Bpda Board of Directors - Regular Meeting

The city of Boston zoning board of appeal hearing for 04/28/2026 is now in session. This hearing is being conducted in accordance with the applicable provisions of the open meeting law, including the updated provisions enacted by the legislature this year. The new law allows the board to continue its practice of holding virtual hearings through June 2027. This hearing of the board is being held remotely via the Zoom webinar event platform and is also being live streamed. In order to ensure this hearing of the board is open to the public, members of the public may access this hearing through telephone and video conferencing.

The information for connecting to this hearing is listed on today's hearing agenda, which is posted on the public notices page of the city's website, boston.gov. Members of the public will enter the virtual hearing as attendees, which means you will not see yourself on the screen, and you will be muted throughout unless administratively unmuted when asked to comment. Board members, applicants, and their attorneys or representatives will participate in the hearing as panelists, and they will appear alongside the presentation materials when speaking. Panels are strongly encouraged to keep video on while presenting to the board. As with our in person meetings, comments and support will be followed by comments in opposition.

The order of comments is as follows, elected officials, representatives of elected officials, and members of the public. The chair may limit the number of people called upon to offer comment and the time for commenting as time constraints require. For that reason, the board prefers to hear from members of the public who are most impacted by a project. That is those individuals who live closest to project. If you wish to comment on an appeal, please click the raise hand button along the bottom of your screen in the Zoom webinar platform.

Click it again, and your hand should go down. When the host sees your hand, you will receive a request to unmute yourself. Select yes, and you should be able to talk. If you are connected to the hearing by telephone, please press 9 to raise and lower your hand. You must press 6 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 mister 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 ninety seconds per speaker. Mister Stembridge.

Good morning, madam chair. Good

morning. Mister Valencia?

Good morning, madam chair present.

Good morning. Good morning. Char

Good morning, madam chair present.

Good morning. Good miss Vibrazza? Good morning, madam chair present. Good morning, miss Panado.

Good morning, madam chair present. I'm working on video.

Understood. Thank you. Good morning. Mister Collins?

Good morning, madam chair present.

Good morning. Okay. I'll turn it back over to you, mister Sembrich.

Thank you, madam chair. Morning, members of the board and public. We'll begin today's meeting. We'll begin today's hearings with with approval of the hearing minutes scheduled for 09:30AM. These hearing minutes are from 04/07/2026, and I will make a motion of approval.

May I have a second?

Second. Second.

Mister Stembridge? Yep. Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner?

Yes. Ms. Beda Brazza? Yes. Ms. Panato? Yes. Mr. Collins?

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Next, we have the extensions scheduled for 09:30AM. This morning, we have two extensions before us to request for extension before us. I'll read the I'll read both of them in, and we can go from there. First, we have CaseBOA1474749 with the address of 10 Belleville Avenue. Along with that, we have CaseBOA78768729 with the with the address of 79 To 89 West Broadway.

Those are the two extensions in front of us. And if we have any questions, you could direct them to madam chair.

Any questions?

Yes, madam chair. About 7989 West Broadway, if the proponent is here, I I wanted to ask what are the reasons for this extension because this is the fifth request for an extension. So just go on the project is feasible or not at this point after so many years. So if anybody is from this project, I would love to hear your.

Is mister attorney Small here?

Okay. Let's move on, madam

chair.

Okay. May I have a motion to grant the request as requested? The motion yeah. Grant the extension as requested.

Both of you grant the extension as requested.

Is there a second? Second. Mister Stubridge? Yeah. Mister Valencia?

Yes.

Miss Turner? Yes. Miss Beta Braza? Yes. Miss Panado? Yes. Mister Collins?

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Next, we have a court remand discussion. I'll read this in and then turn it over to Caroline to inform us what needs to be done. Remand discussion, superior court case number 22384C v 00459 with the address of 22 Hanover Street. This is also identified as case BOA1359438. The applicants are Stefan and Jenny Bell Delano, and I'll turn it over to Caroline.

So this project was originally approved by the Boston Board of Appeal on 12/06/2022. The proposal included the renovation of an existing single family dwelling with a two story partial addition within the existing footprint as well as the construction of a roof deck and associated head house. The board's decision was subsequently appealed, and the Massachusetts Superior Court has remanded the case to the board in order to make specific findings of fact regarding the requested conditional use permit for the roof deck and penthouse. There will not be a vote today. And we're contemplating a 06/02/2026 date for the remand hearing. Do any of the board members have any questions? Okay. Mister Stemberg, you may proceed with the next item on the agenda.

Thank you, Carol. That's we will go on to the recommendation of schedule from 09:30AM. At this point, I will read into the record two cases which one of our members must recuse themselves from. So the cases are CaseBOA1807677 with the address of 7 R To 7 Monument Street. Along with that, we have CaseBOA1825198 with the address of 61 Rodney Avenue.

Mister Collins. Oh, one more.

Oh, no. I'm sorry. Go ahead, loud chair.

Is mister Collins refusing yourself from these two?

Yes.

Okay. So we have a six member board. May I have a a motion? Sorry. Mister Stumbridge, I think usually you let the board know what the outcome was of those.

These were approved, ma'am.

Okay. So may I have a motion?

Motion to approve.

May I have a second? Doctor. Verozza, second. Mister Stembridge? Yeah. Mister Valencia?

Yes.

Miss Turner? Yes. Miss Vena Brazza? Yes. Miss Bonauto? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

With that, we'll move on to the rest of the recommendation cases scheduled for that was scheduled for April 16 to let people know that at this point, all of the all of the cases were approved. So with that, we'll go on to we'll move on to case BOA1806384 with the address as 215 To 221 Hanover Street. Again, it was approved. Next, we have ace BOA1813278 with the address of 5 Colebrook Street. Again, approved.

Next, we have a B o a 1701102 with the address of 3141 Washington Street, which was approved. Skipping over the next one and going to case BOA1723161 with the address of 37 Mathur Street, which was approved. Next, we have CaseBOA1800971 with the address of 1 Parrott Street. Next, we have CaseBOA1798927 with the address of 109 Bogle Street. Next, we have CaseBOA1826464 with the address of 384 West Roxbury Parkway.

Next, we have CaseBOA1710494 with the address of 168 Dana Avenue. Madam chair, those are all the cases from the subcommittee, which were all approved. And Thank you. That's it.

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

Motion to approve.

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

Yes.

Miss Turner? Yes. Miss Bedevraza? Yes. Miss Panado?

Has she been elevated back to a panelist? Mister Collins? Yes. Miss Panado? So in that madam best summit ambassador needs to elevate her back to a palace?

Yes. She's still set.

Yes. Thank you. Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

With that, we'll move on to the hearing scheduled for 09:30 a. M. At this time, we'll ask if there are any request for withdrawal or deferrals from the 09:30AM period.

Yes. Good morning, mister secretary. 34 Spring Garden Street, please.

Bill, what's next? So this request is for case VOA 1794725 with the address of 34 Spring Garden Street. Would you go ahead and explain, please?

Yes. Good morning, madam chair, members of the board. For the record, attorney Matt Echel with Fletcher Tilton on behalf of the applicant. We have made some changes to the plans that need to be resubmitted through inspectional services and rereviewed by our plans examiner. So at this time, we are seeking a short deferral.

Caroline? We could do June 16.

Or

Matt, have have they been submitted to plans yet or no?

They they have not yet been submitted. We expect a quick turnaround, though. So June 16 would certainly work or there's some things probably not sooner, but June 16 would be fine.

Okay. Okay. May I have a motion?

Motion to defer this case until June 16.

May I have a second? Second. Mister Stenbridge? Yeah. Mister Valencia? Yes. Miss Turner? Yes. Miss Benavrazza? Yes. Miss Panado? Yes. Mister Collins? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. See you then. Thank you.

Any further requests for withdrawal of the deferrals on the 09/30 here? Hearing none, we will go to the first case, which is case BOA1811706 with the address of 360 Princeton Street. If the applicants and or the representative are present, would they put place the court?

Is this do we have anyone?

I'm checking. Laura Costa? Laura. I don't see anybody. Laura Costa? No, madam chair. I don't

see The madam chair will wait and return to that, but we have to read the others,

ma'am. Yep. Thank you. So

we'll move on to case B O A1730471 with the address of 1 098 to one zero nine zero three. If the applicant and their representative present, will they please explain? Madam chair, bear with me, but that's this is this will be one of two companion cases. The other one with that will be case BOA1730467 with the address of 111 A To 111 Salem Street.

Hello? Are you here to speak to the 109 Thank you. Yes.

Yes. Good morning, madam chair and members of the board. My name is Joseph Bono, the owner and manager of one zero nine and one eleven Salem Street. Our request is to have an outdoor patio for 14 seats at each restaurant that we have operated for the last six years under the Boston outdoor dining program. And both locations are on private property, so we want to alleviate having to do this annual request each year. So we respectfully request your approval to this.

Okay. Thanks.

Any any questions from the board? 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 to defer to the judgment of this board. Some background information, our office did not require community processes. We normally do not hold a public process for outdoor dining proposals on private property. The applicant has worked with the outdoor dining team. They have been operational for a number of years in the North End. Our office is unaware of any, concerns, from director Butters. With that information, we'll defer to the board. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, have Stephen from Consularis Coletta's office.

