, but I just want to reiterate again, this project filed their SBRA originally in December 8th of 2021. They went through the community process, having public meetings on January 19th of 2022. in may 3rd of 2023 which was then ultimately voted on at the bbda board on august 17th 2023 and then like john said following a project update an npc was filed switching this project into a large project review process and then again joint iig and public meetings were held on march 3rd 2026 and march 25th 2026 and then ultimately again this project was approved at the bpda board on april 16th 2026.

uh thank you next week mr yeoman can you speak to that concern i'm sorry can i ask a question to mr go so can i ask if you could respond to the feedback on the parking what was the what was the thought behind that is there not space for it or is there because it looks like a

So just to know, I was not the project manager at the time for this project. So I don't necessarily recall the details of the parking issue. I was really here to speak to the overall article 80 process for it since I wasn't the project manager. But maybe John would be able to recall more of the parking detail.

yeah we'll keep going we'll keep going with public comments and then i'll uh mr virginia can answer that later thank you thank you okay we have jose colón thank you madam chair and members of the board my name is josue colón business representative of the north atlantic states regional council of carpenters and we want to go on record as being in full support of this proposal thank you very much

Thank you chair. We don't have additional comments.

Okay, Mr. Yes, Madam chair. So, as this was a large project, the parking ratios is determined by the planning department. And the planning department, because of its location where it literally is the back of this project is the rebuilt commuter rail station, they felt that the maximum amount of parking spaces would be half of what the amount of units are. So 68 units, 34 off-street parking spaces. So the whole parking was dictated through the planning office. We don't have any residential letters. I'm sure many of you are familiar with this area. This stretch of land is probably about a mile in length that runs from kind of a bend in High Park Avenue as you come out of Clary Square, and it's all industrial properties. There are several approvals, as I stated in my presentation. And it is, again, because of its location, it was identified through Plan 2030 as well as the Fairmont Indigo Planning Study for exactly this type of development.

Thank you. Any other questions from the board?

Yes, I read the memo and I believe that your project is planting about five trees on the street. Correct. The question is, is there any possibility to increase the number of trees that you are planting? Because this is an industrial area, and clearly more trees and more green space will be welcome. So it's just a question.

It's a very important question, because together with the project to our left and to our right, we work together. I mean, obviously, we'll have an extensive public improvements commission process, but that was the goal to, as you stated, you know, it's a heat island area because it's all asphalt down there, concrete. And by the other projects putting in street trees, we're putting in street trees. And as this area gets developed, we're not only widening the streets, but we're also providing much more wider sidewalks, street trees, street lighting. and all these things that will make it, you know, a cooler area with the oncoming global warming, as well as a much easier pedestrian experience for people if they're walking from, you know, Readville to Clary Square or vice versa.

Thank you. And about the parking, this is, I believe, this is a transit-oriented location, right?

Correct. We are literally a two-minute walk to the Readville train station.

And the train station has... plenty of parking spaces for the riders. It does. Yeah. OK. Thank you.

You're welcome. OK. Any other questions from the board? May I have a motion?

No. Should I like to put forward a motion of approval?

Second. Second. Thank you. Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Turner? Yes. Thank you. Ms. Panato? Yes. Okay. Ms. Panato? Okay. Mr. Collins? I said yes. I think there might be a delay on your end, Sherry. On my end? Okay. I was trying to figure out if it was me or others, so let me see what I can do. Mr. Bernal? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Thank you, everybody.

Thank you.

Next, we have case VOA 1879797 with the address of 12 Pendale Road. If the applicant and or their representative are present, would they please explain their vote? Yes, Mr. Stembridge.

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board, Attorney Derek Small. I have a business address on 51 Dobson Road. And with me today is the architect for the project, Mr. Tim Sheehan. Madam Chair, we're here today seeking relief to erect a building for six residential units with six parking spaces on a vacant lot. The zoning sub-district here is a 2F5000. Our lot size is approximately 6400 square feet. The violations are FAR, the required FAR is 0.5, we are proposing three. Building height with regard to stories, our building proposal is three stories at 31 feet, but the zoning sub-district requires a two and a half story building. With regard to side yard, the requirement is 10, on the right hand side we have five, and on the left hand side we have 15, which is where the driveway will be. The rear yard requirement is 20 feet, and we have 11 and a half feet. And with regard to off-street parking, Madam Chair, off-street parking requirement is 12. We are providing six as stated. The units, Madam Chair, are two bedroom, two bath, and range in size from 850 square feet to about 950 square feet. It is important to note too that new draft zoning for this area was released this past summer and it will make this project or project of this magnitude as of right project. I can stop there and answer, Tim and I can answer any questions that the board may have at this time. Thank you.

Are there questions from the board? We have public testimony.

Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Benberry. I'm the Roslindale Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process, which consisted of an voters meeting held on June 10th. The primary concern raised by voters was the potential impact of the proposal on neighborhood parking availability. While the proposal includes off-street parking accommodations, several attendees expressed concern that future residents may choose not to utilize the provided parking spaces or may own multiple vehicles, resulting in increased demand for off-street parking. Abutters noted that parking on Pinedale Street is already limited, particularly due to a nearby school where parents frequently park during student drop-off and pick-up times. residents stated that the existing parking congestion can make it difficult to find available street parking and express concern that the proposed development could further exacerbate these conditions attendees also noted that parking challenges become more pronounced during the winter months when snow accumulation reduces the number of usable on-street parking spaces overall parking availability and traffic congestion were the primary issues discussed during the meeting to date our office has received one letter of opposition again regarding the parking 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. With regard to the parking, Madam Chair, again, we are having, these are home ownership opportunities and they were deeded one parking space per year.

Are there any other comments, public comments?

Madam Chair, we don't have additional comments.

Okay. Are there any other questions from the board?

I think the plan department was concerned about the curb cut dimensions. Do you have that today?

I think on the left-hand side where the driveway is proposed, we are proposing and we will be applying for a curb cut with a width of 10 feet. I don't know if it shows it on the plans.

It does. Okay.

Does it show on the plan? Yeah, sorry.

Yes, it does show, 10 feet. Okay, thank you. Okay, any other questions from the board?

We have a motion. I'll make a motion of approval with the proviso that the plans be submitted to the Planning Department for design review, paying attention to maneuverability and curb cut dimension. Okay, is there a second?

Second.

Mr. Stembridge?

Yeah.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Prado? Yes. Mr. Collins?

Yes.

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

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

Next, we have case VOA 1873760 with the address of 157 Granite Avenue. This is also an article 80 case. And if the applicants, and though they're representative or present, would they please explain the case to the board?

Yes, thank you, Mr. Stembridge. Good morning, Madam Chair and members. My name is George Maranci. I'm an attorney representing the owner and developer, Dennis Cohane, trustee of Cohane Development Realty Trust. Madam Chair and members, the proposed project consists of a five-story residential condominium building at 157 granite avenue which is a vacant approximately 24 000 square foot parcel in dorchester with prominent rock ledge across the site the parcel abuts a residential condominium building with surface parking at 135 granite avenue to the north Cedar Grove Cemetery to the west, commercial buildings including a medical MRI facility to the south, and Granite Avenue to the east with direct access to I-93 and Gallivan Boulevard. I will speak to the zoning relief being sought before turning the presentation over to Cheryl Tagaias, the project architect, who will briefly take the board through the slides. Also joining us today is Ian McKinnon, the project's traffic and transportation engineer and technical leader at Howardstein Hudson. This site, Madam Chair and members, sits within a 1F5000 single-family zoning subdistrict under Article 65 of the Dorchester Neighborhood District. The proposed multifamily use requires a variance, but as can be seen from an aerial view of the site, the only two active nearby uses on this side of Granite Avenue are multifamily dwelling and the previously mentioned business uses. As to the dimensional requirements of the code, the lot is oversized and overperforms with respect to lot area and lot frontage requirements. The zoning relief being sought is a floor area ratio variance with an FIR 1.83 here being proposed versus 0.5 allowed by code. Building height would be in violation at 55 feet, where 35 feet is allowed by code. Building height in stories as well requires relief. Five stories here are being proposed, whereas two and a half stories are allowed by code. The rear yard setback measures 5.2 feet, while 30 feet are required by code. I'd point out that the 5.2 foot setback occurs along just under half of the rear width of the building. but it does increase significantly as the rear lot line jogs outward at a diagonal as it bears southerly. There's a side yard setback violation. This is a minor violation on the left side where a 9.7 foot setback is provided. That's about 8 inches less than the 10 foot requirement by code. The right side of the lot and its setback is compliant. and finally off street parking 25 spaces are being proposed for the 24 units these are garage spaces not surface parking the code requires 34 spaces in this area as the board will see during the brief architectural presentation the site is highly irregular in shape with boundary lines running at multiple non-parallel bearings rather than the regular rectangular configuration typical of the surrounding parcels. More significantly, more than half of the site is burdened by exposed and shallow rock ledge. Mapped onto the site is a substantial ledge outcrop running diagonally across a significant amount of the lot's footprint. With that, Madam Chair, I'll turn the presentation over to our project architect, Cheryl Tagayas. And then we'll, of course, pause and take any questions that the board may have.

Thank you, George, and thank you Madam Chair and members of the board. Could we go back to the beginning of the slide deck, please? The view at the top left of the screen shows our Granite Avenue view. This site, as George mentioned, is quite unique with the ledge outcropping. We worked extensively with the design review staff at the planning department to address how the building would fit between the two neighboring buildings that George mentioned. and to also give expression to the ledge. Behind the site is the Cedar Grove Cemetery, and we've addressed the building from that side as well. And now if you could go to the next slide. This area with the darkest shading area is the portion that is the ledge that's rising out of the grade. Next slide. This is a different orientation, but the Granite Avenue is to the right and the building footprint with the setbacks that George described are shown here. Next, please. Again, another orientation, but the Granite Avenue at the top of the sheet, access with the driveways to the left near the intersection. And Ian McKinnon, our engineer, can describe what we're doing with this access and the intersection after me. Next, please. The architectural site plan shows this building in context with the two buildings, the condominium building to the north to the top and the commercial building to the south to the bottom. And our ground floor consists primarily of parking, which you can see on the left. and then the front facing or street facing portion of the ground floor is the lobby and the bicycle storage room. The pedestrian entrance is near the intersection with Hilltop Street and the access to the bike room is further to the south. Due to the topographic change, the ramps are required in some locations here. Next please. This shows an enlargement of that street facing portion of the first floor as well as the building section. The height is mitigated by having the building stepped back at various places as can be seen in these sections as well as with sloping roofs. Next please. Typical residential floor plans can be seen here. There's a mix of one, two, and one three bedroom unit. There are six one bedrooms, 17 two bedrooms, and the one three bedroom. The range and sizes are 670 square feet to 1300 square feet. We have accessible area at the rooftop for solar panels that we intend to have installed. private outdoor green space for each of the units in the form of a balcony or a roof deck next please building elevations you can see the ledge at various portions rising up in some places and and other places where we are having our first floor set to meet that existing grade next please Here's a photograph of the site. So the top right photo is the condominium building on the right and the commercial building on the left. That left photograph shows the ledge rising up, which would be near the commercial building.

