Bpda Board of Directors - Regular Meeting

Good morning. The city of Boston zoning board of appeal hearing for 02/03/2026 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 livestreamed.

In order to ensure this hearing with the board is open to the public, members of the public may access this hearing through telephone and video conferencing. The information for connecting to this hearing is listed on today's hearing agenda, which is posted on the public notices page of the city's website, boston.gov. Members of the public will enter the virtual hearing as attendees, which means you will not see yourself on the screen, and you will be muted throughout unless administratively unmuted when asked to comment. Board members, applicants, and their attorneys or representatives will participate in the hearing as panelists, and they will appear alongside the presentation materials when speaking. Panelists are strongly encouraged to keep video on while presenting to the board.

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

Click it again, and your hand should go down. When the host sees your hand, you will receive a request to unmute yourself. Select yes, and you should be able to talk. If you are connected to the hearing by telephone, please press 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 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.

You're on mute, mister Stembridge.

Okay. Let's try this again. Good morning, madam chair, present.

Good morning. Mister Valencia?

Good morning, madam chair, present.

Good morning. Mister Langham?

Is mister Langham with us?

K. I don't see mister Langham,

so I'll keep going.

Miss Berna Brazza. Good morning, madam chair present.

Good morning. Miss Wewell. Good morning, madam chair present. Good morning. Mister Brunel.

Good morning. Madam Chair, present.

Good morning. So last call from mister Langham. Okay. So if someone could perhaps reach out to him to see if he's joining us, that would be fantastic. In the meantime, we are a six member board, and I will turn it over to mister Stembridge.

Thank you, madam chair. We'll begin today's hearing with the call for approval of the hearing minutes scheduled for 09:30AM. These hearing minutes are from January twenty second and January 27 this year. I'll make a motion to approve.

May I have a second? Second. Mister Stenbridge? Yep. Mister Valencia?

Yes.

Ms. Bettucarazzo? Yes. Ms. Wewell? Yes. Mr. Burnell?

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Next, go to the extension scheduled for 09:30AM. Madam chair, the first case, we have one of our board members who will accuse himself. I'll read the case in. They're gonna accuse themselves at that point. We'll vote on that one and by itself, and then we'll go through the rest of So first, we first, we have case BOA1536698 with the address Of 1 Of 1208 C BMW Parkway. Yeah, ma'am. Sure. I have

to recuse myself from this case.

Okay. Thank you. She'll hear I

I'm sorry. Chair madam chair, I think I should recuse myself from this one too.

Okay. Well, since okay. Well, if you're both recusing yourself, Caroline, we don't have a quorum for that one. So let's move on. Does that make sense, Caroline, and see if mister Langham joins us later? Yes. He does. Okay. Okay, Stephanie. Thank you. Sorry. No. No. No. So we will we will defer that one for now and read the rest of the extensions.

So with that, we'll move on to Case BO89907493 with the address of 125 Boardman Street. Next, we have CaseBOA1171660 with the address of 970 Saratoga Street. Next, we have CaseBOA1509717 with the address of 970 Saratoga Street. Next, we have CaseBOA1409103, the address of 9 Kingsbrook Street. And finally, we have CaseBOA1539718 with the address of 1270 Commonwealth Avenue.

Madam Chair, those are the rest of the extensions.

Okay. Any questions from the board? May I have a motion? Motion to grant the extensions as requested. Is there a second?

Second. I

had a comment on one of these. Mr. Stembridge?

Yep.

No. Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Mr. Langham? I mean, sorry. Miss Bedebrazo? Yes. Yes. Thank you. Miss Wewell? Yes. Mister Burnell?

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

So at this point, ma'am, if you'll continue on and go back to at least to that one extension, but

Well, I don't think mister Langham has joined us, so that would make us a four member board, which means we cannot vote on it. So I think we will keep going and see if he joins us. Other than that, we'd have to defer that one, which we still can't have a vote for. So let's keep going for now.

Sounds good, madam chair.

Next, we

move on to board final offer to case scheduled for 09:30AM. This is case BOA1345655. The address on 11th From Garden Street. If the applicant and or the

court. Great. Good morning, madam chair, members of the board. My name is Kevin Cloutier with an address of 1990 Center Street in West Roxbury. I'm an attorney.

I represent the property owner and applicant, mister Chow Nguyen. I am joined by the project manager, Gavin Driscoll from Lighthouse Architecture. What we're asking this board to do today in its capacity as final arbiter is to approve a de minimis tenant's height adjustment to the project. The project originally approved called for the demolition of an existing single family home and the erection of a four story two family dwelling, and those stories include a the first story is a garage. The total height of that approved project was 37 feet.

We're asking to go to 37 feet 10 inches. This adjustment arose as we transitioned into the construction documents and then the planning department to review and was recommended by the structural engineer in order to properly accommodate the floor assembly systems beginning in the garage floor. This issue was raised during with the planning department during the design review phase, and the planning department had indicated it would approve the plan subject, of course, to this board's approval. And we'd suggest to the board that the request does not alter the project's use, the project's footprint, or the neighborhood impact and remains consistent with the board's original approval. So I I would just ask the board to allow this de minimis increase.

Of course, if the board has questions, that'd be happening to them or defer over to mister Driscoll if it's design related.

Thank you. There any questions from the board?

Hearing none, is there a motion? Madam chair, I'd like to put forward a motion of approval.

Is there a second? Second. Mister Stembridge? Yes. Mister mister Valencia?

Yes.

Miss Bednar Barrazza? Yes. Miss Weawell?

Yes.

Mister Burnell? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Thank you.

Next, we'll move on to the hearing schedule for 09:30AM. At this time, we'll ask if there are if any request for withdrawals will I go from 09:30? Hearing none.

I think Mr.

Springer has his hand up.

Yeah. I think

that the Marcus, this is the opportunity to

Yes. Hello, madam chair. Marcus Springer, Springer Architects, 46 Waltham Street, Boston. We would like to defer our case, BOA1760013.

Mister mister Stembridge will read it into the record. Can you just say what address it is?

110 West Concord Street. Thank you.

That I believe is an 11:30 case.

Yeah. I don't see that. Okay. So you cannot ask us for that extension until we call for 11:30. So please Okay. Stay with us. Thank you.

If there are no other requests or no requests for the nine which also deferrals of 09:30, then we'll go to the first case, which is case BOA1807132 with the address of 137 Cottage Street. If the applicant and or their representative are present, will they please explain the case to

the board? Yes. Thank you, mister Stembridge. Good morning, madam chair, members of the board. Richard Lenz, the business address of 245 Sumner Street on behalf of the petitioner and mister Nick Delibro, who's with us. We also have Chris Drew from six eighty six Architects for this project. I'll start just quickly, Adam Cherry, to get the housekeeping matters out of the way. This is subject to article 32, GPOG. We do have the no harm letter as well as the Boston Water and Soar letter on file. So I believe that in this particular case, the conditional use permit is appropriate for GPOD.

With respect to the proposal, this involves the change of use and occupancy of an existing three unit residential dwelling. Is located at Jeffries Point section of East Boston. Our proposal would change the occupancy from the three units to the four to four units with a vertical addition. As the ambassador is showing some of the context slides, you can see that the building is part of a series of buildings along Cottage Street and, again, the Jeffers Point section of East Boston. Maybe jump down to slide 12, mister ambassador, so we can talk a little bit about the dimensional relief.