Hi, madam chair, members of the board. My name is Stefan from Consulo Escoleta's office. And at this time, we'd like to go in support of this, case.

Thank you.

Madam chair, there are no additional comments.

May I have a motion? Madam chair, I'd like to put

forward a motion of approval. Is

there a second?

Second.

Mister Stembridge? Yep. Mister Valencia?

Yes.

Miss Turner?

Yes. Miss Beta Brazo? Yes. Miss Panado? Yes. Mister Collins?

Sorry. Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck, sir.

Thank you very much.

Next, we have case BOA1806142 with the address of 7th Smith Court. If the applicant and or their representative present, would they please explain to the board?

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Stimbridge. My name is Timothy Burke. I'm the architect for the project. I have a business address of 142 Berkeley Street in Boston. And thank you for opportunity to present this project. I've been working with the this is a single family owner occupied house on Beacon Hill. It's a beautiful house and has a roof deck. But the existing access to the deck is very poor and borders on dangerous.

You have to kind of crawl on your knees to get up to the deck. So we are asking permission to install a head house that would increase the FAR by 43.5 square feet. And this is already a very small lot at five forty five square feet. And the penthouse has been designed to be similar to mini on Beacon Hill. It will be covered in copper. And we've designed it to be as small as possible to still get a decent and safe access to the roof deck. And the owner is also with us here, Michael Robertson, and be happy to answer any questions that you may have.

Any questions from the board? May have public testimony?

Good morning, madam chair and members. Siggy Johnson with the office of neighborhood services. This applicant has completed the community process. Our office hosted an abutters meeting on January 29 at which there were questions and concerns about the dimensions of the deck and the appearance of the head and path as well as opposition from a direct up or to rebuilding the deck in this location. The applicant met with the Beacon Hill Civic Association, which agreed to provide their non opposition subject to a good neighbor agreement. Our officers received a letter of opposition from a director Butter that has been forwarded to the board. That background, ONS defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Madam chair, I don't see any additional hands raised at the

moment. Any other comments from mister Burke?

No. Thank you. No.

May I have a motion? Madam chair, I'd like

to put forward a motion of approval.

May I

have a second? Second. Mr. Valenzio?

Yes.

Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Miss Turner? Yes. Miss Bedebraza? Yes. Miss Panado? Yes. Mister Collins?

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Thank you very much.

Next, we have case BOA1799878 with the address of 61 Farragut Road. If the applicant and or their representative are present, will they please explain to the board?

Yes. Thank you, mister Stembridge, madam chair, members of the board, attorney Ryan Spitz with Adamson Maranti. Business address of 168 8th Street, 1st Floor, South Boston. Joining me today are the owners, Molly and Mike Shaw, as well as the project architect, Nick Landry. This is a modest owner occupant project.

The Shaws live in this building and intend to raise their young family here. The proposal converts an underutilized three family building into a larger two family home and converts in an existing but unimproved roof deck and head house into functional living space with two outdoor decks. The conversion of the roof deck and head house will be approximately 391 square feet of livable space serving Unit 2 with a front facing deck and a rear facing flanking with the new head house addition. We are here seeking two forms of relief, a conditional use permit under article 68 section 29 to alter the profile of the roofline within the South Boston restricted roof district. We're also seeking a variance for the 40 foot maximum building height under article 68 section eight to allow the proposed structure an overall height of approximately 46 feet nine inches.

The underlying main roof remains at 36 feet five inches, well within the 40 feet limit. Critically, the proposed head house and decks are substantially set back from the front and the rear property lines, limiting street level visibility. The re relief sought will not substantially derogate from the purpose of the restricted roof district. The district restrictions are principally aimed at preserving the visual character of the streetscape as the street elevation drawing demonstrates the proposed addition is invisible from the Fowler Gate Road. The head house is set back well behind the main parapet, and the solar study confirms that the new shadow impact on the abutters is minimal.

Significantly, 35 Farragut Road, a neighboring building, visible in the submitted street elevation, reaches 50 feet well above the Shah's proposed 46. The proposal does not set a precedent that would undermine the district's purpose. It is consistent with the actual build form in this block. We are aware of the planning department has working building.

The

are are working further while retaining an enlarged front deck in the proposed location. We The rationale for the two decks is practical and family oriented, not cosmetic. The Shaws have young children. The rear deck provides shaded outdoor space suitable for children, critical in a city where private outdoor space at the upper level of a narrow building is limited. The front deck in turn captures the elevated views toward the ocean that make this level of the building distinctive. These are not interchangeable functions. Single consolidate deck cannot simultaneously provide both shade and ocean views. At this point, madam chair, I'm gonna turn it over to you and the

board for any questions or comments. Are you aware thank you, attorney Spencer. Are you aware of feedback from the city's parks and recreation department with concerns?

No. As as this is located, we will have to go if approved by the planning department, we'll have a most likely, if there is a proviso design review, we'll also have to go through the review with with the parks department as well. But I am not aware of any sort of concerns that have been mentioned to this point as of right now because we have not formally submitted for that review.

K. Other questions from the board? I I are there any very similar decks that overlook the waters the waterfront as well?

Yes. So as I mentioned, there is 35. So if you pull up the Nick Landry's here, he could probably, you know, defer the exact page. But one of the one of the roof decks here just on this block here is the ones that I wanted to mention. As you can see is

Oh, I see

it now. Yep.

Yeah. It has the same. It's similar. It's an even higher. Again, you know, that's at 50 feet total as well.

Okay.

And there and, again, if we go further outside the scope of the block, I try to keep it just within that one block. There are other precedent setting, you know, roof deck structures on those buildings as well.

So currently, the roof deck does not is not accessed by head house. Is that correct?

Correct. Yep. There's a there's a rear staircase in the existing photo elevation drawing showing that there's a staircase that that comes up through the back, and it's a very long walkway that gets to the actual deck itself.

So as you're proposing to, why is that

not one of feasible option? Yeah. So so the the reasoning behind that is more of the rationale is practical and family oriented. They they have young children. They're gonna continue to raise their children, and they they you know, the the the preference is to have some shade, and you're gonna get mostly the shade in the rear of that deck versus the front side. But again, the views from the front are very distinctive to this property.

Other questions from the board? May I have public testimony?

Madam chair and board member, Bertie E. Johnson with the office of neighborhood services. This applicant completed community process. Our office hosted in a Butter's meeting on January 8, which a director Butter had had a concern about the impact of construction. The applicant met with Bee Point Neighborhood Association, which opposes this application due to the building height, roof decks, and pergola. With that background, our office defer his judgment to the board. Thank you.

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

Hi. My name is Ashley from councilor Flynn's office. Councilor Flynn would like to go on record and support based on a good community process. While councilor Flynn acknowledges concerns from neighbors and civic groups and maintains a policy against new deck construction, He has supported proposals with existing roof decks that gain the approval of neighbors and abutters as this one has done. He respectfully asked the proponent to continue to work closely with the neighbors on any of quality life issues that arise during the construction phase. Thank you.

Madam chair, there are no additional comments. Oh, no. We have another person, I think. Luann, you can if you can unmute yourself.

Yes. Good morning, board and members. President of the City Pumping Association. The proponent did come in, I believe it was March 10, to present to the neighborhood association. And a quorum was present.

The vote was taken, and the vote came back to oppose based on the height. The VPDA recommendation for East Broadway is 45 feet, and this is on Farragut Road going above that 45 feet. They are directly across the street from green space. It's a park, and a little bit further is the beach itself. So the coverage of the roof is, way beyond the percentage that BPDA usually likes to see.

And they have agreed to move the pergola to the back. But again, front and back roof decks, I think, is just a little absurd. And based on 35 Farragut, which keeps coming up as an example. That roof deck itself has been grandfathered in years and years ago. So with that, we stand in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Chair. I see another person. Betty. If you can mute yourself.

Yes. I'm Betty Daley, and I live next door. I'm in a brother. And I think it's wonderful that I'm in full support. And the and the Shahs are an asset to the community. And I think on Farragut Road, it just beautifies the neighborhood.

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

Madam chair, before you turn on the board, I just if I could just have two seconds, I just like to notate what wasn't stated by the mayor's office is that we submitted 14 letters in support of this project from all the immediate director Butters. There was one to one of Butter who originally just had concerns of the shadow, but when the Shahs had a further discussion with them, they did submit a letter of support. Again, there was no opposition that we were aware of. The only opposition came in from the actual civic group. But, again, I'd like to highlight the fact that 14 letters were submitted to this board in support from all the immediate director Butters.

Thank you. Is is mister Hampton on? I just wanna confirm that design review would would include, you know, review from Parks and Rec, or is that a That's a separate proposal. Yeah.

Thank you, madam chair, members of the board. Jeff Hampton, city of Boston planning department. The Parks and Rec re review was completely separate process from ours.

Okay. Thank you. So that would require a separate proviso. Any other questions from the board?

Can you just clarify? I'm looking at on Google Image, and I see on 61 Paragut Road that there is already a front front deck. So I'm a little bit numb, a little bit unclear.

Yeah. So no. There is there there there there is an existing deck, again, that that is unimproved, and it's in pretty tough shape. So that deck is actually

You said that it has been approved that it's, you know, has been Yeah.

