The City of Boston zoning board of appeal hearing for December 9, 2025 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 livereamed. In order to ensure this hearing of the board is open to the public, members of
the public may access this hearing through telephone and video conferencing. The information for connecting to this hearing is listed on today's hearing agenda, which is posted on the public notices page of the city's website, boston.gov. Members of the public will enter the virtual hearing as
attendees, which means you will not see yourself on the screen, and you will be muted throughout unless administratively unmuted when asked to comment. Board members, applicants, and their attorneys or representatives will participate in this hearing as panelists, and they will appear alongside the presentation
materials when speaking. Panelists are strongly to encouraged to keep video on while presenting to the board. As with our in-person meetings, comments and support will be followed by comments and 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 alongside 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'll receive a request to unmute yourself. Select yes and you should be able to talk. If you are connected to the hearing by
telephone, please press star 9 to raise and lower your hand. You must press star six to unmute yourself after you receive the request from the host. Those called upon to comment will be asked to state their name and address first and then can provide their comment. In the interest of time and to ensure
that you have enough time to do so, please raise your hand as soon as Mr. Stebridge reads the address into the record. Do not raise your hand before the relevant address is called or the meeting host will not know to call on you at the appropriate time. We ask that you keep your comments brief and all public testimony will be limited to 90
seconds for speaker. That Mr. Stembridge. >> Good morning, Madam Chair. Present. >> Good morning, Mr. Valencia. >> Good morning, Madam Sher. Present. >> Good morning, Miss Turner.
>> Good morning, Madam Chair. Present. >> Good morning, Miss Barbraza. >> Madam Chair, present. >> Good morning, Miss Weell. >> Good morning, Madam Chair. Present. >> Good morning, Mr. Langum. >> Good morning, Madam Chair. Present.
>> Good morning. The floor is yours. Mr. Stumbridge. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. We'll begin today's hearing with the approval of hearing minutes scheduled for 9:30. These hearing minutes the hearing are
from the dates as follows. October 23rd, October 28th, October, I'm sorry, November 6th, November 18th, and November 25th, all of 2025.
I will make a motion to for approval of the minutes. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Mr. Stumbridge? >> Yeah. >> Mr. Valencia? >> Yes. >> Miss Turner? >> Yes. >> Miss Weell?
>> Yes. >> Mr. Langum? >> Yes. >> Chair votes? Yes. The motion carries. >> I don't think you mentioned I don't think you asked for me, Madam Chair. I'm so sorry, Miss Better Braza.
>> Yes. >> Thank you. Motion carries. >> Next, we'll move on to the extensions scheduled for 9:30 a.m. All the extensions appear to be reasonable. I'll read them in one after the other. Um, if
there are any questions after that, we can address those to Madam Chair and take a vote. We'll begin with case BOA1341467 with the address of 3407 to 3409 Washington Street.
Next we have case BOA1341344 with the address of 635 Hard Park Avenue. Next we have case BOA1371277 with the address of 1180 Washington Street. And and next we have case BOA
1485817 with the address of 521 Cambridge Street. And those are the extensions that we have for today. >> Are there any questions from the board? Hearing none. May I have a motion to grant the extensions as requested?
>> Motion to grant the extensions as requested. >> May I have a second? >> Second. >> Thank you, Mr. Stebridge. >> Yes. >> Mr. Valencia? >> Yes. >> Miss Turner? >> Yes. >> Miss Better Braza? >> Yes.
>> Miss Weo? >> Yes. >> Mr. Langum? >> Yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Next we have board final a board final operative case scheduled for 9:30. This is case BOA
1679542 with the address of 23 NIM Street. If the applicant andor their representative are present, would they please explain to the board? >> Madam Chair, I need to recuse myself. >> Thank you. So, we are a six member board
for this case. Is Mr. Frasier or someone else on for 23 Noddingham? Hey Jesus, do you see any raised hand for this? >> No, madam. >> Let me Okay, >> let me let me type. If I see someone, I
will let you know. No. And see. >> Okay. Well, then let's keep going. >> We'll do. We will go to the groundwater conservation overlay district case
scheduled for 9:30 a.m. This is case BOA 179 5138 with with the address of 146 to 150 Mil Street. If the applicant's hand and
their representative are present, would they please explain to the board? >> Uh good morning. Thanks for the introduction. My name is David Lenpart with Coolson and Stores at one post office square on behalf of Windgate the proponent and we do have the proponent
and the project team available if there are questions. Uh so good morning madam chair and board members. Uh that we we this project at 150 Milk or also known as 75 Central Street is part of the
planning department's downtown office to residential conversion program. And so as as noted in the short description, it's a conversion of existing office space to 18 multif family units. It's consistent with inclusionary zoning. So,
it has three affordable units and uh the ground floor in addition to having residential amenities will be activated with continued commercial use. Uh the the the project itself just went through small project review. It received its small project review vote
on November 13, 20 uh 2025. And uh I'm actually I'm not getting into too many details about the project other than that explanation because the only item of zoning relief is is GCOD is the um you know Brower Con conservation
overlay district. We're we're a substantial rehabilitation and actually under the the current zoning just the site was just reszoned substantial rehabilitations would be processed through ISD directly although
we filed previously under the you under the prior zoning where this does need approval from the court of appeals. over here and uh we're we're mainly coming to explain that we've we're we're intending to install a compliant rainwater
infiltration system and we've submitted the Boston water and sewer compliance letter and also our project engineers no harm certification to show that the infiltration system will be consistent with GCOD standards. And uh with that
we'd ask for your approval vote. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions from the board? Is Mr. Simmonelli on? >> Yes, Madam Chair. Good morning, members of the board. Christian Simmonelli, Boston Ramen Trust. And we have both G-Cod letters from the applicant.
>> Thank you so much. Uh with that, may I have a motion? >> Go ahead. Go ahead. >> Madam Chair, I'd like to perform a motion of approval for Chica. >> Thank you. Is there a second? >> Second. Mr. Thumbbridge.
>> Yes. >> Thank you, Mr. Valencia. >> Yes, sir. >> Miss Turner, >> yes. >> Miss Brazza, >> yes. >> Miss Leewell, >> yes. >> Mr. Langum, >> yes.
>> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. >> Thank you. Next, we have recommendations scheduled for 9:30 a.m. either from the subcommittee on Thursday, December 4th. I'll read through. All of them were
approved. I'll read through and then we can vote. We begin with case BOA 175494. with the address of 97 Power Street. That was approved.
Next, we have case BOA 178331 with the address of One Hustle Street, which was approved. Next, we have case BOA 177 2325 with the address 232 to 234 Commercial
Street, which Next we have case BOA 1764 03 the address of 80 850 to 852 Summer Street.
Next we have case BOA 1757382 with the address of 79 Sheridan Street. This was approved provos that nothing be built on the adjoining property
uh going across the line and for uh planning department design. Next we have case BOA 1757478 with the address of 74 street.
Then we have case BOA 17774658 with the address of 12 L Street. Next we have the case BOA 1784562. The address is 26 Wood.
And finally, we have BOA 1787374 with the address of 71 anam chair case of any questions from the board.
>> May I have a motion? >> Approved. Second, >> Mr. Stembridge. >> Yes. >> Mr. Valencia. >> Yes. >> Miss Turner. >> Yes. >> Miss Better Braza.
>> Yes. >> Miss We >> Yes. >> Mr. Langum. >> Yes. >> Votes. Yes. Motion carries. Next, we'll move on to the hearings scheduled for 9:30 a.m. begin with asking if there are any
request for withdrawals or deferrals from the 9:30 a.m. time frame. >> Mr. Lass. >> Yes, please. >> Uh, Mr. Stbridge, 3430-3436 Washington Street.
That will be for case BOA 1765915 with the address of 3430 to 3436 Washington Street. Go ahead, turn. >> Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. Mark Lass, Lcast Law, 75
Arlington Street in Boston, attorney for the applicant. Um, this is one of two companion cases involving two new buildings on the Washington Street Jamaica plane that had been approved by the planning department in July of this year, but only one of them was advertised for today. I spoke to
Stephanie this morning and she indicated they would be able to readvertise for u this case and the second companion case 3440 Washington Street for hearing on January 13, 2026 at 11:30 a.m.
So that is what I'm requesting. >> Thank you. May I have a motion? >> Motion to defer the this case to January 13, 2026. May I have a second? >> Second. >> Mr. Stebridge.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Valencia. >> Yes. >> Miss Turner. >> Yes. >> Miss Better Braza. >> Yes. >> Miss. We >> Yes. >> Mr. Lang. >> Yes. >> Motion carries. See you then.
>> Thank you so much. Are there any further requests for withdrawals or deferrals from the 9:30 a.m. time frame? With that, then we'll move we'll begin with case BO81769549 with the address of five West Hill
Place. If the applicant andor their representative are present, will they please explain case to the board? Yes. Uh, good morning, Mr. Stimbridge and, uh, members of the board. My name is Timothy Burke. I'm the architect for the project, and with me today is also
the owners. Uh, Lindy and Jay Johnson are on the call. The, um, Johnson's live in this building. It's a three-unit condominium. There is a fourth condominium unit that has been on the assessor's roles for 40 years, but has never been made a a dwelling unit. So,
we're seeking permission to convert the um existing basement space to a studio apartment. It's going to be uh owned by the Lindy and Jay. It's really used for when their daughter visits them from uh she lives abroad. So, the um idea was to
make use of this um underutilized space. It creates another dwelling unit with a minimal amount of work and very little impact. There's no changes to the exterior. We do need relief because we're creating a new unit for off- streetet parking which we have no way to
provide here. And also the F goes to 2.1 which it's uh 2.0 is the allowable in this district. Um the last uh sheet shows the um plan of the unit and um I'd be happy to answer
any questions that you may have. >> Thank you. Are there any questions from the board? Hearing none. May I have public testimony? >> Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Sigy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This applicant
has completed the community process. Our office hosted an abutters meeting on September 29th at which no concerns were raised. The Beacon Hill Civic Association is in non oppoition to this application. That background, our office defers judgment to the board. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Good morning, chair, members of the
board. My name is Lily. I'm here on behalf of Councelor Durkin. Um after connecting with BHCA, she would like to go on record in support of this application. Thank you, >> Madam Chair. There are no additional comments. >> Okay. With that, may I have a motion?
>> Madam Chair, like to put forward a motion of approval. >> May I have a second? >> Second. >> Mr. Stebridge? >> Yes. >> Mr. Valencia? >> Yes. >> Miss Turner? >> Yes. >> Miss Better Braza?
>> Yes. is we will >> yes. >> Mr. Lang, >> yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good. >> Thank you very much. >> Next we have case BOA 1694621
with the address of 562 East 5th Street. If the applicant and the the representative are present, will they please explain to the board? >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Stebridge, Madam Chair, members of the board, attorney
Ryan Spitz with Adams and Morancey, uh, business address of 1688 Street, First Floor, South Boston. Uh, joining me today is Alex Gibson from the development team and the project architect, Eric Zack. This is a proposal to preserve and renovate the existing
historic structure and erect a new three-story addition to contain a total of four units with four parking spaces located in the rear. This parcel consists of approximately 5,361 square ft. Proposal falls within an MFR subdist and is aligned with the area
stated planning goals, medium density infill housing, preserving a historic structure, and increasing the availability of housing options under Boston 2030. I'd also like to mention the applicant uh prior to filing this application with inspectional services department has had preliminary
conversations with the landmarks commission regarding the design. Hence um after working through those uh design conversations uh this is the plan that was actually filed u along with the substantial changes that were made going through the community process. The
existing structure will contain unit one while the addition will contain units 2 3 and 4. Unit one will contain approximately 1435 ft and 485 ft of basement space which will be a 3bedroom. Unit 2 will be approximately 1980 ft²
located on the first floor of the addition. It will be a two-bedroom. Unit 3 located on the second floor of the addition will contain 1340 ft² which will also be another two-bedroom. And unit 4 located on the third floor of the addition will contain approximately 1325
ft will be another twobedroom. We have violations for the roof structure restriction which is a conditional use permit being sought as the building is partially being demolished in the rear and the addition exceeds the front building's height but is below the 40ft requirement under article 68 as this
proposal is at 32 ft in total height. The extension into the rear yard of 1,000 square feet or more is another conditional use permit as the addition extends into the rear yard by by more than 1,000 square feet but does not trigger any violation for the rear yard setback as the rear yard setback is
currently 33 ft and 20 ft is what is required under this subd district. Further, the proposed F is at a 1.37 which is well under the 2.0 requirement under article 68. We have a parking insufficiency code requires 1.5 parking spaces per new unit of housing. And this
proposal calls for four total spaces, but is aligned with the mayor's initiative of reducing dependency on private vehicles. Further is aligned with the transportation department's recommended parking ratios for the area being 1 one. Lastly, we have a screening and buffering violation as the parking
spaces are less than 5t from the lot lines. However, this can be addressed uh during design review if approved. Um, and then also I just like to end, Madam Chair, with this proposal is well aligned with the planning department's recommendation of approval. Uh, at this point I'm going to turn it over to you
for any questions or comments. >> Thank you. Are there any questions from the board? Hearing none, may I have public testimony. >> Madam Chair and board members, C Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This applicant has completed the community process. Our office hosted
an abuters meeting in March of 2025 after which the proposal was substantially reworked. A follow-up of Butters meeting was held on August 7th, 2025 at which concerns remained about parking. The Gate of Heaven Neighborhood Association is in non opposition to this proposal. Our office also aware that the
applicant forwarded a letter of support for their original version of their proposal in March to the board. That background, we defer judgment to the board. Thank you. >> Thank you. Next we have Ashley. >> Thank you. At this time, Councelor Flynn
would also like to highlight for the board that at the outset of the community process, there was overwhelming concern that a six-story four unit building did not fit in with the character of the surrounding neighborhood on East Fifth Street and beyond. But since that time, the project
has evolved and has been significantly from six units down to four units with four parking spots. The height reduced from over 43 feet to match the existing roof at 31 ft side and rear yard setbacks increased far reduced
significantly. The rear stair enclosed and parking in the exterior. As a result, councelor Flynn understands that these number of changes have alviated a number of concerns from nearby neighbors of others and civic organizations. Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you, Madam Chair. There are no additional comments. >> Okay. that. May I have a motion? >> I put forward a motion of approval. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Mr. Stbridge?