And then the .

i would ask

um

with the board ultimately bpa board approved on november 13th 2025 For that were two public meetings. During those public meetings, there were a number of comments in opposition to this proposal, citing concerns related to height, density, the parking ratio, as well as the potential impact of traffic on the intersection of Granite and Hilltop. These concerns were echoed by the Cedar Grove Neighborhood Association, which ultimately was in opposition to the proposal. That information will be referred to the board. Thank you.

Next, we have Ian Rimas.

Hello, Madam Chair, members of the board, Liam Remus, Councilor Fitzgerald's office. The council would like to on record in opposition this proposal due to strong opposition our office has received from both the Cedar Grove Civic Association and the neighboring condo building. Thank you.

Next, we have Lindsey Snyder.

Hi, my name is Lindsey Snyder. I just bought a unit at the Cedar Grove condominium, and I would just like to express some concerns about privacy. I appreciate you providing the shadow study, but my unit would face this proposed development. And I think that I'm very concerned about privacy and maintaining at least some of the trees that would abut the two parcels. And I think that I would probably like to see some more trees being maintained.

alongside that if that isn't a great comment thank you thank you next we have a john good morning thank you my name is john o'toole i'm a georgia resident and i just wanted to express my full support for this project it's really undergone a remarkably thoughtful and comprehensive process and there's really been no less than six community meetings with abutters local business owners and the cemetery and i think the result of all these efforts have really made a substantial improvement to the project itself, which is really currently a vacant, underutilized parcel. He's reduced the building size of footprints, stepping back the top floor, adding high-quality fencing and buffering along to respect the views of the neighbors and the cemetery. I think the traffic studies that have been done ensure that safer pedestrian crossings and flow of traffic In addition to that, I just think it adds much-needed housing in an area, and I just fully support this project. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have Charlie.

Good morning, members of the board. My name is Charlie Tebnan. I reside at 4 Fairfax Street in Dorchester. I'm a longtime trustee, volunteer trustee of the Cedar Grove Cemetery. uh and i will just comment as a trustee that we actively participated in the public process we expressed numerous times

17.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yeah, building site moves south. So that's up to the board if they would like to see those two slides.

So the question about the setback and proximity to actual brave sites, I mean, what are you able to do to mitigate concerns around that?

Maybe if we could look at the slide that shows the site plan. My client during this process did make some adjustments to the building, pulling it back in terms of its footprint and then also stepping it back. There is a section there where there are graves. This site was actually part of Cedar Grove Cemetery. It was in fact sold to my client for development purposes. So I don't think it's a surprise that it's being developed and the majority of the building is farther away from the boundary line of the cemetery than that 5.2 feet.

Madam Chair, if you'd like to see that plan as the architectural site plan sheet A1, it shows an aerial photograph with the building footprint and you can see I think fairly clearly where the cemetery boundaries are and the building footprint is.

Okay, are there other questions from the board? Now, I just note in the chat that John O'Toole states that he's a member of the former president of the Cedar Grove Civic and the cemetery and offering support. So he's been involved in the cemetery and the civic association.

Thank you.

He also, he provided public testimony.

Thank you. Any other comments or questions from the board?

May I have a motion? I'll make a motion of approval.

Is there a second?

Second.

Mr. Scunbridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Tarnow? Ms. Panato? Yes. Mr. Collins?

Yes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair and members.

Next, we have two companion cases. The first is case BOA-188-6824 with the address of 372 Neponson Avenue. Along with that, we have case BOA-188-6827 with the address of 372 Neponson Avenue. Will they represent the president? Will they please explain the case? Yes, thank you.

My name is George Maranci. I'm an attorney with the business address of 350 West Broadway in South Boston. Madam Chair, if you please. the lesser, for lack of a better word, of the two cases, which is 367 to 371 Neponset Avenue, because that will help frame the 372 Neponset Avenue proposal. 367-371 is the location of My client's former restaurant was once Dorset Hall. It's now McGonigals. 372 Neponset Ave was the parking lot dedicated to that restaurant. My client sold the restaurant business in 2024. At that time, all surface parking at 372 for McGonigals was discontinued. So there's been no parking there for well over two years. The proposal here is to develop that former parking lot at 372. It triggered a separate refusal letter for 367-371 because parking for the restaurant when that building at 367-371 was approved was located on the 372 parcel. My client still owns the real estate at 367-371, does not own or operate the restaurant. So again, the development of 372 causes that violation at 367, 371 because the parking is being removed. With respect to 372, as I say, it was a former surface parking lot and it's been vacant and not used for parking in over two years. The applicant whom I represent, his name is Paul Adamson and he owns both sites. Being proposed at 372 is a new 4 story, 10 unit rental building with 13 garage parking spaces. All of these units would be 2 bedroom units and 2 of those would be designated as inclusionary zoning units. With respect to zoning, the site is owned LC or local convenience. Despite this factor are. many residential buildings in the immediate area, particularly on this side of New Ponson Avenue. In terms of zoning violations, there's a violation for excessive FAR. The code here permits a maximum FAR of one. The proposed building has a proposed FAR of 1.28. In terms of building height, while the code permits a maximum height of 40 feet, this proposed four-story building would be 42.5 feet. The planning recommendation from the planning department, which I reviewed, does refer to a building height of 46 feet, but it is, in fact, 42 and a half feet to the roof line with the small elevator override. There's a side yard setback violation. Despite the fact that this is an LC district with no required side yard setback, Footnote 6 D of the code requires a side yard equal to that of an abutting residential sub district where the side lot line in question abuts a residential use. On the left side of this lot is a residential sub district, which requires a side yard set back of 10 feet. The proposed side yard setback here is approximately one foot, but mitigating this is the fact that there is, on that site to the left, a double wide driveway serving the multifamily residential building to the left. The right side is compliant. And there's a violation for insufficient off-street parking. The code here requires one and a half spaces per unit, much like the previous case, or 15 spaces. The applicant here is proposing 13 spaces. These, again, are garage spaces. They're not surface spaces. There is one additional violation cited on the refusal letter, and it owes to the situation which I described at the beginning of my presentation about removing that parking that hasn't been used in two years for the restaurant. And the plans examiner cited that as the fact that that parking, which was part of the proviso of the 367, 371 parking, is a restaurant building was being removed. Finally, the residential use here is conditional in this local convenience sub-district. uh in a subject to approval under article six three uh with that madam chair we do have mike delafay from roney architects if the board would like to be walked through the plans i'll leave that to the discretion of the chair okay thank you are there questions from the board public testimony

hello madam chair members of the board my name is ava jones representing the mayor's office and neighborhood services regarding 372 napanzan app our office defers to the board's judgment a community process was conducted including an abutters meeting held on thursday april 16 2026 attended by about four dorchester community members the feedback from this meeting was while the community supports development and building homes in their neighborhood there were concerns surrounding the scale of the building in relation to neighboring buildings as well as in relation to the parcel itself. Community members also expressed concern that the proposal was covering what used to be a parking lot for the restaurant across the street and pushing the increased stress onto the neighborhood. The proposal was also reviewed by the Pokes Hill Neighborhood Association at their meeting in May of this year. The association expressed support and has expressed that the applicant makes the following changes. to reduce from 14 to 10 units. There will also be no three bedrooms, and to remove the roof deck, which they feel that the applicant has made these changes in good faith, and therefore has provided a formal letter of support. At this time, the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services defers to the Board's judgment on this matter. Thank you, everyone, for your time and consideration. Thank you.

Next, we have Leon Bimmer.

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

Madam Chair, we have additional comments.

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

Motion to approve.

Is there a second?

Second.

Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Turner?

Yes.

Ms. Panato?

Yes.

Mr. Collins?

Yes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair and members. Have a good day.

Next, we have case VOA-187-9206 with the address of 24 Mount Everett Street. This is another Article 80 case. So if the applicants and or their representative would like a case report, please.

Thank you, Mr. Stembridge. Morning again, Madam Chair, members of the board. Attorney John Fulgini here on behalf of the owner and developer of this proposal, Dermot McGregor. With me today is Rick Schmidt, the project architect. 24 Mount Everett Street in Dorchester. The zoning is 2F6000. This lot size is 14,429 square feet. For some background, this is an Article 80 project that originally applied to the Planning Department in September of 24 to complete a renovation and addition of an existing three-story, six-family dwelling in 24 Mount Everett. The addition was to be the rear of the existing structure, stepping up four stories and containing 16 additional rental units, bringing the total count to 22. and just one short-term parking space for deliveries was offered, no long-term parking. You know, I've been doing this for a long time. In the interest of full disclosure, we did a community meeting. It was one of the worst community meetings I ever participated in in my life. It was terrible. So that being the case, you know, I want to give the owner credit. After that, he went back. He engaged with the abutters individually in small groups. He worked extensively with Councilor Brian Morales. And through that process, reduced the project significantly because we heard, obviously, it was heightened density and parking. So he reduced the resulting in the addition just being three stories, which matches what's there. It will contain an additional 10 dwelling units. So there was six taken off. It's a whole floor for a total unit count of 16. Parking was the big deal, which is the process. So the updated proposal will increase the parking. So we have one to one spaces for the number of units. And we feel that this reduction in height and unit count as well as the inclusion of one to one parking makes the proposal a far better fit within the neighborhood. After that we went back as part of our community process to the Planning Department and we had a meeting and we received full support and acknowledgement from the neighbors stating that this is how community process should work with respect and understanding of each party's goals and desires. I'll now pass it off to Rick Schmidt to take you to the plans and happy to answer any questions once his presentation is completed. Thank you.