That's already yes. Yeah. So that's yeah. So exactly. So it's gonna be actually renovated, and the size of that deck is actually in the front will be shrunken down a bit. Okay.

So it's already kind of existing? Existing?

Correct. Yeah.

Okay. Great. I don't I don't need any further clarification. Thank you.

Okay. With that, may I have a motion? Madam chair, I would

like to put forward a motion. Given that the deck is already existing, I'm gonna put forward a motion of approval.

Are you including design review?

No. Because I think that a proposal of a rear deck and the size of the size of it is is adequate to the area of the roof deck. This is a homeowner that wants to just add an additional roof deck to the rear, which is out of public view. And the one that is being proposed in the front, it's already kind of existing. It's just going to be decreased. So I don't I don't see for any design review.

So I I'm gonna request the the proviso with park parks and rec reviews given they submitted a a letter and this falls within their purview. Any concerns with that?

Sure. We can add that, but typically, that would be earmarked in the ISD permitting process, but I can include that. So I will I can revise the motion to approve with a proviso that it receive that it review it's being reviewed by Boston Parks and Recreation Department. Is there a second?

Second.

Mister Stenbridge? Yes. Mister Valazio? Yes. Miss Turner? Yes. Miss Bedobraza? Yes. Miss Panado? Yes. Mister Collins?

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we have case BOA1774632 with the address of 744 East 4th Street. If the applicant and or their representative are present, will they please explain to the board?

Yes. Thank you, mister Stembridge, madam chair, members of the board, attorney Ryan Spitz at with Adams and Maranti, business address of 168 8th Street, 1st Floor, South Joining me today from the development team is Andrew Shenna, John Collins, and Darren Swain. Also joining us is the project architect, Eric Zacherson. This is a proposal to raise the existing structure, which has been filed on a separate permit, and to erect a new four story, six unit residential building with nine vehicular parking spaces along with a dedicated bicycle parking room. Ambassador, if I could direct your attention to page a one zero two.

A one zero two, the level one plan consists of the mechanicals, trash room, lobby, storage in the front. In the rear, if the elevation drops, will contain the garage for nine parking spaces. Level 2 will contain units one and two, which both will be three bedrooms. Level 3 will contain units three and four, which will also be three bedrooms. Level 4 will contain units five and six, which will also be three bedrooms.

All units will have balconies in the front, eight feet deep, 16 feet wide that will be flushed with the building. We only have two violations. We have an FAR violation. Two point o is supplying in this subdistrict, and the proposal calls for a slight increase at a two point o three, which is also very similar with other FARs within this neighborhood. We have an additional lot insufficiency.

The proposal of this scope would require 7,000 square feet of lot size, and our lot size is just shy at six thousand four hundred and four hundred and sixteen square feet. The typical lot in this area is approximately seven fifty square feet for an average of three units on a lot, which is also non compliant. One thing that I'd like to I think it's worth mentioning to the board is that if we just reduce the unit count, keeping the floor layouts and slightly reduce that FAR, we could have a zoning compliant project here. But again, we put a lot of work together with the immediate director Butters. We've come to grips with some neighborly agreements.

Hence, the reason why you're seeing us go forward with the proposal of this today. We are also aware of the recommendation of the planning department for a deferral based upon the article 85 process when the Landmarks Commission has made a preliminary determination of significance which may impose a delay. The board should reject the planning department's recommendation to defer this matter pending resolution of the article 85 Landmarks review process. A defer there is needle is neither legally required nor appropriate at this stage. Article 85 of the Boston zoning code and the ZVA's variance relief jurisdiction operate entirely separate and on set statutory tracks.

The board of appeal derives its authority from chapter six sixty five. The Landmark's Commission's article 85 preliminary determination of significance triggers a design review process. It does not confer upon the Landmark's commission any authority to veto, stay, or condition a zoning determination by this board. There is no provision in article 85, the enabling act, or any applicable authority that requires this board to hold its zoning determination in abeyance while a separate administrative review proceeds before a separate body. The proper legal sequence is well understood.

Zoning relief is obtained from this board, and then the issuance of a building permit is conditioned upon the satisfaction of any applicable article 85 review. That is exactly how the process should work today. The applicant is not asking for a building permit. The applicant is simply asking for zoning relief. The landmark's jurisdiction attaches at the permitting stage, not at the zoning stage.

Deferring the zoning determination accomplishes nothing substantively and simply prolongs the applicant's inability to move forward through the regulatory process in this correct order. The board grants relief the permit does not issue until article 85 is resolved. That is the appropriate mechanism, not a deferral of this hearing. Secondly, we'd also like to notate that the landmarks has only made a preliminary determination of significance under article 85 section four. That is the threshold screening step.

It does not mean the property will be designated, that a certificate of appropriateness will be denied, or that the proposed design is incompatible with any applicable standards. A preliminary determination simply opens the review process. To defer a zoning matter every time the Landmarks Commission issues a preliminary determination would effectively give the body a de facto veto over ZDA proceedings. A result that that finds no support in the text of either article 85 or chapter six sixty five. The applicant filed this application in August 2025.

The matter has already been before the neighborhood and updated. An open ended deferral tied to an article 85 review would impose a serious and continuing hardship on the applicant without any corresponding benefits of the public interest. The zoning violations at issue are narrow, a minor FAR overage of point o three above the two point o standard, and an insufficient additional lot area per unit, both of which this board has ample authority to address under the variance and release standards applicable in the NFR subdistrict. At this point, madam chair, I am going to pause, turn it over to the board for any questions or comments. I also do have attorney Richie Lins who is who is present here today.

If there are any specific questions relating to the article 85 process and application as he is the attorney on record handling that for the proponents. So again, thank you, madam chair, and I'll turn it over to you and the board for any questions or comments.

Thank you. Are there questions from the board?

Yes. So just just so I can understand, you you are planning to demolish the existing building to just currently four unit and propose a new structure to add two additional units, which is six units. Correct?

Yes.

And can you tell me what is your hardship? Because you you didn't you know, what what is not allowing you to build two units within the existing structure. So can you just claim to let us know what is your hardship because that's why you're in front of us requesting a variance.

Yeah. Yeah. So, I mean, the the hardship here, again, is the best and reasonable use. And most likely, as you're seeing with the lot size there, if we were to able to erect five units, we could do that zoning compliant. Just a slight decrease in the in the two point o three FAR and just reducing that unit count from six to five would make it a zoning compliant project.

The building is in a pretty bad condition and and some disrepair. Hence, the reasoning why that the article 85 application was submitted rather than preserving the existing structure and building out. It would be it wouldn't be feasible to add the parking where we again, we notate that parking is one of the biggest critical issues in South Boston. Hence, the reasoning why that a whole new project starting from scratch would be a bigger benefit than trying to preserve it and adding on additional units.

Okay. And just one one other additional question. Do you have a structural report stating that it's in poor condition and it's not salvageable?

I would have to I would have to go back and and see if the proponents do actually have one themselves.

Okay. I just wanted to know if if you've done a structure

or I don't think I don't

think they have at this point

in time.

If you don't, that's no further questions. Thank you so much.

Yeah.

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

Madam Chair and board members, Siggy Johnson with the office of neighborhood services. This applicant completed the community process. Our office hosted an Butters meeting on 10/27/2025 at which a previous iteration of this proposal was presented. A large number of abutters were opposed to the height, demolition of the building, and parking ratio. The applicants made changes in direct response to this feedback, which reduced the violations. Although their proposal still calls for demolition of the building. Our office received three letters of opposition from abutters. Our office is also aware that the applicant and some direct abutters have engaged in a dialogue and attempt to mitigate some of the concerns raised. The applicants have also presented to the City Point Neighborhood Association, which is opposed to this application. That background, our office defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

And next we have Ashley from councilor Flynn's office.

Hi. My name is Ashley from councilor Flynn's office. Councilor Flynn would like to go on record in opposition based on feedback from neighbors and the butters during the community process. Several neighbors and the butters highlighted the exacerbation and concerns on the potential for damages to their property. Others pointed to the size, density, and Salt Boston's existing parking crisis. Some neighbors mentioned the design not fitting with the character of the surrounding buildings, while others noted removal of established trees and water drainage. At this time, councilor Flynn remains opposed due to these outstanding quality of life concerns from his neighbors. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay. Next, we have Kelly DeAngelo.

Good morning. My name is Kelly DeAngelo. I'm the owner of 767 East Broadway, so I'm a direct debutter of this project, and I wanted to voice my support for this project.

Thank you. Thanks. Next, we have Todd DeAngelo.

I also an owner at 767 East Broadway, direct to butter in the rear of the project, and I would like to voice my support for the project as well.

Thanks. And next, we have Matt Juice.

Hi. Matt Juice at 142 P Street. As a member of the City Point Neighborhood Association, I was denied the ability to learn about the project and vote by Louanne O'Connor. After reviewing the project, I want to make sure that my voice and opinion was heard in support of this project moving forward. Thank you.

Thanks. And we have Luann.

Good morning, board, madam chair. There were two direct debaters that expressed extreme concern. One of them is the D'Angelo family. So the property backs up to their backyard. And their concern was soil displacement during excavation. The other director by her is Elizabeth Rhodes who is actually moving her daughter from Arizona to Washington today. So she could not be here. She did submit a lot of historical information working with Landmarks. And her major concern, again, is excavation. Her house was built, I believe, in 1860.