>> Yes. >> Mr. Valencia? >> Yes. >> Miss Turner? >> Yes. >> Miss Better Braza? >> Did we? >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you, Miss Weell. Yes, >> Mr. Lang.
>> Yes, >> chair votes. Yes. The motion carries. Good luck. >> Thank you. >> Next, we have case BOA 176 00013 with the address of 110 West Conquered
Street. If the applicant andor their representative are present, will they please explain the case to the board? >> Yes. Good morning. It's uh Marcus Springer of Springer Architects from 46 Walam Street, Courtyard 1, Boston, Mass
02118. Uh this project is for a roof deck on the a top the rear living room structure of the of the main building. Uh it will be spanning over the existing
copper roof. Uh the intent is to demolish the existing salarium, that kind of white structure on the back, and create an access stair on that to the deck above.
We go to the next one. Uh the zoning code refusal is for restricted roof structures and we uh we met with the landmark commission on site uh and received a
certificate of exemption from them. It's not viewable from any street and the street it's on is exempt. Uh we had in the Butters meeting on August 26th. Um there were no um reservations about
the project during that meeting. And these are the plans. So off the living room you would have basically an access stair and an office. If you go to the next basically it's it's an access stair to the deck above. Uh the deck
will be canle levered uh over the copper roof. Uh and that's it. Clad in red cedar. Okay. >> Questions from the questions from the board. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Then there's the structural plans and then at the very
end there are 14 letters of support. Uh four of which uh are from directs. >> Are there questions from the board? I think what I um what I'm what I'm missing is um typically and sometimes it's presented at the South End Landmark
District is a section showing uh whether the structure is visible from across the street. Um it seems like that kind of drawing or diagram is missing, but you mentioned that it's you cannot see it from across the street.
>> That's correct. Do you have drawings that display that or can can you indicate in the roof how far off it is from the front? >> Um, how do you mean how far off it is from the front?
>> How what's the offset from from the front? The roof itself. >> Yeah. >> Um, it it's roughly a foot above the roof. >> Can you show us where it is in a roof plant?
Um yes, go back to the drawings. >> So this the this plan of the deck is is directly above the copper roof below. And then if you go to the elevations >> there you see. >> Yeah. So I can't see it in context like
where is this penthouse relative to the overall building? >> Oh, I see what you mean. uh if you go to the >> and and that's how typically you would you know you usually would show a section showing how you know how visible it is from across but so I'm just
missing that drawing but you know that being said um it would be great to have Jeff Hampton or someone from BPD because uh their recommendation was denial you know due to an interest in having a hatch versus a penthouse. Um, and it
seems like the architect already kind of put this forward in front of Southoun Landmark and received kind of you say initial approval. >> It was a letter of exemption. Um, the area in question is not in the South End
Landmark's purview. >> Okay. So, it would be great to hear from BPD. >> Yes, he was on my list. Are there any other questions from the board? Okay. Is Mr. Hampton on? >> Uh, yes. Thanks. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. Jeff Hampton, uh,
City of Austin Planning Department. Uh, Miss Better Barz, I agree with you without that cross-section. Um, we had a very difficult time u wrapping our head around the height, whether or not it was going to be visible from the street. Um, to what extent is this head house going
to be above the roof? Uh, and that is why we recommended denial. As you know, you know, we're not really one to, >> you know, stand in the way of something like this, especially if Landmarks gives it the exemption, >> but because we were missing that cross-section and the elevation, that's
why we went with the recommendation of den. >> Oh, I see what you mean. So, yeah, it it's over the first floor and the building's four stories high. So, you you wouldn't see it at all. >> Right. And that's just something that wasn't part of it. So, we didn't know if it was going up four stories or one story.
>> Oh, I see what you mean. Sorry about that. I get you. Yeah, >> that's why I guess you weren't understanding what what else >> I didn't I didn't talking about. Yeah, >> when you were saying the roof, we didn't know if there was a four-story extension going up over that. >> Oh, no. No, the the living room's on the
first floor. It's just the first floor. >> Okay. Um, so I so I think um I think I heard enough. That would be great. That sounds great for explaining. Thank you so much. >> Any other questions from the board?
May I have public testimony? >> Yes. Hi. Uh, my name is Dr. Mohammed and I live in unit 2 at 112 West Conquered Street directly next door. >> Oh, you're muted. You just muted yourself. >> Sorry about that. Yes. Um, my name is
Mom Tamed and I live in unit 2 at 112 West Conquered Street directly next door to the proposed roof deck. I strongly oppose the project. First, the tech would sit immediately adjacent to our living space, eliminating our privacy and exposing us
to frequent noise in a very dense neighborhood. Second, we rely on two fire escape routes from our unit and one of them exits onto the roof at 112 West Conquer. The proposed deck could block this staircase
um with the proposed deck and enclosed staircase could block this emergency escape path creating a significant safety concern. Third, the proposal will negatively impact our property value and quality of life through loss of privacy, increased
noise and obstruction of natural lights and views, including seasonal sunset exposure that we currently enjoy. Finally, uh the rooftop use typically includes grilling. Any barbecue activity will direct uh will direct smoke and odors into our windows, making it difficult to
use and ventilate our home. For these reasons, I respectfully ask the board to deny this request. Thank you. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. >> Any other any other hands?
Okay. Can the applicant briefly respond to those concerns? >> Um, yes, I can. The fire escape is is not blocked. The the deck uh ends and provides for the escape from that
window. Uh so the the fire escape um system is left intact. Uh the wall next to 112 is largely solid uh except for that uh window that he was talking about which is the fire escape
um which I mentioned does not change. Um so that escape hatch is there. The uh the wall of 112 between 112 and 110 is a solid brick wall and uh a metal clad
wall which uh is is not affected by the access stair to the deck in terms of the sun path. uh the the stair is articulated in such a way to minimize the mass uh to just
follow the stair itself. >> Any other questions from the board? >> I'm sorry, Madam Chair, members of the board, my Zoom crashed. I can provide my testimony if you'd like to, >> please. >> Um my name is Eva Jones. I'm representing the mayor's office of
neighborhood services regarding 110 West Conference Street. Our office defers the board's judgment. A community process was conducted, including an abuters meeting held on 82625 that was likely attended by two South End community members who did not provide any questions or feedback. My office has
also received the 14 letters of support from the applicant that were submitted to the board and the proposal was not in the catchment area of any local civic associations and was not asked to meet with any regarding this proposal. At this time, the mayor's office of neighborhood services defers to the board's judgment on this matter. Thank
you everyone. >> Thank you. Any other questions from the board? >> Hearing none. Is there a motion? I I I'd like to put forward a motion um to defer the case uh to allow the
applicant to submit uh two two drawings I think would clarify for me at least to review the project in its whole um which would be the cross-section just to look at where the addition is in relationship to the
building the whole building and the second drawing would be to um to do kind of an egress um uh drawing to show that the egress is remaining and that the structure does not interfere with the
egress which I cannot see identified in the existing drawings. >> That's fine. >> Is there a second? >> Second. And I think this is an opportunity for the for the applicant to talk to a neighbor and figure out how they can improve the project.
Okay. So, I heard a motion and a second. Mr. Stebridge, >> yes. >> Mr. Valencia, >> yes. >> Miss Turner, >> yes. >> Miss Better Braza, >> yes. >> Miss Weel, >> yes.
>> Mr. Langum, >> yes. >> Chair votes yes. Motion carries. Uh, is there a date? >> Yes. Madam >> Chair, we're into February of the deferrals. We have February 3rd or February 24th. Mr. Spreader, >> February 3rd's fine. Thank you.
>> All right. Thank you. See you then. >> Byebye. >> Next, we have case BOA 168948 with the address of 47 Dell Avenue. If the applicant and or their representative are present, would they
please explain to the board? >> Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Stumbrbridge Anthony Mackey architect for 47 Dell Avenue. This project is an existing three family um in the jacket. It's been used historically and taxed
historically as a 4unit building. Um this application is part of a comprehensive renovation of the building which includes a full gut and rebuild. Uh the proposal is for to make the uh building illegal for family and it
includes uh rear porches, side porch, um a head house at the top of the building which includes a front deck at the roof and a rear deck at the roof. Um we are removing the existing stair system inside of the building just due to its
condition and it's sort of dangerous. The proposed is for a new stairway, four new units, one bedroom, rear decks, and then a side deck there as you can see. And I'll go through the
violations. U insufficient rear yard setback uh due to the addition of um rear porch, insufficient lot area per unit. We're hoping to make up for this with the um decks to be serviced uh per unit. And
then since we're adding a U unit, we need a parking space. We do not have room for that currently. And we are adding a head house here. Um the existing height of the building is 36'2
in. The proposed height is 47 ft. We've done a similar renovation at 55 Dell Avenue. Um it came out very well. It has it also has a head house there and um it looks very very nice. Uh we've performed the uh our barters meeting. No
objections were heard at that time and we also met with community alliance of Mission Hill. Um no objections were heard at that time either. Um I think that's u the project. >> Any questions from the board?
>> Hearing none. May I have public testimony? Madame chair and members of the board, Sigy Johnson with the office of neighborhood services. This applicant has completed the community process. Her office hosted an abutters meeting on June 25th at which its were supportive of the proposal. The community alliance
of Mission Hill is in support of this application and our office has also forwarded two letters of support to the board. That background we defer judgment to the board. Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Madame Chair. There are no additional comments. >> Oh, sorry. I would like to chime in. My name is Lily. I'm here on behalf of
councelor Durkin. Um she would like to go on record in support reiterating CAMH's strong support for the project. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. With that, there are no additional comments. >> Okay. May I have a motion?
>> Motion of approval with uh planning uh review from the planning department. >> A second. Mr. Sbridge. >> Yes. >> Mr. Valencia. >> Yes. Miss Turner, >> yes.
>> Miss Better Barza, >> yes. >> Miss Weel, >> yes. >> Mr. Mr. Langum, >> yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, members of the board.
