Bpda Board of Directors - Regular Meeting

Be so kind to

Boston zoning board of appeal for April 2026 is now in session. The 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 called in 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 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 the most 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 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 they 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 the meeting host will not note a call on you at the appropriate time. We ask that you keep your comments brief and that all public testimony will be limited to ninety seconds per speaker. These instructions will be repeated throughout the hearing.

Thank you. Mister Stembridge. Good

morning, madam chair, present.

Good morning. Mister Valencia.

Good morning, madam chair, present.

Good morning, mister Langham.

Good morning, madam chair, present.

Good morning, miss Rewell.

Good morning, madam chair present.

Mister Collins.

Morning, madam chair present.

Miss Beda Baraza. Good morning, madam chair present.

Good morning. I'm floor

is yours, mister Stenbridge.

Thank you, madam chair. We'll begin today's meeting with the approval of hearing minutes scheduled for 09:30. Excuse me. These minutes are from March 19 and March 24 of this year. I will make a motion approve.

There was a second?

Second.

Mr. Fenbridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Mr. Langham? Yes. Ms. Wewell?

Yes.

Mr. Collins?

Yes.

Miss Vagbaraza?

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Next, we move on to the extension scheduled for 09:30AM. There are 12 extension requests. I'll read them all in one after the other. If there's any questions on them, we can address those to madam chair after I finish. We'll begin with CaseBOA1537925 with the address of 22 Freeman Street.

Next, we have CaseBOA940697 with the address of 1102 To 1106 R Blue Hill Avenue. Next, we have CaseBOA1472285 with the address of 344 Bremen Street. Next, we have CaseBOA1561839 with the address of 500 Western Avenue. Next, we have CaseBOA1553897 with the address of 29 Hyve Street. Next, we have CaseBOA1567789 with the address of 1 To 7 Selkirk Road.

Next, we have CaseBOA1417476 with the address of 10 9th Street. Next, we have CaseBOA1571297 with the address of 50 Princeton Street. Next, we have CaseBOA818377 with the address of 111 Terrace Street. Next, we have CaseBOA992109 with the address of 24 Ram Street. Next, we have CaseBOA992105 with the address of 28 Ram Street.

And finally, we have CaseBOA1562393 with the address of 7735 To 745 River Street. All of the extension requests appear to be reasonable, and we can go from there.

Thank you. Any questions from the board? May have a motion to grant the extensions as requested?

I make a motion to grant the extensions as requested.

Mister Stembridge? Yes. Mister Valencia?

Yes.

Mister Langham?

Yes.

Miss Wewell? Yes. Mister Collins?

Yes.

Miss Beta Barrazo? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Next,

we have board three board final operator cases scheduled for 09:30. The first case is BOA1767611 with the address of 11 Inwood Street. If the applicant and or their representative were present, will they please explain to the board?

Are

you speaking on behalf of this case, mister

Yes. Yes,

ma'am. Great. Can you identify your your your name and address for the record, please? Good morning.

My name is Abraham Alvarez. I'm a I'm a contractor representing 11 Inwood Street. The project originated with three family. We have approval for three family. It's already in progress.

But then after we get approved for Vicinity, identify the a little smaller focal doesn't cover the stair section. So the request is to extend necessary just to cover the staircase. No. We don't we don't we don't need to add any more living space. We just need add another space to cover the staircase for the headroom.

The other sprinkler system. We already have the sprinkler we already have in place a sprinkler system for in our three in the three unit. All we need is to extend the sprinkler system for the fourth unit. But that way,

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

Madam chair, I'd like to go forward a motion of approval. The modifications are minor.

Is there a second? Second.

Mister Stenbridge? Yes.

Mister Valencia?

Yes.

Mister Lionel?

Yes.

Miss Wewell? Yes. Mr. Collins.

Yes.

Ms. Barbarazzo. Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck. Thank you. You're on mute, mister Stenbridge.

Thank thank you, madam chair. Next, we have case BOA1582245 with the address of 50 To 52 Townsend Street. If the applicant's in or their representative were present, would they please explain to the board?

Is the applicant for 50 Townsend Street on? We seem to be missing our ambassador, so I don't

Oh, okay. The applicant is here. Cameron or Stephanie, could you unmute them?

Yeah. I just I was looking

for Cameron. Okay. Thank you, Cam.

Good morning. I I think I shared shared, I I allow you to unmute yourself.

Yes. Can you hear me? Yeah. Perfect. Yes. Can you state your name and address for the record, and please proceed?

Yes, ma'am. My name is Sherry Yoshu Sherry Yoshu from 50 And 52 Townsend Street. I am I was we had this meeting a couple years ago, and a request was made to have 50 And 522 different side by side buildings to be as one, but that cannot be the case for mortgage reasons. So I'm requesting that everything on that request goes as is. I I believe only completely requested it that I actually would like, but to keep them separate, not as actually connected to be actually combined to be one building but remain as two buildings, 50 And 52 Downing Street Downington Street.

Are there 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? Yeah.

Mister Valencia?

Yes.

Mister Langham?

Your honor Yes.

Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Miss Luo?

Yes.

Mister Collins?

Yes.

Miss Beta Brazo? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck.

Thank you very much.

Next, we have case BOA1695772 with the address of 7 Tiptop Street. If the applicants and or the representative were present, would they please explain the case to the board?

Hello?

Hello? Are you the applicant? Yes. Okay. Can you state your name and address for the record, and please proceed? Yes.

Hi. My name is Prasanna Achary, and the address is, 7 Tiptop Street. I'm requesting minor changes to my, application, for my permit. So and this is still with with these changes, it's still under the proposed FAR. Okay. And the plot plan does not have changes with the changes I'm making.

So what are the changes you're proposing?

As as we get into the plans, I'll explain a little bit more. The the floor plans. Yes. So in these two floor plans, like the basement level where I'm going to live in, it's like a walkout basement. I would like to add a wall to add one more room, like a guest room.

And also in the kinda doing the same in the in the 1st Floor Level as well. And can we move on to the next slide, please? And in the top two floors, there are small decks that were the each each floor has three decks currently, but right right now, I'm proposing to close one of the smaller decks that is, like, a 40 square foot each and increase the office space a little bit because it was too tight. That is all the changes I'm requesting.

Are there questions from the board?

And in the elevation, just like, you know, this is where the decks were. They were small and just adding and closing it about 40 square footage.

K. Are there questions from the board? Hearing none, is there a motion?

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

Is there a second? Second. Mr. Sandbridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Mr. Langham? Yes. Ms. Wewell? Yes. Mr. Collins?

Yes.

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

Thank you very much.

Madam chair, next, we have on the agenda, we have a discussion of the of of the meeting law complaint regarding 02/24/2026 hearing for 154 Terrace Street, and these are assigned to case number BOA1261313SlashERT1240355 for the appeal.

Thank you. The board has received and reviewed the open meeting law complaint and the legal adviser's draft response concerning 154 Terrace Street. Does any board member have any questions? Hearing none, may I have a motion to adopt the legal adviser's response to the complaint?

Madam chair, I'll make a motion to adopt the legal adviser's response to to this open meeting law complaint regarding 154 Terrace Street. Is there a second?

Second.

Mister Stembridge? Yes. Mister Valencia?

Yes.

Mr. Langham?

Yes.

Ms. We will?

Yes. Mr. Collins?

Yes.