Any type of damage to that home cannot be replaced. The brick is special. So she is still in opposition to this until there is an agreement worked out with the proponent. So it appears they've worked out an agreement with the D'Angelo family but have not worked out an agreement with Elizabeth Rhodes. So at this point, I do suggest, strongly that the BPDA recommendation is taken into consideration. I think it's a bit premature, for for this project to move anywhere until the i's are dotted and the t's are crossed.

Thank

you. Thank

you. Madam chair, there's one more person on the attendance section. K. The person with the phone number 305-6282, I'm sorry. Can you unmute yourself now?

Once again, the the person with the number 30582, Do you have the hands raised? Okay. Yes. If you can unmute yourself with the number with the three numbers, 582 at the end, you are allowed to unmute yourself now.

Okay. Okay. Well, maybe you wanna put your comment in the chat if you're raising your hand for this proposal. Any other feedback from attorney Spitz?

Yes. Yes. Just one thing I wanna do add is is after we heard this the statements from the City Point Neighborhood Association, I wanna let you all know that we still are in working dialogue with Elizabeth Rhodes. Neither was any support or opposition ever voiced to us from her concerns. With her traveling, we will continue again to to come to an agreement. There's been an agreement, and it's again, it's just upon final review. So, again, first to our knowledge that she was actually opposing it, I haven't seen anything written or any confirmation from her to my clients or myself stating such. So at this point, I'm gonna turn it back over to you, madam chair.

Thank you. Any other questions from the board?

Madam chair, I'd like to know how long the process would be expected to take the to the end. And if mister Hampton has any comments on this?

Mister Stembridge, are you referring to the article 85 process?

Yes. I am.

Attorney Richie Lens is here, and I'm who is handling the the application or the the the opposition. So, Richie, I'm gonna let you handle that question. Sure. So

has the process started? It has it not? What yeah. What are what are we looking at?

Sure. If I may, I I thank you, madam chair and crew members of the board. Richard Lance, 245 Sumner Street on behalf of the petitioner with respect to the article 85. Couple of things, I think, just contextually. First of all, I I did read the recommendation from planning, and I'm not sure where it came from, but that it was a suggestion that because there's potential for alternatives to be required by the Landmarks Commission that that should invite this board to delay action on the zoning matter.

I wanna be very clear for the board. There is no requirement under article 85 that alternatives to demolition be provided. Essentially, an applicant can submit a request for demolition delay review. And the commission has really only two options. First option is to invoke delay, or the second option is to not invoke delay.

The issue of alternatives gets a bit confusing, I think, for a lot of applicants that go before Landmark's commission r r 85. And it's clear and it's been verified with the commission that there is absolutely no requirement that any alternatives be provided. So, the narrowness of the commission's jurisdiction in these matters is that they can invoke delay or not invoke delay. I think it's important for this board to understand, you may be hearing this again, that in this particular case, for this particular project, we've filed an objection with the commission on timeliness. This board may be aware that article 85 has very strict timelines.

The first of which is that the determination that needs to be made by the Landmark's Commission has to be done within ten days of an application filing date. Our position on this, and not to get too far in the weeds of the board, but our position is, the ten days had, come and passed with the, time frame for when this application was filed. And the determination that was required in article five was never even made. It was made after the ten days, and then a public hearing was noticed for May 12 in this matter. On May 12, the commission at that time was required in article 85 to make its determination as to whether or not delay would be imposed.

However, article 85, again, has a very strict timeline that says that must be done within forty days of an application filing date. That was not done in this case. May 12 will be beyond the application will be beyond the application filing date. And we've raised this objection with the Landmarks Commission that they will have no jurisdiction to even hear the matter for honorably five demolition delay, and we've requested that the hearing be withdrawn. If in fact the commission decides to go forward, in spite of the fact that we've raised a very valid objection to their jurisdiction, the most they could do is impose a delay on demolition of the building for ninety days.

We intend to contest that vigorously. We believe they don't have the power to do that. But even if they were, it would be ninety days from May 12 for demolition delay. That doesn't necessarily mean that there is any other special protection that's afforded to this this property. This is not a landmark designation.

Just because it's administered by the Landmarks Commission does not give the commission the power to invoke protections other than an ID delay instructed to the special service department to not issue a demo permit. In practical reality, mister Stembridge, we wouldn't probably be ready to demolish the building in ninety days anyhow. That is a process as well that would have to go through short form permit with demo demolition requirements, including submittal of materials that would be necessary for ISD to issue the demo permit. Between the design review that would go on that's likely to happen with this project if the board is to grant relief, the ninety days would long expire regardless. But from a principal standpoint, we don't even believe the commissioner's jurisdiction in this instance because of their failure to render its decision within a ten day mandatory requirement of r l 85 and to hold its public hearing within forty days.

So I just wanna make sure that that is clear for the board that we may be in the red herring area here where the imposition or the suggestion that a demo delay may be imminent somehow affects this board's ability to grant salary relief. They are completely independent of each other, and one has nothing to do with the other. Happy to answer any questions on that.

Mister Stenbridge, did that answer your first question? And more. Yes. Okay. Did you still wanna hear from mister Hampton?

At this point, not necessary. Okay. You, mister Thank you.

Any other I I would like to hear from Hampton. Okay. Mister Hampton. Just in terms of in terms of his recommendation.

What would you like to hear? It's not to sound very blunt, but our recommendation is very, you know, simple. We're asking for a deferral.

How long would that deferral yes.

It's simple. But how

long is

You're guessing it's pretty common, miss Beta Baraza. I just don't know what this time frame would look like.

Okay. That's what I was gonna ask.

Yeah. I

mean a deferral, you know, we it's it's very difficult to

But this isn't the first time we've

made a deferral like this on any sort of recommendation, whether it be demolition delay or anything like that. Like, we we can ask for a deferral for anything that we feel is important to this case, and we've never been asked to come up with, well, what's a good time frame? Right? That's how the processes play out in this city. So it's very a very simple recommendation to the board. And that's all it is. It's a recommendation.

No. I understand it. And and I think I think this case is different in terms of the deferral. Typically, are to allow for more community process. I think this comes back to Norm Stember's original question regards to timeline, but I think the legal representation explained already that the timeline has been also expanded. So thanks again. I don't have any further questions.

Okay. We have a motion.

I would like to put forward a motion of approval with design review with the planning department. I think that if the planning department stays involved in the project, they will have time and opportunity to just deal with any issues regarding demolition. So that is my motion.

Is there a second?

Second.

Mister Stumbridge? Yep. Mister Valencia? Yes. Miss Turner? Yes. Miss Vetabrazo? Yes. Miss Pinato? Yes. Mister Collins?

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Thank you.

Next, have case VOA 1805937 with the address of 30 To 32 H Street. If the applicant and or the representative are present, would they please explain to the board?

Yes. Thank you, mister Stenbridge, madam chair, members of the board, attorney Ryan Spitz with Adams Maranti. Business address of 168 8th Street, 1st Floor Of South Boston. Joining me today are the from the development team is Tim Wilson and Luke Fallon, as well as the project architect, Katriel Tulian. This is a proposal to raise the existing commercial structure, and he rent a new four story, six unit residential building with a six car parking garage.

The lot size is approximately 4,271 square feet, which resulted in a zoning violation for insufficient lot area as a project of this scope would require a 7,000 square foot lot, but this pro proposal is in line with the neighboring properties and will allow for a better utilization of the land. Further, there is a roof structure restriction violation which resulted from the existing commercial structure being raised. The proposal is located within an MFR zoning subdistrict. All units will be two bedrooms. The Ground Floor plan will consist of the garage parking for six vehicles, lobby, trash air, and mechanicals, and elevator access.

First floor plan will contain Units 1 And 2. Second floor plan will contain Units 3 And 4. Third floor plan will contain Units 5 And 6. We have additional violations. We have a side yard setback violation. Minimum of three feet is required as this proposal is located on a corner lot. This applies to both the south and east lot lines where they are adjacent to multifamily buildings. The east lot line is approximately 1.5 feet at the garage level and three feet for all upper stories. The south lot line is two inches from the lot line. The adjacent building is set back approximately six feet from the common lot line, and the separation between the two is common in this area.

Further, we believe the rear yard setback violation was an error due to the fact of being a corner lot with two front yard and two side yards. FAR violation code requires a two point o proposal calls for a 2.6, but again, it's consistent and appropriate for this area of 2nd Street. Height violation, 40 feet is required by code, and this proposal calls for 41.42 feet, but the increase is not unreasonable in this area. Due to the slope of the site, the building height will be reduced by three feet at the south end of the site. We have an open space violation.

200 square feet per unit is required, and the proposal calls for 78 square feet per unit in the form of balconies, which, again, is consistent in this area. Parking violation, 1.5 parking spaces per new unit of housing, and the proposal has seven total parking spaces. However, this proposal is aligned with the transportation's guidelines of reducing dependency on private vehicles. Lastly, we have a violation for traffic visibility across a corner lot. Despite being a corner lot and the building being constructed to the property line, article 68 dash 34 section two and article 18 section three clearly states that whenever a front yard is required and the lot is a corner lot, in this instance, there is no front yard required on both sides.