Thank you, John. Thank you for having me. This is a view of the existing condition at 24 Mount Everett Street. It's a wonderful Second Empire style home. The building, the intent is to restore it and then use some of the wonderful architectural moves that exist in the building as cues for the new architecture. Next slide. So this was our original scheme when we proposed 22-unit total project and a four-story addition in the rear. As John said, we went through several community meetings. The owner is engaged with the neighborhood extensively. Next slide. And you'll see in this view that the... Existing building is really the star of this design, that the addition is limited in view from the street. But as Dermot went through the meetings with the neighborhood, it became clear that the four-story addition was not acceptable to the neighborhood. We went back. Next slide. You can see the architecture of the proposed four-story addition. And if we go to the next slide. You'll see our current proposal, which is now more at scale with the existing architecture. The idea is that we're going to use mansard roof at the third floor to recall the lines of the existing building. looking at the articulation of the performers on that addition to reflect some of the character of the existing building. The height of the addition matches the existing building. We are enclosing the first floor porch on the right in this view as additional living space. In addition, we're creating an accessible approach to the building by activating the basement, creating a basement entrance off of Mount Everett, and providing an elevator which will provide access to all floors of the building. In addition, some of the building services like bike storage and a trash room will be located internally on the basement level. If we go to the next slide, you'll see that the existing building really continues to be the forward face of this project and obscures the proposed addition. Next slide. If we look at the site plan, we've listened long and hard to what the neighbors had said. Originally, as John had mentioned, we had just one drop off in the states. as the vegetation as possible and then supplement that vegetation where we're proposing to put the parking area and screen the project from the abutters. You'll see if you were to look in the Zoning Board of Appeals submission, the technical drawings, we have a full set of landscape drawings, full set of civil engineering drawings, as well as the chart that lists our responses to the required variances. And then if we go to that last slide, you'll see that the existing architecture and the proposed new addition are much more in scale with each other. So if we go to slide 11, you can see that. And if we can't go to that, that's fine. I'm happy to take any questions then.

Thank you. Other questions from the board?

Can you mention the affordable units? I didn't hear any mention of that.

Yes, actually, Ms. Bonato, it's 20% of the additional 10 units

Any other questions from the board?

public testimony yes chairman honor newman with the mayor's office of neighborhood services this time the mayor's office deferred to the judgment this board sent back information the community process has been through a boston planning led community process which ultimately ended with the bpd board approving this proposal on june 18th 2026. there were two meetings over the course of two years as you heard from the applicant's representation there were reductions made during that community process with the number of units being reduced and I understand the parking ratio also increased we received a mix of public comments supporters cited close proximity to a number of bus lines in the area The addition of IDP units, adding affordable opportunities for residents in the neighborhood, as well as retaining of the front facade and complementing the existing architecture in the neighborhood with changes made to that rear addition. Those opposed cite the busy nature of the street, with one resident bringing up with their two daycares on the street. Frequently, people have their driveways blocked, as well as concerns related to density and the potential competition for on-street parking. The Greater Boat of Geneva Neighborhood Association echoed these concerns as well. With that, I'll defer to the board. Thank you. Thank you.

Next, we have Jack Gilman.

Good morning again, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Jack Gilman, project assistant with the development review team. I'm just here again to speak to the Article 80 process for this project. And like John said, on September 3, 2024, McGregor One LLC filed their SPRA with the planning department. public meeting was held on October 1st, 2024 originally. And this public meeting was noticed on the events calendar and sent to the Dorchester neighborhood distribution list. And then following a project update, A supplemental filing was submitted to us, the BPDA on April 23rd, 2026, which initiated that second public comment period. And a public meeting was held on May 7th, 2026. And the comment period ended on May 26th, 2026. And the project again was approved on June 18th of 2026. Thank you.

Next we have Joseph.

Hi, this is Yusuf Abdullah from Kansas City Council Brian Wells office. The council would like to go on record approving, supporting this project. It goes a long way to expanding housing opportunities in Dorchester and the developers work with both the councilor and the community to address the concerns and make changes to this.

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

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

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

Second.

Mr. Fembridge?

Yeah.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes.

Ms. Panato?

Yes. Mr. Collins?

Yes.

Mr. Bernal. Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Good luck.

Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have case VOA 1770910, the address of 655 Morton Street. If the applicants and their representative were present, would they please explain?

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. Timothy Fraser from the law firm of Dane Torpy, 175 Federal Street in Boston. Along with me is Ms. Hsiang-Hei Nhu. She's the property owner. This appeal involves a property at 655 Morton Street in Mattapan. This is very close to the intersection of Morton Street and Blue Hill Ave, right over by the B3 police station. This is a classic three-decker property, and Ms. New became the property owner in 2018. And just for some history, at that time, the configuration was four units with this two-bedroom apartment on the ground level already in place. So this proposal seeks to legalize that unit, turning the occupancy from three families to a four family occupancy. The entire project is contained within the existing building footprint. It's only just framing the bedrooms. The kitchen and bath will remain in the same location and there'll be a living room. And then also we'll be adding the required window wells for the egress. We should note that the front entry door for this ground level unit is already right there in the ground level. I think it's just a one step or two steps down into the basement. Per the plans, the ceiling height is seven foot six inches as required by the code. So the project gives rise to the need for four variances. We're in a 3F 5000 zoning district and the variances required are the extension for the non-conforming use and that non-conforming use is actually forbidden in this residential sub-district. Again, we're going from a three-family to a four-family occupancy. And then the other violation is for off-street parking and loading requirements. This building sits pretty much covers the entire lot. It's always been like that since construction. There's really no opportunity for parking. However, this property sits right at the corner of Blue Hill and Morton. In fact, there's an NBA bus stop right in front of the property. The 21 stops there, the 31 stops there. It's very well positioned as a transit-oriented project. And then based on the tenant history and the other three units, we think that the parking is adequate for this project. And also there's a high need for apartment living of this type in that area. The applicant did conduct a community process in conjunction with the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services. On November 10th, 2025, we presented the project to the Wellington Hill Neighborhood Association. And then on November 19th, 2025, the virtual abutters meeting was held. The Office of Neighborhood Services determined that those meetings sufficed as the required community engagement, and the applicant hasn't been made aware of any comments or concerns arising from those meetings to date. In fact, Madam Chair, the applicant has submitted for the record numerous letters in support of this project. I trust the Board has received those letters, so I won't recount all of them, and I believe the representatives of the elected officials may go on record with their support later in this hearing. So that concludes my presentation on behalf of the applicant. I respectfully request that the aforementioned variances be granted to allow this existing residential space to be renovated and added to the city's housing stock. I'm available along with Ms. New to answer any further questions that the board may have. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, members of the board.

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

Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Vembery. I'm the Mattapan Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process, which consisted of an abutters meeting facilitated on November 19th with two abutters present. A concern for how the address with affordable housing and new opposition was voiced. Next, the proponent presented to Wellington Hill Neighborhood Association on November 10th, but was not well received by the community. Some of the concerns raised by community members included loitering, parking, and prior offenses associated with the property. Concerns were also expressed regarding the owner residing elsewhere and the property's current use, which some members characterized as functioning more like a boarding facility. Additionally, several members expressed concern that the owner may be more focused on collecting rent than on maintaining the property and fulfilling the responsibilities of a landlord. To date, our office has received one letter of support in support of the proposal. Thank you for your time, and the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services would like to defer to the Board for their judgment.

Thank you. Next, we have Patricia Weijer.

I'm sorry, my name is Roger Morin. I'm a current tenant. I support this project and surely believe it'll provide additional safe and useful housing opportunities. I thank you for your time. Thank you.

All right, I think, Patrice, I think that you're looking to speak in this case. Flavie?

I am looking to speak in the next case.

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

Okay, any other questions from the board?

Is there a motion? Well, can the applicant just address the maintenance of the property and landlord tenant issues?

Sure, happy to miss Bernardo. So this project was actually before the board in 2001 to actually legalize the rooming house occupancy. That application was denied back in 2001. So those plans have been abandoned. I've been in contact with and helping the applicant kind of. keep the property maintained, avoid violations, et cetera. So the applicant is very well aware of the city's requirements for the update and maintenance of the property. And we'll be paying strict attention to that. Any plans to operate the property as a boarding house have been abandoned and it really would be the four unit apartments.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, any other questions from the board? Is there a motion? I'll make a motion for approval. Is there a second?

Second.

Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Prado? Yes. Mr. Collins?

Yes.

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

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

Next, we have, excuse me. Next, we have case DOA 1883597. The address of 85 Market Hill Avenue. This also is an Article 80 case. And if the applicant is a representative, would you please explain?

Thank you, Mr. Stembridge. Good morning again, Madam Chair, members of the board, John Colgini on behalf of the developer. With me today is Patrick Mixdorf from EGA Architects and Jay Walsh, our development consultant. uh 85 parking lab in mission hill the zoning is new england baptist hospital industrial zoning the lot size is of 49 747 square feet this was an article ade project that received its approval in july this year the project initially contemplated the full renovation of the existing building in 85 previously the landmark on longwood which had fallen into disrepair and was vacant since uh before covid um we were to create a four-story 114 unit apartment building 10 parking spaces at the time the mixed unit mix consisted of 36 studios 65 one beds 13 two beds in response response to the feedback heard all across from the community meetings throughout the article 80 process The development team has spent the past few months completing revisions to the project, most notably unit count and unit mix. And our new plans, which Patrick will go over in more detail. We have reduced our unit count from 114 to 103. The floor plans have also been reconfigured to now include 8, 3 bedroom units. The new unit mix includes those 8, 3 beds, 19, 2 beds, 35, 1 and 41 studios. All the new 3 bed units will be offered as inclusionary. Zoning affordable units for families. Now this proposal is the perfect location providing additional needed housing without displacement or architectural change to the neighborhood. The property was once owned by the Baptist Hospital and prior to the current ownership, the occupancy certificate had it zoned as 75 dwelling units and 13 hotel rooms. This is a beautiful brick building that despite a modest addition, there will be no visible changes to the addition because the addition will be located within a courtyard within the envelope of the building. In fact, I'd be hard pressed to remember a proposal that provides this amount of housing while only receiving two violations for use because of where it's located in industrial. It's an extension of a non-conforming use because it did have residential use prior as well as parking.