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

Next, we'll move on to the hearings scheduled for 09:30AM. At this time, we'll ask if there are any requests for withdrawals or deferrals from the 09:30AM hearing. Hearing none will begin with case BOA1792127 with the address of 101 Cottage Street. If the applicants and or their representative are present

Ocean, I will ring you now.

Good day. My name is from Derek Rubinov Architecture in West Roxbury, Eighty 2 Spring Street. I'm here to present Hannah Rocky and Kamal Najas, their young family that would like to build a roof deck. The project, if you can scroll down. So the owners own the this is a two family building, and the owners actually occupy the entire building.

And what we would like to do is basically add a roof deck of the existing building. It actually matches the neighboring building on 103 Cottage. And we're gonna do the roof deck similar to what the neighbor is doing, which is a five feet front setback from the roof edge. We'll have a 42 inch high railing if you don't need to for safety reasons, a small child with the family. The owners occupy the entire building. So what we would like to do, if you can scroll down a little bit, is turn it up a little bit. I'll stay on the second page. Can you scroll up? And stay there. Okay.

Thank you. So what we wanna do is there's existing fire escape balcony from the 3rd Floor to the 2nd Floor. This is actually the 3rd And 2nd Floor that are the second unit. And we really don't need that exit. Those two exits remains from the interior that's take you to the front and that exterior on the 2nd Floor that take you to the ground.

So the stat fire balcony stays. What we just wanna do is create a new balcony on the 3rd Floor, which is the length of about 16 feet long and more than three feet deep, and that will create access to the roof deck via spiral staircase, five feet diameter. So that's pretty much the the the project. The the spiral staircase and the balcony, they're in the rear setback, so that's why we have the violations. We have the rear setback violation.

We have roof structure restrictions for the roof deck. And then we have additional two violations, which are the reconstruction of extension of nonconforming building as well as insufficient building lot depth. We wanna mention that there's multiple roof decks in the area. Also, we mentioned the neighboring building, and we have actually creating a deck connecting to them a gate connecting to them. We submitted four support letters and then from the immediate neighbors from both sides and as well from the rear, which is, I believe, two four seven Mavic.

So all of the others are in support of this project. And we just wanna mention also that it's really not gonna be visible from the street view, and it is set back five feet, and it's a narrow street. I think that's conclude the presentation.

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

Hello, madam chair, members of the board.

My name

is Eva Jones representing the mayor's office of neighborhood services. Regarding 101 Cotton Street, our office defers from the board's judgment. The community process was conducted, including on a letters meeting held on 12/03/2025 that was not attended by any community members. Additionally, we did receive four letters in support, three from director Butters. The proposal was also reviewed by the Go Street Neighborhood Association at their meeting on 01/2626, and they expressed support at a vote of four in favor and one opposed regarding the proposal. At this time, the mayor with officer neighborhood services defer to the board's judgment on this matter. Thank you everyone for your time and consideration.

Thank

you. Madam chair, next we have a Gabriela. I didn't consider Coletta's office.

Good morning, madam chair and members of the board. Gabriela Ramirez here on behalf of Boston City Councilor Gabriela Coletta Sapanta's office. At this time, the councilor would like to go on the record in support of this proposal. Thank you.

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

With that, may I have a motion? Barossa. Second. Thank you. Mister Stembridge? Yes. Mister Valencia?

Yes.

Mister Langum? Yes. Miss Wiehwa? Yes. Mister Collins? Miss miss Beda Brazo?

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Thank you very much. Have a good day.

Next, we have case BOA1811057 the address of 51 Soley Street. If the applicants and or the representative are present, would they please explain the case to the board?

Good morning to everybody on the board.

My name is Tim Sheehan. I'm the architect for the project. This is a single family house at 51 Soley Street in Charlestown. It's been the owner occupied. Currently, it's it's a single family with a, you know, a main rectangle section, and then there's a back l, you know, a two story section. The front section is two and a half stories with the gable. We wanna rebuild the rear l. Basically, the house is in pretty rough shape, so it's gonna be a full restoration. The reason we're here today is on top now, there's two dormers, one in the front, one in the back. We'd like to do two separate dormers in the front and a shed dormer on the back to allow for a master bedroom suite.

We'd like to put a deck on behind that master bedroom on the two story section. That back aisle now is configured strangely. There's a hollow space in the middle. I can't quite figure it out, but we're just gonna build it as a rectangle. We wanna put a deck on the back, which will cause a rear setback violation. But we also you know, there's an existing driveway there now. I've shown two compact spaces and a full. They may use it as two full spaces, but you can get three cars in there, I believe. And we're adding what? We're adding, like, 850 square feet. We're gonna finish the basement. Currently unfinished. We'll finish the forward section of it. We're lucky we have seven foot ceiling height there now. We'll keep that.

And that's basic you know, the rear yard setback, parking, roof, open space. So that's why we're here. The neighborhood process has gone fine. We've talked to the neighbors. And with that, I'll leave it to your questions.

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

Good morning, madam chair and members. Ziggy Johnson with the office of neighborhood services. This applicant completed the community process. Our office hosted in a Butter's meeting on February 11. Abutter had a concern about a fence jointly located with this property. Our office understands the petitioners have had a dialogue with them. That background, our office defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Madam chair, there are no additional comments.

K. Was that may I have a motion?

Madam chair, motion to approve with the proviso that the point is submitted to the planning department for design review focusing on the proposed redone. Is there a second? Second. Yes. Mister Stembridge? Yes.

Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Mr. Langham? Yes.

Miss. We will? Yes. Mr. Collins?

Yes.

Ms. Ben Barrazo? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Thank you, everybody.

Next, we have case BOA1747974 with the address of 142 P Street. If the applicants and or their representative are present, would they please explain the case to the board?

Thank you, mister Sembridge. Madam chairman, members of the board, my name is Eric Zacherson. I live at 61 Monument Avenue in Charlestown. I'm the architect for the project. The project is to to propose on these five fairly recently constructed townhomes in South Boston. Each

of

the five unit owners represents a young family that's in that has moved to South Boston and would like to add a a roof deck to their individual townhomes. So the proposal is to add five individual roof decks. The the parapet on this particular building happens to be 42 inches or a little higher than that. And so we've worked together to come up with a strategy using a TileTech system, which would be white and alleviate the urban heat island effect. And and the there would actually need not need to be a handrail around the the deck.

So the the idea is that this would then be roof deck that is not visible from the the neighbors. We presented this presentation to the abutters in October, and then there was some concern about the pergola that we had put over the top to shade a number of the to to shade all five of the units. So after informally meeting with the neighborhood association, we removed the pergola. We have since then tried to meet with the neighborhood association a number of times, but that hasn't been able to be scheduled. And so we are here today to present and ask for the variances required to basically convert this roof area into five individual roof decks for these these families.

Can I ask how recently this project was completed or approved?

A couple of years ago. I believe the tenants, most of them have been living there for a year and a half to two years.

And why wasn't why weren't roof decks brand the original proposal if that was the intention?

Yeah. I I can't say for sure. We were not part of the development team, and there is no record as to why they were or were not installed at that point. It would have seemed like a nice way. One of the situations is that this project actually sits very far back on the lot, so there are no rear yard no rear yards on the property.

All of them there's a very large lovely landscaped front yard, but that doesn't provide the kind of play space and or kind of private gathering space that we normally associate with a little bit of private outdoor space. So this is this is set way back from the corner, and that gives great visibility and a great kind of green space for the community. But the unit owners don't have any private outdoor space.