Therefore, this should be inapplicable to this proposal. The building design maintains appropriate sight lines at the intersection while maximizing the building envelope. The garage access has been carefully designed to ensure safe ingress and egress. And lastly, typically, a violation like this is just automatically cited if an analysis is not provided such as a mobile setback. Again, so one wasn't provided for here, so we will automatically cite it. So at this point, madam chair, I'm going to turn it over to the board for any questions or comments. Thank you.

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

Madam chair and board members, Siggy Johnson with the office of neighborhood services. This applicant completed the community process. Our office hosted an abutters meeting on February 3. Three of Butters supported the application. Our office received 10 letters of support, all of which signed addresses in the 300 foot Butters radius. The Gate of Heaven Neighborhood Association is in non opposition to this application. We're not aware of any other concern of that background. Our office defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Next, we have Ashley from Conservative Flame.

Conservative Flame would like to go on record in support based on a good community process. We respectfully request that the proponent work closely with neighbors on any of quality of life issues during the construction phase. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have Joseph Provenzano.

How are doing? I'd like to speak in support of this project. I think it fits well with the neighborhood, and the design of the building is nice. There's sufficient parking. The large units will provide an opportunity for families like mine to remain in South Boston. I ask that you please approve the project. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, there are no additional comments.

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

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

Is there a second?

Second.

Mr. Stenbridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Bedervaza? Yes. Ms. Bonauto? Yes. Mr. Collins?

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Thank you.

Next, we have case BOA1809792 with the address of 36 To 42 Ull Street. If the applicant's representative present, would they please explain to the board?

Yes. Thank you, mister Stembridge. Good morning, madam chair, members of the board. My name is George Maransi. I'm an attorney with the business address of 350 West Broadway in South Boston.

I represent Greg Dunnevin in this matter. This property is an existing two story, four unit residential building located at 30 Six-forty 20 Street within an MFR multifamily residential zoning subdistrict under article 68. This proposal is rather straightforward consisting of a two story vertical addition including two areas in the rear of the building currently occupied by porch structures bringing the building to four stories and 40 feet which is fully compliant with height regulations in this zoning subdistrict. The rear additions convert the porches in the back into living area with no further encroachment into the rear yard. The expansion from four units to six units total would bring with it full life safety upgrades including a complete NFPA thirteen hour sprinkler system.

The architectural drawings reflect a contextual design consistent with surrounding row house structures maintaining the rhythm and scale along 0 Street. The refusal letter cites several violations, but when viewed in context, this is at heart a typical South Boston infill rehabilitation. With respect to the violations, there's a

rear yard

setback violation. The existing nonconformity on the right side of the lot continues I'm sorry, in the rear of the lot continues under the applicability of section 6,834.1, the shallow lot exception, meaning that the minimum setback distance here is 15 feet. The existing condition is 10.3 feet to the rear most portion of the building where there are as I mentioned two rear porch structures. The areas of the rear porches will be used to create additional living space in the building without further encroaching into that rear setback area. There's thus no increase in nonconformity.

In fact, the enclosed portions at the rear of the building will actually be set back slightly farther from the rear lot line than the existing porch structures. So while it is present on the refusal letter, I actually question whether the rear setback violation cited here is actually valid. The existing rear yard will be fully upgraded with new landscaping and enclosed trash storage area and no trees importantly will be removed from the site. There is

a side

yard setback violation pertaining to the right side of the lot only but it is important to note that there will be no change to the building's side setbacks either right or left. The violation is triggered solely by the vertical addition of the building. There's an FAR violation. The FAR increase here is driven by a vertical addition, not lot over coverage. And approximately 3.3 the proposed FAR is, as the planning recommendation notes, consistent with nearby three and four story residential buildings.

There's a usable open space violation that provided usable open space which is essentially not changing enclosed porches with roofs don't really count as usable open space. So the amount of usable open space in the rear yard, as I mentioned, is not being decreased. It will remain at approximately four seventy square feet. So while relief is technically required, this open space is actually typical for this block pattern as the planning recommendation notes. Additionally, I'd like to point out that the site is located one block from the open space in Meadowlawn Bonner Park, which is just over a block excuse me, from the site as well as Thomas Butler Memorial Park And Marine Park which is approximately two blocks from the site.

It's a violation cited for insufficient off street parking. No on-site parking currently exist and none is proposed owing to the size and configuration of the lot. It's impossible to introduce a curb cut. That being said, this is a transit served location within two minutes walking distance from MBTA bus routes seven, nine, ten, and eleven in the project is thus consistent with city policy favoring reduced parking in dense neighborhoods. Additionally, there are 57 private off street rental parking spaces located nearly next door at 30 Two-thirty 40 Street.

In conclusion, and as the planning department recommendation confirms, this area is predominantly residential. It is characterized by two to three and some four story buildings with moderate to high density with a consistent row house streetscape pattern. This is a relatively small lot at approximately 2,521 square feet, although the building is a typical South Boston row house condition with limited side yards and shallow depth. The height is code compliant, the massing is consistent with neighborhood scale, the rear setback is not being reduced and the building would be brought into full code compliance with modern life safety systems. There is incremental density with an addition of two units but with no adverse shadow scale or privacy impacts beyond existing urban conditions.

The proposal aligns directly with city housing planning goals by supporting modest infill housing production, preserving and upgrading existing housing stock, avoiding demolition, advancing sustainability through reuse, and reflecting transit oriented development policies. Finally, and just to address a comment in the planning recommendation, the bottom of the building's proposed projection beginning at the second story is 11 feet above sidewalk grade, which exceeds the Public Improvements Commission's 10 foot minimum clearance requirement. The 4th Floor apparent balconies are purely decorative and not functional. But that being said, my client would be happy to work through design review with the planning department to either modify or eliminate the overhang should the board grant the requested relief. With that, Madam Chair, I'll pause and take any questions or comments that board members may have.

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

Madam chair and board members, Siggi Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This applicant completed the community process the Butters meeting on February 5 at which there were questions about the design, its suitability with the surrounding context. The applicants have also met with the City Point Neighborhood Association, which is supporting this application. That background, ONS defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Next we have Ash Ashley from councilor Flynn's office.

Councilor Flynn would like to go on record and support based on a good community process and feedback from neighbors and the City Point Neighborhood Association. Councilor Flynn respectfully request that the development team work closely with neighbors and the civic group on any quality of life issues that arise during the construction phase. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we'll have Luann.

Good morning again. Luanne O'Connor, president of the City Point Neighborhood Association. The proponents came in and presented before City Point. Some of the conversation, that happened with attorney Maranti and Greg Dunnevant was that there are two trees that apparently the city has deemed dead out in front of those properties, and Greg Donovan agreed to replacing those trees. He was not opposed to that. So that was a good thing in our minds. There are no roof decks. That's a better thing. And the height is high. However, it is zoning compliant.

So with that, we think that it's a good project. They also agreed for the balconies to be decorative, so sort of like a Juliet balcony versus actual decks that are hanging over the building. And so far as the overhang, again, like attorney Maranti said, they are willing to go through BPDA design review for that. So with all of that, form was present, both was taken, and we are supporting the project. Thank you.

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

Okay. Any other questions from the board? May I have a motion? Madam chair, I would like

to perform a motion of approval with BPD design review, paying paying special attention to the contextual surrounding as it applies to the exterior.

Is there a second? Second. Mister Sandbridge? Yeah. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Bedobraza? Yes. Ms. Panato? Yes. Mr. Collins?

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Thank you.

The next case has been deferred, so that will take us to case BOA1790078 with the address of 58 Bullard Street. If the applicants and or their representative are present, will they please explain the case to the board?

Is Charles Robson on for 58 Butler Street?

K. If you Yes, madam chair. I I think I I see. Someone says they're here. Yeah.

He will be on the panelist section very soon. Oh, no. I don't know. Charles, if you can speak now, you you are allowed to unmute yourself.

Yes. Good day. How are you today?

Good. Are you here to speak to 58 Waller Street?

Actually, my architect wasn't able to make it due to a health situation. So I I based on the communication, we will probably have to, I guess, reschedule. Or

Okay. So you need to defer?

Yes, please.

Okay. Stephanie?

How long of a deferral would you like?

I would like the next meeting if possible.

We could do May 5.

May 5? K. Thank you.

Okay. May I have a motion?

Motion to defer this case to May 5.

Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stumbridge? Yep. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Vetter Brazo? Yes. Ms. Panado? Yes. Mister Collins?

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries. We'll see you then.

Yeah. No harms. That

is? Mm-mm.

That will take us to space. It's my fault. BOA1821678 with the address of 70 Oakland Street.

If the applicant

and or the representative present, will they please explain to the board? Madam chair. Recused.

Okay, mister We're a six member board. Thank you,

mister secretary. Good morning, madam chair, members of the board. Madam chair, in light of the recusal, we would like to request a brief deferral so that this project may have the opportunity of a full

A question about FIT for voting.

Yeah. We'll talk about it. Please proceed.

I'm sorry. Can you hear me now, chair? Yes. In light of that recusal, we would like to request a brief deferral so that this project may have the opportunity of a full bullet.