There are a few items that we do require even though it's a preexisting building, we do require relief for a few items, and I'll just run through those briefly from the board. This property is located in the relatively newer established EBR 4 zoning subdistrict. Multifamily use is permitted as a matter of right, and therefore, proposed use is compliant with article 53. I would also point out that the vertical addition that is proposed is consistent in both height and stories for the amended zoning for this section in East Boston. The relief we do require starts with the dimensional requirements for rear yard setback.

As this board is likely well aware at this point, the minimum setback in the rear yard in the EBR 4 District is one third of the lot depth. Because this is an 80 foot deep lot, we are eligible for the shallow lot exception, and therefore, the actual setback would be 16.4 feet with the calculation to reduce the the minimum rear setback to be compliant with the shallow lot exception. As you can see on the plan here, maybe a little difficult, but we're about 17.2 feet for with our building to the rear property line. There is a shed that does encroach onto our property. We've authorized that shed to remain.

If it is ever removed in the future, it won't be put back in that location, but that is a preexisting condition, madam chair. One of the changes that we do propose, and we'll see this in the elevation plans in a moment, we do have a rear stairwell, that we are reorienting from the back of the property. While that isn't an extension of the physical building itself, it does come within the setback that is already in nonconforming condition. We believe that the variance that we're requesting is the minimal variance to allow for that change, and we believe it will be appropriate in light of the scale and surrounding context of other properties. With respect to the additional violation on the citing, we were citing for off street parking.

Again, as this board is aware, preexisting buildings such as a three unit building as this that does have doesn't have any parking, is not required to meet any of the parking requirements except for any proposed new residential dwelling units. In this case, because we are proposing one additional residential dwelling unit, we are requesting relief for the one space that would be required. As this board can see, the inability to add off street parking is obvious. We have no location on the site to add off street parking or access when we are in the property from any driveway. Moreover, I'm sure, again, as this board is well aware, BTD's policy on creating curb cuts for one single off street parking space is not necessarily favored, and therefore, we're requesting relief for that particular item.

If you can jump to slide 13, please. Two of the other violations, and these are more technical violations that we've recited for based upon the existing conditions of the property. Under amended zoning for East Boston, there's a maximum building lot coverage of 60%. Because this building is preexisting and already occupies more than 60% of the lot, any modification of the building would trigger a compliance requirement with the maximum coverage. And in this case, we are seeking relief for the preexisting condition that is intended to continue.

Likewise, we would also be subject to the minimum permeable area requirements, which is 30% in this particular district. We do sketch here the location of the area that would be able to be permeable. One of the things I will point out is that even though the preexisting condition is not at 30% permeability, the renovations of this building could certainly increase the current permeability to get us closer to 30%, which would be an improved condition overall, which I think is the intent of the code in this instance. If we can jump down to Slide 16. So we're not really not proposing any work on the lower floors.

This, madam chair, members of the board, shows the extent of the addition that is proposed for the 4th Level. As you can see, we do access our roof deck. The roof deck is pushed towards the rear of the building and therefore barely visible from the street. We do access it from that rear deck as you can see in the proposed plan here. If we can go to the next slide, please. We have some renderings just to give the context of what this addition would look like. Certainly, based upon past experience, this would be subject to the design review of

you please thank you.

Sorry. The Boston Planning Department. So we fully anticipate that there would be some tweaks or adjustments to the design, but we wanted to at least illustrate, not only for the neighborhood, but for the board the extent of the addition. You can jump to the next slide, please. Again, just a additional view here, and we do set that, that upper addition back a little bit from the, existing, corners line that is pretty much consistent along that, side of Cottage Street. I will pause there, madam chair, to see if there are any questions from the board or address any comments.

Thank you. Questions from the board?

I I don't have any questions. Just more of observations for my colleagues, which is within that block, it seems like this would be the first kind of roof deck proposal and also rear addition kind of vertical stairwell with a special kind of access to the roof, just kind

of observations. Thanks. Any other questions from the board? Hearing none, may I have public testimony?

No, madam chair, members of the board. My name is Eva Jones representing the mayor's office neighborhood services. Regarding 137 Cottage Street, our office differs to the board's judgment. The community process was conducted including an abutters meeting held on 10/1425 that was lightly attended by the East Boston community. There were, no major concerns expressed. The proposal was also reviewed by the Gulf Stream Neighborhood Association at their meeting on 10/2725, where they expressed support with a vote of four yes to two no. At this time, the mayor's office of neighborhood services differs to support judge Brown on on this matter. Thank you everyone for your time and consideration.

Thank you. Simonelli.

Good morning, madam chair, members of the board. Christian Simonelli, Boston Groundwater Trust, and we have both g card letters from the applicant. Thank you. Thank you.

Madam chair, there are no additional comments.

Okay. Anything the applicant like to add?

Just that, I did review the recommendation from planning, and I believe it was approved approval with Verizon for design review. And I certainly understand, miss Vediparaz's comments. But I believe that the rezoning of this particular neighborhood into EVR 4 contemplated vertical additions on existing, housing stock for that area, especially with the 50 foot height limit that's being proposed or that's allowed for that district. We're certainly below that, but just to give some context to the board as well about the new zoning for that area.

Thank you. With that, may I have a motion?

Madam chair, I like to put forward a motion. I do agree with Richard in regards to increased density. The motion is gonna be approval with a proviso that BPD reviews the 4th Floor addition relative to visibility from the public sidewalk and paying special attention to the materiality of that 4th Floor addition and to also review just the rear access. Is there

a second? Second. Mister Snembridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Mr. Langham?

Yes.

Okay. Ms. Benebaraza? Yes. Ms. Wood? Yes. Mister Burnell?

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Thank you

very much. And we

just confirm we are now a seven member board.

Next, we have next, we have case VOA 1807597 with the address of 295 To 297 Franklin Street. This is also an article 80 case. If the applicant and or the representative present, will they please appoint the case to

the board? Yes. Thank you again, mister Stenbridge. And good morning again, madam chairman, mister board. For the record, Richard Lynds with the business address of 245 Sumner Street East Boston on behalf of the petitioner Frank Lohoving Group LLC. With me is John Williams of DMS who is the project architect. Mister ambassador, we can jump to slide five. Just real quick overview for the board. This is a proposal for an office to residential conversion of an existing five story building located 295 And 297 Franklin Street downtown Boston. This proposed conversion consists of a reuse of the preexisting five story building.

This is presently occupied as commercial space with offices on the upper levels. We are proposing to change the occupancy to ground floor retail about 750 square feet, 18 residential units that would be on Floors 1 Through 5, and that would include a mix of studio and one bedroom units. Of those units would be restricted under article 79 inclusionary development policy for the city of Boston, and they would all be at a AMI of 60% consistent with article 79. We do require relief in the form of a conditional use permit. That is necessary because we do propose to have two residential uses on the ground level.

While the retail use will be forward facing on the Franklin Street, the zoning code requires a conditional use permit for any ground level residential. If you can jump down to slide eight, please. Good head on view here. So, just by way of very brief background for this building, madam chair, members of the board, the 29295297 Franklin, is a historically significant structure. It's now known as the Balker Building.

The this is located with a national register custom house district. It was originally constructed around 1870. It's a four and a half it was originally a four and a half story Queen Anne with a four bay structure. The intention is to preserve the existing structure as you can see on the plans that have been submitted to the board. There'll be generally just work that is done interior, very little work on the exterior of this building.