And can you give me a sense of how many like, are I I'm looking at Google Earth. Like, there don't seem to be a lot of roof decks nearby. Are are you

There there are quite a few. Yes. I I one of the tenants said that he believes he he could count as many as 50 within a couple of blocks.

That's it. Question from One

of the comments from the neighbors was that they were concerned that the pergola would block the view from their roof deck. So we know that that was the primary concern for the roof deck was the pergola, was the view from other roof decks.

Thank you. Other questions from the board?

Yes. First of all, a comment first. Since the building is already there, I was wondering why you don't you don't have, like, pictures of the actual building to show what is there now in the proposal. But the comment the the question is about the community process. We we received several letters of community members asking for a second meeting. You mentioned that it has not been possible to have that meeting with abutters. Can you explain a little bit more about the community process?

Yeah. Absolutely. Very I'm actually quite concerned about it. We as I said, we met with the neighbors in the abutters in October. We and we met informally with the neighborhood association then, and then we we decided to remove the pergola.

And since then, we have emailed the neighborhood association quite a few times in both November, December, January, and been either not put on the agenda or very often at the last minute told that we've been we're not we're not on the agenda literally the day of. We expressed our concerns to BPD or to the office of neighborhood services, and they they urged us to meet with them. We sent an email asking, can we meet with you? The the office of neighborhood services gave us a zoning board hearing date. And after we had finally secured that, then the neighborhood association agreed that they could meet with us if we could wait a couple month a couple more months.

And so, you know, at some point, we got we we became exasperated with the process of trying to get on the neighborhood association agenda even though we'd had informal meetings and we had already addressed the the primary concern that they had for. So while we would love to and we regularly meet with and and present to neighborhood associations, this particular association has not allowed us or not put us on the agenda since we first requested back in November 10.

And which association are you talking about just so we're clear?

I believe it's the City Point Neighborhood Association.

Other questions from the ward? No. That's it.

I have a question regarding your roof plan. If you can go to the roof plan. Right there. Yep. That's great. I'm seeing grills that are right adjacent to exterior walls. Can you talk to me a little bit more about what type of grills, barbecue you're proposing?

Yeah. The we haven't gotten into it terribly much, but the idea is that they would be outdoor grills adjacent to the parapet wall. But because these grills tend to be 36 inches tall, they're shorter than the the parapet walls. And so in answer to the other question a moment ago, we actually have a photo, though, on the cover sheet because there are because there's no guardrail, it you would not be able to see this from the street.

Okay. Yeah. So my only my only concern is that in the city of Boston, the fire department kind of regulates the use of grill and what type of grill. So that would

be my

only concern that typically you're you're not supposed supposed to put them near rail links nor near exterior walls. So

Yep.

Just for you to take a look at the fire department codes regarding grills on roof decks.

Absolutely. And that that's part of the reason we wanted to show them is to be very transparent as we go through the process and make sure that we that everybody knows that they're going to be there or comments on it, and we get them arranged appropriately.

Typically, only electric grills are allowed, but you should just read into the regulations. And I'll just put a proviso on there on If I may, I'm one

of the unit owners, and we're I'm talking with the other unit owners too, and we're comfortable with moving the location of the grill so that they're not against the walls.

Yep. I'll head it back to the the chair because I think it's not public testimony yet, but thank you. Thank

you. Are there any other questions from the board? Hearing none, let's open it up to public testimony.

Good morning again, madam chair and members. Siggi Johnson with the office of neighborhood services. This application had an abutters meeting on October 9 at which abutters were divided on the proposal. Some supporting cited a need for open space for families and the positive character of the applicants. Those opposed cited deterioration of their sight lines and public nuisance issues associated with roof decks. Additionally, an issue came up regarding a compromise in the community process for the construction of this building that included no roof decks as part of the original construction. Our office received 13 letters of opposition, 12 of which have signed an address in the 300 foot Butters Radius. These abutters also felt that more changes could be made in response to feedback and requested additional community meetings with the petitioners. Process received 26 letters of support. Yeah.

One has provided an address in the 300 foot abutters radius with the other addresses in other areas of South Boston. The applicants met informally with the City Point Neighborhood Association. That group felt that more community process was needed and has requested additional community meetings. Concerns were raised about the proposed pergola at the Butters meeting and the association meeting and the applicants have indicated they have removed the pergola in response to this feedback. That background, our office defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

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

Thank you, madam chair, members of the board. This is Sydney Scanlon from councilor Flynn's office. Councilor Flynn would like to go on record in opposition based on overwhelming feedback from of others, nearby neighbors, and the City Point Neighborhood Association. As you know, councilor Flynn maintains a long standing policy against the construction of additional roof decks based on eight years of meetings and concerns voiced by our seniors, persons with disabilities, veterans, and young families on quality of life issues, parties at all hours, trash removal with pizza boxes falling into the street, our pest control crisis, and public safety issues with the presence of girls on decks. But what councilor Flynn heard from his constituents in this case was issues of public and community process.

The neighbors and civic group asked for another Butters meeting to discuss a change. Councilor Flynn asked ONS for their partnership, asking for a deferral as was customary for over eight years. Unfortunately, that did not take place. Councilor Flynn believes this is public service and additional meeting was in no way unreasonable with the amount of meetings with much lower in the city and the ability to quickly schedule a zoo. Lastly, councilor Flynn opposes as a major compromise in 2021 that garnered his support and that of neighbors was the removal of the roof deck.

South Boston neighbors continue to support addressing the housing crisis only to have the rug pulled out years later in bad faith. Lastly, councilor Flynn believes we cannot continue to call ourselves the most family friendly city in the country if we continue to willfully disregard the quality of life issues of many residents and families in favor of projects that do not improve the housing crisis. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have Kimberly Matthews. Kimberly, if you can unmute yourself.

Yes. Hi. Good morning. My name is Kim Matthews. I live at 137 P Street. We had, as mentioned earlier, provided information and opposition for the roof decks. To the earlier point, I think when they had done the development, it was promised that roof decks were specifically not going to be put on there. And now we're here again maybe two years later, and they're proposing to put five roof decks. We have expressed concern with regards to also the grills, whether wherever they're placed. I think that if you were to go and as you looked, madam chair, there are not a lot of roof decks in that area. So I'm not sure what the other person was referring to, whether it's 50. So, again, we are just looking to have conversations about that. I think

that that's why I've also written a letter of deferral as well. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have Christine McConville.

Hello. Can you hear me? Yes. Hello? Yeah. I just wanna say, to the zoning board members, consider if this happens in your neighborhood. Shame on these people. It's a shameful disregard of the public process. The attorney, that represents it, her name is Kirti Sugarmaran. She's claiming to have a seven year old child that needs private outdoor space to play in.

We are within a 100 feet of Castle Island in Marine Park. There's another person who got on the public hearing and said that his I think his elderly parents need a place to sit in the sun. Again, we're right here at Castle Island. I've watched this evolve, and I think that, you know, if people care about community, if people care about neighbors, you should make this group adhere to the way things are done in the public process. And what's being gone on here is a circumventing, a very sneaky, deceptive way to circumvent neighbors who do not want this, and so they've gone and done it and run.

A lot of what the architect has said is patently untrue. He said there's no record of not allowing roof decks. There's sort of a cozy arrangement. There's a neighborhood agreement talking about no outdoor space and just look where we are on the map. No private outdoor space. It's it's, frankly, laughable. They wanna put grills and fire pits up there, and then they say that they need a place for children to play. So I just hope that, the zoning board can

take

a bigger picture look at this and see what this kind of, entitlement does for communities and listen to

the

neighbors. Process is utterly important in crowded cities. Thank you.