>> The next case has been deferred. So that takes us to case BOA 1554854. The address is 69R Parent Street. The applicant and their representative present
the case to the board. Uh good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Tim Longden, 1A Treetop Circle in North. I'm the owner of 69R Parents Street Roxberry. I'd first like to offer some background on
the site and explain this proposal in that context. Uh, this site 69R Parent Street was originally a portion of a much larger parcel, 67 Parent Street, which I purchased in March of 2023. I subdivided that lot into three separate
parcels. Uh, the first was 67 Parent Street where I rehabilitated an existing three family home. The second was 71 Parent Street where I built a zoning compliant three family. And the last was this parcel subject parcel 69R 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 non-standard lot. The parcel is 640 ft and is in a 3F4000 zoning subdist
making the proposed three family dwelling perfectly suitable to the site. But owing to the unique geography of this site and its location behind the two other parcels I developed on Parent Street, zoning relief was required to accomplish what would otherwise like 71
Parent Street be a zoning compliant building. The zoning refusal letter was issued owing to four cited violations. First, there is a floor area ratio violation. I'm actually not certain this violation was correctly cited. The
maximum F under zoning is8 here. Unit one and unit 2 are each 1,360 ft and unit 3 is 1,413 ft for a total of 4,133 ft plus approximately 100 additional
square ft of 9 unit area. 4,832 ft are allowed by zoning. If the examiner counted the basement space, which has been marked unfinished, uh it would likely exceed allowable F, but only to a very small extent. There's a
cited front yard setback violation. The required setback is 20 ft, while the front of this building is approximately 14 ft 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 ft away from its rear lot line. There is a cited rear yard insufficiency. The required setback is 30 ft whereas the provided setback varies from approximately 11 to 12 ft. 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 again by the perpendicular geometry of the lot and is unavoidable in order to allow reasonable
three family development of a lot that meets minimum lot size requirements. Also, there's a violation arising from lack of screen and buffering of the building's three-spot parking area. If the board were to see fit to approve this, we would 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. Finally, I wish to point out that the fire lane access from Bert Nav was reviewed and approved by the Boston Fire Department and is stamped on the site
plan is complying with 527 CMR. Thank you. >> Thank you. So, so can you clarify? You mentioned burnt nav. So, uh, does this property will this property be exiting from Burton A or onto Perin? Like if I'm
if I'm a resident there, how am I how am I accessing my unit? >> So, uh, when I spoke in front of the community, um, they wanted to, well, actually two reasons. One, the community rather have vehicular access come from to and from Bernav. Uh, and secondly, the only fire lane access we could
provide was from Bernav. So that means if I'm I live there, I'm walking into my unit from Burton now. But that's my question. >> Yes. I mean there would be a pedestrian access from 16 from uh Parent Street. Um but we are going to put up a fence. Uh
so there would be a a you know pedestrian pass through but um as far as parking and car access it would all come from BNA. >> Thank you. Other questions from the board? Hearing
none, may I have public testimony? >> Madame chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Benbury. I'm the Roxbury community engagement specialist for the Office for Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process, which consisted of an abundance waiting facilitated on April 28th. That was very
well attended, but not very well received by the community. Abuers felt the proposal, although reduced from six to three units, was still too large for the neighborhood and the parcel. Abuers and residents of the community felt the area is already too dense and congested and will increase the traffic and parking issues currently experienced by
the neighborhood with the proposal having access to both Burton and Parent Street as well as a concern uh for excuse me as well as a concern for college students moving into the area. The civic leader who oversees Roxberry Path Forward Neighborhood Association has had issues with the college students
renting out in the area and is concerned that the developer will continue to rent out to college students. Next, the proponent presented to nine street today association on October 20th where voters again felt the proposal although reduced from six to three units was still too large for the proposal for the for the
parcel. Our office has received three letters of opposition. Uh I will read a brief description of two as they have been sent to the board for review. Our office has received one letter from Nashville's United Neighborhood Association, Alaska Parent Association, and Project, right requesting to not
allow a cutthrough for pedestrians and vehicles to travel between Copeland and Parent Street and to continue to ex for that to continue to exist due to significant public safety issues, as well as requesting a deferral for Burton Avenue residents to be fully engaged in the process. and one from Roxbury path
forward requesting that the proposal be deferred so that the address can be updated to Burton A from parent street for clarity and to ensure that the correct group of residents are made aware of the project. The civic has dealt with a proponent in the past with parent street which was built as of right. Thank you for your time and the mayor's office of neighbor services
would like to defer to the board for their judgment. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Next we have a Lorine Payne. >> Hello. I'm here today on behalf of Roxberry Path Forward Neighborhood Association and um as um uh Jeremy um
said we are very concerned that this project only entrance would be from Burton AB and I understand that now um the developer or one of the developers because there are three developers but
um one of them has now said that there would be no foot access from there would be no car access from parent street but there would be pedestrian a access but when he came to the meeting at project right that's not what he said and so
we've had this several times with this particular developer that um he comes to the city and says something else so we would like to have this deferred so that we can ensure that the people on Burton
a and Copeland Street because Burton is really like an alley um would have a chance to speak about the project as well. So, thank you very much. >> Thank you, >> Madame Chair. There are no additional comments.
>> Can the developer address those concerns for Mr. Benry and Miss Wheeler? >> Uh yes. So, this has been uh under review of the community, honestly, for the past 18 months. It's possibly could be as long as two years. So, we've tried
to reach out to the um to the homeowners on burn nav. Uh just they're requesting some feedback. Um I tried on two occasions now. Uh and haven't received any. Um we deferred this last year when I had proposed six units. Um due to the
neighborhood feedback, I reduced that to three. Uh and as far as the uh pedestrian access from Parent Street, that is a life safety issue. So that was with the fire department. When we decided on the vehicular access uh from
Burton A uh as far as the fire lane, we could put up the fence uh to reduce uh so that that there wouldn't be any vehicular cut through uh from Burton A to Parent Street. Um but we did need to have a pedestrian exit uh for the folks
uh at 69R Parent Street uh in case of emergency. So um we can lock it uh so there wouldn't be access from parent street and the only way to uh utilize that door would be from 69R Parent Street in case of emergency. Um but we
do need we can't just put up a fence and uh and restrict um pedestrian access uh per the fire department. >> Other questions from the board? >> Uh yes, Madam Chair. Um my understanding
is Burton Street um is a private way. >> Yes. Now um so who's responsible for maintaining that? >> Uh we would have responsibility along with the other residents on BNA.
>> Um would it remain a private way or would it be become a city street? >> Uh it would remain a private way I think until it was you know if somebody proposed uh something to PIC. Um but for
now we would remain a private way. >> And I'm so um if I heard you correctly, you said you reached out to people on BNAV and you got no response. >> Yeah, we got no response. I did I did
that twice. Um I was asked to do it. Um I met with Nine Streets United a few times over the past couple months uh just sort of checking in and um I had mailed sent mailers out twice and uh received nothing. So and they they had also there was no one
from Burton who had attended the community meetings. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Any other questions from the board? Hearing none. Is there a motion?
>> Should I make a motion of approval with planning department review? >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Mr. Stebridge. >> I'm going to say no. Madame Chair, um I
believe the changes are I understand that the residents on Bernie haven't been reached out to, but I believe this needs um you need to hear from someone on that street, that private way, whatever. So, um I So, I'll
just leave it there and say no. >> Thank you, Mr. Valencia. >> Yes, >> Miss Turner. >> No. um for reasons of I would hope for a better community process. I agree with Mr. Stembridge and also I know that
there are concerns um around people who live on Copeland AB as well. Um so I'd like to encourage uh the applicant to to reach out to those folks as well. Miss Barazzo. >> Yes.
>> Miss We >> Mr. Langum. >> I'm going to vote no, too. >> The chair votes no. The motion does not carry. >> Is there another motion? >> Motion of deferral, Madam Chair.
>> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Mr. Stebridge. >> Yes. >> Mr. Valencia? >> Yes. Miss Turner, >> yes.
>> Miss Better Braza, >> yes. >> Miss Weell, >> yes. >> Mr. Langum, >> yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. So,
>> February February 3rd or February 24th? >> Does that February 3rd? >> Which one? February 3rd. >> I'm sorry. February 3rd. >> Okay. Okay. And does that give you sufficient time for the additional outreach that the board has >> Yes.
>> recommended? Okay. >> See you then. >> Thank you. >> Next we have case BOA173 0685 with the address of 10 Heckler Street.
If the applicants and or their representative are present, would they please explain the case to the board? >> Is there any? >> Yeah. No, I was going to say Chris Weiss is the applicant for this project here.
I don't see anybody for this project at the moment. >> Well, and then come back to it. >> Mhm. >> Okay. So, um so we'll move on for now to
case BOA 173 3253 with the address of 53 Brown Avenue. If the applicant and nor their representative present, will they please respond?
>> Uh my name is Timothy Sheen. I'm at Nine Wall Street in Charletown. I'm the architect for the project. My client, uh Fred is the builder. He's on as well. Um basically what we want to do is put a single family house on this lot. Um it's
an existing lot. It's an existing undersized parcel. It's 35 ft wide and the majority of the houses are 50 or 55. Um, but there it's adjacent to another 35 ft parcel and two houses away there's
also a 37T parcel with almost identical house on it. So just in in particular the house itself what we want to do is create a 30 38 I'm sorry. Yeah, 32 3294 gross square
feet, which puts us over on the F. But what we're trying to do is build a threetory um two main stories and a gable story with a master. It'll be four bedrooms, four baths. Um the big difference from number 45 down the street, which is very similar, is we don't want to have the
parking at the front. So, we've turned it around from the ADA street side. So, we have two garage spaces under a deck and then there's a 50- foot driveway which they could park in as well. I I suppose um my client has dealt with the West Village Neighborhood Association.
Um there's a you know some landscaping issues as well. Um and we've worked with them on this as well. And as far as the violations go, um we have few of them here. Our refusal letter had
lot area insufficient. Um it's a 4200 square foot lot. The 6,000 minimum. Um the width is at 35 ft. It's under the 50 required. Uh sideyards have to be 10 ft. Uh we have a 22 1/2 ft
wide house on a 35 ft lot. So right and left are like 6.2 and 6.3. And then yeah, frontage I talked about frontage is at 35 ft. Um our neighborhood process has gone well so far. Like I said, we dealt with the West Village neighbor the
neighbors association. Um, and basically mostly about landscaping and that's the project. Uh, any questions? Please, please let me know. >> Thank you. Are there any questions from the board? >> Um, yes, I have a question.
>> So, landscaping issues. I understand there's a there's a maple tree. >> Yeah. >> On the project. Can you talk a little bit about how you would like deal with the tree and the other landscaping issues if there are any? >> Unfortunately, that sugar maple is right in the middle of the site. You know,
it's a 24in caliber tree. So, we'd remove that one. There's another existing 18-in caliber sugar maple at the back right looking from Brown A. So, we could keep that. Um, and our plan was to add three trees. Uh, in the front we do a flowering dogwood on the back to,
you know, looking from Ada Street to the right. we could get in a Japanese cherry and a Japanese and a Japanese elova. And then I' I've got ver, you know, various plantings. We went back and forth with the neighbors, you know, with the association a bit, but we got to the point where we had a plan that they were
happy with. Um, and that's where we do, like I said, that tree in the middle, it's almost directly in the middle of the site and the root ball, it's got to be out, you know, covering 50% of the lot. So, there's just no way to save that tree in the middle. But, we could save the other existing goodsized u 18inch caliber sugar maple. We'll keep
that. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Any other questions from the board? >> Is there an existing curb cut for you to have uh access to the rear >> the back? Um I don't believe so. No, I I
I can just look on Google Earth real quick. In the back >> because you there's no >> not in the front. I mean in the back. Yeah, in the back. Well, we're doing the parking from the back and there's really no parking there, >> right? But it so I don't see a cur I don't see in your block plan.
>> Oh, >> I don't think there's a sidewalk there. >> Uh my client's speaking. I don't know if you can hear him. >> There's a Hi, good morning. >> Thanks for >> There is not a sidewalk in the back. It's >> That's right. >> coming off of Ader. It's It would be repaved going in there, but currently
there is not a sidewalk or curb cut necessary. Is it is it um is it flush or you know do you have to create a curb cut? >> Um not necess well to create the driveway you would to have a curve a
quote unquote curb cut. However the driving into the case >> could speak up sir. >> It's basically it's basically >> and it's a private road. Being a private road, we would create it just like the normally, but the the curb cut per se just comes in flush with the
grade. >> Is it currently um I think I said existing asphalt. Is it currently being used as a parking space? >> Yes. >> What's that? I'm sorry. >> Are you currently using it as surface parking?