Stephanie? I mean, Caroline?

That's okay. I would think you may fit.

What's the following after that?

Yeah. So we have May 5, May 19, June

May 19 is perfect.

Okay. So can we confirm, Stephanie, who's sitting since the same issue may occur before you give that date?

No. That was for Matt. I'm not sure. I'm not it's Caroline. I'm not I don't do the schedule. Okay.

So I can follow-up with the ZBA offline, ma'am.

Yes. So with that, may I have a motion? We'll do a motion to defer, and mister Christopher can

Coordinate the dates.

Yes. Okay. So is there a motion?

Motion to defer to May 19.

Is there a second?

Is there a second?

Mister Stembridge? Yep. Mister Valencia? Yes. Miss Turner? Yes. Miss Bedarrazza?

Yes.

Miss Panato? Yes. Mister Collins? Oh, sorry. Chair votes yes. Motion carries.

Thank you, madam chair. Thank you for your time.

So next, we have case VOA 1810310 with the address of 34 At At The Wall Street. If the applicant and or their representative are present, would they please reply?

Good morning, madam chair, members of the board. My name is Matt Mueller of Hu Architecture, and I will be presenting this project today. But first, I'd like to pass it to Alex Edwards, who's the owner and developer of the property, just to say a few words.

How are doing, everyone? I'm happy to be here. I just wanna take a minute of your time just explain how how amazing this project is. We've before we went to the city, we went to the neighborhood and we actually designed this project with the neighborhood with everyone involved on our neighborhood meetings. Met with the neighborhood about four times before bringing it into the city, and we know what the economy the type of economy we're in today.

And we also reached out to companies like BJ's, Wayfair, YMCA, which just agreed to give free memberships, lower gas, and lower grocery costs for people in that purchase in this particular building. So this is the first time we not only developed a building, but we also built developed a community, a lifestyle, and reached out for national help to give people in this neighborhood a lower cost in living. We also created our own down payment assistance as well and also received some funds from private funding for police, for in law enforcement, anyone in the medical field, and also educators. So I'm excited about this project. Matt, you could take it away.

Thank you.

Thank you, Alex. Okay. Just a little bit about the project. The site the site is currently a vacant 4,665 square foot lot, approximately 80 feet by 58 feet, located near the intersection of Atherwald Street, Norwell Street, and Millet Street. The property is in the 3 F 6000 zoning district and is located within a block made up primarily of triple deckers along with some one and two one and two family homes.

Many existing three family properties in the immediate area sit on lots ranging from 2,000 to 3,600 square feet, so the proposed scale is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood pattern. The site is also very transit accessible, located about three minute walk from the Talbot Avenue Fairmont line commuter rail station. The proposal is to construct a new six family dwelling with three off street parking spaces and six bicycle parking spaces. A new 10 foot curb cut will provide access to the driveway and three parallel parking spaces. The proposed building and massing has been designed to fit comfortably within the scale of the surrounding homes and neighborhood context.

If you can go to the next slide, please. The project will require zoning board appeal approval for several items, including six family use in a three out district, insufficient lawn size, excessive FAR, insufficient front side and rear yard back setbacks, excessive building stories, insufficient parking, parking located within the required side yard, and insufficient parking maneuverability. Next slide. Oh, this is fine. Yeah.

The building is organized with two units per floor across the residential stories with a small basement used only for mechanical and maintenance access. The unit mix includes two one bedroom units averaging approximately 520 square feet, two two bedroom units averaging eight fifty square feet, and two three bedroom units averaging 1,200 square feet. Next slide, please. This is actually okay. This isn't the latest thing we submitted, but it's fine. It's it's close enough. The exterior design takes cues from the traditional triple decker context of the neighborhood.

Facade includes front yard

front decks, a layered ornice, bay panel detailing, and two tone material strategy to help break down the scale of the three story building. The design is intended to relate to nearby homes, including neighboring properties along Atherwell Street and Norwell Street Of Butters, while creating a new building that feels attractive, residential, and appropriate to the streetscape. The project includes a combination of private and shared outdoor amenities. Two units will have front balconies. Two units will have rear balconies, And the 1st Floor family size unit will have dedicated access to rear yard space.

The building is set back approximately eight feet from the front property line to create a more generous and attractive streetscape. The front yard will include landscaping such as dogwood trees, flowering shrubs, stone pavers to emphasize the primary entrance and walkway. Overall, the goal is to create a well designed transit oriented residential building that fits within the existing neighborhood fabric. The proposed six family dwelling provides a thoughtful mix of unit sizes off street parking, bicycle parking, and meaningful outdoor space. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Are there questions from the board?

I have a question regarding the BPD recommendation in regards to the transformer. Do you have a sense of where the transformer would be located and how that would affect or impact your building footprint?

We did ask an MEP engineer for a preliminary estimate, and he believes we can have a pole mounted transformer for this for these units.

A pole mounted transformer?

Yes.

Okay. Thank you. Thanks for thanks for your response.

Good point. Thank you. Any other questions from the board? May I have public testimony?

Madam chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Bembury. I'm the Dorchester community engagement specialist for the office of neighborhood services. The applicant has completed the community process, which consisted of an above his meeting facilitated on January 28 with no attendees present. Prior to and outside of the formal community process, the proponent went with the community members approximately seven times to develop, refine, and revise the proposal in response to community feedback. Following the abutters meeting, the proposal was presented to West of Washington Civic Association, which voted in support of the project. To date, our office has not received any further community feedback at this time to my knowledge. Thank you for your time with the mayor's office of naval services. I like to defer to the board for nature.

Next, we have Anastasia from city councilor.

Hi. Yes. Madam chair, members of the board, Anastasia speaking on behalf of councilor Wehrle. I would like to go on record in support of this project. Thank you.

Thank you. And there is one person who Lakisaburke, if you can give me

your call.

Thank you guys very much. I would like to say thank you, number one, for hearing out the project on Attlewell Street. I am not only a member of the Wow community, but I was also the president and the founder of the Washington Coalition, from Original Foundation. And I what I really appreciate about 34 Anthem Wall Street is how Alex came to the community to help to let us help design this particular project. Like, this wasn't a situation where he already had something premade and came in and spoke to the community, but it was also, a joint venture of what the building should look like and what people would wanna see there.

So I wanna give my hats off to Alex as being a great developer and as well as supporting all of the down payment assistance programs and things like that that he has brought to Wow throughout the time. And let's not forget that he's also contributed to many community community events, supply of bikes and laptops and different things like that for the kids. So I wanna say I do support thirty four at the Wall Street. I think it's a great project, and I think the Wow neighborhood is really gonna benefit from this particular project, including the seniors who may be living in the area that are looking to downsize. So thank you.

Yep. Ma'am, you. There are no additional comments. Okay.

With that, may I have a motion?

Madam Chair, I'd like to put forward a motion given the support of the community and the care that the developer has taken to develop this project. I'd like to put forward a motion of approval. Is there a second?

They call them. Mister Stenbridge.

Madam chair, I'd like to follow-up those comments made by miss Beta Verrazza. This appears to be a project that a lot of people could follow the lead off for sure. So with that, yes. Thank you. Mister Stumber mister Valencia?

Yes.

Miss Turner?

Yes. Miss

Better Barraza? Yes. Miss Fanado? Yes. Mister Collins? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck.

Thank you. Thank you all. Next next, I I believe there will be a refusal for this part.

Yes. I was gonna let you read it, but okay.

Okay. Case BOA1814225 with the address of 190 To 200 Cummins Highway. Go ahead.

Madam chair, I'd like to I'd like to recuse myself. Thank you.

Thank you. So we are a six member board for this case.

And with that, if the applicants and or their representative are present, will they please complain to the board?

Yes. Thank you, mister Stembridge. Good morning again, madam chair, members of the board. For the record, Richard Linz with a business address at 245 Sumner Street. On behalf of the Burke Charter School with me is Sarah Humphrey and Anthony Pirmarini. I believe he needed to be elevated to a panelist. They're with Studio Blues, and they are a project architect for this project. We may also have with us Mark Lauren, who is the executive director of Brook Charter School. I did provide a slide deck. If we could jump to slide three of our slide deck. Yep. Perfect. Yep. So a quick overview. This proposal involves a relatively small addition, madam chair, to the existing Brook Charter School located in Roslindale.

Brook Charter School serves approximately 600 students in grades k through eight, and it's located at 190 Cummins Highway in Roswellville, as I mentioned. It's operated at this location for more than two decades. So just a quick overview. This site involves about 65,000 over 65,000 square feet with an existing preexisting nonconforming structure. Proposal would add about 3,400 square feet to the actual building, increasing our total FAR up to about one point o six.

This would involve a new elevator, new staircase, improved accessibility to the building and the site, and as well as adding some resource rooms, break room. And then we're also looking at some exterior improvements, which aren't really zoning related, but involving upgrade entry plaza, the playground, and the courtyard. We are actually adding one additional parking space for a total of two accessible parking spaces. Can we jump to slide four, please? So with respect to the items that ISD decided for with respect to article 67, we are cited for two particular issues, and these relate directly to the preexisting nonconforming conditions on the building.