Thank you. If the next one Luanne.

Good morning, madam chair. Good morning, board. Luanne O'Connor, president of the City Point Neighborhood Association. I would like to start with, going through what, Zach Harris I'm sorry, Zacherson stated. I negotiated this building. This building came from nine units down to seven units down to five units, specifically with no roof decks. And that's how the community supported this building, and the deal closed with, the developer at the time. With that being said, the proponents have come back asking for roof decks. The process here has not, in fact, been followed. There was an abutters meeting, an official City of Boston abutters meeting.

At that point, there was opposition, mostly opposition from people that are direct abutters. With that, they, Matthews, who is one of the the, proponents in the homeowners association, asked if they could come before CPNA to have a conversation with community. The answer to that was yes. We would welcome and always do welcome conversation, but it would not be considered an official city of Boston meeting. It was just a conversation. So why that's being brought up here is questionable. With that being said, they came in. There was a pergola on there. They agreed to take the pergola off after that meeting. We asked for a second about this meeting.

Now why did we ask for a second about this meeting? Because nobody knows that the change of plans has happened. You can look at Lenin Court, which is directly in front of this building. There's 40 people in there that, have no idea what the plans are. They're directly across the street.

Unless you're member of the City Point Neighborhood Association, you don't know what the plans are either. So the reason why they were told that they were not going to meet with the association was to complete the process, a second abutters meeting. Once that happens, absolutely come into City Point, present. City Point will then take a vote either to oppose, to support, or take no stand. Then they go up to ZBA.

That has always been the practice whether we're talking about the Manino administration, the Walsh administration, and or the Wu administration. So that's really important that you understand that is the process. We were denied that second, abutters meeting. And Lindsey Santana from the, ONS gave them a zoning board appeals date without anybody's knowledge. So now here we are running around crazy and chaotic, and we're not moving the city forward, amicably.

We're pitting neighbor against neighbor, and that's not okay. So, again, at this point in time, I would ask for the deferral so that this can be sorted out with all of the neighbors within 300 feet. There are letters of support that I pulled from their jacket within South Boston, and they are their friends and neighbors that most of them attend are now parents of South Boston Thank academy. So with that Thank you. I would ask well, again, let me just finish. Either a deferral or a denied without prejudice so that the process can continue. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. And we have

one more person, madam chair. Okay. Please be brief and add new information.

Person user. Somebody with a sound user. So you have ninety ninety seconds, please.

Hello? Can you hear me?

Yes, sir. Please state your name and address for the record.

Yes. My name is Paul Carthas. I live at 132 P Street in South Boston. And just regards to the roof deck itself, the the yellow folks had talked about the process, etcetera. Just wanna point out that this is not a simple roof deck request.

It's actually a large roof deck spanning the five units in a concentrated space. And I firmly believe that this concentration will be a noise multiplier regardless of how quiet each group happens to be. And in terms of the zoning variances, requested restricted roof district and the existing roof exceeds the max building height limit. These were quality of life restrictions that were put in place for a reason after much thought and, throughput from the community. And it seems lately that a lot of these, exemptions to restrictions are just a variance request away. So that's all I have to say. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other raised hands?

No. No. No additional comments.

Carolyn, I'm just wondering, like,

sort

of we've we've heard comments about the the project being originally approved, you know, with support without a roof deck. I mean, is that something that we have access to or can confirm? Because it it does seem a bit disingenuous if there was support without a roof deck, and then it comes back a couple years later asking for a roof deck.

I think

Jeff has his hand raised. I can comment, but if you wanted to say something first. That would probably. Thank you.

Yeah. Thank you, madam chair, members of the board. Jeff Hampton, City of Boston Planning Department. This project was approved as a five unit back in 2021. The original hearing date was early twenty twenty one, and the can got kicked down the road a few months as a City Point neighborhood representative, I apologize.

I forget her name, had said that the number of units had gone down. Any agreements that were made with the neighborhood about no roof decks that was done between the neighborhood and the developer. I am looking at the decision signed on 10/12/2021. There is no proviso stated that says no roof decks. It only says BPDA design review.

So we were in support of that development back in 2021. So I just wanna state that for the record, there were no provisos added to this decision that said no roof decks.

Okay. My comment too that it would have been a proviso if it was really heard at the at the ZBA.

Yeah. I think the takeaway is if if that's an important point, it should be included as a proviso moving forward. Any other questions from the board? Any response from the applicant?

Yeah. I would like to reiterate, if possible, that we did email the City Point Neighborhood Association four times in November, five times in December asking for a hearing date, and we got no real response. And then in as soon as the to the comment that the neighborhood association hasn't had an opportunity, as soon as this date was assigned, we emailed them and asked if again, if we could present. And that's when and that was over six weeks ago. That's when they suggested that they couldn't meet with us in March but would meet with us in late April.

So we we have really tried to present this to the neighborhood association, and we will continue to try every time we do a project here. Is

there a concern for you to, like, to go back and do this the second abutters meeting that seems to be requested from folks?

Yes. It's that we have waited we waited six six or seven months to get to this point. We we don't believe that there's any particular reason to to delay the project further. And actually, I'm I'm afraid that this is actually this is largely a stall tactic on on their part to to just not let us present even though we had we had talked to them to present. And and I think that that would set a bad precedent that they can refuse to meet with us until the Zoning Board hearing and then ask for a deferral so that they can eventually put us on the Zoning Board in front of the Zoning Board.

Thank you. Any other questions from the Board? Hearing none, is there a motion?

Yes, madam chair. I know how the department is recommending approval. But at this moment, based on the comments from the proponent and the community members, I think that the project needs just a few more weeks so they can try one more time to meet with the community. And if the meeting doesn't happen, well, they have to come back anyway. So I make a motion of the federal the federal, hoping for a short deferral for the proponent to go back and meet with the voters. And if that's not if not possible, a new date has to be set for the hearing.

Baratza, can I I support Giovanni's as well?

Thank you. Mister Stembridge?

Yes. Mister Valencia?

Yes.

Mister Langham?

Yes.

Miss Wewell?

Yes.

Mister Collins?

Yes.

Miss Beta Barrazza?

I'm gonna I'm gonna say yes, but I'm also gonna comment that this should be an opportunity to for the architect to also just connect with the Boston Fire Department and provide something that is approvable, that would help make the case as well.

Thank you. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Do you have a deed, Caroline?

Yeah. Eric, when was the meeting that they were offering? What was the date of that?

They said tentatively April 14,

I believe.

Okay. We can schedule the next hearing for April 28. That's our next full board hearing.

Does that give you enough time to update the plans as

well as that was that BRESA requested? We don't have any requests to update the plans. We made the change that the neighbors asked for back in October. We removed all the the pergolas that the were were the major concern at that point. So if we meet with them on the fourteenth, I'm not we don't know if there are gonna be any further comments, but we did as I said, we've we made those changes back in October. Okay.

Yep. I'll put a yep.

Like I said, it'll be good for you to just double check with the Boston Fire Department and and to look at the roof deck locations for your grills.

Alright. Are you good with that date?

Yeah. As soon as possible. We would love love

to know. Thank you. Alright.

Thank you.

Next, we have case BOA1808920 with the address of 78 H Street. If the applicant and or the representative present, will they please explain to the board?

Yes. Frank Kinifenburg. 289 West 3rd Street, South Boston representing this project.