>> Yes, there's surface parking on both sides of the existing uh house next door. 55 Brown Avenue is a twocar garage which is next door separate lot completely separate lot and being the private road we're going to make a similar approach to our under uh garage
under um I don't have any further questions thank you >> thank you are there any other questions from the board may I have public testimony >> madam chair and members of the board for the record my name is Jeremy Benbury I'm
the Roslandale community engagement specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process which consisted of an abuters meeting facilitated on July 8th where abuters voiced concerns and two abuters voiced opposition to the proposal in line with many of the concerns of the abutters. Abuers felt the lot is too small in the
area is too dense and too congested and also voiced concerns of pocketing the increased traffic. Another concern was water runoff and groundwater and how it will adversely affect the foundations of abuted properties coupled with another concern which was the lack of green space and trees which will exacerbate the groundwater concern and may cause
more flooding some residents already experienced. Because of this concern, the butters requested to maintain the current green space and trees on the property. A director voter voiced concerns for setbacks as a distance from their button home is less than required leaving the proposal encroaching on their property. Next, the proponent was
connected to West Village Neighborhood Association where a landscaping plan was submitted that the neighborhood association felt was a good compromise to compensate for the loss of the 100-year-old sugar maple tree in the community process was completed. Thank you for your time and the mayor's office of neighborhood services would like to defer to the board for their judgment.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Madam Chair. There are no additional comments. Okay. >> Any other questions from the board? Is there a motion? M madam chair, I'd like to put forward a
motion of approval with a provisal that the project undergo site plan review with BPD to ensure that a replacement of the trees is an equal because it is a very mature tree that's being removed. >> Is there a second?
>> Second. >> Mr. Fbridge. >> Yes. >> Mr. Valencia. >> Yes. Miss Turner, >> yes. >> Miss Better Braza, >> yes. >> Miss Weel, >> yes.
>> Mr. Langum, >> yes. >> Yes. Motion carries. >> Thank you everybody. Thank you for your time. >> Next we have Jeez.
Uh, next we have case BOA1775452. Try this again. Case BOA1 1775242 with the address of one Hartland Road. If the applicants andor their representative are present, would they please explain the case to the board? >> Uh, yes. Thank you, Mr. Stebridge. Um
morning madam chair, members of the board, attorney John Paulini here on behalf of the proposal at One Hartland Road in West Roxbury. I'm joined today by Antonio Ferrara who is the project proponent. One hotline road, West Roxbury. Zoning is single family 6000.
Lot size is 4,64 uh 545 ft. The proposal is to raise the existing structure which is a vacant um dilapitated eyesore uh building located at 157 Baker Street and in its place build a new threestory
single family house with a onecar attached garage as well as it'll have one additional parking space in front of the garage if it's needed. The new house will be um uh will now face H Heartland Road rather than Vegas Street as the existing house uh does not have a curb
cut opening and we thought it was best to utilize the side street uh to provide safer access to the driveway into the garage. The proposal is to build a four bedroomedroom 2 and 1 halfb uh house. It will be approximately 2157
ft of living space. Our violations were F allowed as four. We're at 4.4. 46 lot area 6,4645 frontage is 60 we're 5766 front yard setback is 20 required we're
18 and then rear yard setback is 30 and 12 on the rear yard setback um the rear of the house the the property that it butts um on Baker Street on that side of their house they have approximately an 18t driveway so between the two of them
it is you know well off of that house and uh that butter who is the most impacted has has signed a letter of support um uh and submitted that to the board. If you look to the plans on page one of the plans that are included uh this is just a site plan showing the new
houses orientation as well as the dimensional setbacks. Page two is a front elevation of the home. Page three is the left side elevation. Four is the right is the rear elevation.
Five is the right side elevation. And page six is the basement plan which will be unfinished and used to house the home's mechanicals. Page seven is the first floor FL floor plan, excuse me, showing a kitchen uh dining room uh
living room half bath and the location of the garage. Page eight uh is the second floor plan which will have three beds and two baths. And page nine is the attic plan which includes a bedroom. The proposal went through a full community process culminating with our presentation to the West Roxbury
neighborhood council where the proposal received full support. Additionally, we have provided the uh board with approximately 12 letters of support from all contiguous abuters as well as other neighbors. Um that's a presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions that anybody has.
>> Thank you. Are there questions from the board? >> Yes. I um on the site plot plan, I don't see the curb cut, you know, access to the garage. >> So the um thanks for the question, Mr. Baza. We are uh adding a curb cut on
Harton. We chose that side street is it is obviously less traveled than Baker Street. So, there will be a curb cut that we will um have put in there uh that will provide access to the garage. >> Okay. So, you're going to be putting that permit application for the curb
cut. We're just not seeing it on the side plot plan. >> Yes. >> Okay. Um Okay, great. Thank you. >> You're welcome. Thank you. Any other questions from the board? >> May I have public testimony? >> Madam Chair and board members, Sigy
Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This application has completed the community process. Our office hosted in a butters meeting on October 15th and a butter supported the proposal. A dire raised a concern about the sewer line to their house running through this property from the street. The applicant
met with the West Roxbury neighborhood council which is in support of the application. The applicant has sent 12 form letters of support to the board. Six of the addresses signed on the letters are in the 300t ups radius. That background our office defers judgment to the board. Thank you.
Thank you, >> Madam Chair. There are no additional comments. >> Okay. May I have a motion? M >> Madam Chair, um I'm going to just put this project forward with an approval. It's a pretty straightforward project. Um and uh and it seems like it works
with the context of West Roberry in terms of the residential housing stock. There >> second. >> Mr. Stanbridge. >> Yes. Mr. Valencia, >> yes. >> Miss Turner,
>> yes. >> Miss Better Braza, >> yes. >> Miss Weell, >> yes. >> Mr. Langum, >> yes. >> Chair votes, yes. The motion carries. Good luck. >> Thank you everybody.
Next we have case BOA 17772133 with the address of 106 Eastwood Circuit. It's the applicant andor their representative presenc. >> Okay. Thank you Mr. Valencia. We are now
a six member board for this case. >> Uh good morning uh ZBA board. My name is Steven Pedipass. I'm the architect for this particular project. This is an existing the existing house is a non-conforming 1600 ft² house w which is
one and a half currently one and a half stories. We're proposing to extend the house uh up to a second floor and then an attic which would be fully utilized which then brings us under the third story rule under the uh zoning law. the
existing uh set sideyard setback is non-conforming. We are not changing at all the footprint of the house, the footprint of the house remains the same. So all of the all of the yard setbacks remain the same. Uh and of we are
because this is a very small lot adding uh the square footage that we are brings us to the F rule. The addition to the house is only a 1,5500 square ft. Uh the existing house is
1,600 square f feet. And from the street, it has the appearance as any typical 2 and 1/2 story home. Uh the and the rear has a dormer which is a slightly larger than half the length of building and it kicks us into the third
story. Okay. >> Are there questions from the board? Hearing none. May I have public testimony? >> Madam Chair and board members, C. Johnson with the mayor's office of neighborhood services. This applicant has completed the community process. Our office hosted an abunders meeting on
September 25th at which no concerns were raised. The West Roxbury Neighborhood Council is in support of this application. With that background, our office defers judgment to the board. Thank you. >> Thank you. Okay, madame chair. We have one person, Jim Kennedy. You can you
have 90 seconds? >> Yes. Thank you, uh, Madame Chair. Um, for full disclosure, um, I am a plan examiner with the inspectional services department, but I am not giving testimony. I'm giving testimony today as
an abuter. Uh I tried to give testimony at the West Roxberry Neighborhood Council meeting, but um the meeting was supposed to take place at 7:00 p.m. I arrived at 6:50 and the meeting had already concluded. So I do not know why that happened, but now I'm to here to
give uh testimony today. Uh I'm a little concerned uh about the design um being as now the building will have two front doors, a staircase that leads directly to the upstairs where the second floor
appears to have uh what they're calling a wet bar, but it's basically the same size and shape as the kitchen below. Uh my concerns uh obviously there are no other three-story buildings in the neighborhood. Um, you know, I understand
it's it it meets the height requirement in feet, but not in stories. Um, the lot is small. I'm concerned about the F comparison. It's already a pre previously non-conforming structure. This will further uh extend that
non-conformance. But my real true concern and and maybe the applicant might be able to answer this is what are the true uh, you know, design plans for this building? I mean, is this going to become a two family or maybe some kind of a rooming house or Airbnb because the
design kind of speaks to that. So, that was really my biggest concern. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Sure. Uh this is the the current situation >> stopped. The current situation of the family is that uh the two elder parents
>> recording in progress >> live in the house and they are in need of having their a son uh a daughter-in-law and two children uh move in with them because of the pressures of
the economy and whatnot. And so understanding that they wanted a little bit of privacy between the son's family and themselves. And so the arrangement was for the interior design was
basically decided upon uh the way in which you look at it now. Um it was to try to give as much uh separation between the two uh families but at the same time it's being maintained as a single family and is being maintained
with a single family. It's just trying to create a more comfort zone for the three the uh basically three generational family to be able to live together. It this is not the first kind of project that I've done. I've done
other projects in the past where we had 11 bedrooms because we had a four generational family living together. So the number of bedrooms is five. Two in the first floor, three uh two in the first floor, one on the second and two above. Total of five bedrooms. But the
reason why it's arranged the way it is is because we have a multigenerational family basically living together. I don't believe I've not had any discussions with uh with the owner as to whether he intends to divide it into two, but um perhaps she can speak to
that. I believe he's he is uh at the meeting currently. John Conan, >> I don't Hello. Can you hear me? >> Yes, sir. >> Yes. Me and my wife um moved down to the
first floor and we've been living down on the first floor for approximately a few years. Um because not getting older and we don't need to be climbing stairs. We had the whole second floor empty. We were discussing we spend a lot of times with our uh grandchildren or children
that it would be nice to create a space for them. It's only intended for my immediate family and to like give them a hand, you know, in terms of relieving some of their rent pressure, but the intent is for it to remain a single
family home with me and my family living there and just giving them like Steve said, some privacy. Um, it was space that we weren't using anyhow. >> Thank you. Any other questions from the board? May I have a motion?
>> I put forward um a motion of approval with Yeah, I put forward a motion of approval. >> Okay. Is there a second? >> Second, >> Mr. Stumbridge.
Yes, >> Mr. Valencia. Oh, he recuse himself. Mr. Miss Turner. >> Yes, >> Miss Better Braza. >> Yes, >> Miss Weell. >> Yes, >> Mr. Lang.
>> Yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Next, we have two companion cases. The first is case BOA 1747263 with the address of 25 Royal Street.