It has been substantially rehabilitated already since the early nineteen eighties, including the addition of that fifth fifth level in the rear to make this a full five story building. If you can jump to slide nine, please. As mister Stembridge indicated, this is article eight subject to article 80 based upon the size of the project as well as going through the office of residential conversion program. It has been approved by the Boston Planning Department. I do believe our project manager is available to speak on that matter, and it has already entered into the payment in lieu of tax agreement with the city of Boston and is certainly ready to begin construction once the permit is ready to issue.

If you can jump to slide 11, please. Just showing our site plan for reference. As you can see here, this is a roughly 2,400 square foot lot, with the existing gross floor of about 14,580 square feet. We are if you go to the next slide, please. We are proposing to use the existing basement, that will, house the bike storage for the building as well as other building amenities and services.

If we go to the next slide, please. We can see here the ground level showing the, again, forward facing retail at the front of the building with the two proposed residential units located behind the retail. We do make a very slight modification to the exterior for accessibility, and that is proposed to be consistent with the requirements to allow for persons with disabilities to access the building based upon the change of use. If we can jump to the next slide, please. As we move out the building, we show approximately four units, per level as we get up from Floors 2 Through 5.

Pretty much the floor plans repeat as we go through. Probably jump forward, mister ambassador. And then we can get to the elevations, which I believe is the next page as well. So, again, we don't propose a lot of exterior changes to the building. We will be in large part preserving just the exterior as it as it sits today.

The modifications do include the access through the front door as well as a few window openings that would be incorporated into the elevations. All of this has been reviewed in in conjunction with the Boston Planning Department in connection with our approval by the BPDA board. I will pause there and answer any questions of the board. But once again, the relief that is being sought is limited to just a conditional use permit for the ground level residential, that is proposed in this district.

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

Hello, madam chair, members of the board. My name is Eva Jones representing the mayor's office neighborhood services. Regarding 295 To 297 Franklin Street, our office differs to the board's judgment. A community process was conducted, with the Boston planning department for this proposal beginning on 04/07/2025 with the meeting on 05/2125 where no major concerns were expressed. This time, the mayor's office of neighborhood services differs as board's judgment on this proposal. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you. Next, we have Gabriela.

Gabriela,

we cannot hear you. If not, next, we have Sobe.

Good morning. This is Zoe Dubal. I'm a project manager in the development review division of the planning department. Just here to express plan planning department supported the project. This project did file their small project review application with us as an article a d e small project under the office to residential conversion program 04/07/2025. The planning department hosted a virtual public meeting for the project on May 21, and the project team conducted independent community outreach as well. The project was approved by the BPA board on 06/12/2025, and we're happy to see the project move forward and progress to the design review phase of article 80 and defer to this board for further action.

Thank you.

Thank you. Madam chair, I don't think there are additional comments.

K. With that, may I have a motion?

Madam chair, I make a motion of approval. Will to continue planning review. Thank you. May I

have a second?

Second. Mister Stembridge? Yes.

Mister Valencia?

Yes.

Mister Langham?

Yes.

Miss Bairavrazza?

Yes.

Ms. We will. Yes. Mr. Brunel.

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Thank you very much.

Next, we have three companion cases. The first is case BOA1786074

with

the address of 24 Williams Avenue. Next, we have case BOA1786086 with the address of 26 Williams Avenue. And the third case is case BOA1786077 with the address of 28 Williams Avenue. It's the applicants and will their representative present with their police reporting the cases to the board.

Thank you, mister Stimbridge. Good morning, madam chair, members of the board. My name is Gary Webster. I am the president of Taj Development Company LLC with a business address of 49 Mather Street, Unit 2 in Dorchester. I'm here representing the homeowners, Wenslow Marshall and Samuel Deschaine, who own the property and currently reside at 26 Williams Ave.

The intent of this project is to subdivide the existing lot, which is a generously large lot in Hyde Park, approximately 19,000 square foot lot. And they're going to subdivide the existing lot and create two new two family homes on the frontage of Williams Ave, which will be 24 And 28 Williams Ave. I'm joined by the team from Harachi who will go over the design elements as they relate to the zoning violations, and we'll be happy to answer any questions at the conclusion of the presentation. If you can go back to the to the beginning. Thank you.

Thank you. Hi, everyone. My name is Jun Amenaga. I'm the architect working on this project with Gary and the the homeowners. I think Gary did a great job explaining the basic tenants of the project.

As as stated, it is a very large lot of 19,000 square feet, and what we are proposing right now is subdividing it into potentially three different lots. The existing building, which is 26 William Street, will remain. And as you can see in this rendering, it's the it's the building that appears smaller in the in the in the image in the back, and we are proposing to subdivide adding two separate lots. One that will be on the left, that will be that will become 24 William Street, And then on the right of it, another lot for 288 William Street. So, essentially, while we're proposing our twin two family buildings, that will be basically the same floor plans that, of course, on the exterior, we will we will bring some elements that will have to make them look a little separate from each other.

And then and and and we are proposing to parking spaces parking provide parking and green space on the lot. If you can if you can just scroll up a little bit, you can see the so this is this this sheet here is showing the existing lot on the left hand side where you have the existing two family. And then on the right, you can see the proposed subdivision with the with the two proposed new subdivided lots. If you scroll up a little bit more, let's see. And the more again, if you don't mind.

And this is basically the the zoning the zoning sheet that that where we where we list all the violations where we're asking for some relief on. Basically, we are we we are asking for relief on most of the zoning requirements except maybe 428 Williams Street where we feel like the FAR ratio will not be needed. If you go scroll up again, this is kind of a larger view of the sub of the actual site plan that shows all three buildings. You can see the 26 William Street. We see it in the background and the two new proposed buildings, 2024 and 28 in the foreground.

If you can go scroll up a little bit more, you can this is kind of the zoomed in version of 24 William Street. You can see how the building sits on the site. We are providing spaces for two tenant parkings two two tenant parking spaces and green space in the back. And and and if you scroll up, you the next way, you can see a similar situation for 28 Williams Street. We all where we're also providing two parking spaces.

Of course, there'll be a shared driveway on this end that would be that would that would go along with to provide an access to the 26 William Street parking to the existing parking area for 26 William Street. The next page is, I think, we talk about the floor plan. And, again, this this is a typical two family that we all we used to in the city of Boston. We are provide we are we are providing an open space on the Ground Floor with with three bedrooms, kitchen, living, and dining area. And that will be repeated on the 2nd Floor as well.

There'll be a basement, and then and and you'll see here is maybe additional access for solar panels on the roof. I'm not sure that will be done at the time of construction, but at least they'll be ready for that. And, basically, that's I think that's you can see the elevations for for 20 I think the elevation will be kind of similar on both buildings again, but after we go through the the the the BPDA official review, we'll we'll we'll we'll find some elements that can distinguish the two buildings one from from another. And I think that's that's all we have for for our presentation. If you have any question, we are ready to answer them. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Are there questions from the board?

Yes. Could you please go back to page number seven? Seven. Yes. That one. So this is 28 Williams, and I'm looking at the parking in the driveway. And because we're wondering if there is a better way to improve the configuration of the parking to increase open space. I mean, I think more than half of the like, probably 70% of the open space you have is covered in pavement in. So just a suggestion, if there is anything that your architect or your designer can do to improve the open space configuration. Have you thought about this?

Yeah. There there are potential ways we may be able to reduce the amount of pavement on the site, maybe having the parking be a little bit more be tandem instead of having them side by side as we do have on 24 William Street. That'll probably reduce the number of pay number of paving on the site. The the actual driveway itself is is a little bit generous as a drive aisle, so we can probably reduce that a little bit. But and, again, maybe potentially making the building slightly smaller, but there are there are plenty of ways.