I'm also here, Laura Lee Johnson at 80 H Street. Excuse me.

I'm Mayes Potter. Pardon me? Who's who's presenting?

I am. Right.

Okay. Please proceed.

Laura Lea is a butter. So just

Okay. So she's not presenting and Correct. If you wanna speak, that's public testimony time. Thank you.

Alright. So this project is a it's it's currently a single family property. It's formerly been a two and three family property. The owners wish to convert it from a single family back to a two family by separating the 1st Floor and basement into one unit and then the 2nd And 3rd Floor into another unit. The basement space is currently finished.

There is no additional square footage being added to the property. It's legalization of the the finished basement that was never done by previous owners. So there's no new square footage being added. It's just legalization of the basement space. There will be a rear egress, small deck, and staircase leading from the 2nd Floor down to the rear yard. That is what creates the side yard setback issue. It's just that rear staircase that's being used for egress purposes. And we we have received eight letters of support that we have forwarded to the board as well from local neighbors. And if you wanna review the plans,

I can step through those.

Are there questions from the board? Hearing none, we have public testimony.

Madam chair, members, Ziggy Johnson with the office of neighborhood services. This applicant completed the community process. Our office held in a Butter's meeting and a Butter had concerns about the poor conditions of the property citing issues with trash. Gate of Heaven Neighborhood Association also expressed concerns regarding the conduct of the absentee landlord at the property and allowing expansion of the property when it's in poor condition. The applicants were not able to meet with gate of heaven. Our office would like to pursue them to continue to attempt to meet with that group. That background, our office defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Councilor Flynn's office.

Thank you, madam chair and members of the board. This is Sydney from councilor Flynn's office. Councilor Flynn would like to go on record in support. Thank you.

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

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

I would like to speak, please.

Okay. Well, we were in public comments. So can you state your name and address for the record?

I'm sorry. I don't quite I'm not good at this. Laura Lee Johnson. I'm the abutter at 80 H Street. I had gone to the abutters meeting that was held prior to this, and I had expressed some concerns and had submitted some commentary prior to this meeting.

And the concerns that I had expressed are still in play, I guess, and haven't been addressed in the plans. And the to me, the changes that are being suggested in this are not going to improve the anything on our street. And as in a butter, my concerns are still intact. And I don't see how what they are proposing is going to add anything to our street, but instead be have more of a negative impact. And I, as the abutter and one of the only owner occupied buildings left on the street.

I'm trying to find a way to maintain the quality of life on our street. And as owners, I feel like I'm kind of shouting into the wind trying to maintain a standard of living. And I feel surrounded by a lot of rental buildings now with absentee owners. And no one cares about

the state of We focus on your support proposition for this project. I'm opposed because, first

of all, there there is no way to store the trash appropriately for this building. And this has been an ongoing issue and probably my number one concern. This trash is always stored in front of the building and with several barrels, and they migrate into front of our house, which we make we take great pains to keep our barrels in the back, and this isn't being addressed at all. It seems like with two units instead of one, there's gonna be an overcapacity of people in the in the building itself. They want to add and expand the roof the the decks on the house, which is going to add for more parties, more noise, more activity over there, which is already a problem.

Please rock that, man. So, anyway, it's all it's all listed in the in the notes that I sent in, and I haven't heard anything to address the issues that I had and how the the changes in the building are going to negatively affect our property. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you.

Madam chair, may I address those concerns? Yes, please. Before we Yeah. Break.

So the owner I would like to go on record stating the owners are not absentee owners. They own 14 properties in South Boston, live within two blocks of the the current property, 78 H Street. They're very active in the management of all of those properties, so they are not absentee landlords by any means. We previously met with miss Johnson in March, addressed her trash concerns. There is a rear egress that goes behind several buildings that has been planted over by other neighbors.

So we are in the process of working with those neighbors to free that egress, which would then allow trash to be stored in the rear of the building. As currently stated, it's not all trash is there's no way to get the trash to the rear of the building because people have planted over the the egress. So we are in the process of working through that process with those neighbors. Obviously, it took some time for the snow to melt before we could really address it and see the condition of the egress. But that is a concern that we are working on.

There is there is no additional decks being added to the property. There's a, you know, a small walkway being added to be able to exit from the 2nd Floor to get down to the yard in the case of an emergency. It is not designed to be a everyday usage. There's no space to put a grill or any type of hangout space there. There is an existing roof deck on the property, and we did address with the abutter that we would build a privacy screen to kind of shed that a little more from her property. So I do feel we have addressed the majority of their concerns at this time.

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

Madam chair oh. Dedicated. Okay. I'll put forward a motion of approval. I think these are largely internal renovations, and much of the zoning relief is preexisting. So I will base my motion to approve on that.

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

Yes.

Mister Langham?

Yes.

Miss Wewell? Yes. Mister Collins?

Yes.

Miss Vedabrazo? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good

luck. Thank you.

And next, we have case BOA1807562 with the address of 126 Crawford Street. If the applicant and or their representative are present, will they please explain to the board?

Hi. Good morning. My name is Lynette. I'm the owner at 126 Crawford. So the current conditions, it is an existing two family residential dwelling.

The first unit occupies the 1st And 2nd Floors. The second unit occupies the 3rd Floor. The current access configuration to Unit 2 requires indirect entry via the rear stairs and does not provide a secondary means of egress. So the proposed project will provide a a dedicated, safer, and clearer front entrance for the second unit. There will be no change in use or occupancy.

I had the Butters Meeting back in February and everything was positive. So this is currently where we stand. Thank you so much.

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

Madam chair and members of the board for the recommended miss Jeremy Bembury and the Dorchester community engagement specialist for the office of neighborhood services step and as completed the community process which consisted of an abutters meeting on January 26. With no abutters present, no concerns were raised. Next, the proponent presented to Crawford, Howland, Ruthven, Monona, Blombeck, Block Watch, where residents were very supportive. To date, our office has not received any further community feedback at time. Thank you for your time. And the mayor's office of member services would like to defer to the board for their judgment.

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

May I have a motion?

Madam chair go ahead. No.

I'll make a motion of approval.

Second. Mister Stenbridge? Yeah. Mister Valencia?

Yes.

Mister Langham?

Yes. Miss Wewell?

Yes.

Mister Collins?

Yes.

Miss Beta Brazo?

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck.

Thank you so much. Next,

we have case BOA1721164 with the address of 2 To 20 Fairmont Avenue. If the applicant and or their representative present, would they please explain to the board?

You see any raised hands?

I don't see anybody. Let me check.

Yeah. We come back to this one, madam chair.

Sounds good to me.

And we'll for the moment, we'll move on to case BOA1809219 with the address of 123 Killsys Road. If the applicant and or their representative present, will they please explain the case to the board?

Is this user are you here for one twenty three Kilseth? Kilseth probe? Does he need to be unmuted, Jesus?

Yeah. The person can unmute some user. You you are allowed to mute.

Please state your name and address for the record.

My name is Charles Dumond. I live at 83 Pleasant Street in Cambridge. I'm the architect of the project. Can you hear me?

We can. Please proceed.

Okay. Okay. So so I was asked to design a new rear porch and egress for these units. The existing porch porches or the existing egress did not meet code. We made a improved the stair.

We added a few feet to the decks to just allow better use of the decks. And there appeared to be no opposition. Was an issue with zoning about which were the you know, what was the setback requirement because it's a corner lot. It was a question of which side of the building was the rear and which was the

side

yard. We we had we had claimed that the rare deck was was a side yard, at a side yard. So the the requirements, setbacks were a little bit less. And and based on that, it met the setback requirements. So in any case, so we're hoping that we can improve the safety for the residents and and and improve their quality of life to be able to to sit outside and have some outdoor space.