i'll now pass it over to patrick who will go through the full scope of the plans and happy to answer any questions thank you john can you can you hear me yes great um i'll i'll go through these relatively quickly my name is patrick mixdorf uh principal at ega architects in newburyport massachusetts um if we could go back to the first slide please uh sorry the third slide So what you're seeing on this screen is a proposed rendering from Parker Hill Avenue. What's notable here is that the bulk of what you can see is essentially existing. The new elements here are some landscape retaining walls, vestibule which is visible just above the car in the foreground and up at the roof level to the left of the right most green cupola is a stair access to a roof deck if we could advance through the slides uh slowly i'll make note of the important things existing site plan You can keep going. This is our zoning information, and we can come back to any of that if you have questions. Proposed site plan, proposed landscape plan, proposed open space and tree-related items, parking related, which I think is worthwhile. We could stay on A12, please. There are 11 proposed parking spaces plus a loading area on the west of the property. These are the proposed accessible units, and then we get to the floor plans if we could please stop here. So what you're seeing is 23 floor plans on this sheet and the lower left is the lowest level. The site slopes pretty dramatically from West to East up towards Fisher Avenue. So the plan and the lower left is the lowest level. uh the pink apartments shown in here are the inclusionary apartments which you'll notice there are some on virtually every floor the floor plan directly above that is the the first floor which includes the first of the new construction there's a common area that says exercise and two sort of orange colored apartments those are built within the existing courtyard of the property and the other than the new vestibule on partner hill avenue all of the new construction is proposed within the existing courtyard virtually out of sight of any of the exterior of the property and the last floor plan is the second floor which shows in those orange units the predominant amount of new construction on the property moving to the next slide the final two floors the third and the fourth floor which again follow the same basic idea the pink apartments are the inclusionary apartments of which there are eight and the orange construction is basically the new construction proposed with the project which is inside the existing courtyard and then there's also a roof deck proposed above that a portion of that existing new construction in the courtyard that is largely invisible from the exterior We could proceed with the next slide, sort of site plan and some site sections on that sheet, some building sections. that identified the new construction, proposed elevations. As you can see in here, everything above the peak of the roof level is existing construction other than some landscape work. And what you can see there are sort of two rectangular structures with sort of an orange color and some grid. Those are stairs to allow access to that roof deck. All of this is proposed to be sort of storefront material, copper-colored metal. To be sort of consistent, but not mimic the existing construction. That's true of the new vestibule as well. We can proceed there are additional elevations on the following pages. Showing very similar sorts of things, but most of what should be visible to the public other than the proposed new landscaping is the existing building, which has been a residential use for more than 100 years.

i'm happy to answer any other questions you might have but that's the just the project thank you thank you are there questions from the lord yes i would like to ask again i would like to ask again about the idp units i see the total of unity is 103 You are offering eight. I think the IDP for this area, 17%, would require you to provide 17 units or 18 affordable units. So I just wanted to understand how you arrived to this number.

That's a very good question. And the reason being is through the mayor's house of housing, they worked with us because they really wanted the three bedroom units. So these are extremely large units. So it's 17% of the growth square footage. So it's 17% of the units is 17% of the growth square footage. So that reason reflected in those very large three bedroom family units.

Okay, so the city was okay with reducing the number of the affordable units just to ensure that the apartments are bigger for families?

Exactly. So that's why it went from 114 down to 103. So it reduced it by that amount so that they could make these bigger units. So it goes by square footage and or unit count.

Okay, thank you.

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

yes madam chair members of the board connor newman with the mayor's office of neighborhood services this time the mayor's office deferred to the judgment of this board some background information from the community process this went through a boston planning like community process involving two public meetings hosted by the bpa it was bpa board approved on june 16th 2026 During the community process, we heard comments in opposition citing concerns over the bedroom styles of the units that proposed density as what residents have also been asking for restrictions on undergraduate students in the housing to the very high student population in the Mission Hill neighborhood. As you've heard from the office representation, changes have been made regarding reduction in the number of units as well as changing that configuration bedroom styles in those units. The Community Alliance of Mission Hill and the Mission Hill Housing Services we understand are still in opposition to this proposal. That information will defer to the board. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we have Jack Gilman.

Good morning again, Madam Chair, members of the board. Again, my name is Jack Gilman, a project assistant with the development review team at the planning department here to speak about the 85 Parker Hill community process and article 80 process. And I know this was said, but on February 13th, 2026, this project filed their SPRA with the BPDA for the proposed project pursuant to article 80 ADE. The BPDA sponsored and held a virtual public meeting on March 4th, 2026. This meeting was posted on the planning department website and a notification was emailed to all subscribers of the Mission Hill neighborhood update list. And the public comment period ended on April 24th, 2026. And then following the project update, mainly creating the eight three-bedroom units, family-sized units, the BPDA sponsored another virtual public meeting on June 29, 2026. And the meeting was posted on the Planning Department website, and a notification was emailed to all subscribers of the Mission Hill neighborhood update list. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up, Adeus.

Yes, hi, good morning. This is Peter . Our family owns several properties in the area, and we wanted to speak in strong support of this proposal. This is a great proposal for the site, especially given that the existing magnificent building will be kept and renovated and reused as residential. And again, we wanted to go on record in strong support of this proposal. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next, we have Patricia Flaherty.

Thank you. My name is Patricia Flaherty. I'm a resident of Mission Hill, and I live at 122 Calumet Street, and I'm the executive director of Mission Hill Neighborhood Housing Services. On behalf of myself and Mission Hill NHS, I'd like to go on record in strong opposition to the variances being sought for parking and change of use for the 85 Parker Hill Avenue project. Multifamily residential is forbidden in the zoning district, and it's an institutional district, not an industrial district. And while creating hardship for the 165 abutting town homes at the Bricklayer Townhomes and the owner-occupied homes on Iroquois Street, two of the last remaining home ownership areas of Mission Hill, the proponent has not proved hardship for his proposed development. In fact, we maintain that the project should have been more thoroughly reviewed for traffic, parking impacts, rent impacts, quality of life issues, noise, trash, et cetera, and affirmatively advancing VR housing, whereby impacts on equity and risk of displacement by this large 100 unit project would have been studied. The entire building, not just the new construction square footage, is requesting relief for change of use, and that should have resulted in large project review. Instead of supporting family-friendly housing and family-friendly neighborhoods as put forth in the mayor's housing priorities for term two, the development of extremely small studios and one bedrooms and this developer with his particular marketing and financing models will be providing more destabilizing undergraduate student housing with no onsite management, no supervision, and no consequences of big profits. We support the three bedroom IDP units. We don't support the reduction in IDP units. And we now will have families living among the undergraduate students in what is essentially a dorm. This does nothing to mitigate the housing crisis experienced in our neighborhood or in our city. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have Mitch Hilton. Mitch, if you can unmute yourself, please.

Can you hear me now?

Yes, sir.

Okay, thank you very much, and I understand that my time is limited. My name is Mitch Hilton. In May of 1973, I moved into 148 Hillside Street on Mission Hill, meaning that I'm a 53 year plus resident of Mission Hill. I rented places on Hillside, Wade, Fisher, and in 92, I bought my house on Iroquois. So for the entire time, I've always lived within two or three blocks of the proposed redevelopment of the Baptist Nursing Building. I'm the former president of the Mission Hill Planning Commission, a founding member of Community Alliance, of Mission Hill. I served on the Planning and Zoning Advisory Committee of Mission Hill. I was the president of Mission Hill Little League for about a decade. My son was in the entering class of Mission Hill K-8, and I served on its governing board. I'm also a retired letter carrier, 35 years plus in the South Bend. After retiring from carrying mail, I taught within the Boston Public Schools at Timothy Middle School.

Board members. Board members.

Board members, I understand that we're dealing with the two violations of the zoning code. I ask that you reject the applicant's request for zoning relief. There is no hardship demonstrated that necessitates providing 11 parking spaces for 103 units. The numbers speak for themselves. The surrounding institutions, New England Baptist Hospital, Judge Baker Educational Center, provide adequate off-street parking without adversely impacting the neighborhood. The change of use, the broader picture of the change of use is that the applicant is adding in addition to this 109 more small units further down Parker Hill Ave. Mission Hill is plagued with absentee landlords. You've got in your files, my friends, a strong opposition from Henry Santana, who grew up on Mission Hill, who's very familiar with how steep... Please wrap up. Thank you.

Next we have Josue Colon.

Hello, thank you Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is Josue Colón. I'm a business representative with the North Atlantic States Regional Council of Carpenters and we want to go on record as being in full support of this proposal. Thank you.

Next we have Susan Menendez. Okay, I don't think that she's speaking in this case. Next, we have Mark . Okay.

Mark, are you speaking on this case?

Okay, can I ask?

Is Mark speaking on this case?

No, they love work hands, so I don't think that they're going to...

Okay, so can I ask if you could just...

I'm sorry, now that you have to respond, did you ask... Can you cut out for a second? Yes, please. Oh, sure. I was going to say this as well. You know, the argument, the multifamily residential should be not with the occupant. That was the current use in this building. This building, it is true. This building was once owned by the Baptist Hospital. However, they sold it and they sold it and it was an assisted living facility. As I stated before, 83 units, 18 hotel units. There are If you look at this building, this building is a residential building that has been sitting vacant for over six years. It is going to be residential one way or the other. This went through an extensive process with the BPDA. As far as meetings go, we had seven. We had two meetings with Mission LNHS, two meetings with Citizens Community Alliance and Mission Hill, one meeting with the Back of the Hill Civic, and then two public meetings with the BPDA. Mr. Savage, who owns this building, has been the only developer that I have seen that had signed an agreement with the Mission Hill Housing Neighborhood Services with respect to restricting undergraduate students in any of his buildings. And again, it went through a complete community process. He's cooperated. They asked for family-style units. We did that. Everything had been complied with. It's a five-minute walk from the Green Line. It's downtown living. And if this is not residential, what would it be? What would it be? You guys saw the beautiful picture of the stately building. He preserved the building and built inside a courtyard. This is a beautiful building that should be residential. We're serious about housing. The housing is there. Really no change to the neighborhood. It is there. Happy to answer any further questions. Thank you.

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

I'll make a motion to approve with continued BPDA design interview.

Is there a second?

Second.

Mrs. Thunbridge?

Yeah.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

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

Yes.

Mr. Ronell?

yes chair votes yes the motion carries thank you everybody appreciate your day next we have case um madam chair uh since we've passed the 11 30 hour at this time we'll ask if there are any request for withdrawals of deferrals from the 11 30 case

Hearing none, then we move to adjourn. Sorry, Nelson Fernandez, he was looking to defer. Nelson, if you can repeat yourself now.

Hi, yes, I'm Nelson Fernandez, property owner of 213 217 Golden Street. I'm sorry, which case are you looking to defer on? I withdraw. Give me a second.

213 Bowdoin Street?

Yeah. So this request is for case VOA 180-1106, the address of 213 to 221 Bowdoin Street. Would you go ahead and explain, sir?

yes we are amending our plans and um yeah we have a new liaison too so we want to withdraw right now you want to withdraw yes okay uh may i have a motion motion to withdraw this case i have a second second mr stembridge yes mr valencia yes

Ms. Turner?

Yes.

Ms. Panato? Yes. Mr. Collins?

Yes.