Of course, this will be permeable surfaces for the driveway themselves. And so so take what they are you you correct. There are potential ways that we can actually provide more green space on this size. And then that will be part of the design review process.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

With that, may I have public testimony?

Madam chair and board members, so with the office of Neighborhood Services, this applicant has completed the process. Our office hosted an UTTERS meeting on November 3, wherein UTTERS raised concerns about increased density, about a loss of green space, and a loss of a pine tree. UTTERS were also concerned about any potential on parking on the street, which they said was tight currently and on increase in density. Our office received two letters of support that have been forwarded to the board. With that background, further judgment is deferred to the board. Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam chair, there are no additional comments.

Is there someone named Sue who's wanting to raise your hand? Can you raise your hand if you want to speak on this matter? Hi. Yes. I'm with my mother Judy Burke, the property owner, so I'll let her speak. Okay. If you can just identify yourself and your address, and please let us know

if you're in support or opposition. Opposition.

Okay. My name is Judy Burke. I'm at 22 Williams Avenue in Hyde Park. I do wanna address something that they keep referring to Williams Street. There is no Williams Street in Hyde Park. It is Williams Avenue. Okay. And I strongly oppose the proposed construction and subdivision concerning 24 Williams Ave, 26, and 28 Williams Ave. The amount of relief sought speaks to how significantly this will change the dynamics of the neighborhood. This project will drastically reduce the amount of parking on the street.

I and many of the neighbors do not have driveways and rely on street parking to access our residences. The curb cut will take away at least one vital parking spot in addition to spots used by any resident of the proposed dwellings that park on the street. Adding two two family dwellings will result in overcrowding. The dwellings are too large for the space. Additionally, there isn't a sufficient side yard setback, which directly affects my property. The project also eliminates green space in the neighborhood and reduces the amount of sunlight on neighboring properties. Thank you.

Thank

you. Are there any other raised hands?

Mhmm. Madam chair, we don't have additional hands raised at the moment.

Okay. Would the applicant like to briefly address those concerns?

Yes, madam chair. Thank you very much for the opportunity. I think one of the things we try to be very careful of is understanding the need for parking that is often raised in a lot of the community meetings that we've we've we've attended. I we are proposing one curb cut and and and taking advantage of an existing curb cut. So so so but there may be an effect of one curb cut on the on on the neighborhood, but we're also providing parking parking spaces for for the post buildings.

So it's just so we we feel that we are addressing that in in in the best way that we can. As far as as far as the b space concern, you know, this is we're talking about a very large lot over over 19,000 square feet. And if you look at it in the in the the neighborhood, currently, most of the lots are much smaller than that in the neighborhood of between four and five thousand square feet. And we are proposing to survive subdivide the lot into similar sized lots. And and the buildings that we are proposing are really in in terms of size and scale are comparable to all the buildings that you'll see up and down the street.

And and and this is a really, I I will feel an elegant way of addressing the the the need for additional housing that is in dire need all over the city. We are not proposing to to multiple family buildings or apartment buildings. We are proposing smaller to family that are really in in keeping with the character of the feel of the neighborhood.

K. Thank you.

Thank you.

May I have a motion?

Oh, can we have a just a clarification?

Sure. I have no questions.

Yeah. I I noticed oh, I see what mister Valencia was kind of noting to where the access to the middle Yes. Property at the rear is actually through 28. So right? Because it needs to go all the way to the garage at the rear.

That that's correct. Yes.

So Yeah. So that you're right, mister Valencia. That's that's a lot of pavement surface pavement to provide that access. Okay. I just wanted to to understand that because on your survey plot plan, it doesn't show really clearly that kind of what is green space versus

Yeah. I think

we may be

showing that on the architectural side plan. But, of course, this will not be asphalt. It will be permeable surfaces.

Yeah. And so then the other on your survey plot plan, although you said only one proposed curb cut is it's being proposed, I see two proposed curb cut, one for '28, and the other one is for '24. Although we're we're basically madam chair, are we putting a motion for both cases or just for '28?

Well, mister Stembridge read all three companion cases until

So we're doing all three at once? Correct. Okay. So if it's if it's okay with my colleagues and feel free if if you wanna add another kind of proviso, but I would suggest a motion of approval with a proviso that BPD reviews the site planning the site plan of vehicle access to all three properties with an intention of increasing open space and avoiding front yard parking.

Is there a second?

Second. Second. Mister Stenbridge?

Yes. Mr. Valencia?

Yes. Mr. Langham? Yes.

Ms. Bedervarazzo? Yes. Ms. Weawell? Yes. Mr. Vernell?

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck.

Thank you very much.

So since we are a seven member board That means Oh, sorry. Go ahead.

That means you got it? No.

Okay. So before the rediscussion, can we go back and vote on that extension now that we have sufficient board members?

We certainly can, madam chair. Right. So we're returning to the extension schedule for 09:30AM. The first case is case BOA1536698 with the address of 1208 C BSW Parkway.

All those who are gonna

ask me recusing myself. Recuse?

I need to recuse myself too.

Okay. Great. So now we're I have member board. Is there a motion?

I make a motion. Motion approval, madam chair. Second.

Thank you. Mr. Stembridge? Yes. Mr. Langham?

Yes. Ms. Bedebraza? Yes.

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

So with that, we will go forward to the rediscussion case scheduled for 09:30AM. I'll ask if there'll be any request for withdrawals and deferral. Hearing none, we move on with case VOA 1733319 with the address of 22 Pratt Street. This is also an article 80 case. So if the applicant and or the representative were present, will they please explain the case to

the board? Good morning. For the record, Chris Rainier, I'm Goulston and Stores with an address of 1 Post Office Square in Boston. I'm here on behalf of the developer this morning, and I have with me Matt McCollum from the developer as well as James Gray and Mark Whiteside. Okay, thanks and stay on track if there's any questions.

With that, I will run through the presentation and happy to take questions. We're here this morning to reaffirm and supplement previously issued zoning relief for a multifamily project at 22 To 24 Pratt Street in the Alston neighborhood. This shows the project. Next slide, please. The project consists of approximately three eighteen units of multifamily housing with significant affordability, about 54 units, significant open space, as well as other benefits outlined on this slide, including all electric building systems and a modern energy efficient building design.

Next slide, please. The project site is outlined in yellow here. It's an irregularly shaped lot with older underutilized industrial buildings. The project site is a split zoning lot. I'll come back to that.

The site only has narrow access to Pratt Street and slopes down from Pratt Street and is primarily bordered by train tracks to the north, the Alston Green multifamily project to the west and south, and other properties. Next slide, please. These are some pictures showing what is on the site currently. Next slide, please. Prior to the original appeal, the project's design was modified in response to comments received during the review process, including those from Mitzvah Badr at the Alston Green project, which on this slide is to the left and to the south or to the bottom.

The project was approved by BCDC and the BPA after completing large project review. And the project's zoning relief is consistent with other projects in the neighborhood, and its relief is less than that granted for the abutting Alston Green project. At its hearing on October 28, after a detailed presentation on the project, the board voted to grant zoning relief for the project. At that hearing, the applicant submitted a letter of support from its largest abutter, the LBC, which is the owner and proponent of the Alston Green Project, together with a letter of non opposition from Alston Village Main Streets. The mayor's office at Neighborhood Services and the Alston Civic Association spoke in support of the project, and there was no opposition voiced.