The first involves the floor to area ratio. The district allows a maximum of point five under article 67. We are already at a one point o one, so an exceeding condition already, which makes this a nonconforming condition. The increase up to the one point o six would require relief in the form of variance in order to accommodate this relatively modest addition to the building. The second issue involves the height.

Once again, the building already being preexisting nonconforming at a height of, at some points, three stories and over 35 feet. Our addition does not exceed three stories. And although it does exceed 35 feet, it doesn't exceed the highest point of our building, which is just slightly over 38 feet. So once again, relief for that would be required. And, again, we believe this is the minimal relief that would be necessary to accommodate this proposed addition, which would greatly improve accessibility for the building.

If we can jump down to slide six, just a quick overview of some of the benefits that go along with this, looking at, you know, how much new space is being proposed, including faculty work in break space. The outdoor improvements that we're making to the grounds would be a huge improvement for the students that are operate that that go to school here, as well as some new trees that are being added to the site. And, of course, the elevator, which is the chief reason for this addition. Jump down to slide seven, please. Think there's actually a slide.

Can we go back one slide? Probably easier. Perfect. Yeah. So what we're showing here, members of the board, is the existing condition on the left with proposed changes on the right. The green area labeled letter e identifies again, you can see this is a relatively small addition to the existing building itself. The impact of this addition would be extremely minimal, including upon the visual or appearance of the building itself that is sort of tucked into that alcove in between the

two Recording stopped.

Hello?

Recording in progress.

There you go.

Yep. Sorry. You can see some of the changes for circulation parking, the new playground area, entry plaza, etcetera. So an overall improvement to site access as well as the addition for the accessibility to the building. If we could jump down to slide 12.

So this is probably a good illustration of the scope of this addition that we're proposing. As I mentioned, the height of the building at its highest point, as you can see on the top portion of this this slide, shows that we are at three stories already preexisting. The building does step down, and at various points, gets down to one story. And as you can see in the lower section, our

Recording stopped. You want me to I assume you want Recording in progress.

Sounds like a technical issue. Sorry about that, mister. No As

you can see here, in the lower portion of the slide, you can see the scope and extent of the addition, again, in line generally with the highest point of our building and not exceeding the overall existing height where we're at. We can go to slide 13, please. Did a great job of identifying how this would relate to the existing conditions. And as you can see here, this illustrates what this addition would look like in connection or with respect to the existing building connection with the

So so just to clarify, this addition is popped inside, like, basically, in, like, an an open space between two existing sections of the existing footprint?

That is correct. It doesn't expand you know, the the extent of the existing footprint, the farthest points of the existing footprint are not changed. This is really infill or a very partial infill of the of the area that's open between the two main portions of the building currently. Thank you. And I believe that's it. At this point, I'm happy to answer or address any questions or comments. And, again, we do have our architects here as well that could address any specific comments or concerns for the board.

Thank you. Would you be able to address concerns that we received from abutters about noise noise levels being excessive and, I guess, continuous?

With with respect to the proposed construction or the operation of the school itself? I I believe it's well, both, but operations of the school itself, I

think, is the long term concern.

Yeah. I I I participated in the community process on this. We did have a good number of neighbors participate in those meetings as well. And I know that Mark Lauren, who is the director of Burke Charter, has a very good working relationship with the surrounding community. And I believe during the community process, those questions were similarly raised, and there will be continued dialogue with mister Lorien and the community on those issues.

As to any noise related to construction, I mean, this would be, you know, subject to all the same ordinances and requirements that the city puts in place for any permanent project in the city of Boston. So I I don't anticipate that the this would be any different than any other construction project would be happening. We feel this is a a relatively, again, small addition to the building and that the impacts should be temporary, I would say, but also minimal to the surrounding neighborhood as well, especially based upon where the most of this structure will be taking place.

Thank you. Other questions from the board?

Yes. Madam Chair, just to piggyback on your comments, mister Lins, the comments that we received from residents in the area are about the regular performing of the school. And I'm glad you hosted a community process, but the comments are about double parking, traffic control, noise, leaf blowers at one in the morning. So those are things that are not related to this project. I like the project, but I wanted to mention this for the school members and the school team to try to work closer with the neighbors and figure out how to create a better quality of life

for everybody. Yes. Indeed. And I I think to your point, mister Valencia, the questions regarding, you know, certainly the traffic and parking were also raised during the community process. And I believe that the changes and the improvements that they're making to the site will help alleviate some of those concerns. That certainly is part of this process as well. Circulation for the site and access to the site, all of that is part of this project's overall project. Even though the exterior changes to the site don't necessarily have zoning implications, the addition certainly would. Those issues were also raised during community process, and and mister Lorien is well aware of those those concerns.

K. Thank

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

Madam chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Bembury. I'm the Rosslyn Dale community engagement specialist for the office of neighborhood services. The applicant has completed the community process, which consisted of an abutters meeting held on February 18, during which abutters expressed numerous concerns primarily related to the construction phase of the project. While there was limited opposition to the proposal itself, significant concerns are raised regarding construction impacts, including noise levels and hours of operation. Above has cited prior experiences with construction activity occurring aft before 8AM and after 6PM and on weekends and requested that work be limited to standard weekday hours with no weekend activity. Regarding noise

Recording stopped. Recording in progress.

Noise from construction equipment including alarms, general coworker activity, and increased traffic from vehicles accessed on the site. These issues were raised repeatedly, and the buddies requested assurances that appropriate mitigation measures would be implemented. Next, the proposal was presented to Prospect Hill Neighborhood Association where they remain neutral but understand Brooks School to be a good neighbor. Thank you for your time, and the mayor's office of neighborhood services would like to defer to the board for the judge.

Thank you. Madam chair, we don't have additional hands raised at the moment. K.

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

Should I elect to make a motion of approval?

Is there a second?

Second.

Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Panado? Yes. Mister Collins?

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Thank you very much.

Here, before we move on, the first case that we called, but we didn't get a response. I'll return to that and state case VOA 1811706 with the address of 360 Princeton Street and ask if there is if the applicant and or representative were present.

Do we have Laura Costa or anyone else for 360 Princeton Street?

I don't see anyone, but I'm sure.

Okay. Think we may wanna make a motion to defer.

Motion to defer this case.

Is there a second?

Second.

Second.

Mr. Stenbridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Ms. Turner? Yes. Ms. Bedebraza? Yes. Ms. Panado? Yes. Mr. Collins?

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Caroline, if someone can call this applicant to find a new date, that would be great. Thank you. First.

11:00, mister Snubridge.

With that, we'll go to the hearing schedule for 11AM. And this time, we'll ask if there are any requests for withdrawals or deferrals from the 11:00 hour. Hearing none, we'll go to the first two cases, which are companion cases. These are k these will be case BOA1825579 with the address of 100 Beachview Road. Along with that, we have case BOA1825581 with the address of 102 Beechview Road.

If the applicant and or the representative are present for these cases, will they please explain to

the board? Yes. Thank you again, mister Stembridge, and good morning again, madam chair, members of the board for the record. Richard Lin's at the business address of 245 Summer Street, East Boston. On behalf of the petitioner, with me is Eric Zaperson, who's our project architect. If we could jump right down to slide five, madam ambassador, that would be a good place to start. So quick overview if we can zoom in a little bit. This involves a preexisting 5,000 square foot vacant lot. We are proposing a subdivision of a lot into two twenty five hundred square foot parcels. Our proposal involves the construction of two separate two family dwellings.

We can probably stop right at the screen right here. Two separate two family dwellings, and these will be semi attached. Our proposed structures are designed to be in compliance completely with the relatively newer regulations for the EBR 2.5 zoning subdistrict governed by article 53 in applicable East Boston. So the use and dimensional controls that would be in place for this proposal are all in compliance with the requirements set forth in article 53. The only item that we were cited for was for the height of the building, and I think this is a good place to start.

We believe, and this isn't often, this is one of those instances where the shape of the lot and the topography actually matter. As you can see here that I have on the screen, there's an existing elevation of the site from the sidewalk. It looks like it's approximately four to five feet. There's an existing two family dwelling to the left side of the property. It's the left side of our lot.

You can see it here. And that building is set higher because of the topography of site the on this section of Beechwood Road. Our proposal would involve maintaining the topography rather than eliminating this retaining wall and bringing the site down to grade, which would put us at the sidewalk level. We believe that the continuity of the way buildings along this side of B Tree are aligned. This would be a more appropriate design to have it as we propose it versus excavating the site down and eliminating the topography in a way that would really disrupt,

I think, the rhythm of

the section of beach view. If we could jump down to slide six and seven, I think that would be let's go on to slide six. Yeah. Seven, eight. Yeah.

Actually, go to let's go to slide slide 15. I apologize. One thing I will point out is I did have a chance to review the recommendation of planning department for both of these projects. I'm sure the board as the board is aware, the planning department has recommended approval straight approval on both of these based upon substantial compliance with EDR 2.5 requirements. And even though we do and we are requesting relief for height, we believe that relief is based in large part upon interpretation of how height is measured and certainly the uniqueness of this particular site and the topography that we have.

As I'm showing here, this is the building that would be on the right side. This would be 102 B 2. And as you can see on the site, we do set our building back appropriately from the street side of Drummond Road as well as Beachview Road. Next slide, please. Here, you have the semi attached condition of 100 Beach View, and, again, designed to be completely compliant with all dimensional regulations and uses for article 53 and EBR 2.5.