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

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Any further requests for withdrawals of deferrals? Hearing none, we will return to case BOA. one eight six five zero one six of the address of 1511 to 1525 washington street if the applicants and those their representative are present we'll take please good morning madam chair members of the board my name is mark lacasse the castle 177 huntington avenue in boston i represent the south end village academy

which is a new school entity that has been founded at this location. Also with me on the hearing this morning is Christina Lopez, who is the founding head of school. Today we are seeking one item of zoning relief, and that is a conditional use permit to allow for the addition of kindergarten, and elementary school use at this location. And this is similar to how schools are treated in virtually every other neighborhood district in the city, and that is that they are conditional uses. Also would note that under the new streets and squares zoning, which has not yet been adopted in the south end, but this particular sub-district is suitable for perhaps adoption of streets and squares, schools are listed as allowed uses in all subsequent districts that will adopt streets and squares zoning the space is the assuming the space of the former croft school at this location and the new entity southend village academy has been created by the parents of the former cross school students who rallied together following some financial turmoil that was well reported in the press and have created this new entity that is going to undertake the mission of continuing educating children in the South End neighborhood. There are currently 80 students enrolled in the school and we obtained from ISD a temporary certificate of occupancy to permit these uses through December of 2026 pending the Zoning Board of Appeal process. The students also received scholarship assistance to some extent. The planning department has issued a memorandum to this board recommending approval. We met with the South Bend Business Alliance because there were some concerns about the street level use of this property. But after discussions with South Bend Business Alliance, they have issued a letter supporting this proposed use at this location. Also, the board has received over 125 letters of support for this proposal, both from the parents of all of the children who are attending the school, and also from many, many neighbors and other business supporters in the neighborhood who are advocating for continuation of school use at this location. Additionally, because it is a private school, the Boston Public School has also approved the use at this location in this particular school i would like to have christina lopez who is the founding head of the school speak to describe to you the program and the unique aspect of the south end village academy so christina

Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the board. Thank you. My name is Christina Lopez, and I'm a South End resident. I'm a parent of three young children, and I'm SEVA's founding head of school. After 20 years in public district charters and independent schools, I can confidently say that SEVA is an incredibly special community for students, families, teachers, and also our neighborhood. When I had my first child, I dreamed of a school that truly embraced this neighborhood, the one that I was choosing to raise her in, and it didn't exist. Now, SEVA is an option that takes rigorous learning outside the classroom and helps children develop a deep understanding and love for our city and the people who live here. As Mark said, we have over 130 letters of support, not just from SEVA families, but equally from neighbors, local business owners, and nonprofit leaders. That support reflects the relationships that SEVA has built. Students have learned valuable lessons through the people of the South End about everything that makes our neighborhood special, running a business, eating delicious Puerto Rican food, being a positive leader, art that tells our history, caring for the unhoused, where crosswalks should be located, and seasonal produce, among so many others. They are learning what it means to be cared for by their community and to care for their community in return. As educators and parents, we believe that creating sense of belonging at our school will help children carry that sense of belonging forward into the communities they join throughout their lives. 45% of our students identify as children of color and 42% receive tuition assistance. That makes our commitment to being inclusive more than just a written goal. Families of all kinds with all types of learners know they are partnered with and supported. It is purposeful that the word village is in our name. teachers tell us that they feel inspired connected and proud of where they work it's a place they want to remain until they retire we have teachers who live in the south end and teachers who send their children to our school i'm here today with a lot of hope that the board will recognize the value of allowing the school community to continue to grow and serve the south end in this location thank you thank you madam chair that concludes our presentation and we do have

many supporters who would like to speak as well thank you and and we received those hundred plus emails that you noted in support and so I'm not going to invite a hundred people to speak in support about five selected and so well aware of the 90 second limit okay so if it's just a handful we're happy to hear from them if it's more than that I'm gonna invite them to put their message into the chat. Are there any questions from the board? Okay.

Oh, I'm sorry, go ahead. One of the comments, there is a person who has concerns about the project and they are mentioning that the school is planning to buy another building nearby and move in one year. And so for that reason, this permit should be conditional or temporal, could you provide more information if that is correct, just because we got that email this morning?

Yes, Mr. Valencia, so two items, one is that Conditional uses typically are to an applicant only. So making it temporary is not really necessary because if the school were to discontinue its use at this location, so too would the conditional use lapse. However, and I'll let Christina Lopez speak to this, I believe that the Plimpton Street A building that has been purchased is for purposes of expanding and including more grades than presently exists, which at this location is kindergarten, first, second, and the Clinton Street will allow for further expansion of the school. So Christina, is that accurate?

Yes, we have plans to expand up to sixth grade and currently we're working with architects to figure out which grades would move over there. We have six years on our lease in this building right here. So it's TBD right now.

Okay, thank you. Other than that, yes, tremendous support for what we saw on the emails. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you.

Thank you. With that, may I have public testimony?

Hello, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Eva Jones, representing the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services. Regarding 1511 to 1525 Washington Street, our office defers to the board's judgment. This process began its community process following an application to change its occupancy after this parcel had been used as a school for a few years already by another entity. The community process included the distribution of a subcommittee flyer on 7-16-26. During the community comment period, I did also receive over 140 letters of support expressing that the neighborhood would benefit from the school and that the use would contribute positively to the community, many of which were also abutters to this parcel. We have received three community members that have expressed concern, one in opposition as well. They expressed concerns about past issues related to parking, activation of the area, protecting and conserving the Washington Street Commercial Corridor, as well as relationship building with neighbors and have expressed the desire for the applicant to be actively involved in the South End community. Our office has connected the constituent who expressed parking concerns with school leadership and they are in communication with no further concerns being expressed while the new school has been in operation. The Washington Harrison Neighborhood Association has reviewed the proposal and the applicant has been in communication with the association and has made commitments to continue its relationship with the civic association and community. At this time, the Mayor's Office and Neighborhood Services differs to the board's judgment on this matter. Thank you everyone for your time and consideration. Thank you.

With Nick Long, he controls things of it.

Thank you Madam Chair, members of the board. This is Sydney Scanlon from Councillor Flynn's office. Councillor Flynn would like to go on record in support of the proposed kindergarten elementary school for the South End Village Academy. The Councillor heard from many families in the City of Boston impacted by the closure of the Croft School. At the same time, neighbors also expressed concerns regarding the need for a better community engagement process with residents in the Washington-Harrison Neighborhood Association. While Councilor Flint supports those families that contacted our office that advocated for the school, he acknowledges that the public process could have been handled in a manner more responsive to the surrounding community. As a District 2 City Councilor, he continues to emphasize that those who live in the neighborhood deserve a say in what takes place there. As a result, Councilor Flynn will work closely with colleagues, relevant school officials, and community leaders to ensure that the residents' voices will also be heard on any neighborhood and quality of life issues. He respectfully requests that the board provide every consideration to the approval. Thank you.

Next, we have Mark Sorriso.

Thank you board. Good morning. I'm Mark Cereso. I've lived in the South Bend for 10 years and I'm the father of a five and a two year old. I hope a brief background will help the board understand why SEED is so important to our community and to me personally. I grew up in rural Pennsylvania and looking back, I realized that I was taught some ugly things about people who were considered different. Not overtly, it was always subtle. I was incredibly fortunate to encounter people in my life who taught me something different. Food stamps helped for my church when my mom needed it. And ultimately, federal programs helped to make college possible for me. And then I spent 10 years teaching in Newark, New Jersey, where children and families changed the way I understood the world. That experience has shaped the way I've lived in our city and approached fatherhood. Spanning the 10 years I've called Boston home, I've actively volunteered for multiple kid-focused organizations. When I became a dad, I started to bring my own kids to park cleanups and neighborhood meetings because I want them to understand that being part of a community means showing up for it. Unlike me, I want my children to grow up embracing diversity and community. This is not something that SEVA puts just on a mission statement, but it's something that we live, protect, and make room for. Like how my son Ryland, excuse me, He's enthralled at a traditional Japanese tea ceremony as he learned about his classmates' heritage, like how I marched next to him in the school's pride parade, which is normalized for him that families look different, and like how I learned alongside him as we researched Wilma Rudolph and the books he selected from Boston Public Library. As a parent, this is what SEVA means to me and why it's so important. We aren't separating ourselves from our neighborhood at all. We're trying to build something in it, teach our kids to be a part of it, and I ask for your support. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, next we have Aja Jones.

Hi, I'm sorry, my name is Aja. And I grew up in the South End and I'm a parent at the school. I also. My daughter's father is also a resident of the South End in the lower Roxbury area, and when it was time for our daughter to go to school, it was very important for us to have her in a school that was in the neighborhood that we were able to grow up in. Being that we had to leave the community. due to being basically like priced out or whatever, but being able to come back to a school that had experiential learning, neighborhood adventures. My daughter is now able to be in a school that, in a neighborhood where her father and I grew up and learn about how we grew up and where we are and be proud of where we come from. And so with that, I just ask for the support so that we can continue to have our daughter grow up in the neighborhood where her parents were raised, as well as two generations back. Thank you.

Jesus, can you please continue? Have we lost Jesus? sorry next we have thank you jesus can you hear me yes so we're going to take a few more after this because i i know you're all in support so unless there's someone in opposition yeah thank you go ahead

So good morning, members of the board. My name is Jonathan Alves. I'm a father, a South End resident for 12 years, and the president of the Washington-Harrison Neighborhood Association. I just want to first say that I do commend the efforts of Mark Lukacs, who is a well-respected attorney in the South End, and for the parents for coming together to do what they need to do for their kids. However, I do want to say that I'm here to respectfully oppose the request for a permanent conditional change of use at 15-11, 15-25. I want to be very clear. This is not an opposition to children, schools, or nonprofit organizations. Myself personally, the Washington-Harrison Neighbor Association has supported over the years many educational nonprofit organizations in the South End and businesses. My testimony reflects my own opinion, but it is informed by my experience as a resident and community leader, while also summarizing the concerns I've heard from multiple residents about preserving the limited ground floor commercial space along Washington Street. Washington Street is a very important commercial corridor, and once the storefront space is lost permanently, it's really difficult to attain. So I understand that Siva might be pursuing a new location, which will fall within the Washington-Harrison boundary. I hope that they will engage our neighborhood association, but I ask for the board to consider a temporary relief approach while the school is able to expand in the appropriate fashion. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you.

Next, Susan Mendez, I think that she was looking to speak.

Yes, thank you. And we're almost in the afternoon. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is Suzanne Mendez. I'm a South End resident. I'm a parent of two children at South End Village Academy. I wanted to start by responding to some of the concerns around communication and relationships with other community members. Deepening our roots and connection to the Southland community has always been at the forefront of what the school, even as Croft stood for, but we very much have heard that feedback that it could be stronger and we are taking that very seriously. We actually have parent resources dedicated to strengthening those relationships, not just the community within SEVA, but the larger community within the South End. So I just wanted to react to that and say that you have on behalf of the school, our commitment to making sure that that relationship strengthens and that we are hearing the voices of everybody in our community. The other reason why I wanted to speak on behalf of the school and our zoning application is not just because of what the school represents to me, or the parents of the 85 children that go there, but what I believe that a school like SEVA means for the future of Boston. We were born out of extraordinary circumstances, but what we're building right now is about making Boston a city where families can put down their roots and stay. When families have access to great schools and meaningful and accessible educational resources.