Subsequent to the hearing, but before finalizing the decision, the applicant at ISD realized the project needs one additional item of zoning relief, a variance to allow the access drive to and from Pratt Street to be utilized for multifamily use. As I mentioned, the zoning lot, the lot is in a split zoning district. So the driveway is in the 2 F 5000 subdistrict. The previously issued variance for the project for multifamily use was for the the remainder of the site, which is in the LI1 Subdistrict where the building is located. The applicant has submitted the supplemental appeal to request the board reaffirm the previously issued Southern Relief Fund project and approve a variance for the multifamily dwelling use of the 2F 5000 subdistrict in respect of the project's access, which is outlined in red on this slide.

No changes have been made to the project, and this request does not seek to modify the previously issued zoning roof. Thank you. With that, that's the remainder of our presentation. Happy to answer any questions.

Alright. Thank you. Any questions from the board? Hearing none, is there a public testimony?

Madam chair, members, Siggy Johnson with the office of neighborhood services. This application underwent a Boston planning department led community process with public meetings in 2023 and 2024. There was also an impact advisory group meeting held in 2024. The Austin Civic Association is aware of this application. They have met with the applicant, represents an administrative cleanup of previously removed relief. That background, our office first further judgment to the board. Thank you.

Madam chair, there are no additional comments.

K. With that, may I have a motion?

Motion to approve.

Is there a second? Second. Mister Stembridge? Yes. Mister Valencia?

Yes.

Mister Langham? Yes. Miss Bedir Barrazza? Yes. Miss Wewell? Yes. Mister Burnell?

Yes.

Every vote's yes. The motion carries. Good luck.

Thank you very much.

Okay. With that, I'll see everyone back at 11:30. Recording stopped. Mister Stubridge.

Present, madam chair.

Mister Valencia.

Present, Valencia.

Mister Langham.

Present, madam chair.

Miss Bedebraza.

Present, madam chair.

Miss Rewell. Present, madam chair. Mister Burnell.

Present, madam chair.

Excellent. I'll turn it back to you, mister Snubridge.

Thank you, madam chair. We will move on to the rediscussion hearings scheduled for 11:30AM. We will first ask if there are any requests from withdrawals or deferrals from this time frame.

Mister secretary, this is Mike Ross,

if I may. Yes. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. 567577 please.

That request is for case BOA1790972 with the address of 567577 Adams Street. You go ahead and explain it, attorney Ross.

Yeah. Thank you, sir. Good morning, madam chair, members of the board. We are seeking a quick deferral if we could. We've learned of some issues around community support that we'd like to respond to, and we just feel that one brief delay will allow us to do

so. Okay. Stephanie or Caroline? March 10,

March 24, or April 7.

March 10 would be great, please.

Okay. With that, may I have a motion?

Motion to defer till March 10.

May I have a second? Second. Mister Stenbridge? Yeah. Mister Valencia?

Yes.

Mister Langham?

Yes.

Miss Bedobraza? Yes. Do you well? Yes. Mister Brunel? Yes. The motion carries. See you then.

Thank you.

Any further requests for withdrawal or deferral? Mr.

Springer, are you seeking a deferral? Yes.

I am. Thank you. For 110 West Concord Street.

So this is for case BOA1760013 with the address of 110 West Concord Street. Would you go ahead and explain for us?

We are in conversation with one of the direct debaters and we would like a short deferral so we can be in a better position for the next hearing.

Okay, Stephanie. March 10, March 24 by April 7.

March 10, please.

Okay. May I have a motion?

Motion to defer to March 10.

May I have a second? Second. Mister Stenbridge? Yeah. Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Mr. Langham?

Yes.

Ms. Bedobraza? Yes. Ms. Wewell? Yes. Mr. Burnell?

Yes.

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

Thank you.

And we'll ask again if there are any requests for withdrawals or deferrals from this time frame. Hearing none, we'll move on to the first case, which is case BOA1790800 with the address of 191 Brooks Street. If the applicants and or the representative are present, would they please explain to the board?

Yes. Good morning again, madam chair, members of the board. For the record, Richard Lins, the business address of 245 Summer Street Here on behalf of Jorge Rodriguez, with me is Eric Zakrasun, who's the project architect. Probably jump right to slide eight, mister ambassador. I should, give a quick overview of what we're proposing here.

Madam chair, this matter was before the board, back in this past December, where we proposed a larger four unit residential structure. We had an opportunity, prior to that hearing to review the planning department's recommendation, in addition to some comments that were provided by the surrounding neighborhood. We have gone ahead and revised this project. I know that the list of violations looked lengthy. We believe have successfully removed or eliminated at least four, if not five, of those violations, and two of them are no longer applicable.

So just a quick overview. This is this property is located in the E B R 3 Zoning subdistrict, which is in the Eagle Hills section of East Boston. This is on the Brook Street, the portion that's closest to the top of the hill at White Street. You can see here from the photo that there is an incline in grade as you come up Brook Street, our building being on the right hand side. This lot was part of the city's Butters Lots program, so it's remained vacant for the better part of the last thirty to forty years.

That's a deed restriction imposed. When the lot was originally sold off, those deed restrictions from the nineties have been expiring, and we have, successfully arranged to have that restriction released, which now, makes this site eligible for redevelopment. If we can jump down to slide 12, that would probably help us talk a little bit about just how the site sets up. So one of the significant changes that we've made with respect to this project is that, you know, reducing it from four units to three makes that a compliant use up to three units. So it's actually up to six units that are allowed on a individual site in the EDR 3 District, but it has a lot to do with the width of the lot.

So the original violation that was cited was for use. That is no longer applicable since we are proposing this as a three unit dwelling as opposed to a four unit dwelling. The next item that we were cited for had to do with the minimum area for permeable space on the site. We were as a larger building, we were a little bit further in the back of the property, and therefore, it did not meet the 30% permeable requirement. We had the architect go back, make some adjustments for the property, and now we can achieve 30% permeability even though the site is relatively smaller.

We do are able to incorporate the permeable features onto the site. The next item that we were cited for had to do with the graveyard setback. As you can see, the length of the depth of this lot is 75 feet. We are in a position to be able to move that building back closer to the front of the the property and create a setback of 12.8 feet. The minimum setback typically in the EBR 3 District for the rear yard is one third of the lock depth, which would be 25 feet.

However, because this would be considered a shallow lot condition, we are eligible to reduce the 12 the 25 feet down to 12 and a half feet total. So this condition would be in compliance with the revised or amended zoning for East Boston. With respect to the off street parking requirement that was originally cited, madam chair, Because we've reduced this from four units to three units, under the amended East Boston zoning, there is no parking requirement for one to three units. So that once again addressed, one of the violations that were cited originally, and that was, certainly something that was raised by, the community as being a violation that they had some concern with. With respect to the roof structures restriction that was also cited, this comes up a lot.

We deal with ISD on this particular question regularly. The roof structure restrictions found in article 53 section 25 apply to existing buildings where the roofline is being altered. It does not apply construction. So a roof deck that is proposed in connection with any new project that's that's being constructed is not subject to the roof restriction conditional use permit. The reason being is that the specific language of article 20 section 25, article 53 talks about any existing roof structure that's in existence at the time.

Moreover, article 20 article 53, section 25 does permit roof decks provided they meet the setback requirements as set forth in section 25. So that, while a violation cited, is not something that we necessarily require a leak for. If we can jump to slide 13, I believe we have the floor plans and the elevations. And as you can see here for Level one, this is proposed as a slab on grade madam chair. We're not proposing any foundation or or basement, I should say.