Next slide, please. Just including our architectural site plans as well just so that the items including open space, permeable area, etcetera, can be shown, and all of that area outside of the dark shaded area, the green hatched area, includes open space and permeable space on the site. Next slide, please. Again, just showing our relationship at the two at the building located next door. Next slide.

And just our typical floor plans, and, again, being a semi attached building, we are showing these as bilevel units. So you'd have a lower level Unit 1, and Unit 2 would be two upper levels as seen here. Next slide, please. Showing again. Again, we have this two two separate units.

So showing the elevations of our building here, we show it at the the left side. This would be a 100 the hundred b two side. It's a little difficult to tell from this elevation. This is a two this would be considered two and a half story as measured from the grade of the site as opposed to the grade of the sidewalk. And as I mentioned earlier in the presentation, the grade of the sidewalk require us to excavate our eliminate that retaining wall and to bring the building down.

We believe that this being in line with our our neighbor immediately next door would be more consistent with the rhythm and flow for section of each of your work. Next slide, please. This is the 102 side. Again, semi attached condition showing the weir yeah. You can go to next slide, please. This shows the weir of 100. Next slide, please. And the weir of 1 zero 2. Next slide, please. This is an important slide because this, I think, shows the the difference between the sidewalk at Beachview Road and the slope of our site.

And, again, rather than excavating out the site and bringing the site all the way down to the sidewalk, we would maintain the existing topography. And as you can see from this elevation here, this would be considered a two and one half story building, which is permitted as a matter of light in the EBR 2.5 District. Next slide, please. Just showing our opposite side here. This would be on the Drama Road side showing the right side of the building.

Next slide, please. Again, the section condition showing Level 1 is the main of the main level above for Unit 1 would be lowest level, and Unit 2 would be all of the second level and a portion of that half story up above. Next slide, please. And just our second plan again from the other side. Next slide.

And this would show the elevation in the rendering. And, again, this shows it in relationship to the building located immediately to our left. And this, once again, would be two and a half story, and as measured from grade at the site, would be compliant with the EBR 2.5 height limit. However, because this is higher than the sidewalk and the site is higher than the sidewalk, relief from the physical height requirements for article 53 is necessary. And we can go one more slide,

I believe, with comparisons. Yeah.

So this shows a comparison of this this side of Vitreu Road. As you can see, our building is highlighted here with the red bubble and showing that in relation to the building that's located adjacent, which is also owned by the proponent, would be consistent with height and scale, and then obviously maintaining that elevation. As you can see, as you move down Beechview Road, those retaining walls continue. That is all based upon the slope and grade separation between the back portions of those lots and the lower portion where the sidewalk is on Beechview Road. With that, I would pause and answer any questions of

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

Hello, madam chair and members of the board. My name is Eva Jones representing the mayor's office in neighborhood services. Regarding 100 Beach Face Street, our office defer to the board's judgment. A community process was conducted including an Butters meeting held on 10/3025 attended by several East Boston community members. The feedback from this meeting was significant concern from community members that prior to plan East Boston, this proposal had upwards of 10 plus violations.

And following plan e c, all but one of these violations were removed. Community members felt that this was a gift to the developer and believe that the proposal should adhere to the intent of plan ace Boston. They expressed concerns that the applicants as of right proposal would remove the retaining wall, which is cohesive throughout the neighborhood and contributes to its character rather than revising the plans to remove the half story, which is the only remaining violation. There were also some community members who did not oppose the proposal in the meeting. Additionally, we did receive one letter in opposition expressing many of the same concerns from one of the director Butters, and the proposal was also reviewed by the Orient Heights Neighborhood Association at their meeting on 12/1525 and who voted on two nine twenty six, which resulted in a vote in non opposition that was four yes, four no, and two abstain.

At this time, the mayor's office of neighborhood services differs to the board's judgment on this matter. Thank you everyone for your time and consideration.

Thank you. We have Steven, from consulate Zapata's office.

Hi, madam chair, members of the board. My name is Stefan from consulate Coletta Zapata's office. At this time, we defer to the judgment of the board. We did wanna note that we requested the official vote count from orientheightsnc@gmail.com, who we believe is the who runs the organization, the neighborhood association. Excuse me. And we did not receive a response, when we were trying to, deliberate a recommendation on on this case. But that being said, we defer to the judgment of the board. Thank you.

Thank you.

And we have a Ronen Orlando.

Hi, everybody. My name is Ronen Orlando. I'm an abutter to the property. I've lived in this neighborhood my entire life, and my family has been here for decades, including at 43 Seaview Avenue, 45, which directly the property. I have several concerns with this proposal that I'd like to make sure clearly heard on the record.

From what I understand, the project is requesting a height variance and is proposing a level of density that appears to exceed what the lot is intended to support. I have not heard a clear explanation of a hardship that would justify it. If the issue is soil or excavation, I don't see how the necess how this necessitates additional height as opposed to a design that complies with the current zoning. I also understand the the proposed height is being justified by a neighboring structure that predates the current zoning. I also reviewed the assessor's record, which lists the lot at 4,978 square feet.

My understanding is that 5,000 square feet is required for this level of density. So I like clarification on how that requirement is being met. Taken together, this reads as multiple forms of zoning relief to support a project that is larger than what the lot is reasonably can reasonably accommodate. The proposed height and massing are out of scale with the surrounding homes and will have real impacts on the abutting properties. While I appreciate the community process, I do wanna note that my experience with outreach on this project felt more combative and dismissive than constructive. I ask the board to take these concerns seriously and closely consider whether the standard for granting a variance has actually been met with this case. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we have. Gail, you can unmute yourself now.

Alright. Thank you.

This is Gail. I'm an active member of the organized neighborhood council. The vote on this project, I might suggest, was very low due to the off week meeting date. It often throws people off when we meet the week before. So that number does not reflect the usual numbers in attendance.

The neighborhood, was mentioned, was very enthusiastic about and engaged in the East master plan, which embraced the one or two figures owning in Orion Heights and its character. That character is not is not what is being presented here, stated as a semi attached. To me, my understanding is either attached or it isn't. The two lots are not fully 2,500 square feet each. So that should perhaps, I think, insignificantly be addressed.

You were shown the abutting property sitting higher on the lot, which has a building permit currently but has been left to rack and ruin for the past five years, windows open, and all kinds of animals in and out of that building. There have been complaints filed, of course,

with your

departments. And also left to rack and ruin is the formerly beautifully designed landscaping on the site. I offer my objection to the height. I don't think it it's warranted and the massive sizing, the the map.

Okay. Okay? We will also

alright.

May I respond, madam chair? Yes. Thank you very much. So with respect to the first speaker who is indicated director Butter, First of all, Pleasant East Boston not to keep the dead horse here. Pleasant East Boston made significant changes in East Boston zoning, including density requirements.

Floor year ratio in the EVR 2.5 is something that is the one of the only residential neighbors that has a maximum. We're well below that, so this does this does meet with the density requirements for EVR 2.5. Up to two units are allowed on a lot on a single lot. That also is consistent with our proposal. More importantly, we did hear a comment that there's a 5,000 square foot minimum.

The board may be well aware of this already. There is no minimum lot size requirement, a minimum funded requirement any longer in any of the residential districts in the East Boston neighborhood. So therefore, the 5,000 square foot issue is is irrelevant. As to whether or not we're just under 5,000 square feet, the subdivision of the lot into roughly two twenty five square foot lots is permissible under zoning. We're not cited for that.

It's not a violation. That's before this board. And with respect to the height that we are proposing, this may be one of those instances where the hardship actually can be demonstrated. In this particular case, in order for us to meet the height requirement, a significant amount of excavation to the site would be required. We think that would be a probably not so good results for interactive butter, including mister Orlando, who spoke first this this morning here on this project.

Having their property abutting eyes, there is a small encroachment that is onto our property. We have no issue allowing that encroachment to remain. However, if we had excavated our site down to the sidewalk level to comply with the height, that would actually be detrimental to that abutting property. I don't know what happened to work with them on allowing that encroachment to remain. We have no interest in having them remove a portion of their patio or their driveway as a result of this, and therefore, that's something that we're happy to work with them on.

I've reached out to them to do that. We were met with some hostility as to whether or not this project will be going forward. But we will continue to do that, and we believe that hardship is pretty self explanatory based upon the topography of the site. With respect to the second speaker who spoke about the building oh, sorry, about the Maury High City Road Council. I believe the vote has been conveyed.

I think miss Jones conveyed the vote was four in favor, four against, and to abstain. We don't have control of who shows up at these meetings. If people choose not to show up or choose not to vote, that's not really our issue. We we go through the process as prescribed by the mayor's office of neighborhood services. If the vote was not something that, you know, reflected a larger community involvement, Perhaps there wasn't as much interest in this project as others that we certainly presented to that community group. So I think those are all important elements here. I think certainly based upon the recommendation of planning department and that this project in all other respects complies with EBR two five zoning regulations. This is a worthwhile and meritorious project that, should proceed. Thank you, madam chair.

Thank you. Any questions from the board? I have a motion. Motion of approval. Is there a second? Mr. Stumbridge?