Thank you. We have several more raised hands, so I'm just going to take three and that's it. Thank you.

Well, he... Michelle?

Yes. Hello. Hello, Madam Chair and the members of the board. My name is Michelle Hediger, and my family and I have been Southenders for over 15 years. We rooted our businesses here, built our lives here, and made a very intentional decision to raise our two children in the neighborhood. Having a community school like Southend Village Academy is incredibly important to our family. It allows our kids to be truly part of a neighborhood we've known and loved for almost two decades. Without SEVA, we can honestly say that there is a very real chance we would have left the city already. I also want to make something very clear. We don't identify ourselves by where we send our kids to school. We identify as self-enders. SEVA gives us, our family, and many others for that matter, the opportunity to remain part of this community while raising our children here. I'll be quick, but I respectfully ask the board to consider what SIVA means to families like ours and support the conditional use that will allow our children to continue learning, growing, and being part of a neighborhood we call home. Thank you. Thank you.

Madam Chair, there is more three people.

Yep, two more people. Okay.

Next, we have Phil Linsall.

Do you guys hear me?

Yes, we can.

Okay, sorry. I am the president of the South End Business Alliance. I also own a small business in the South End. I am also a 20-year resident of the building at 1513 Washington Street. I speak on this as a small business owner, as part of the community. I don't oppose the school. I oppose the zoning restructure. I do believe that we should let the school last and thrive throughout its current lease but to change the zoning to a school is detrimental to the growth of the city i am in full support of the south end village alliance in their new location because it's not in a primary uh location um Again, I've lived in the building. The school is great for the students, but it is only used 180 days a year. The center is empty. At night, it's empty. There's no activation on the street. And I just would like to see... the neighborhoods thrive as much and again it's right next to another school and i don't want to see i don't want to be against the village academy but the actual space itself should remain restaurant retail keep the streets active and bringing more to the neighborhood in the community so i thank you for your time last hand

madam chair members of the board my name is adam webster i'm here to speak in support of the proposed change of occupancy i've been a south end resident for 12 years and my wife and i are homeowners in shaman ave we're active in the community on various boards and civic associations i'm also the parent of a five-year-old and seven-year-old who did not go to siva and and william This school impacts dozens of families in the South End and its existence is helping to keep families in the city. I appreciate the extensive community outreach the school has done and also appreciate their willingness to support and engage with local community-based organizations. If this school doesn't receive zoning relief, the education of dozens of Boston kids will be disrupted and will continue the trend of pushing families out of the city. I do want to note that related to the question of lost commercial space, SEVA has created a positive trend in vacating another commercial space that Croft already operated in. so they're they're clearly hearing and acting on past concerns of the community loud and clear and that's something that i really appreciate the school is a welcome addition to the community and i'm proud to join so many other neighbors and support their uh their appeal today thanks so much thank you attorney lacasse would you like to address some of the feedback that was given yes please so on the notion of

What is being sought here? It's important to remind the board that we are seeking a conditional use permit. And of course, under the South End zoning code, conditional uses are presumptively valid provided that they satisfy the conditions set forth in Article 6 and Article 64. And that is precisely what we are doing here. We are creating a school which satisfies the conditions for a conditional use permit. We are not restructuring the zoning. We are not changing the zoning. Rather, we are seeking a conditional use permit under the existing zoning code. And significantly, I note that the restaurant use, which others have spoken in favor of in the future, restaurant uses are also conditional uses and would be required to seek the very same kind of zoning relief that the school is seeking. So there's nothing unusual about seeking a conditional use permit, nor does it change the code, nor does it change the zoning for the property. simply grants to this applicant the right to carry on the conditional use while they are occupying that space thank you okay any other questions or comments from the board they have a motion

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

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Panetta? Yes. Mr. Canales?

Yes.

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

The next case has been deferred, which takes us to case BOA 1860539 with the address of 795 Saratoga Street. If the applicants and or their representatives are present, would they please explain to the board?

Thank you, Mr. Stembridge. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the board, Richard Lentz, business address at 245 Southern Street, East Gloucester, on behalf of the petitioner. We want to jump down. I'll try to make this as brief as possible. Jump down to slide 11, please. Perfect. So members of the board, this involves a pre-existing three unit residential dwelling in the Oregon Heights section of East Boston. The building itself is a non-conforming structure made non-conforming by the changes in the zoning code of the years, including the original introduction of Article 53. under the amended zoning the proposal to modify the structure renovated adding rear addition as well as to modify the roof are all as a right we were cited for two items in the refusal letter which i have included in the packet first is roof structure restrictions based upon the dormers to the existing structure as well as the proposed roof deck to the reader In addition, we were cited for side yard setback, which I presume, although the examiner was not able to clarify that, has to do with the rare addition that we do propose, as you can see here on the site plan, that is within the setback for the side yard that's on the building. As this board, I'm sure, is aware at this point, it's not like a broken record, there is a provision Within Article 53 of the amended zoning that allows for the continued nonconformity to remain, you can go up vertically and you can go back horizontally as long as you don't create any further violation of the setback or exacerbate it beyond what the zoning allows. So in this particular case, as long as we follow that plane on the left side of the building, we are in line with the permissible side yard setback. uh and we are able to go back as far as what the radar setback committed rare stuff would be um so i do want to point that out for the board that although we were cited for it we do not believe that is a violation uh based upon the uh the amended zoning for east boston uh so that leaves us with new structural restrictions if you want to jump down to uh slide 12 please So just so you can see the reprogramming of the building here, we propose to make the lowest level of unit one, which is a combined area in the basement, as well as the first level. That is the renovation for unit one. Unit two is flat. Unit three, which involves a number of modifications of the roof to allow for that to be a more habitable space. And I show that in the elevations. Next slide, please. I'm sorry, we do a roof plan. So we do show the roof plan here, which incorporates the dormers close to the front of the building. That rear addition in the back would accommodate the roof deck that is shown here in this plan. If we can go to slide 14, please. So we see the front and the rear elevation. The elevation towards the rear where the addition would be proposed is a flat roof, and that does have the head house with the roof deck. The front of the building, you can see the orientation of the dormers. We show them better in the next slide, which is the side elevation. We jump to slide 15, please. Slide 15, please. Perfect. So you can see here the dormers that are being incorporated. That is one of the items that triggers restructural restrictions, conditional use, as well as the roof deck that is proposed for the later edition. Next slide, please. and just show the left side of the building. And because that building is within three feet of the side here at setback, there are no windows being proposed on that side, either for the existing portion of the building or the addition that's being proposed. So this it's.

All right. I think you froze for those last few seconds.

Oh, I'm sorry. Are you able to hear me?

Now we can.

Sorry, I think I'm having some difficulty here. Can you hear me okay?

Okay, yeah, we can.

Okay, I'll wrap it up there. If there's any questions, I'll try to answer them.

Absolutely. Any questions from the board? Hearing none, I'm sorry, was that a question?

No, I'm sorry, Madam Chair. That was my electric vacuum. Hello, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Abba Jones, representing the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services. Regarding 795 Saratoga Street, our office defers to the board's judgment. A community process was conducted, including the distribution of a subcommittee flyer on 5-12-26. During the community process, I did not receive any emails from the community. The Harborview Neighborhood Association reviewed the proposal and voted 16 to 16. with no significant concerns being expressed regarding this proposal. At this time, the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services defers to the board's judgment regarding this matter. Thank you, everyone, for your time and consideration.

Next, we have Gabriela Ramirez.

Hi, Madam Chair, members of the board.

Gabriela Ramirez here on behalf of Boston City Councilor Gabriela Coleta Zapata's office.

At this time, the council relates to go on the record in support of this proposal.

I'm going to check. We don't have additional comments.

With that, may I have a motion?

I think we want to add design review with focus on the shed dormers.

I know. Sorry, Mr. You come in really low. May I have a second?

Second.

Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

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

Yes.

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

Thank you very much. Next, we have case BOA 1776392 with the address of 248 to 250 Everett Street. If the applicants and or their representative present, would they please explain to the board?

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the board, Mark Lacoste. the Castle Law 177 Huntington Avenue in Boston, representing the owner of this property, who is also on the hearing today, Julianne Padinko. This is an existing single-family dwelling in East Boston, and the proposal is to renovate the structure. It is rather old and in a state of significant disrepair, to create four dwelling units one being basement and ground level duplex, and then floors on two and three, and a small fourth floor, partial fourth floor, I should say, addition to create a small unit with a walkout terrace on the top floor. The Jefferies Point Neighborhood Association conducted a process, and we met with them, and they voted to approve the project. The direct provider at 246 next door, which is the sole attached property, also supports this project. The zoning relief started with a minimal in scope. and it relates primarily to the existing conditions of the property. It's a very small lot on a corner, but as the planning department memo explains, the zoning relief sought is contextual with the neighborhood, consistent with the plan and the new zoning in East Boston, and the planning department does recommend approval. zoning specific zoning relief side includes a conditional use permit for the addition of the fourth partial story the use in the sub-district is for up to three units but this would provide up to the fourth unit with the addition of the fourth half story as the planning department notes the adjacent property across the street a 254 Everett is a four-story building with more than six units. So there again is context for this minimal scope of zoning relief. The building height zoning relief, the height limit is 35 feet and this is for 38 feet, so three feet above the required. The two yard insufficiencies are owing to the existing conditions of front yard and side yard. and again there's no change to the footprint of the building so those are existing conditions that is the zoning relief site and we believe that this represents a nice renovation of existing structure that needs a lot of help with the minimal addition of one unit to create some more housing in this very transit oriented area additionally as you see on the site plan there There is room for one parking space in the rear yard, although none is required under the zoning code for the sub-district. There's room for one parking space, so that is the current proposal. You can scroll through to the other slides and maybe take a look at the elevations. There are the floor plans describing the units. Basement and ground floor is unit one. Unit two is on the second floor. Unit three on the third floor. Unit four on the fourth floor. And then perhaps show the elevations. Next slide. There are the existing conditions at the top and proposed conditions at the lower level. I'm showing the addition of the fourth floor on the on top of the building. Otherwise, no change to the footprint. One issue that came up during the process was provision for trash and recycling. You'll see that on the elevation, there is a recycling area provided at the back of the building to keep everything contained. That concludes our presentation.