And the bottom two levels, Levels one and Levels two, would be two bedroom units. Level 1 would be accessible for persons with disabilities and designed to meet compliance with with the ADA requirements. Level 2 is very similar to Level 1. If we jump to the next slide, we can see Level 3 and four. What we do is we propose this to be a bi level unit to provide a little bit more space. So this is a three plus layout. We have two levels. You would enter the 3rd Floor but have additional living space for bedrooms on the upper level. And I'll explain the elevation in a moment because I think it's significant for purpose of where this property is located. As you can see, we do propose the roof deck with the appropriate setbacks.

It is set back, towards the rear of the building. There is a hatch head house that is used to access it from internal the internal stairwell. There is no spiral staircase or access from the rear to get up there. Again, this is permitted under section 25 article 53 as permissible use. If we go to the next slide, please. Just our section plan. We can jump on the next slide. Probably shows the elevation here. Yes. Perfect.

So we're looking at here is the right side elevation of the building. We are showing windows on this side because we do have the appropriate setback on the right side of the building. We are setting our building at a zero lot line on the left side, but that is entirely consistent with the precedent in the area, which does allow for row house. Row house does not require a side yard on a common boundary where any row house is being proposed. For a row house, you have to have at least three contiguous buildings.

There are a number of buildings along Brook Street that all have attached party walls, so this would be very consistent with the steering type of the code for Saigon setback, which leads us to the essentially, main two items for relief, and that is the height of the building. We are proposing this as a four story in 42 I believe it's 42 feet or just over 42 feet in total height. If we can jump back to slide eight, mister ambassador, that will help show the context of how we come up with the height of this building. So as you can see, madam chair, members of the board, our property directly adjacent to us on the left is also a triple decker, but it does have that condition of the exposed foundation of the elevated foundation, which is very typical along buildings on this side of Brook Street, especially as you travel up the hill. Because that building would be at a higher elevation than our building, in addition to our building not having the elevated foundation, instead we just have that accessible level.

What we're trying to do is design we try to design this building to be, consistent, if you will, with the adjoining properties along that side of Brook Street. We believe that, the continuity of this building with its height, as as compared to the buildings immediately adjacent, makes this a nice contiguous addition to this area. With that, I will pause to see if there are any questions for the board or address any comments, for this proposal. Thank you. Thank you.

Is mister Hampton available? Could you speak on the

Yes. Madam chair. Thank you. Good morning, everyone. Jeff Hampton, City of Boston planning department.

We received the revised plans and rejection letter from ISD the day after we sent the recommendations over to you. We do acknowledge that the appellant had deferred this case from December to make adjustments based on our recommendation, and we acknowledge that they have done a substantial job in doing that, including changing from the four units to three and eliminating more than half of the zoning violations. So we acknowledge that the new proposal is better than what we saw in December. However, I don't have the authority to switch that recommendation from denial to approval. However, I would ask if the board does seem fit to approve that they attach a proviso for design review.

Typical. But we do acknowledge the changes in the effort made by the appellant based on our prior recommendation.

Thank you. I

I mean, I have a I have a question. So, you know, listening to recent councilor hearings, councilor Coletta had brought up the issue of undergoing a huge community process, and and decisions are kind of going against the new approved in Boston zoning changes. So, you know, what's you know, this one is ERV, which allow three which allows for three stories. And so what's your feedback on the height violation that it's it's not going with the new kind of approved East Boston zoning changes?

Who's that question to? Is that to mister Hampton?

Yeah. I mean, it's been a critique. So I do agree that it's lesser units, which is commendable, and the rear yard has been increased to allow a little bit more open space. But I just want to just bring that to the board. Right?

That are we being consistent or is this I guess maybe it's more for the for the applicant to be able to speak on that. You know, we have this new zoning change would really kind of regulates massing and height and and height. And so now we're going four stories. We're in this block. It's, you know, three stories two and a half, three stories. So I I just wanna make that comment that it has been brought up at city councilor and, you know, Coletta and council Coletta discussing his loan community process, and now we're still giving variances. So just just wanted to bring it out there. You know? Through

the through the chair, I I can speak to that. And I don't know if mister Hampton would add to this, but I I would point out, while I do appreciate the process and certainly being a practitioner before the board, a lot of it being in East Boston, I'm I'm very familiar with the process that went to amending the code. One of the things I would point out is that within article 53, and I believe it exists throughout other sections or other code sections in the city, we do have the exception to building height, especially where you have buildings taller on adjoining lots. So there is precedent and certainly provisions within the code that allow through design review to review projects that may exceed the height limit, slightly, and that I would submit to the board this is a slight increase. However, it's not one where we have a condition that the building immediately joining us to the left is lower than our building.

It's actually it would actually be taller if we applied a strict reading of the of the height limit for this this district.

Yeah. I was gonna say that the corner building, you know, it's a corner lot, so I can see there being that kind of condition. Right next to 191 Brook, that there's that corner building. Do you know what the height is of that? Is it does it exceed 35 feet? It's it's maybe 40?

The one to the left of us?

Yes.

Yeah. I I think it's closer to 40 because I'm putting I I think it's a tip a typical triple decker, but you can see that the exposed foundation and I know the angle is a little different, but it's almost taller than the car that's parked just before the building. So that condition actually adds probably six five to six feet to the existing or a typical triple decker height. I would also point out to the board, I probably should have included it. I I I apologize, but I wanted a clear view.

The board has approved a residential structure at the lot that you can see. It's the open space lot close to the bottom of the screen, which, you know, which has similar height characteristics because of going up the hill with having additional height towards the lower portion of the lot. So we are trying to design these pretty consistent with, you know, what the trend is on this section of Brook Street. And I think that the as you go up the up the hill towards White Street, you do have a a pretty good elevation change that would take into account a lot of this design that we've we've incorporated.

Yeah. I think I I I just bring it up, and I think, you know, I think what I'm trying to also show is that this is on a case by case basis, and I think the corner, it seems like a six flex bow front does look like it exceeds 35 feet. So I think that would be your kind of precedent in terms of context that you are that it should be okay. But I I just want I I want us to just be mindful of just the latest zoning changes and when does it become a a case kind of condition that we would provide a variance for the height. No further questions. Thank you.

I can answer the conversation. Yeah, ma'am. I'm sorry. Yes. If I can answer the conversation, I'm looking at the Google Studio. It seems that this is not a flat site. It seems that there is a slope going down the hill. And with that, I'm looking at the properties to a left of this project. It seems that those properties, especially one in the corner, is like 3.5 floors. So with that, this new project is probably not going to be higher, as Mr.

Linz mentioned before. Now my question is about if Mr. Mbasaur can go to the previous I see that the that building over there, there are they within has a few windows. Also, antennas could be DIRECTV antennas. So how are you going to manage the interaction with your above to a left? And how much space? I don't I haven't seen, like, an elevation showing both properties, the project, the new project and the existing building. So how are you going to manage the light for those windows and also the reception for

those antennas? Sure. I I know we have our architect, Eric Zaperson, but I know this question came up as well. And two things I will point out, our client, who's the owner of the lot that's being proposed to develop, also owns this building. And we have taken into consideration the building code requirements for not having unprotected openings. We do not believe, and I think Eric can confirm it, that lower window is probably the only one that is really impactful because of where it's located, but the others are not significant opportunities for light. So I think we can address those pretty easily. But I'll let Eric address those in his comments as well because I know we did look at that.