That that's all for now.

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

Madam chair and board members, Siggy Johnson with the office of neighborhood services. This applicant distributed an informational flyer to all of others within 300 feet of the parcel, which solicited no comments to our office. The Brighton Alston Improvement Association is supporting this application. That background, our office defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Thank

you. We have a person from the Annabel Gomez.

Yeah. Annabel Gomez from the Brighton Ulcer Improvement Association. We'd like to go on record in support of this. Thank you.

Thank you. Ma'am, chair, there are no additional comments.

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

Motion to approve.

There's Second. Mister Stenbridge?

Yes.

Mister Lucia?

Yes.

Mister Lang?

Yes.

Miss Wewell? Yes. Mister Collins?

Yes.

Miss Beda Brazza? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Okay. Great. Thank you. Very good.

Next, we have case BOA1804160 with the address of 2 R To 4 R Edinburgh Road. The applicants and or their representative of the president, will they please explain to the board?

Good morning, madam chairman, members of the board. This is Eric Zacherson, architect for the project to present this this project, 24 Egremont. Let's hold on the site plan for just a second just so we can be clear. There's a fairly large building at 24 Egremont. Our project is in the upper left hand corner of this diagram.

You see a what was, I believe, formerly a garage and has been occupied as a two family dwelling for quite some time. Our client has purchased those two units And the project you'll see on the following pages is to expand and rehabilitate those two units. And it has nothing to do with the main house, although they are part of a single condominium association. So next slide, please. Cover sheet.

Next slide, please. So you can see how the building sits adjacent to our neighbor at 1666 Commonwealth Ave, very close to the property line on that side, and then actually has its own entrance and on Commons. So Cummings sorry. Next street next page. Yes.

And so you see here the the existing the proposed plans in the upper right. The 1st Floor would continue to be a single one bed unit, and the upper unit, which is currently a kind of awkward studio, would be expanded to a 3rd Floor. And so the 2nd And 3rd Floor represent that two vent, two bath unit. Next slide, please. So you can see the proposal would be adding that third Story with a kind of gable roof and dormers.

We wanted to be reflective of the existing home, which has a more traditional feel, and to kind of enliven the feeling of the current building, which quite frankly looks quite a bit like a garage even though, as I said, it's been an existing two family for quite some time. But generally, you see the look of the building. So with that, I'll open it up or return to you for questions and and answers.

Any questions from the board? Hearing none, may I have formal testimony?

Madam chair and board members, Siggy Johnson with the office of neighborhood services. This applicant attended an abutters meeting hosted by our office on January 20 where questions were asked. No opposition was voiced. The Brighton Alston Improvement Association is supporting this application. That background, our office defer his judgment to the board. Thank you.

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

Thank you. May I have a motion? Is there a second?

Second.

Mister Stembridge? Yes. Mister Valencia?

Yes.

Mister Langham? Yes.

Miss Weaver?

Yes.

Mister Collins? Yes. Miss Ben Barazzo?

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries.

Next, we have two companion cases. First is case BOA1822588 with the address of 140 Strathmore Road. Along with that, we have case BOA1822577 with the address of 1863 Commonwealth Avenue. If the applicant and or the representative are present, would they please explain the cases to the board?

Good morning. Madam chair, members of the board, Luis Santana with HS Construction Consulting Services. These are two cases, two buildings in one lot. 1863 Commonwealth Avenue is an existing two family, which we're planning to make to make slight modifications in order to accommodate the new structure. This this is an 11,205 square feet north altogether, and it's also a corner north facing the Stradbourg Road and Commonwealth Avenue.

We have multiple violations. This is a six unit building, brand new construction. We're gonna have three dwelling units that are two bedrooms and three dwelling units that are one bedroom, And these will be facing a straddle wall. As

you

can see from the number of violations, they are connected because you have two or more dwellings on the same lot. And we are reviewing this from the zoning perspective as as if each dwelling was in a separate lot. And and therefore, that generates a significant number of violations. As you can see from this plot plan, the existing two family facing Commonwealth Avenue and rear darker, almost rectangular area is the proposed new construction. I want to emphasize that there are existing garages in the back, two of them connected, very old, from the late eighteen hundreds.

And this project is subject to most of Walmart's commission review. We met extensively with them and agree on the design that we are presenting to you today. Those garages will not be demolished because they have historical significance. And as you're gonna see on the later later of the presentation, they have been moved to they will be moved to the front of the of the lot, and they will be connected to the proposed structure because they have to be preserved based on the landmark standards. You can go to the next slide, please.

As you can see on that lower right corner, there is an existing picture of the rear portion of that lot and the garages at the very far end. And those are the ones that will be restored, relocated to the front, and incorporated into the new construction. The the rear deck, which is basically the only change to the existing to family, you will see that on the next presentation for that case. We will shorten that deck and remove a small one in order to accommodate the new construction, and that is the only change. And the the dash red light indicates the existing garage to be relocated to the front, and you will see that on the renderings that we prepared at the end of the presentation.

Next slide, please. This is a these are the typical floor plans in and and those two squares on the front of the building, those are the actual existing garages. The rest behind that l shape in the front of the building, those are the garages and the new construction will be on the towards the rear of them. We're gonna have, as I said, three units that are two bedrooms and three units that will be one bedroom. This is a three story building within the high limits of the zoning in that area.

Next, please. And this is your 2nd And 3rd Floor, typical, basically duplicate of the other stories. And the area without construction, that is the roof outline of the single story of garages that we are adding to the park. Next, please. These are elevations.

And as you can see, the front elevation is showing the garage. It would be retained, and it would be used for parking, adequate for one compact space. And the other side of the garage will be used as part of the 1st Floor unit. And those are rear and side elevations from the adjacent vault. The next slide is the rendering of how the two structures will work together.

I just wanna emphasize that Landmark was critical on this in creating this presentation. They insisted in duplicating some of the historical components to the existing buildings, such as the roof materials and the stock of the sidings for on both buildings. And that's where we end up. We don't have a final approval for landmarks, but the staff work with us in order to come up with this final design. The front of the building can accommodate up to two as compact spaces, so we are deficient of the number of spaces that are required for zoning.

We'll go to the next slide, please. And that is a site elevation from the rear the view from the rear of the existing building. As you can see, the two of the garages on the front and the rest of the structure. I just I am here representing the owner, which is rabbi Noginski, and he's an active member of the community. He's a rabbi for a synagogue in the area that has more of a thousand members in the congregation.

We received extensive and overwhelming support from the community, the aborters, and the association. And the project has been very well received. We have the variances that we have are related the significant variances are the use, which is a forbidden use because it's a multifamily zoning district. The variances in terms of the major requirements in parking are the the minimums. They are excessive or deficient by a fraction in what pertains to the open space, the load area, and the and the yard requirements.

So they are not significant. And and, also, the intent of these six units for, excuse me, for the most part is to accommodate a large family for the rabbi. He has 12 kids, and he's planning to bring them on them to live at the property as well. So with that, I conclude the presentation next case, which is related to this one. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them.

Thank you. Any questions from the board? K. And we have public testimony.