Along with that, we have case BOA 1747259 with the address of 1 Empire Street. If the applicants andor their representative were present, would they please explain these cases to the board? Good morning, Madame Chair and members
of the board. My name is Paul Rufo, Smith Dougen Cornell and Gallola, 101 Arch Street in Boston. Uh, with me today, uh, I'm an attorney in Boston. With me today is the architect, Steven Chung. Uh, and also the owners owners of
father and son, Aki Olia, O L I A, and Ali Olia. Uh Ali lives uh on Hooker Street, which is around the corner in a building that was developed by his father a number of years ago. So they they uh uh are owners in this immediate
neighborhood and uh have owned this property which is um uh a bit of a four lots together. You can see they're on the site plan. Um and there are two vacant lots that uh one lot 57 Hooker
Street has a two family uh on it which is not going to be affected here. And uh there are two vacant lots which they would like to put uh two three family houses. So just to run you through the violations and I'll turn it over to the architect. Uh oh I'm sorry and just quickly um we did have a robust uh
community process. We had an abutters meeting with thanks to ONS and um we also went to the Austin Civic Association uh presented these projects. Uh I believe uh representative will speak about that was fairly wellreceived. Uh we also went to the
Brighton Austin Improvement Association and got their input. Uh thanks to the input of the director Butters and uh and the neighborhood association we made some tweaks to the project including adding additional open space which you'll hear about. But just quickly, the violations uh would be use. This is a
two family, 5,000 foot zone. We're proposing a three family um triple decker uh style. Uh the dimensions uh setback uh modal front setback uh left side u and rear yard for 25 Royal Street
uh F and lot size. Uh the height uh actually the height is going to be only 31 ft where 35 ft is allowed but the number of stories is 2.5 stories and we're proposing three stories. So we need a a relief for that. And then finally parking uh five parking spaces
would be required for three units and we're providing three off off streetet parking spaces one space per unit. Um if you want the same sim very similar um process for one Empire Street which is uh a butts they but each other on the
rear and Mr. Chun will take you through that. Um, same process. We presented them at the same time. U, since these these actually three properties are going to work together to access one of the parking spaces, as Steven will explain to you, we'll need a uh a uh a
small easement over the 57 Hooker Street uh to access the off streetet parking space, which will be underneath the 25 Royal building. He'll explain that the violations as I say are the same for one Empire Street uh very similar. So that's uh the thumbnail of the uh of the
proposal. I'll turn it over to Stephen to um Steven Chung, our architect to uh walk you through the plans and the and the presentation. Thank you. >> Okay. >> So So sorry Mr. Mr. Chong, just as you're presenting, can you keep in mind two comments from the disabilities
commission and just answer that at the appropriate time during your presentation? Uh they they mentioned that unit A appears to be a basement plus first two level units meeting today. >> Thank you. Uh unit A appears to be a
basement and first floor unit. Uh first floor two-le unit. As this is a ground floor unit, it may uh it must have access accessible route between levels and then it also mentions for 25 Royal Street, what is the accessible route from the parking uh to the entrance. It
should meet all the requirements for an accessible route. So, just to keep that in mind when you're presenting to us and >> uh Okay, can you do you mind just stop right there and thank you members of the board. Good morning. Um yeah, it's for the purpose of this submission. And I
mean, we broke apart the because they're separate lots, but I wish I could show my design drawings which really show the three parcels because the yellow house the left on that rendering is also owned by the by the OAS. And then the the green building that you're looking at is really in question. But then to the left
of that is this other site. And really we looked at this as holistically as kind of a master plan uh replacing that fence that goes around all three properties creating landscaping for all three properties and really tried to think about it holistically. So that was always sort of part of the um the
thinking and then also that there was a previous proposal which was quite a bit larger and I think that I mean I wasn't part of that but just going back through the community um input and really sort of understanding that I think that the the larger building that was proposed earlier I mean was probably the wrong
direction and and really trying to find a typology a scale that was more in keeping with what's around it was really the right approach which is what uh we eventually did. So what you're looking at is as as Mr. Rufo said is a is kind of a triple decker inspired uh block
which is sort of staggered and bumped to follow the follow the the site which is as you see is curving. Um and there's really basically three units one per floor. Um there is parking that's accessed from the left. There's an existing curb cut and we sort of took
that that ramps down underneath the building. the site just happens to slope up. So, it really creates an opportunity where when the ramp goes down, you're able to sort of park underneath underneath that building. So, um if you want to scroll ahead a little
bit, but basically, I mean, I I think that the key things that Paul had mentioned, three stories, it's less than the the what's what's um allowed. And really, they're thousand square foot units typically. These are these are three bedrooms. So, there's the parking that's that's underneath. It's that's
ramping down. And then um and there's three parking for that three that building. And then really the these are all, you know, well, very comfortable three-bedroom apartments with um kind of an attached uh deck balcony similar
you'd see in in triple deckers uh that are in that area. Um I I think that the the meetings we basically just really tried very hard to kind of uh listen and respond to kind of some of the comments about the the expression um which are sort of
vertically oriented windows, clabbered siding really again looking at sort of typology of triple deckers. >> There any questions? Did did some did you want me to address the accessibility issue? Is that >> Yeah, if you could that would be great. So,
um maybe go to the floor plan and again what was the question was >> there was one >> the accessibility was the accessibility issued uh chair dong is on the access
from um the parking to the like the entrance it it there was no comments on the interior So from the parking, I mean there was a stair on the ground floor plan that that that stair that then leads up to the to
the uh main floor. I don't know if that answers it. And then on the ground floor, if you go to the ground floor, there is some >> it's basically what's the accessible route >> from the park to the entrance. Yeah. I mean, >> so what's So I think you're just missing
um um like a route of sorts. Uh you know, I mean it's indoor so I'm not sure what they're looking for specifically because it's not like you have an ADA elevator from inside the parking,
>> right? Yeah. So I I guess I don't really know how to answer other than on the ground floor as you see there because of the topography of the site there is some ramp because that there is some steps of the entry um to get to the lobby and then from the parking I mean it really is just going through the stair or I mean I don't think the ramp is actually
the it's not a desirable path >> for someone that's in a wheelchair or something. Other questions from the board? >> No, but I I could I but chair, I could
um I could include some accessibility in the decision if you like. >> Thank you. Uh okay, let's take public testimony. >> Madame Chair and board members, Sigy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This applicant has completed the community process. Our office hosted
an Abutters meeting on September 10th at which Inabutter raised concerns about the design of the structures and the amount and design of the usable open space. The Alustin Civic Association has sent a letter of support to our office and to the board. With that background, our office defers judgment to the board. Thank you.
>> Thank you, >> Madame Chair. There are no additional comments. >> Hello. >> Yes. >> Um, >> hi. My name is Josh Ging. I'm a local resident. is now the time to speak. >> Uh, are you speaking on this one Empire
or 25 Royal Street? And >> yes. >> Okay. So, state your name and address for the record. And >> I'm Josh Keining. I've moved into 11 Royal Street 5 years ago. This is my first time doing this, so apologies. This is all new to me. Um, but I came
very excited to uh really settle down here and start a family um with the introduction of the link at 525 Lincoln Street. Um, and over the course of the five years I've been here, parking has just really gotten decidedly worse. Uh, to the point where that may be the make or break decision for me to move with my
family elsewhere. Um, that's um, this area has always struggled with owner versus resident ratios and I feel like it's just really hard to get ahead of that as parking is bad and this is kind of just a college town. So, um, I just
it seems like this is has some violations regarding parking. I don't really know all the details of what's going on, but I just saw the flyer came my way. I saw the meeting. I figured I'd mention that parking is definitely a problem. Got a lot worse with the link and it seems like it's going to continue getting worse here. It's hard for me to
find a spot when I get home from work these days and I really got to get home early to find a spot. Whereas when I first moved in, that was not an issue. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Madam Chair. There are no additional comments.
I don't know if the applicant wants to address the comment about parking. >> Maybe Paul, you can speak to that. >> Well, yeah, we um uh we've provided one space per unit um which um is uh I would suggest goes along with the BPD uh
recommendations these days. Also, we're going to be freeing up some parking along the Empire Street side. Uh that was that's previously uh not uh not available, but by developing that Empire Street, that's actually a public um street and there will be parking allowed
on the on the side, at least one or two spaces there along that side. So, uh but we are certainly sympathetic to u you know the the parking issue there. That's why we're providing uh at least one space per unit of off streetet parking.
>> Any other questions from the board? >> May I have a motion? >> Madam Chair, I'd like to put forward a motion of approval with the provider that the project um meets accessibility requirements. >> There second. >> That
>> Thank you, Mr. Stumbr. >> Yes, >> Mr. Valencia. >> Yes. >> Miss Turner, >> yes. >> Miss Better Braza, >> yes. >> Miss Weel, >> yes. >> Mr. Langham, >> yes.
>> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck. >> Thank you. And Madam Chair, that that motion applies to both uh uh proposals. >> Correct. I'm assuming. >> Great. Thank you so much.
with me, Madam Chair. Um, yes, it seems as we approach the 11:00 hour. >> Oh, why don't we just take a 5m minute break then? >> Madam Chair, >> sorry to interrupt. I think there was one person for one of the case that we missed.
>> Oh, was was there? Okay, sorry. >> Freddy, if Freddy is here for the It was 90. No, no, no. One second, please. I'm sorry. 23 Nanham Street. The person sent
me a message in the chat earlier. >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Garcia. >> All the way from the beginning. Okay. >> Yes. It's actually Timothy Fraser for 23 Noddingham. Um, thank you board. >> M. I need to recuse myself. >> Okay. Well, let M let's let Mr.
Stebridge relocate that one. That was the BFA. No, as soon as I I located um 20 >> office. >> Um okay. Uh so that would be for um
board f final operative case for case BOA 167 9542 with the address of 23 Nottingham Street. Would you go ahead and please explain? >> Thank you Mr. Stimbridge and thank you
Madam Chair, members of the board for accommodating um the schedule change. Um uh this matter was my name is Timothy Fraser uh from the law firm of Dne Torpy 175 at Federal Street in Boston. Um this matter was before the board on February
25th um at which the board granted variances for this uh Moled project to construct a three-story multif family residential building uh with five of rather with 12 affordable units and eight off-street parking spaces on a
newly combined vacant lot. Um when we submitted the plans um we uh intend to combine vacant lots to total 12,496 square feet. Um the refusal letter and
the uh agenda and decision reference the combination of three lots, but this is actually the combination of four lots that comprise that 12,496 ft. So we're before the board for board final auditor to just have the decision
corrected to reference the combination of four parcels rather than three parcels. And again um the plans that we submitted to ISD and everything tracks with the four parcels. It's just the uh the um decision that references three.
>> Okay. Are there questions from the board? >> Is there a motion? Motion to approve. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Mr. Stebridge. >> Yes.
>> Mr. Valencia? >> Yes. >> Miss Turner? >> Yes. >> Miss Weewell? >> Yes. >> Mr. Langum? >> Yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, members of the board.
Now I understand uh Ten Heekla is here now. >> Yes. >> So with that we will move for return to case BOA 173 0685
with the address of 10 Heckler Street. Go ahead and explain it. Jerry >> who's here from He's on the 10 section. Let me elevate it. Hello. Can you hear me?
>> Yeah, I just Sorry. Hello. >> Yes. Are you here to present for 10 Hecka? >> Yes. Yes. Sorry. >> Can you state That's okay. Can you state your name and address for the record and then please let us know what you're proposing? Yeah. Uh my name is Jenny
Ton. Uh I'm here for the meeting for the 10 Street. Um we're hoping to uh seek relief for this uh said violation for to come accommodate the community needs for more uh housing uh for our uh property. >> Hello.
>> We can hear you. Can you please proceed? >> Yes. Um um I'm so sorry if I if I um move this or anything cuz today um um I have a lot of things in my hand. Uh my bylaw just passed away. So that's why
there's certain things I'm not prepared. I'm so sorry. But we're hoping to get relief on uh of the three. Right now it's a two family occupancy is to two family and we're trying to convert as a three family um to hopefully get more um to help with the accommodate with the housing needs. And I know that uh it was
denied because of the square footage, I believe, or um the space and the parking space. So, we're hoping um if you can uh help us uh get this approved uh so we can Hello. Can you hear me? >> Yeah, we can hear you.
>> Yes, ma'am. >> Yeah. And and this is uh my first time at the meeting, too. And if if I have anything lost, please let me know. Um, so like I said, we're hoping to get um uh to convert it from a two family to a three family. And this will really help
to accommodate with the community too. And um um if there's anything that's needed for us, please let us know. >> So just to confirm, it looks like from this you're not expanding the footprint, you're just going up. Is that what's happening? >> Yeah. Yes. Yes.
>> Okay. And sorry for your loss. Um any other questions from the board hearing? None may have public testimony. >> Madame chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Benbury. I'm the Doorchester community engagement specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process which
consisted of an abot meeting facilitated on July 31st. With no aboters present, no concerns were raised. Next, the proponent presented to Meeting House Hill Civic Association who voted in support of the proposal. To date, our office has not received any further community feedback at this time. Thank you for your time. And the mayor's office services would like to defer to
the board with their judgment. Hello, Madam Chair, members of the board. Lay Remis from councelor Fitzerald's office. Our office would like to go on record support this proposal. Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Madam Chair. We have somebody from the public, Jane Shu,
Jane Shaw. I'm not sure if you are speaking for this case, but you have your >> No, I just follow my my own case. Maybe I handed too early. Sorry. >> All right. All right. Madame chair, there are no additional comments.
>> Okay. Thank you. Uh, with that, may I have a motion? >> Motion to approve. >> Second. >> Thank you, Mr. Stembridge. >> Yes. >> Mr. Valencia? >> Yes. >> Miss Turner? >> Yes.
>> Miss Better Browser? >> Yes. >> Miss Weel? >> Yes. >> Mr. Langum? >> Yes. >> Chair votes? Yes. The motion carries. Good luck to you. Thank you so much. Thank you so much for everybody. Thank you and have a good day. Thank you.
>> With that, we will now move on to the cases to the hearing schedule for for 11:00. And before we begin with those cases, we'll ask if there is any request for withdrawals or deferrals from the 11:00
time frame. >> Good morning, Mr. Secretary. Uh 18182 Savin Hill Avenue >> is a companion case as well. >> Yes. So those case those two cases are case BOA
178 3686 the address of 180 to 1827 Avenue along with that is case BOA 1783689
also with the address of 180 to 1827. Would you go ahead attorney Chris? Uh, thank you very much. Uh, good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is James Christopher with the of uh, 686 Architects with the business address of 104th Road in
Brainree, Mass. here today on behalf of the owner Christopher Thomasini for 1802 S7 Avenue and requesting a very brief deferral. Uh, this project has been through a neighborhood process, but we very recently learned that there was an Abuta that had some concerns. Uh so we'd
like a brief deferral to meet with that client and try to address them um so that we can uh bring the project to the board for approval. >> Okay. >> Uh Stephanie, >> we're into February. February 3rd on the
24th. >> February 3rd. >> Yeah, I'll take February 3rd. >> Okay. Uh with that, may I have motion? >> Motion to defer to February the 3. There a second. Second. >> Second.