Thank you. Thank you. Can you hear me? Yeah. So, basically, those windows are three foot two inches from our building, so they would not create a fire code separation because our building's gonna be a four story building. It'll also have a one hour rated wall. So that could create a safe separation between the two. And as as Rich mentioned, the upper windows are not gonna be significantly blocked from light. The two lower windows are probably going to be have have some significant impact with light, but they are over three feet from our the face of our building.

So three feet. Do you think that is going to be enough space for the above or next door to manage all of those trash barrels?

Yes. Yeah. Trash barrels are 22 inches or so wide, so that's manageable. Yeah. And that provides for appropriate egress from the existing building, and then our building would have, its own egress as well.

Okay. Thank you, my own.

You. May may we have public testimony?

Madam chair, members of the board, my name is Abbott Jones representing the mayor's office in Neighborhood Services. Regarding 191 Brook Street, our office differs to the board's judgment. The community process was conducted, including an uputters meeting held on 06/1825 that was not attended by any East Boston community members. The proposal was also reviewed by the Eagle Hill Neighborhood Association at their meeting on 06/1825. Oh, excuse me. Yes. The application voted or the association voted to oppose with a vote of 13 opposed and seven support regarding the proposal. At this time, the mayor's office of neighborhood services defer differs to the board's judgment on this matter. Thank you everyone for your time and consideration.

Thank you. Madam chair, there are no additional comments. Oh, no. There is one person, I think. PJ.

To the board, My name is Peter Panadossi. I am a director butter to the south, the lot that's actually being redeveloped also. I know that I've worked hard actually with the owner in a lot of the improvements that have recently been made. And, obviously, from the point in which this was brought in front of the Eagle Hill community board, this project has dramatically changed for their good. And just, at one point that I'd like to bring out to the chair, to the board in regards to the elevation, some of these pictures really don't do the incline justice.

I think the best determination to really look at it is if you look at the house next door, as you're going up Brook Street, you'll see the foundation and the elevation is actually the foundation height is actually the the elevation of the top of the entrance door at one ninety one. It's a dramatic six to eight foot increase. And and as you go into the backyard and you look in the backyard of this project, you'll also see that there's a dramatic height. So this even though it is even though it is built as a four story building, it's really not as as overwhelming as as it appears to be, and it is all within the restraints. And and I know that I worked very close with George in regards to this to be able to get this to where it's at, and I think they've made dramatic improvements to what this project has become.

And and again, speaking to what the community board originally voted on, these are two different projects, to be honest with you. So, at this point, I would just say as a director Butter, I'm I'm all in favor for what's being presented here today.

Thank you. Any other raised hands?

Sorry. Unmute, madam chair. There are no additional comments.

Great. Is there a motion?

Motion, I'm I'm going to put forward a motion of approval with the planning department to sign a review.

Is there a second? Barraza second.

Mister Valencia?

Yes.

Mister Stembridge?

Yeah.

Mister Langham?

Yes.

Ms. Bediraza.

Yes.

Ms. Wewell. Yes. Mr. Burnell. Yes. Chair votes yes. Motion carries. Thank you very much.

Next case has been decruder. That takes us to case BOA 1554854 with the address of 69 R Perron Street. If the applicant's agenda or their representative, they please explain to the board?

Alright. Morning, member madam chair and members of the board. My name is Tim Longin, 18 Treetop Circle in Northborough, and I'm the owner of the subject property at 69 R Parent Street, where I'm proposing to erect a three story, three unit residential building with three outdoor parking spaces. Just a brief overview. The site was originally a portion of a much larger parcel, 67 Parent Street, which I purchased in March 2023.

I subdivided that lot into three separate parcels, 67 Parent Street, where I rehabilitated an existing three family home, 71 Parent Street, where I built a zoning compliant three family. And this parcel, 69 R Parent Street, where I'm also seeking to construct a new three family. This is a rather simple and standard three story, three family dwelling on a nonstandard lot. Parcel is 6,040 square feet and is in a three f 4,000 zoning subdistrict, making the proposed three family dwelling perfectly suitable for the site. The zoning refusal letter was issued owing to four cited violations.

First, there's a FAR violation. I'm actually not certain this violation was correctly cited. The maximum FAR under zoning is 0.8. Here, Unit 1 And 2 are each 1,360 square feet. And Unit 3 is fourteen thirteen square feet for a total of 4,133 square feet plus approximately 100 additional square feet of non unit area.

4,832 square feet are allowed by zoning. If the examiner counted the basement space, which is proposed for storage, it would likely exceed allowable FAR, but only to a very small extent. There was a cited front yard setback violation. The required setback is 20 feet. While the front of this building is approximately 14 feet from the lot line separating this lot from 67 Parent Street.

That area of the 67 Parent Street Lot is a parking area, so there's no impact on the residents in that building, which is located nearly 45 feet away from its rear lot line. There's a side yard graveyard insufficiency. The required setback is 30 feet, whereas the provided setback varies from approximately approximately 11 to 12 feet, but there is a significant setback of the building to the rear from its own rear lot line, mitigating any potential negative impact from this violation. The violation is caused by the perpendicular geometry of the lot is unavoidable in order to allow for the reasonable three family development of a lot that meets minimum lot size requirements. Also, is a violation arising from the lack of screen and buffering of the building's three spot parking area.

If the board were to see fit to approve this, I'd be happy to work with the planning department on a suitable landscaping plan as well as to refine the architectural plans in light of the neighborhood design overlay district. I

also wish

to point out that the fire lane access from Bergen Ave was reviewed and approved by the Boston Fire Department and is stamped on the site plan as complying with five twenty seven CMR. This project was presented to the board on December 9 and deferred with the board's hope that further effort to engage the residents of Burton Ave would be made in order to obtain their feedback after they were not heard from at previously scheduled debaters and community meetings. On January 6, I sent certified mailers to each address on Burton Ave with copies of the plans and a link to a private Zoom hearing I was holding on January 20. Of the four addresses mailed, two responded, and they happened to be direct to Butters, 6 And 8 Burton Ave. I met with them on-site, and after discussion, they submitted a letter of support for the project yesterday.

Prior to meeting with Burton Ave and Butters, I again met with the Roxbury Path Forward Community Group, and after reviewing the project again, they submitted a letter of support as well. I've been working on this project with the community for the better part of two years. It was originally proposed as a six unit residence, but during the community process was cut down to the three family residence proposed today due to the incorporation of the neighbors' feedback. I've been encouraged by the last few meetings with the community groups and about us, and I believe I satisfied the board's request to obtain feedback from the neighbors on Burton Ave, which was thankfully both productive and supportive. Thank you for your time.

Thank you so much. 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 has completed the community process as requested by the board at the last hearing. They've been able to meet with the director Butters at 6 And 8 Burton Ave and received our office understands their support for this proposal. To date, our office has received nine letters of support with one from Rox bury Path Forward, saying the developer's agreement to plow the shared road after storms to remove snow as is a private way. The developers have also included other community benefits as a result of the community process. With that background, mayor's office of neighborhood services defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Thank you. We have Michael

Hi. My name is Michael Koseu. Project Right 320 Letter A Blue Avenue. We've had several meetings with the developer with the ninth streets United Neighborhood Association that's impacted by this and Alaska parent association. I think the key part was we want to make sure that the Burton Ave residents were informed of this. It appears that has has met the case. The other conditional that residents wanna express was to make sure that this doesn't become a cut through from Copeland to Burton to

Oh, yeah.