Madam chair and board members, Siggy Johnson with the office of neighborhood services, and a Butters meeting was held for this application in conjunction with the 1863 COMAV application on January 29 at which an overwhelming number of butters were supporting the application citing the positive community contributions of rabbi Shlomo Nuginski to the Brighton community. One of butters expressed concerns about the density and whether the design was in fact compliant with the regulations of the Aberdeen Historical District. Our office received one letter of opposition from an abutter that has been forwarded to the board. Brighton Olson Improvement Association is supporting this application. That background, our office defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Next, we have Moira McCrea. Hello? Moira, you can

Morning. Can you hear me? Yes. We can.

Sorry about that.

My name is Laura McCrave. I'm from counselor of Braden's office. The counselor would like to call and recommend support of this project. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have Annabella Gomez.

Madam chair, members of the board, Annabella Gomez from the Brighton Housing Improvement Association. We'd like to go on record and support. Thank you.

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

With that, may I have a motion?

Motion to approve.

Is there a second?

Second.

Mr. Stenbridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Mr. Langham? Yes. Ms. Wewell?

Yes.

Mr. Collins?

Yes. Miss Beda Brazo? Yes. Chair votes yes. Motion carries. Good luck.

Thank you.

Next, we have case BOA1809679 with the address of 55 Boston Avenue. If the applicant and or their representative are present, will they please explain to the board?

John, I I'm not sure if John is speaking on behalf of this case. He will be on the paneling section now. If not

Hello? Can you hear me? Yes. We can. Are you here to speak on 55 Bostonia Ave?

Yes. I am. Sorry. Good morning, madam chair, members of

the board. Matthew Panino. 56 Bostonia Ave in Brighton. Just coming back to you, today to go over an FAR violation that I got while the Building 2 family was under construction. I decided to add a master bedroom and master bath in the attic, which then triggered a FAR violation. So that's the only violation.

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

Madam chair and board members, Ce Johnson at the office of neighborhood services. This applicant distribute an informational flyer regarding the previously approved project to all of others in a 300 foot radius, which solicited no comments to our office. The Brighton Olsen Improvement Association is supporting this application. That background of our office defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Next, we have Maureen McCrae.

Good morning. This is Warren McCrae from council Brayden's office. Councilor Lake to go on records for this project. Thank you.

Next, we have Annabela Gomez.

Madam chair, members of the board, Annabela Gomez from the Brighton Allison Improvement Association. We'd like to go on record and support. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam chair, additional comments.

With that, may I have a motion?

Motion to approve.

Do I have a second? Sure. Mr. Pembridge?

Yeah. Mr. Valencia?

Yes.

Mister Langham? Yes. Miss Wewell? Yes. Mister Collins?

Are you on mute, mister Collins?

I am yes.

Okay. Miss Benebraza?

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Do.

Madam Chair, we turn to one of the cases for 11:00 and ask for our case BO81721164 with the address of 220 Fairmont Avenue. If the applicant and or the representative are present, could they put in the case before?

Still not seeing anybody for this case. Okay. In that case, can I have a

motion to defer or to deny without breakers? Approaching to defer this case, madam chair.

Do

you have a second?

Second. Mister Stenbridge?

Yeah. Mister Moncio? Yes.

Mister Langdon? Yes. Miss Wielo? Yes. Mister Collins?

Yes.

Miss Bedebraza?

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Alright. We'll see you in three minutes.

Present.

Mister Valencia?

Present.

Mister Langham? Present. Miss Wewow? Present. Mister Collins?

Present.

Miss Beda Brazza?

Present.

Floor is yours, mister Stemberidge.

Thank you, madam chair. Begin with the hearing scheduled for 11AM. Before that, we'll ask if there are any requests for withdrawals or deferrals from the 11:00 hour. Hearing none will begin with case BOA1772081 with the address of 885 To 91 Essex Street. If the applicant and or their representative are present, will they please explain the case to the board?

Good morning, madam chairwoman, mister secretary, and members of the board. My name is Andrew Kara. I'm attorney an at Rubin and Rudman, having a business address at 53 State Street. Also with us this morning is Carol Rash, the director of property management and asset management for the Hamilton company. We're both appearing on behalf of the applicant, Hamilton Essex Development LLC.

We're here before the board this morning because we're seeking to extend the zoning relief that allows for the current parking use at 85 Essex Street for an additional three years from this morning's hearing date. The parking use has existed at the property since the early nineteen nineties and subject to periodic extension under the original zoning relief that was granted allowing for the parking use. The property consists of a 50 vehicle surface parking lot located at 85 Essex Street in the Chinatown neighborhood of Boston. The parking lot is currently leased to and operated by eighty eight Beach LLC, which is managed by Albert Luang. Eighty eight Beach Street LLC has run the facility since 2017, and its lease expires in 2028.

My client has owned the property since 2025. The parking use of the property has existed since at least the early nineteen nineties based on the historical records. Access to the parking lot is provided off a legal curb cut off of Essex Street. It's a full time parking attendant that closely monitors the use of the facility on a day to day basis. For a number of years, the parking lots provided safe, convenient, and affordable off street parking to the Chinatown neighborhood and its many thriving businesses.

The facility also provides off street parking to visitors and helps alleviate the use of on street parking in the area. During the community process and at the request of the community, my client has agreed to complete some landscaping improvements to the property this spring to help better screen and buffer it from the neighborhood. We're happy to incorporate this commitment into a formal design review proviso. I will stop there for any questions.

Thank you. Are there questions from the board? Hearing none, 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 85 To 91 F At Best 6th Street. Our office differs to the board's judgment. The community process was conducted, with the, excuse me. A community process was conducted including the distribution of a subcommittee fire on 10/2325 in which my office received no responses from the community regarding the proposal. The proposal was also connected with the Chinatown Residence Association and the Chinatown Neighborhood Council where productive conversations were had regarding the repair of the sidewalk. And 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. Next, we have Sydney from councilor Flynn.

Thank you, madam chair, members of the board. This is Sydney from councilor Flynn's office. Counselor Flynn sent a letter of support to the board yesterday and would like to voice his support today. Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam chair, there are no additional comments.

With that, may I have a motion?

Chair, make a motion of approval.

Can I add? Will Add this instead. Yeah. Provide.

And the provision for screening and buffering?

Yes. We

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

Yes.

Mister Langham? Yes. Miss Wewell? Yes. Mister Collins? Yes. Miss Bednar Brazo?

Yes.

Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck.

Thank you.

Next, we have two twenty next, we have case BOA1807850 with the address of 226 Beacon Street. If the applicant and or the representative are present, will they please explain the case to the board?

Yes. Good morning, madam chair, members of the board, attorney Nick Sizulla, McDermott Quilty, Miller and Hanley, 28 State Street in Boston here on behalf of the applicant. Next slide, please, mister ambassador. Yep. The owner of this property is Sugar Magnolia Trust, Janet and John, they purchased this building at 226 Beacon Street in the Back Bay approximately one year ago.

I had sat empty for several years. They've been working hard to preserve the interior of the building while restoring the exterior to some of its original conditions. With me as well from Carpenter and McNeil Architects and Builders is Eric and Joanne. Because this is in the Back Bay Historic District, Architectural District, William Young is on as well as our historical consultant. And folks from Carpenter and McNeil are also the contractor and builders for the project.

Next slide, please. And as I mentioned, you know, they've been working hard over the past year or so to preserve the interior. But why we're here today is because of a change to the exterior of the building. And they're looking for permission of the construction of a new portico structure with related improvements to the front building entrance at this long existing residential building, basically looking to restore the building's front facade, which you'll see in a moment, to its original eighteen sixty four appearance, which had a portico. You can see on the left hand side the existing condition.