>> Mr. Stebridge. >> Yes. >> Mr. Valencia. >> Yes. >> Miss Turner. >> Yes. >> Miss Better Brazo? >> Yes. >> Miss Weell? >> Yes. >> Mr. Lango? >> Yes.
>> Chair votes? Yes. The motion carries. See you then. >> Thank you. >> Good morning, Mr. Secretary. This is attorney Mike Ross for 567 Adam Street. Thank you, Attorney Ross. So, this would this will be for case BO8
179 0972. The address is 567577 Adams. Go ahead. >> Thank you. Uh good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. This is we've been requested by St. Marks Area Civic
Association to uh come back for a follow-up meeting based on our last meeting uh a month ago, a month and a half ago, and uh the clients agreed to do so to try to uh get there with the uh neighborhood association. So, we'd like
to do that, have a brief deferral so that we can come back and um hopefully with a small changes to the plan. >> Okay, Stephanie, same dates. Let's say February 3rd on the 24th. >> Um,
a February 3rd would be great. Please, >> may I have a motion? >> Motion to defer this case until February 3rd. >> There a second. >> Second. >> Mr. Stebridge. >> Yes.
>> Mr. Valencia? >> Yes. >> Miss Turner? >> Yes. >> Miss Better Brazo? >> Yeah. Miss Weo, >> yes. >> Mr. Langum, >> yes. >> Chair votes yes. Motion carries. It's you then.
>> Thank you. Thank you so much, >> Mr. Linds. >> Yes. Good morning, uh, Mrs. Stambridge. That's 191 Brook Street, please. So, this request is for case BOA 1790
with the address of 191 Brook Street. Go ahead, gentlemen. >> Thank you. Uh, Richard Lyn's uh, business address at 245 Sun Street, East Boston. On behalf of the petitioner, um, good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board, uh, asking for a brief deferral, we had a chance to review the
planning department's recommendation and we think we can make some adjustments to address uh, several comments at least, if not all the comments. Um, so we're asking for brief deferral while we go ahead and make those updates. Okay, seeing February February 3rd or
24th, but this will be the last one for February 3rd. >> Uh, February 3rd, please. >> Thank you. >> Okay, with that, may I have a motion? >> Motion to defer to February the 3. >> I have a second. >> Second. >> Second. >> Mr. Stebridge.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Valencia? >> Yes. >> Miss Turner? >> Yes. >> Miss Better Brazo? >> Yes. Miss Weel, >> yes. >> Mr. Langum, >> yes. >> Chair votes yes. Motion carries. See you
then. >> Thank you very much. A happy and safe holiday season to you and the board. So, with that, we'll return to the hearing schedule for 11:00 a.m. And we'll begin with case BOA
170 5643 with the address of 101 P Street. If the applicant and or their representative are present, will they please explain to the board?
>> Uh, hello madame chair, members of the board. This is Eric Zapper, architect for the project. I believe the owner is uh online also, but I will walk you briefly through the project. This is an existing single family home which we are um uh ex uh expanding to the rear. There
are no changes to the front of the building. and that was very important to the neighborhood. But we are proposing to expand um 12' 10 in to the rear on both levels one and two. Um removing an existing sun room and adding space on the rear. So if you scroll forward a little bit, you'll see there's no
changes to the basement. On this drawing, you see the dark area at the top of the page is is the addition on the first floor should be a larger kind of family playroom. And then up above, we're expanding two of the guest suites or suites on the on the level two um to
make them kind of larger uh bedroom um uh suite rooms. Uh and then if you scroll forward, you can see in the elevation uh no changes to the front of building. Very important to the neighborhood on the sides uh the building slopes from front to back. So
the additional be um not continue the the the line of the roof, but we'll have kind of a raised roof so that the the spaces in the rear have full height. Um but uh that that's briefly the project and we're here for any questions and
that answer any >> any questions from the board hearing none. May I have public testimony? >> Good morning madam chair and board members. C Johnson with the office of neighborhood services. His applicant has completed the community process. Our
office of tenant of utters meeting on October 15th at which of supportive of the application. No concerns were raised. The cityoint neighborhood association is not opposed to this application. That background our office defers judgment to the board. Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. Next we have Brian Hurley. >> Hello Madam Chairwoman, members of the board. Brian Hurley here on behalf of Senator Nick Collins here to offer our support for the project at 101 Peace Street. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Next, we have Ashley from City Council Flynn.
>> Thank you. Council Flim would like to go on record and support based on a good community process and the proponent working closely with neighbors and butters in the City Point Neighborhood Association. He respectfully requests that their proponent continue to work with the community during the construction phase. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Next we have a Luan. >> Yes. Good morning madame chair and the board. Lan Okconor, president Cityquaint Neighborhood Association. The Abutters meeting was held. The proponent reached out to all abutters and director Butters. There was absolutely no
opposition. Um he specifically did not put a roof deck in his plans which is very supportive uh of CPNA and we think it's a good project. It doesn't affect um the architecture of the housing stock. So um we are in support of it. Thank you.
>> Thank you >> madam chair. There there's just one person in the chat that also is me. She's in support. >> Thank you with that. May I have a motion? >> Motion to approve. >> Second.
>> Mr. Stebridge. >> Yes. >> Mr. Valencia. >> Yes. >> Miss Turner. >> Yes. Miss Better Brazza, >> yes. >> Miss Weewell, >> yes. >> Mr. Langum, >> yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries.
Give up. >> Next, we have case BOA 168730 with the address of 69 Highland Street. If the applicant and or their representative are present, could they please explain the case of the report?
>> Hello. Good morning everyone. My name is Joel Hopper. I'm from Big Construction speaking on behalf of Emanuel um for 69 Highland Street. Pretty much um what we're looking to do is to add the basement to the first floor living space. We did go through the city. Um we
went through the brother's meetings, the community meetings, the neighborhood meetings to get approval, and also um we pulled permits on it. Long story short, um when the property was bought, look at the prior owner, they put they put uh they made like a full basement, but since then we removed the u bedrooms,
took out all the walls and made the easy access for the electrical panels for the second floor and third floor unit to be able to enter at any point in time, but we just wanted to know if we can add the living space from the basement, make it a recreation for the first floor unit.
>> Okay. Are there questions from the board? >> Hearing none, may I have public testimony? >> Madam chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Benbury. I'm the Roxbury community engagement specialist with the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process which
consisted of an aboters meeting facilitated on September 30th. that was very lightly attended where all inquiries and concerns were addressed such as the location of the gas meters moving from inside to outside for access sprinkler systems as well as a discussion of a provisal to stop the
basement from being an apartment or unit in the future. Next, the proponent presented to Highland Park Neighborhood Association on October 15th where they voted in support of the proposal. Thank you for your time and the mayor's office of service would like to defer to the board with the judge. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you, Madam Chair. There are no additional comments. >> Okay. With that, may I have a motion? >> No. No. No. >> Excuse me. >> Hello, Karen Smith. Uh,
I don't know if you speaking for this case. I don't know what happened with this person. Probably is not for this case. Sorry about that. But we have another question. >> Okay. Sorry,
where were we? Uh, is there a motion? >> Hello. Can I speak? >> Oh, okay. >> Okay. >> Um, yeah, Karen Smith is for 69 Highland Street. She is one of the unit owners upstairs. Um, but I'm going to speak for
myself. Um I was at the Abutters meeting and they did um they did talk about the concern about the gas meters um getting moved to the outside. We did have our meeting this month at the start of December and it was mentioned that um
they were unsure if the gas meters were going to be able to move to the front um because they didn't know if they could get coded for it. So my my only concern is just I want to make sure that those gas meters are moved to a place that we can access them because currently right
now the second floor or the third floor units are not able to access the gas meters without having to go through the first floor. >> Yeah. So uh we are pulling a long form which is the alt permit through the city of Boston. So Mr. Harper, can I just make sure we wrap?
>> I am still trying to speak. >> Sorry. >> Okay. Karen is muted. Can you unmute yourself so you can provide testimony? >> You're muting yourself, I think. So, you need to unmute yourself.
>> Okay. Unmute. >> Okay. Thank you. Okay. Ne speak and then I'll speak. >> Uh that person spoke already. So if you can provide your brief testimony as to
whether you're in support or opposition and why that would be helpful. >> Opposition completely is I was informed about this yesterday afternoon
7 hours ago to find out this was even happening. The next thing I have been my husband and I own unit three
in that building and we got the butter's notice about a meeting two days before. been now
7 hours before this and I'm I'm just stunned that we were not informed that all of this was happening in the basement of the building
until way after it had happened. So, no, >> we don't we don't want this to happen. >> We it the homeowners
trust should have blocked a sale to the person who currently has it. I'm I'm just so upset about all of this. >> Thank you, ma'am. Are there any other raised hands?
>> Uh, may I address I'm the owner of the the units. The the concern raised. >> Uh, sir, please proceed. >> Yep. Um, so my name is uh Emanuel Cass. I'm the owner of unit one 69 street and
the unit 3 owner concern. Um, I don't think M. McGuardi has been following the email communications or so. So unit three you have three owners Miss McCardi is 25% and the 75% owners have been informed and attended in all meetings
and all notifications has been sent by email and by posting the about notices appropriately and the other unit number to owner can attest to that I I I don't think the reason for the objection
was um accurate. uh we have all email documentation on the time it was sent. The reason um the 7 hour is yesterday once we got the link for this meeting I went above and aboard and send them a
link through email. Hey tomorrow is the meeting. So if you are interested to attend this is the meeting and that's what she's referring but that's me being a little more trying to include them so that they don't miss it. But all notifications has been sent on time and
recorded through email as well. >> Okay. Is there anyone else for public testimony? That's not the applicant. So, we're not going to repeat people. >> Yes, madame chair. There two more people now.
Uh Malik is Smith. You can unmute yourself. Please state your name and address and you have 90 seconds. >> Hi everyone. My name is Malik Smith, one of the owners of unit 3. I think what uh Karen is talking about in this goes
to the prior owner was just that what ended up initially happening wasn't brought to the condo association until after the fact. But you know Aman has been trying to communicate at this point. So I think the concern precedes
him but I'm not sure how it should have been done. So I think that was the sentiment that was trying to be expressed. >> Thank you, >> Madam Chair. There are no additional comments. >> Okay.
>> I have I have questions. Yep. From the board. >> Yeah. Just for just for clarification, to access the basement, you have to go through unit one. Is that accurate or is there access directly to the basement?
There is access directly through the common area through the basement. >> There is. Okay. And >> and all you're doing is you're opening up in your this the space that used to
be these enclosed rooms. And that's to allow and and your the gas tanks are staying >> in the common area. >> Is it moving at all? The only thing that's in the my in my
property is the gas meters. So, we are trying to move them into the common area. First, we try to move them outside. I'm still working with the national grid. If the outside is not feasible, we will move them to the common area. So, >> the previous owner has built the two
bedrooms in the basement without >> So, you're just trying to allow for >> I'm trying to correct it. I removed the illegally built two bedrooms. I'm just asking to get approval for extended living space with no bedroom in it. >> Right. And um
>> essentially I'm trying to correct the mistake that was made by the previous owner. >> And who owns the So you so the basement it's all the three unit owners. So in order for you to get a building permit, you are required to have agreements with
the other units >> to allow you to do the work. >> Yeah. This is dedicated unit number one. We're not taking any common space. This is from the master plan and everything's dedicated, >> right? So, unit one, which is what you owned, right? Okay. It's not part of common space.
>> No, it is not. >> Okay. I mean, it all depends on your condo board paperwork. Um, but Okay. Thanks. No further questions. >> Okay. Any other questions from the board? May I have a motion? Madam Chair, I'm going to move forward
with an approval. >> There's a second. >> Second. >> Mr. Stebridge. >> Yes. >> Mr. Valencia. >> Yes. >> Miss Turner. >> Yes.