Heron Street. So we really do wanna encourage the developer to maintain a a fence that would actually add to the safety of his properties where people don't see this as an opportunity to cut through.

With that,

we defer to the judgment of the board. Can

we mute folks who are not speaking? Thank you.

I think the person's Zoom user also wants to speak on this case.

Okay. Hi. This is Lorraine Payne Wheeler, and I am here today on behalf of bury Path Forward Neighborhood Association. And we do support the project now. We think that this additional time that the board gave us by deferring the project was very productive. And it was important to us that the street, Burton Avenue be repaid. And now that the developers have agreed to that, we really do support the project. So thank you.

Thank you.

Madam chair, there are no additional comments.

Great. With that, may I have a motion?

Madam chair, I would like to put a motion of approval with promises to submit plans to, planning for design review.

Thank you.

May I

have a second? Second. Mister Stembridge?

Yep.

Mister Valencia?

Yes.

Mr. Langham?

Yes.

Ms. Beda Braza?

Yes.

Ms. We will? Yes. Mr. Bernal?

Yes.

Bear votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck.

Thank you.

Madam chair, we have a interpretation discussion scheduled for noontime. Okay. So I'll read that in. See where we go. Interpretation with

the

rediscussion case scheduled for for noontime. Okay. This is case BOA1689794 with the address of 62 To 66 Condor Street. If the applicants and or their representative present, will they please reply? Yes. Once again, madam chair, members

of board, Richard Lynds, 245 Summers Street on behalf of the petitioner. This is actually being deferred again. It's not for interpretation. We have been able to reduce the number of violations that was cited by ISD. They've agreed with our interpretation for the most part. We're waiting for an updated refusal letter for one outstanding violation that we may require interpretation for. I'm going to leave this on the docket until we have that updated refusal. So if we could get just a brief deferral, I expect to fully withdraw this particular interpretation once we see the updated refusal.

Okay. You have March by April 7.

March 10 is fine. K. May I

have a motion?

Motion to defer to March 10.

Is there a second? Second. Mister Stumbridge? Yes. Mister Valencia?

Yes.

Mister Langham? Yes. Mister Barrasa? Yes. Miss Wewell? Yes. Mister Burnell?

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Thank you. Have a great day. Thank you.

Returning to the eleven thirty cases, we have two companion cases, which are case BOA1783686 with the address of 180 To 182 Savon Hill Avenue. Along with that, we have case BOA1783689, also with the address of 180 To 182 Savon Hill Avenue. If the applicants and or their representative present, then please explain the cases to the board.

Thank you, mister secretary. Good morning, madam chair afternoon, madam chair and members of the board. My name is James Christopher of six eighty six Architects with the business address of 10 Forbes Road in Braintree, Mass. I'm here today on behalf of Christopher Tomassini, the owner of 180 To 182 Sadden Hill Avenue. The the proposal before you is to construct a third story shed dormer on the Caspian Way side of the building. No change to occupancy or building footprint. Next slide, please. This is our proposed site plan. Again, there's no change. We had originally next slide, please, incorporated some rear decks.

That was the use of premise, sorry. The rear decks have been removed, and the proposal now is to construct just the shed dorm as we'd this project was scheduled would be before the board last month. We deferred at the request of a rear abutto who was unaware of the project. We spent the last month meeting with that abutto to try to revise the design to keep the rear decks. Since then, they've been removed so that this proposal is to construct, again, that shed doing around the 3rd Floor, no change to occupancy.

And the the tandem style parking for EVs to the right side, so that would be a new curb cut on that side of the building to accommodate parking for the building. And that's illustrated there. That easement exists and is already recorded. Next slide, please. And that's so that's that's the ease of premise application.

And then we can go back to the plans for the building permit. Next slide, please. Go down to the plans. It looks like you only have these premise plans. There should be another application that shows the building footprint plans.

Give us one second.

We're working on getting it up.

There you go. In conjunction with the schedule these existing plans keep going. You got So there's no work on the first, second, and third. These are existing. Go to the a drawings, please.

There you go. You can stop there. So you can see on the left side, we're proposing to construct a shed dual on the length of that bump out on the house, including photovoltaic array on the roof. Next slide, please. Again, no work in the basement set first or second floors. Next slide. So within the shed dorm, we will create there's already two bedrooms on this level. We would reorganize the bedrooms and the living levels in the living area so that the space is laid out a little more optimally. We incorporate a new front deck and a new entryway to the building. Next slide, please.

So that front porch there would be rebuilt so that the stairs currently address the corner of the building. They wrap around toward the side facing Casper Way and now they will address Sabina Lath. And those are the decks in question. As per the agreement with Ariero Butter, those decks will be removed and there'll be no change to the end wall location of the building. And with that, I'll turn it over to any questions.

Thank you. Are there any questions from the board?

I mean, this question is for Jeff Hampton. I saw your BPD recommendations, and you're requesting for a design review for dormer. And I you know, this is I don't see this necessary. It seems like the planning board members should probably spend their time better with much more complex projects. It seems like pretty straightforward. So I just like would like to know the reasoning behind that. It's in

a neighborhood design overlay district. So that's the reason?

Okay. Yes, ma'am.

Yeah. It's it does not state that. So it requires design review because it's in Salmon Hill. Got it. Thank you.

Thank

you. Any other questions from the board? May we have public testimony? Hello, madam chair, members of

the board. My name is Eva Jones representing the mayor's office of neighborhood services regarding 180 To 1827 Hill Ave. Our office differs to the board's judgment. The community process was conducted, including an abutters meeting held on '8 or 03/1825 that was not attended by any community members. Following the meeting, my office received an email from an abutter expressing concerns about the project, the placement of the decks in relation to his child's room, and concerns about the firing for the proposal for him and other neighbors.

Following the deferral of this proposal, the applicant worked collaboratively with the abutter and agreed to remove the decks, to the proposal. The proposal was also reviewed by the Columbia Seven Hills Civic Association at their meeting on 08/1925. At this time, the mayor's office in neighborhood services differs to the board's judgment on this matter. Thank you everyone for your time and consideration.

Thank you.

Next, we have Brandon.

Good afternoon, members of the board. My name is Brandon Cook of Burlington, McGough, And Cutching here in Boston, 44 School Street. I represent the director Butters to the rear at 5 Kaspien Way. The applicant's correct. They we, you know, we appreciate that they work collaboratively with us to revise the plans and reach an agreement. So I just speak to to clarify for the board that the Butters have no objection with the project moving forward so long as that agreement with respect to the proposed reindex is reflected in board's decision today. Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, there are no additional comments.

With that, may I have a motion?

Yes. So given that the project is under zoning overlay of neighborhood design overlay district, it seems like it's also on a zoning overlay of the Harbor Park, Dorchester Bay, river Waterfront. And it also is noted under the MHC historic inventory areas. I'm gonna put forward a motion of approval with a proviso that it undergoes BPD design review.

Is there a second?

Second.

Mister Stumpage? Are you Yeah. Okay. Mister Valencia?

Yes.

Mister Langham?

Yes.

Ms. Bedobrazo? Yes. Ms. Wielo? Yes. Mr. Burnell? You're also on mute.

Yes.

Thank you. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Thank you. I think you stopped doing

Yeah. I'm doing that, chair.

Okay. Well, thank you, everyone, and have a great rest of your day.

Thank you.

Bye. Thanks. Recording stopped.