And then on the right hand side is the proposed. The allowable setback is 20 feet for a front yard at this location. The existing setback's actually a slight nonconformity the way it is today without the portico, 19 feet eight inches. But the historic setback, what it was previously in 1864 and what's being proposed now is actually 16 feet. So you'll see on the right hand side, there's that vestibule kind of bump out, which is the reason behind the variance requirement for front yard setback.

If you go to the next slide, I believe it's just our refusal letter. Again, the only thing that's required here is front yard insufficient. Again, just to reinstate that front portico. With that, I'm going to toss it over to Eric at Carpenter McNeum who can just quickly show you kind of this the historic aspect of why this is being proposed and then show a mock up of what it's going to look like when it's constructed. So Eric, I'll toss it over to you.

Great. Thank you, Nick. Next slide, please. Good morning. I'm Eric Daum.

I'm a senior architect with Carpenter McNeal, and I'm here with my colleague, John Powell. These three images show the original state of 02/26 and its partner Building 228 On Beacon Street circa 1867. There were projecting porticos with stairs to landings. Sometime around 1942, the portico at 228 was removed and a bay window, a more oriole window, was built in its place. Sometime around 1960, 1962, the portico was removed at 02/26, and the entry was moved from the center of the 1st Floor down to the right hand side at the garden level with a sunken entry courtyard.

Next slide, please. Two photographs, one from 2013, one current photograph just showing the condition. You can see in the left hand photograph the artificial stone base that was applied sometime around 1960. That accounts for because it projects about four inches from the existing rusticated base at 02/28. We believe that that is the cause of the current nonconformance.

And you can see that that base is still in place at 226 in the contemporary photograph. It will be removed as part of the construction of the proposed portico. Next slide, please. Looking back at the Bromley maps from 1895 and also from 1898 and 1909, you can see the area where 226 is within the square that is highlighted on the map. We If can go to the next slide.

So 226 is highlighted here with the red arrow. You can see that the projecting portico at that time projects about as far as the adjacent projecting bay at 224 and also about the depth of the adjacent property 228 with its bay window. But we're basically asking to reapply to the same distance from the encroachment within the setback as previously historically been. Next slide, please. So in this view down Beacon Street looking east, you can see 226 and 228 with their matching porticos just on the left hand side of the photograph.

Series of staircases running up to 1st Floor landings, the length of the block. But these two projecting porticos present a somewhat unique condition. There are many examples like them within Back Bay. Next slide. A detailed photograph from 1941 showing the portico that we hope to restore.

And another contemporary photograph on the right showing the condition in 1941 when it was still extant. Next slide. Just a view down Beacon Street looking toward the property at 226 with an arrow indicating roughly where it would be, an example of the steps that are typical and the landings that are typical along Beacon Street and throughout Back Bay. Next slide. This is a close-up view showing the courtyard and existing entry into the lower level.

Next slide. So again, returning to this slide showing our proposed portico and steps, we project four feet from the setback, giving a total setback of 16 feet, which is similar to what's happening at 224 and also at 228. There'll be a plan I'm sorry. There'll be a planning bed to the left of the or to the west of the stairs and then stairs down to a lower level entry underneath the portico. Next slide.

So two drawings showing the existing conditions on the left and our proposed portico on the right. And then a section drawing showing how the stairs with a storage area underneath it for mechanical devices. We assume that the gas shutoff and water shutoff will be in that area. And then how we have recessed the lobby vestibule into the facade a little bit in order to maintain that forefoot setback. Next. And then here are two renderings showing how that might look on the street. So thank you for your time.

Yep. Madam chair, if I may, just wanted to thank the Back Bay Architectural District and Commission, the Neighborhood Association of the Back Bay. Although this is just a front yard variance and fairly straightforward from a zoning perspective, as you can tell, there's a lot that went into this to get it to this point. And we had really great discussions with both groups. So I just wanted to wrap up by saying that and also to mention that we did get a planning department recommendation of approval for the project. So thank you, madam chair.

Thank you. Any questions from the board?

Right. I do. I I have a question regarding accessibility. I'm not sure how many units are existing, but I would imagine that you would trigger accessibility issues. And are you getting a MMAB variance for that?

Yeah. Eric, do you want to address anything about accessibility?

It's a it's a single family residence.

Okay.

It's a single family. Okay.

Any other questions from the board? May I have no testimony?

Madam chair and board members, the office of neighborhood services are also hosted in a Butters meeting regarding this application on January 27. Two Butters had concerns about how the proposal would affect the historical aesthetics in a landmark district. They cited that the proposed portico is two feet deeper than the original one, and the building is, intended to be a symmetrical twin of the next door building. The applicants explained that they needed to balance the historical aesthetics with changes to the building code since the building's construction that necessitated the design that they are proposing. The abutters and the Neighborhood Association of the Back Bay and the Back Bay Architectural Commission will continue to engage in a dialogue. That background, our office defers judgment to the board. Thank you.

Good morning, madam chair and members of the board. I'm here on behalf of councilor Sharon Durkin who represents the Back Bay. Just wanna thank the proponent for the work that they've done with the neighborhood to get this right. And we did receive the letter from NAB of non opposition to this. So for those reasons, councilor Durkin urges support

of this proposal. Next, have Christian Simonelli.

Good morning, madam chair members of the board. Christian Simonelli, Boston Groundwater Trust. I just wanted to confirm that although this project was not cited for GCOD, because this is exterior work only, this was before the board in 2021, and there is an existing recharge system that has been approved and is in place. There was just some question of that in the neighborhood, and I just wanted to confirm that here today,

the board. Thank you. Thanks.

Madam chair, no additional comments.

With that, may I have a motion?

Actually, madam chair, may I address one of the comments that was made? This is Eric Downs. Yes.

Sorry.

The at the neighborhood meeting on January 27, there was a recommendation that we pull the building, pull the projection portico back two feet. And further examination, we were able to, pull the building back. So we listened to the neighborhood committee on January 27 and were able to comply with their request.

Thank you. Was there a question from the board? May I have a motion?

Madam chair, I really appreciated learning a little bit about the history. The architecture team consulted a historic consultant that's pretty well known. With that, I would like to put forward a recommendation of approval.

Is there a second?

Second. Mister Fenbridge?

Yes. Mister Valencia?

Yes.

Mister Langham? Yes. Miss Wewell?

Yes.

Mister Collins?

Yes.

Veta Brazo?

Yes.

Chair votes yes. Motion motion carries. Good luck.

Thank you. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Next, we have companion article 80 cases. The first is case BOA1822716 with the address of 52 Plympton Street. Along with that, we have case BOA1822720 with the address of 65 To 79 Wareham Street. If the applicants and or the their representative present, will they please explain these to the board?

Good morning, members of the board. My name is Josh Brandt, and I am the developer of the project. And I wanted to walk you through the project at 52 Plimpton Street. Next slide, please. This project is 44 new residential units, eight of which are affordable artist live work units, which puts us over the 17% minimum on affordability both by percentage of unit count.

We're actually at 19% of the building square footage. The project has garnered a lot of community support and from good reason. It includes a arts gallery and community cultural space on the Ground Floor that supports the art slit works use and also supports the history of artists in this neighborhood. That indoor space is then connected to an outdoor sculpture garden that will be an extension of the gallery and community space during warmer months. It has contextual design that has been had a number of advisory already with the landmarks commission.