>> Miss Better Brazo? >> Yes. >> Miss Wro? >> Yes. >> Mr. Lang? >> Yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck. >> Thanks. >> And I I would encourage you to reach out
to your to your uh to the unit owners. >> Thank concerns. >> Yeah. Thank you all so much for your time. >> The next three cases of two companions and compion cases and the one after that have been
deferred. So that will take us to case BOA 175 388 with the address of 170 Popular Street. If the applicant andor their
representative are present, would they please explain to the board? >> Hello, this is Thomas Tun. Uh I am a co-owner of this property together with Jing Ju who is also on the call. Uh a
good day to the board and the uh madam chair. Um we are proposing no um a slight or a change of the envelope of the can you just stay on this picture please right now. Thank you very much.
So what we are proposing is um severalfold. First of all, um you see this little house on the flat part of the uh of the roof. That is actually a staircase. It goes all the way downstairs. We want to actually
eliminate that staircase because it is extremely steep and certainly not suitable for a three uh for a secondary means of egress. What we want to do is we want to enclose the flat part so that nobody falls down from here and then
have a staircase outside that is going over the garage into the uh um into the outside there as you can see on the right side. Um also what we want to do is we want to erase the roof. Um, the apartment that is currently in that roof
is a an illegal apartment. That is, uh, one thing, and b, so this is dated back to probably the 1970s at the very least, maybe even before that. And we want to put a box on top of this, as you can see on the right side, and increase the
living uh, living area from the second floor apartment into the third floor. Um that creates a zoning variance uh from a 2F where the third floor part is
somewhat too large for the current uh zoning requirements and I invite questions. >> Thank you. Are there questions from the board? >> Hearing none. May I have public testimony?
>> Madam chair and members of the board. For the record, my name is Jeremy Benbury. I serve as the community engagement specialist for the office of neighborhood services for Roslandale. The applicant has completed the community process which consisted of an abutters meeting facilitated on September 10th with two aboters in attendance, one voice support for the
proposal and no oppositions or concerns were raised. Following the abuters meeting, no further community process was required. And to date, our office has not received any further community feedback at this time. Thank you for your time and the mayor's office of neighborhood services would like to defer to the board with their judgment. Thank you. >> Thank you.
Madame Chair, next we have a Jane Jane Shaw. I think this is the case that you would speak on. >> Um I just co-owned this house with uh the speaker and Thomas. So yeah, uh I
just in case someone ask us the questions. Yeah, no comments. You know, definitely I'm fully support. >> Thank you. >> Any other public comments? Madam chair, there are no additional comments.
>> Okay. Is there a motion? >> Should I make a motion of approval? >> There a second. >> Second. >> Mr. Stebridge. >> Yes. >> Mr. Valencia? >> Yes. >> Miss Turner? >> Yes.
>> Miss Better Braza? >> Yes. >> Miss Weo? >> Yes. >> Mr. Langam? Yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck. >> Thank you very much and have a great day.
>> And chair, since we've passed the 11:30 hour, I will ask if there are any requests for withdrawals or deferrals from the 11:30 time frame. >> Yes. Hello. 62 L Street. >> Yes.
So this so that this request is for case BOA 157 5425 with the address of 62 L Street. Would you go ahead and explain please?
>> Uh yes. Um my name is David Luciano. Good afternoon madam chair, members of the board. My name is David Luciano. I'm the owner of uh 62 L Street in South Boston. Um after a community process, we revised our um our plans uh to accommodate some some
requests from our neighbors. Um there is one additional item. We are still small item that we're waiting on to complete our updated package to ISD. Um so we're requesting a a short deferral to um to
to submit that item and uh have one more voter meeting. >> Okay. February 20 February 24th or March 10th. >> I will take the 24th, please. >> Okay. With that, may I have a motion?
>> Motion to defer this case till February 24th. >> Okay. May I have a second? >> Second. >> Mrs. Stanbridge? >> Yes. >> Mr. Valencia? >> Yes. >> Miss Turner? >> Yes.
>> Miss Better Braza? >> Yes. Miss Weell, >> yes. >> Mr. Langum, >> yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. See you then. >> Thank you.
>> There are no more requests for deferrals for withdrawals of deferrals from 11:30. Then we will return to the last >> need. >> We will return to the last case.
I I need I need I need I'm sorry. >> You need to mute this person. >> Yeah. Can you stop please unmuting yourself? >> We've moved on. We return to the last case for 11:00, scheduled for 11:00, which is case BO8
171 9183, excuse me, with the address of 7274 Maple Street. >> Tim Johnson, the project architect. >> Uh, 58 Mile Street is currently a vacant lot located
>> in the 2F-5000 zoning subdist. I need a >> uh the minimum lot size in the zoning sub in this zoning district is 5,000. We are at 3,120 ft. The lot width and frontage is required is 40 ft. We're at
39. Fighty yard. My clients Liz and David Sigers have been in have owned this property have been in the neighborhood for 30 years. They own this vacant lot at 58 Mallet and also the budding property
at 56 Mallet which is a two which is currently a two family dwelling at 58 at the at 58 M we are proposing a two and a half story two family dwelling. >> I'm sorry I'm I'm very confused on Mapleton.
>> Yeah, same confusion. >> And then um if I could request that I may be removed from the panelist. Thank you. >> We are proposing a two Minnesota two family dwelling
>> and reconfiguring the existing curb cause. >> So Mr. Johnson, just to confirm, are you here? Are you presenting for 72 Mapleton? Because we I heard Mallet Street. So is there anyone here to present on Mapleton Street?
M I don't see any one. Okay. Okay. So, we'll try to circle back to this and Mr. Stebridge can go to the next case which is also not valid. >> Okay. Madam Chair, uh we will move on
now to the read discussion scheduled for 11:30. And the first case is case BOA1653647 with the address of 38 Fenway. If the applicant andor their representative present, will they please
explain this case to the board? >> Uh yes. Uh thank you, Mr. Stembridge. Um, good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the board. Attorney John Pini here on behalf of the owners and developers of this project, Mark Man and Chi Lawn. Also with us today is the team
architect, David Freed, 38 Fenway. The zoning is multif family residential 2. The lot size is 3,000 square ft. The proposal before you today is for the redevelopment of the building at 38 Fenway. The existing building at 38
Fenway has been unoccupied for decades and has fallen into extreme disrepair. Mark and Chi are longtime residents of the Backbay neighborhood and are determined to remediate the building and turn into a location that will only not only provide much needed additional
housing to the city, but a building they can manage and live within with for themselves. They intend this to be an owner occupied building and for for themselves and also for their adult children. To do so, they plan to change the use of the building to a five-unit multif family dwelling is allowed by
zoning and complete a full interior renovation along with a vertical uh and rear additions. An elevator will be installed along with rear decks and a private roof deck. The building will be ADA accessible and three parking spaces
will be provided. The unit mix will be as follows. Unit one on the first floor is a studio at 492 ft. Unit two, second floor is a two bed, 1492 ft. Unit three is on the third floor. It's a two bed
1646 ft. Unit four is on the fourth floor that is a two bed 1631 ft. And unit five, which is the owner's unit, is on both the fifth and sixth level, and it's a one bed 3,288 building. our zone our unit our zoning
violations are use um basement is a forbidden use in the zoning subd district uh F uh what's allowed is 4.0 we were at 4.25 25 and rear yard. Those are the only violations. The minimum rear yard is 20. We're at 15. It should
be noted that the rear yard of this um property does not abut any neighboring properties. It abuts a public alley to the rear of the you can see it on the screen right there. It abut absuts a public alley to the rear of the uh property. Uh this proposal went through an extensive community process. It
started way back in September of 24. Uh the proposal has been through three of our meetings meetings as well as a meeting with the in continued dialogue with February civic. Uh community input has resulted in multiple changes to the proposal over the past year. At this point I'd like to turn it over to David
Freed to walk through the plans and we will be happy to answer any questions after his presentation. Thank you. >> Um thank you John. Um my name is David Frerieded and um I'm an architect at Chim Company. Um hello uh madam chair and members of the board. Um if you
could please go back uh one sheet. Thank you. So um just to take you quickly quickly through the plans. Um um as John said, the existing building was a single family house. We're we're doing an addition to the rear and also a vertical addition. So, um uh on the on
the alley level or the garden level, uh we're going to have two garage parking spaces and then we'll have um a studio unit that um uh meets um the uh code requirements for light and air. Actually, it meets the code requirements for light and air. If we could go to the
next sheet, please. Um and then uh for the next three floors, we have flats that are laid out as a two-bedroom, two bath and a study. Um they're very generously sized at 1429 ft as John said and then I believe at um 1646 for force
2 and three. Um if we can go back to the I keep going up to the next sheet a A12. Thank you. Yeah. And so the unit stack um there is an existing um fire escape fire egress balcony from the adjacent building which we will maintain and uh
connect back to our building. Uh next floor please. Um same layout. And then as we get up to um sheet A14 uh we have a very unique um layout for this unit uh based on the uh the owner's
particular uh program. As John said, it's a very large one-bedroom at over 3200 ft. Um, the building will be u uh elevator accessed and and ADA accessible um for the owner. If you could please go up one more uh sheet, please. And then
the following sheet. And then we have a a roof deck on the very top floor um that will be accessible for uh the owner if we go to the elevations. So, um the
addition is um the existing building is a sort of a cream brick building with um a limestone base. Uh we're clatting the addition in um uh cream color terracotta cladding uh to provide kind of a um a
visual separation from the existing brick and also highlight kind of a contemporary layer um and respecting the historical building. Go to the next elevation, please. Thank you. So, the back will be um uh panled with light
gray uh textured metal panels uh which will also provide kind of a neutral tone in contrast to the existing brick. Uh and each of those units will have very large balconies. Uh so, they all have open space. Next sheet, please. And then
the two uh the exposed sidewalls be clad in a um a patterned uh fiber cement panel. Next sheet, please. And then if we go to the following sheet, we have a a rendering, some renderings there. Um, it won't be the
addition won't be visible from the sidewalk. However, it would be visible from the park on the adjacent side of the street. Next sheet, please. And that would be um um a sort of a two-scale rendering of our proposal. And
that wraps up my my presentation. Thank you very much. Thank you. Are there questions from the board? >> Yes. Uh I heard some of the comments from local organizations. They have concerns that this proposal is going to
be for or short-term rentals in a set of housing. What is your vision for the property once this is uh redeveloped? >> Uh thank you for the question, Mr. Valencia. So um Mark and Chi currently um live on Beacon Street. um they're
elderly. Mark has a degenerative uh disease which is making it uh very difficult to live in a it's a single family house on Beacon Street that is a very large home. Um and but it's not ADA accessible. Uh as this as his medical condition deteriorates, he needs to live
in a building that has an elevated building and that's why you can see that you know you have a a 3200 foot unit with that's only a one bed and that will be the owner's unit. So there is no intent. Um, we've been working with the district counselor um on this as well
and I know there was some questions uh for the from I think primarily from the uh memory CDC. However, they have no intent and will not I mean they're spending a real lot of money uh reinvesting into this building. It's a very difficult build the way it sits
because of the construction will be uh more difficult obviously than most most projects. um their intent is not to ever uh rent this out as short-term rentals or anything like that. They are >> not those kind of people and it
certainly doesn't um bode well for them investing all this money to do that. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions from the board? >> May I have public testimony? >> Madame chair and board members Johnson with the office of neighborhood services. This applicant has completed
the community process. Our office has hosted three of utters meetings regarding this proposal. The first in October 2024, second in December 2024, and the third on October 6, 2025. Obutters were universally opposed to the proposal at all these meetings. Abutters felt that the design is not contextual
to the area, that the plans are not consistent with the use proposed. Abutters were concerned that the property will actually be used for short-term rentals. The Fenway Civic Association is opposed to this application and has sent a letter to the board explaining their position. And with that background, our office defers
judgment to the board. Thank you. >> Sigi, could I just interrupt one second? I believe the Family Civic Association emailed us yesterday. They're taking no position on this project. And I think that that's probably what the email will show. >> The information that my office been
provided is that they were opposed, but I can double check on that for you. Yeah, I can forward you the email, but go ahead. I'm sorry. >> So, let's interrupt. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. Next, we have Christian Simonelli, please. >> Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. Christian Selli, Boston Groundwater Trust, and we have both GCOD
letters from the applicant. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Next, we have Lily Serman. I'm sorry. >> No, that's okay. Swedman. Um, Lily Sudterman again with Councelor Durkens. Um, I'm going to read a letter she
submitted to the board really quickly. Um, it says, "Dear Chair Dong and members of the board, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the zoning relief requested at 38th of Fenway. This property has been in poor condition for decades and has largely sat vacant since the 1980s. Because of its long deterioration, many neighbors are eager to see the building restored and the
possibility of reinvestment has generated considerable interest. I'm not opposed to the project moving forward. Though, I do want to respectfully highlight a few concerns raised by neighborhood stakeholders. Both the Fenway Civic Association and Fenway Florida have raised specific concerns about the variance requested. FCA's letter to the board notes objections regarding the scale of the proposed
additions and emphasizes the importance of maintaining the historic character and the Fenway's built environment. There are also questions about future use, particularly with respect to short-term rentals and student oriented leasing and the need for assurances that the property will remain the proponent's residence. I do acknowledge these
concerns and believe they merit careful consideration. At the same time, I recognize the rare opportunity to restore a long neglected neglected property and return it to residential use. I also want to note that the applicants, who are currently constituents living in the Backbay, reached out to my office directly. In their letter, they explained that they purchased 38th the Fenway to accommodate
a medical condition and the resulting need for a more accessible building. They stated clearly that they have no interest in allowing short-term rentals and will prohibit tenants from doing so. their plan to redevelop the building into five units served by an elevator with one unit for themselves and the remaining units intended for their children and long-term tenants. I've
also reviewed the planning department's memorandum on this proposal and I would like to request the re the recommended proposals be included. Specifically, they request that the applicant obtain review and approval of the plans by the Boston Water and Sewer Commission due the site's location within the groundwater conservation overlay district and that the plans be submitted to the planning department for further
review with particular attention to the design of the vertical addition and maneuverability of the proposed parking spaces. This building is special and we believe it requires special consideration in the terms of design. With these proposals added, the councelor would like to be recorded as a nonoposition. Thank you for your time and consideration.