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

Hello, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Abba Jones, representing the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services. Regarding 248-250 Everett Street, our office defers to the board's judgment. A community process was conducted, including an abutters meeting held on 9-24-25 that was well attended by East Boston community members, where productive questions were asked and concerns about the parking spot in the back being blocked in were also expressed. I have received six letters in support from their neighbors, and they feel that the changes are in line with the neighborhood character, and one letter in opposition citing density and loss of tree cover. The proposal was also reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Committee of the Jamaica, or excuse me, the Jefferies Point Neighborhood Association on 3-18, and they did vote, seven in support and six in opposition. at the excuse me at this time the mayor's office and neighborhood services differs to the board's judgment on this matter thank you everyone for your time and consideration thank you next we have gabriella ramirez hi madam madam chair members of the board i'm so used to saying good morning um gabriella ramirez here from counselor coletta's office at this time the council like to go in the record in support of this proposal thank you

Next. Hello?

Yes, are you speaking on this case? I am, actually. I am the soul of Butta, the 248 and 250 Everett Street. I'm a lifelong East Boston Jeffries Point resident. Parents were or grandparents were. my house is directly next to it like i said i'm the only a butter there was one wall separating my house from 248 250. the house is in shambles the inside is a big fire hazard i've been in the house many times i knew the woman who owned it before ilian bought it she didn't do one thing in the inside it's all sheetrock uh plywood floors it's It's actually, it's an eyesore. I totally approve of this project 100%. Being the abutter, I really think it'll bring the value of my house and everyone else's house up. And also, his house is to the left of an alleyway and directly to the right, they built a brand new house a few years ago, maybe five, six, maybe a little while, I'm not sure. And it's beautiful. And to the left of that, like I said, is the alley and his house is maybe I don't know, 20, 25 feet away. I don't see the issue, but I do 100% back this project. Thank you.

Okay. Any other questions from the board? May I have a motion? Motion of approval, Madam Chair. Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stembridge. yes mr valencia yes miss turner yes miss bernardo yes mr collins yes mr bruno yes chair votes yes the motion carries so let's take a 15-minute break thank you thank you recording stopped Okay, thank you, everyone. We'll do a roll call. Mr. Stembridge? Present, Madam Chair. Thank you. Mr. Valencia? Present. Ms. Turner? Present, Madam Chair. Thank you. Ms. Panato? Present, Madam Chair. Mr. Collins?

Present, Madam Chair.

Mr. Bernal? Present. Thank you. Here is Mr. Stembridge.

Thank you Madam Chair. Go to the discussion cases scheduled for 1130 a.m. We'll ask again if there are any requests for withdrawals or deferrals from the 1130 cases. And with hearing no requests we'll move on to case BOA. with the address of 21 Couture Street. If the applicant and or their representative are present, would they please explain to the board?

Yes, thank you, Mr. Stembridge, and good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the board. For the record, Attorney Matt Echol with Fletcher Tilton, the business address of 100 Franklin Street in Boston on behalf of the applicant. We are here today seeking approval to erect a new single-family home at 21 Katuit Street in West Roxbury. The board originally reviewed this proposal at the last hearing on September 8th, and we were deferred to allow for the submission of building elevations, which were submitted and reviewed by Inspectional Services. By way of brief background, 21 Pituit Street is an existing vacant lot which contains just under 4,000 square feet. Pituit Street itself is a small side street which intersects with Baker Street and overlooks VFW Parkway. The street contains a number of similar sized properties, all of which contain existing single family homes. And again, we're proposing a new two story single family home with two parking spaces. The violations, as we're cited, are largely driven by the size of the existing lot. And again, the lot size is consistent with the majority of the lots along to its street, which range between 3800 and 4000 square feet. Just to go through them briefly, in this zoning district, typically 6,000 square feet is required, and we have, as mentioned, 3,800 square feet for a lot size. Lot width, typically you need 60 feet for lot width and frontage, and we have 40 feet, again, which matches just about every lot on this street. Floor area ratio, you're allowed up to a .5. We are proposing a .58. And then we are seeking relief for front yard, side yard, and rear yard. The front required is 20. We're at 12. But again, as you can see even on this brief picture right in front of you, we line up with the properties on both sides at 12 feet. Rear yard, you're required 40. We have a 25-foot rear setback. And finally, side yard, you're required 10 feet. We have 7 feet on both sides. Again, very consistent with the neighborhood context. Just to run through the floor plans, we're proposing an unfinished basement for storage and mechanicals. The first floor will have the two-car garage, as well as a kitchen, living room, dining area, half bath, and laundry. And then the second floor will contain a primary bedroom-bathroom suite, which is located above the garage, and three bedrooms to the rear. This project went through a community process which included meeting with direct abutters, an official abutter meeting through ONS, and two presentations through the West Roxbury Neighborhood Council who voted unanimously to support the project. As the board may have seen, the planning department is now recommending approval of the project following the updated submission through inspectional services. With that, I'll pause and I'll take any questions the board may have.

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

Madam Chair and board members, Sadie Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This applicant completed the community process. Our office hosted an abutters meeting on April 16th at which there was some discussion and no concerns were stated. The West Roxbury Neighborhood Council is supporting this application. With that background, ONS defers judgment to the board. Thank you. Thank you.

Next we have Lisa.

Yes, sorry, can you hear me? Yes, we can. Okay, thank you so much. Thank you, madam. chair and member of the boards my name is lisa spagnolo i am a homeowner at one at 41 idaho street we've on our owned our house for 50 plus years i am in opposition of this project i have actually already submitted a letter of opposition to the board some of my concerns include um bonings What Boston zoning code article 23 of with parking they're proposing to parking spaces in front of this garage that barely has enough space for their two cars that they're using for the main house right now. I think the zone calls for nine by 18 feet and. it's measuring like eight by 20 feet it's there's not enough space for two parking spaces there, including this little garden that they've proposed to be in front of the new project. The three foot flower bed was proposed with the paid entrance into the proposed single family. There is absolutely not enough space for that I don't know where they're getting these measurements i've been concerned about the bedroom on a. Second floor does not have a window, which violates Massachusetts state building code safety issue, that there's no egress from this bedroom. And listed, I have number four, number five, and number six kind of issues. I am extremely in opposition to this proposal because there is not enough space. It's a safety issue, fire hazard issue. I appreciate your time. Thank you.

Would the applicant like to respond?

Sure, Madam Chair. I'm not sure if 41 Idaho Street is very close to this property, unless I'm misinformed. I'm not sure if that was actually for 21 Katuit Street. We do have two full-size parking spaces within the garage. We're not counting on any space outside of the garage. All of our bedrooms have windows, so again, I think we have those concerns addressed, but I'm not sure that was necessarily even for this project.

Thank you. That's not for this project. He called me for, and it might have been for a different project. Thank you.

And you're speaking on behalf of the wrong project. Thank you. Yes, thank you. Okay, so with that, may I have a motion?

Motion of approval. Sorry, go ahead.

I said motion of approval. Oh, we have a second. Okay, thank you. Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner?

Yes.

Ms. Panato? Yes. Mr. Collins?

Yes.

Mr. Bernal? Yes. Chair votes yes, the motion carries, good luck.

Thank you very much.

There, we have case VOA. is 178-7126 with the address of 86 Walworth Street. If the applicants and or their representative are present, would they please explain the case in voice?

Yes, thank you Mr. Stembridge, Madam Chair, members of the board, attorney Ryan Spitz with Adams & Maranci, business address of 168 A Street, 1st floor, South Boston. Joining me today is the owner Roy Azar and project architect David Freed. The Azar family has been a part of the Roslindale neighborhood for over 60 years. This is an existing two and a half story, two family. The proposal today is a three-story, six-unit residential building with eight parking spaces with the total proposed height of 33.3 feet, which is well below the maximum allowed at 35 feet. The lot area is notably large for this sub-district. It's approximately 12,651 square feet. All units will be three beds ranging from approximately 1,300 square feet to 1,430 square feet. Each floor will contain two units. one in the front and one in the rear of the building this is not a case of a project pushing against the city's stated direction it is a project that anticipates where boston zoning code for the street is already headed on july 17 2026 the bpda released draft zoning for walworth street as a part of the of the neighborhood housing zoning initiative placing 86 walworth in a proposed rd4 sub-district the project is substantially compliant with the draft id4 requirements max height three stories with a slope roof maximum building lot coverage 30 percent minimal permeable area of lot 25 percent minimum front yard eight feet minimum side yard a 15 foot cumulative and a three-foot minimum, and a minimum rail yard of 15 feet. The draft ID for zoning also creates a conditional use pathway for unit counts above four, expressing weighing accessibility and affordability in the immediate vicinity and compatibility in the surrounding area. The same equitable standard this board should apply to the variance of discretion here. We have the following violations. Use violation as we are within a 2F5000 sub-district. This proposal is directly aligned with the Roslindale squares and streets. The small area plan adopted by the BPA board back in February 2025. Which recommends enabling accessory dwelling units and small unit residential buildings in this area. Again, the unusually large 12,651 square foot block. Makes the site particularly well suited to multifamily building without overwhelming its surroundings. Consistent with the city's own neighborhood housing zoning initiative goals for this exact street. We have an FAR violation. A .81 is being proposed as compared to a .5 as of what is allowed. Additional massing is concentrated at the rear of the lot, minimizing street-level impact and preserving the existing streetscape. The lot's large size still leaves substantial room for usable open space, notwithstanding the added density. This is not a building shoehorned on an undersized lot. We have a height violation. We are compliant again as to the feet, but we need relief as to the stories. Three stories being proposed where two and a half is allowed. There are other three story buildings exist on the same block. The massing is in the context with the streetscape. If I can refer to you to sheet A-2.14 depicting 82, 86, and 90 Walworth Street. The sloped roof design rather than a flat roof further reduces perceived bulk and keeps the buildings in the context with its neighbors. We have an open space violation in here. The sub district requires a very high open space at 1750 square feet per unit and the proposal calls for approximately 888 square feet per unit. But it's aligned with the planning department's recommendation. As stated that this is a substantial amount of usable open space for a small multi family project. with quality spaces lastly we have a parking violation the requirement in the sub district is two parking spaces per unit and our proposal calls for a total of eight parking spaces for the six unit proposal is aligned with the lower parking ratio by its transit accessibility as reflected within the squares and street study area boundary further we understand the planning department's recommendation concerning surrounding maneuverability and we would commit to the design review proviso with the willingness to eliminate two visitor spaces at the end of the driveway if needed. in closing every requested variance is either consistent with the city's own draft rezoning for the street or directly advances the stated goals of the two city planning documents the adopter squares and street small area plan and the pending neighborhood housing zoning initiative planning department has also recommended approval again conditionally on a design review provides addressing parking maneuverability which the applicant should firmly accept on the record so at this point madam chair i'm going to turn it over to you and the board for any questions or comments

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

Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Memburi. I'm the Roslindale Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process, which consisted of an abutters meeting Facilitated on November 10th, that was very well attended, but has expressed significant concerns regarding the size and scope of the proposal, particularly its height and the resulting impact on views from surrounding properties. Additional concerns included the number of proposed units, loss of green space, and increased traffic density and congestion. Several abutters stated that the proposal was out of character with the neighborhood, describing it as a large apartment building with an elevator, a type of development they felt was not consistent with their surrounding area. Rural abutters expressed concerns regarding the loss of open green space due to the proposed paved parking area adjacent to their properties. A direct abutter also raised privacy concerns, saying that the height of the proposed building would loom over their yard. Next, the proponent was encouraged to engage with the local civic association, West Village Neighborhood Association, which completed the community process. To date, our office has received a 68 signature petition opposing the proposal, consisting primarily of abutters from Walworth, Orange, Fresno, and Darnell Streets, as well as 22 individual letters of opposition. Our office has also received seven letters in support of the proposal. All correspondences have been sent to the board for review. Following their boarders meeting, the proponent did make changes to the proposal addressing the community feedback. Some of those changes included the removal of the elevator. The floor area ratio has been reduced from .86 to .81. The total building length has been also reduced by two feet. There has been other changes as well that were taken, again, in accordance to the community feedback. At this time, thank you for your time, and the Mayor's Office of Enabled Services would like to defer to the board for their judgment.

Thank you. Next we have Ellen Coppola.

Ellen Coppola, can you unmute yourself?

I'm sorry, I thought you did. Good afternoon. I'm Ellen Coppola. I live at 78 Waller Street. My family has been here since the house was built in 1928. I am opposed to this project due to the loss of green space. The project would significantly reduce the local green space, contradicting the city's goal to preserve open space and maintain the neighborhood's appeal to families. Insufficient parking and traffic hazards. The building could accommodate 12 to 18 cars, yet proposes only six parking spaces. The shortage will force street parking and cause congestion on Walrus Street, which is a single-lane drive. as the single lane driveway cannot support two-way traffic. Safety concerns, Wal-Mart Street is a heavily used cut-through between Washington and Belgrade Ave. The added congestion risks delaying emergency response vehicles. It's also out of character with the neighborhood. A six-unit building is inconsistent with the existing character of Wal-Mart Street, which has no comparable multi-unit structures. Thank you for your time. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have Ekungwe.

The person with the E Conway, E Conway, are you speaking on this? Okay, we're gonna keep going.

Who's next?

Hello, my name is Lewis Guevara. Respectfully, Madam Chair and members of the board.

Chair, where do you, can you, what's your address?

9 Fresno Street. I border on the back. I share the back fence with them. I am in opposition. As you know, 39 to Butters sent ZBA letters of opposition. And also there were 68 of Butters who put in a, in the, the, Petition. Anyway, reasons for my opposition are there's 18 bedrooms and there's only six residential parking spaces. So there's six to 12 cars that are either forced onto a crowded street or there's a risk that later they're going to need to turn the backyard into a parking lot. The building is huge. At 3.5 stories, the terraces look down on the properties of the back neighbors, blocking air, sunlight, and removing the feeling of green space. As they said, the density now is going to be 0.81 compared to Roslindale's maximum of 0.5. So allowing a six-unit, three-bedroom condo on a two-bedroom property is too big a change, and the only hardship stated is profit, which is not a legal problem. If a developer can put such a large structure in, regardless of the zoning, how can the neighborhood trust Boston zoning?

Thank you.

Okay, is that it?

Hello? Next we have Kristen Simons.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the Board. My name is Kristen Simmons. I live at 70 Walrus Street. I respectfully ask the Board to deny the requested variances at 86 Walrus Street, proposed 10,000 square foot, six-unit luxury building at a 0.81 FAR in a two-family zone. First, there's no physical hardship. This is a flat, large piece of land that is more than large enough to accommodate a conforming two-family home. Desiring a higher profit is a hardship of the pocketbook, which Massachusetts law explicitly rejects. Secondly, it bypasses active city planning. The proposed neighborhood housing initiative specifically targets this area of Roslindale to expand density from two to four units, a compromise neighbors like myself could support. This six-unit proposal blows past that threshold and is not promising any additional affordability that may be in the proposed zoning initiative. Third, three tiers of balconies on all sides creates an invasive fishbowl over neighboring homes while maximizing building mass and pavement strips away open space and drainage. Granting a 70% FAR increase on a conforming lot makes our zoning code meaningless. Please uphold the zoning code and deny this variance. Thank you.

Next we have a cutter.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Cara Ross. I live at 17 Fresno Street in Roslindale. That's two houses away on the backside of this property. I want to go on the record that I'm against this proposal and very concerned for the following reasons. Zoning requires 1,750 for usable open spaces, but this proposal only has 888. The density proposed is 0.86. but zoning requires 0.5. The parking is not adequate. The proposal has 1.3 spaces, but zoning requires two spots for every three bedroom condo. Parking is already an issue on the street. I'm particularly concerned about traffic impact on a very narrow, very congested and already very dangerous street. I've had neighbors who have had accidents. In the area, any vehicle that is visiting this property and that pulls into the driveway will have to do a three-point turn to get out of it. Uber drivers delivery will have to double park, which would stop traffic or result in cars having to pass dangerously. Six units is way out of the norm for this area that really only has one and two family housing. The proposal is for three stories where the zoning only allows for two and a half. And there are far too many big exceptions of this that will erode the public trust in zoning if the developer is allowed to ignore code. And I ask the board to enforce current zoning rules despite possible changes in the future. Thank you for the time.

And next we have Okon.

Yes. Hello, Madam Chair and team. My name is David O'Connor. I live on 16 Fresno Street in Rosendale, and I'm also opposed to this project, basically mostly because of the zoning laws. You know, it's zoned for two and a half stories, but it's supposed to be three stories. You know, it's supposed to be, you can't see why it's supposed to be .5, it's gonna be .81. It's just gonna be jammed in there. It's gonna be up high, no privacy for our neighbors. Make me with Lewis where there's not gonna be enough parking, and I think eventually that whole lot will just simply be a gigantic house with parking. Should be two spot for every unit. with the total of 18 bedrooms. We end up double parking, blocking traffic in the street that is already cut off. There's only room for one lane on each side. There isn't enough yard space, as I said earlier. It's supposed to be 750 square feet. This is only 888 square feet, which is half. Collectively, none of these are small technical issues. They end up to a completely different kind of building than what's allowed now with the current zoning. The only reason for the developer to get these exceptions is to make a profit. All right.

Thank you. Can I ask the remaining to please add new information? Please do not repeat the same information you've heard. Thank you. Okay. I'm done. Thank you. Thank you. So let's take one more.

Can I get a chance to sneak in when you get a chance? I am 82 years old. I had difficulty finding the mic. Yes, please. Go ahead. Please state your name and address for the record and let us know whether you're in support or not. My name is Edward Conway and along with my daughter, Stacy, own the two families located at 79 Walwood Street. This property was purchased by my parents in 1948. Since that time, the second floor apartment has continuously been occupied by a direct descendant. I guess 78 years makes us long-time neighborhood residents. Lest I be accused of hiding any information, I personally do not reside there. I live on Zella Street in Roslindale. My daughter is an oversight. overseas and that's unable to speak i speak for both of us in strong opposition to this project they've already mentioned this the petition signed by 68 about it i went to some non-about i went to the even numbers odd numbered side of orange street are they different than the even numbered side of orange street i went to houses on hillock street and walrus street that are one or two neighbors away i obtained 13 additional signatures even though these people are not abutted. The obvious issue is that it's going to R2, and it calls for an R6. They recently went through a streets and where initiative, and it came back that they left Waller Street and all the other areas except for Washington Street and Belmont Street. Please wrap up.

Thank you.

I guess I'm done. Thank you.

Last one. Okay.

Hi, my name is Albert Tedesca. My family's been in Roslindale for, I don't know, over 100 years. Go back to my great-grandfather, built Roslindale Ave. Long story short is I think that this lot is a double lot. It's plenty big for what they're asking to do. And I think that a lot of development is happening in Roslindale, West Roxbury. And I think that the development is what the mayor wants to see. We've got the new bike lanes. We want people traveling with bikes, not cars. And I just wanted to say there are people in the neighborhood that are still for it.

Thank you. Okay, can we have the applicant please circle back with...

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. So one thing I know we did have... We did have many people here to speak in support. I know that you limited the testimony.

I only see one other raised hand, but, you know, okay.

I don't know if they left in time. I know we did have a lot of people logged in early. But I just want to reaffirm the board that we did submit 12 letters that were coming from immediate director Butters on this street as well, one including the immediate director Butters on the construction side. of the proposal itself and also again this you know just remind the board that this is a notably very large size lot which is a unique size lot and again very consistent with the planning department's recommendation who i believe maybe jeff hampton's here he can speak more towards their recommendation is that it's consistent with a lot of the initiatives that we're seeing that are in play now and that are coming into the future of this street as well so again Our proposal is well aligned with the planning department's recommendation for approval in the context of this neighborhood.

Questions from the board? I would like to hear from Jeff Hampton, because I am sympathetic to the view that if squares and streets zoning is meant to sort of allow buildings to occur as of right, and it is more appropriate zoning in most cases for the neighborhood, but they are blown through the building floor plate, you know, under squares and streets, as well as the maximum allowed number of units. So I'd like to hear from Jeff on sort of their rationale for the approval. Mr. Hampton.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board, Jeff Hampton, City of Boston Planning Department. Squares and Streets was developed to allow more as of right in terms of housing. This is actually going to be proposed under the new residential zoning, which is being rolled out and has been put forth in Roslindale, Hyde Park, and West Roxbury to increase the number of dwelling units in the one family and two family zoning districts. As you can see in our recommendation, we are not opposed to this project, the scale of the project. We do understand that it is a larger lot and the FAR is a little north of 0.5. But our only concern in this development, Ms. Panato, was the parking. Honestly, it was design review for maneuverability and not so much the number of parking because as you and the rest of the board is aware, the city has taken the policy of reducing parking. We've even had that in the proviso today on a couple of our hearings that there would be design review with the thought of removing some of the parking to make the project more pliable. So we are in support of this and we recommend that the only proviso that we put on is attention to parking maneuverability.

Okay, thank you. Any other questions from the board?

I may just say something, madam chair, I think that I've seen a decent amount of opposition for this project and everyone that is opposed should know that the, you know, under the zoning that is coming out and proposed for the area, this would essentially be an as of right project. So if you are, if you do have an opinion on it, you should definitely get to your, the next zoning meeting that the BPDA holds and make your opinion known.

Thank you. Any other comments or questions? Is there a motion?

I'll make a motion to approve with BBDA design review.

Is there a second?

Second.

Mr. Stembridge?

Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.