>> Thank you. Uh, next we have Stephen Farrell. >> Good morning. Good morning. Uh, my name is Steven Farrell. I'm the executive director of Fenway Forward, formerly Fenway CDC. Fenway Forward has participated in the public about
meetings over the last year and has had several conversations with John Puljini, the lawyer for the proponent multiple times over the same period of time. As I have shared in each of these conversations, the primary concern for Fenway Forward as an immediate abuter and as a community membership-based organization has been the allowed use of
the apartments specifically because the significant upward pressure that short-term rentals and renting to undergraduate students have on local rents. We ask that the proponent consider entering into a good neighbor agreement with us again on behalf of the community that prohibits these two
rental categories. Because we know good neighbor agreements have no official standing with the city of Boston, Fenway Forward engaged in conversations with the attorney for the for the proponent so as to identify a potential pathway, specifically a written document with some level of accountability related to
the renters of the units and ideally setting a standard for future projects in the family. During our participation at the Abutter meetings in our role as a neighbor and membership-based organization, we have requested that our concerns and the concerns of other neighbors be addressed in an open and
transparent manner. I believe and am grateful that the process has been open and transparent. In fact, Fenway Forward has shared a template of a good neighbor agreement previously used in another neighborhood with a proponent's lawyer and we remain in discussions about options to move forward. Therefore, because of the proponent's lawyer has
said that the proponent continues to be open to this concept and even though the concept has not yet been executed, Fenway Forward does not oppose this project in the hope that further conversations will yield a good neighbor agreement amendable to all parties. Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Okay, Madam Chair, there are no additional comments. >> Yes, >> Mr. Gini, anything you want to add? I just this I mean this issue is it's not it's a non-issue. It really is a non-issue. These people are they live in
the back bay in a very expensive house right now that they're selling. The owner has Parkinson's disease. He has to move into a house that is ADA accessible. That's where it's coming from. They have no intention of ever renting this out as short-term. It's just an issue that was raised and it's
how do you undo something that was raised when it wasn't your intent to do it. So, you know, we'll continue through the process. I like I stated, uh, you know, they had reached out to council Durkens's office directly, communicated that intent with them, and we'll continue to work with Steve. He's a very
nice guy and, you know, as well as the South, uh, the the Civic Fenway Civic, and uh, go forward from there. But, you know, again, relying upon what the BPDA recommendation states, uh, it's consistent with all the other developments and obviously if people don't like the design, it has to go
through a BPD design review anyway. So most times designs changes change. Excuse me. But thanks for the opportunity. >> Okay. Any other questions from the board? >> May I have a motion? Ma'am, should I make a motion of
approval with Boston and Water and Sewer Commission review due to the project location within the the GCO district and also that the project under goes planning department review with attention to the design of the vertical addition and to improve parking
configuration considering the reduction of parking spaces if needed. >> Mr. Manelli already signed off on GCOD, but that's, you know, we can we can be >> I think that just got mixed up in the when they when there was foring paperwork. Yes.
>> Yeah, that's that's okay. Uh, is there a second? >> Second, >> Mr. Stumbridge? >> Yes. >> Mr. Valencia? >> Yes. >> Miss Turner? >> Yes. >> Miss Better Braza? >> Yes.
>> Thank you. Miss We will. >> Yes. Mr. Langham, >> yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck. >> Thank you everybody. Have a great Christmas. Enjoy your holidays. Thank you, >> Madame Chair. I'm going to return to the
last case for 11:00 a.m. I believe uh the attendance has arrived. >> Okay. Um and that that this is for case BOA 171983
with the address of 72 to 74 Mapleton Street. If the applicant andor their representative present, would they please explain to the board? >> Madam Chair, I don't see anybody for this project.
Okay. >> One second. I think actually there is one person now. Uh >> Aimar if you can. >> Hello. Hi. >> Hello. >> Yes. >> Yes. Can you hear from Are you here from
Mapleton Street? >> Hello. >> Can you hear us? >> Hold on. I got to walk you through the closer space. Give me one second. >> Hello. >> You can't say
>> Are you here for Mapleton Street? >> Forgot. >> Sir, are you here for Mapleton Street? >> Okay, now I am. Sorry, I was on mute. I'm so sorry. >> 72. >> Can you just state your name and address for the record and please proceed? Thank you. >> Yes, my name is Agi Juza and the address
is 72 Mapleton Street. I'm the general contractor representing the owner. >> Okay. And what are you proposing? >> Well, this is a two family home. Uh a legal two family home with a illegal
third floor unit on the third floor. Uh right now they have a third floor unit that's already there existing. She say she bought it like this. I'm not sure. But anyway, what we try to do here is change the used of the building going from a two family home to a three family home.
That's all. >> Okay. So, the the unit's already there and no additional work is being done. >> No, nothing's being done. It's already there. >> Okay. Questions from the board. Hearing none. Is there public testimony? >> Madam Chair and board member Sigy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood
Services. This applicant has completed the community process. Our office hosted at a Butters meeting on June 11th at which no concerns were raised. The applicant met with the Brighton Alustin Improvement Association which chose to abstain on taking a position regarding this application. With that background, our office defers judgment to the board.
Thank you, >> Madam Chair. There are no additional comments. >> Okay, with that, may I have a motion? >> Motion of approval. >> Is there a second? >> Okay, >> Mr. Stumbridge.
Yes, >> Mr. Valencia. >> Yes, >> Miss Turner. >> Yes, >> Miss Better Braza. >> Yes, >> Miss Weall. >> Yes, >> Mr. Langum.
You're on mute. Mr. Langum. >> Yes. >> Thank you. Yeah, that's okay. Chair votes yes. The mo motion carries. Good luck. Thank you very much. You have a great day everyone. And >> with that, we will go to the last
scheduled case for some red discussions of 11:30. This is case BOA 169 6317 with the address of 58 M Street.
the applicant and those are the representative or present will they appoint to the board. >> Uh thank you m thank you mbridge. Uh Tim Johnson the project architect. Uh good morning madam chair members of the board. Uh currently uh 58 mile street is
a vacant lot with a curb cut. It's located in the 2F-5000 zoning subd district. Uh we are proposing a 2 and a half story two family dwelling. The lot size minimum is 5,000. We are at 3,120
ft. The minimum lot width and frontage is 40 ft. We are at 39 ft. The usable open space 750 ft per dwelling unit. We're at 636 foot per dwelling unit. And the F max is 0.5.
We're at 0.7. Lastly, the yards. The front yard requirement is 15 ft. We're at six feet to align with the other buildings on the street. And the sideyard minimum is 10 feet. We're at six feet. My clients Liz and Dave Sigers have been
in this neighborhood for over 30 years. They also own the abuing property to the left which is 56 Malady two family and on the vacant lot we are proposing a 2 and a half story two family dwelling. We are also proposing
to relocate the existing curb cut of the lot to provide a shared driveway between the existing two family at 56 Mallet and the proposed two family at 58 Mallet Street. The new units at 58 Mallet
Street will be two-bedroom units approximately 1100 square ft and each will have a rear deck um for outside enjoyment. Uh we are also as I me just mentioned proposing a shared driveway between the
two buildings to provide two off- streetet parking spaces for each two family building. There are also a number of trees on the site and we work we work to uh with a dire to make sure any trees
that we did take down we would replant them. So currently we're proposing to take down three trees, but we will plant we will be planting three trees to replace those trees on both 58 between 58 and 56 Mallet Street. U this does
conform the stretch energy code which is 20% more energy efficient than current code. Uh this will be an all-electric building for heating, cooling and cooking and we do follow the dark sky initiative. All down light lights will be shielded and down lit. Uh finally uh
we did receive support of the director Butters neighbors and the St. Marks Civic Association. And that's my brief presentation, Madam Chair. >> Thank you. Um one of the um recommendations from the planning
department mentioned uh moving a curb cut to preserve an existing tree. Is that um something that you would be open to? Uh yes, there is an if we go to the site plan which is close to the beginning of
the uh drawing set. Yes, right there. Uh you can see uh where the proposed inffort driveway is and the existing street tree as shown. Um, we feel that we can provide the required
uh cubic feet of uh soil beneath the sidewalk for a good healthy tree to grow uh and provide the uh relocated uh easement the relocated curb cut
between the two buildings. uh we can submit a uh surveyed plot plan showing the curb cut the existing tree location and the required uh tree well and subs soil um condition below.
>> Thank you. Other questions from the board? >> Yes. Uh I'm looking at the site plan and I see that the big uh area of the the lot is going to be covered by asphalt to
accommodate four cars. Would you be willing to reduce the parking count to maybe one parking per unit to so you can have more open space? Well, the uh requirement for uh the
zoning substance for parking is one space per dwelling unit. So, uh we would incur a zoning violation if we began removing um the number of cars from the site. Um the open space required is 750
per dwelling unit. We're at 636 uh open square feet open space per dwelling unit. We're also providing rear decks for the exist for the proposed the existing does have rear decks and um the
also with the trees uh we feel that um we're providing the same number of trees that are on the site now. Um so there is a balance there's a tug-of-war
between parking on parking between the city uh and the neighborhood. we feel uh that these um parking spaces um are needed and um there is an existing curb cut that we're relocating. >> I actually think Yeah, I think you
actually did a good job like consolidating the aisle. Um but perhaps a good balance would be to provide more of a permeable materials so you don't have impervious um you know coverage. So I think you can do it through materials.
>> That's a good point. Uh, Miss Brazzo, uh, we do I do use a um an interlocking uh, permeable PA a lot in the city and um, they work quite well. >> Okay, great. Thank you.
>> May we have public testimony? >> Okay, I'm not sure if somebody from ONS is providing public testimony. If not, we can move forward with the city councelor's offices. We have Antony Gulardi. Please proceed. Thank you. Good
afternoon. Excuse me. Good afternoon, madam chair, members of the board. Anthony Gelardi from city council Aaron Murphy's office. The council would like to go on record in support of the application. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Next, we have Lean Remis.
>> Hello, Madam Chair, members of the board. Ly miss from council for sales office like go on records for this proposal. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Uh without madam chair there are no additional comments. >> Okay with that. May I have a motion?
>> Madam chair I'd like to prefer a motion of approval with a proviso that the project um works with permeable permeabil material for the driveway. >> There a second. >> Second. >> Mr. Mr. Stumbridge.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Valencia. >> Yes. >> Miss Turner. >> Yes. >> Miss Bter Brazza. >> Yes. >> Miss Weo. >> Yes. >> Mr. Lang.
>> Yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck. >> Thank you. M. Thank you, Madam Chair. And merry Christmas. >> Thank you. All right. So for those we won't see next week, happy holidays and
>> happy holidays. >> Happy holiday. >> Recording stopped. >> Happy holiday.