What? The floor is yours, sir. Thank you very much. Good morning, everybody. I am Yasher Franklin Hodgej, chair of the Public Improvement Commission, and I call to order the hearing of November 6, 2025. Mr. Lying,
please take the roll call. Of course. Would the representative from the public works department, please state their name for the record. >> Yasha Franklin Hudge. >> Property Management Department. Please do the same. >> Joseph Callahan, >> Transportation Department.
>> Amy Gordon, >> Inspectional Services Department. >> Brian Ronin, >> Water and Sewer Commission. >> Denise Delin, >> Commission for Persons with Disabilities. >> Patricia Mendes. >> Thank you. We have a full quam.
>> Thank you very much, Todd. All right. Well, we'll get right to it. Starting with the hearing minutes at the request of the public improvement commission staff, the acceptance of the minutes of the PIC hearing which was held on October 23rd, 2025. Do I hear a motion to approve the minutes? >> I'll make a motion to approve the
minutes of October 23rd, 2025. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I I >> I >> I. Any oppose or abstain? So moved. On to the next section of our agenda with utility pole hearing number
one on a petition by Eversource Energy for a utility pole installation to install one new private utility pole within Colbourne Road, Brighton to be located on its westerly side at address number 36, generally north of Houston Street, Houston Road, excuse me. Would the proponents please introduce
themselves, their affiliations, and talk us through what you are proposing to do? >> Okay. Hello, this is Chanel Grant. Can you hear me? We can. >> Oh, good. Okay. Okay. Let me see. I need
to share. Um, okay. One second, please. I'm actually looking for the share button. Did at the bottom. There it is. There it is. Okay. One second. Okay. Let's pause. Okay, there it is.
Yeah. Okay. Sorry for the delay. Um, can you see it? >> We can. >> Okay. So, okay. My name is Chanel Grant from Eversource Energy and we Eversource is going to install one new pole 146
over 10-a in the sidewalk outside of 36 Cobborn Road in Brighton. The permanent underground service for an 11 unit condo building. And that's what I have for this one.
>> All right. Um, commissioners, questions, comments? >> Uh, it shows a driveway. I assume that's the existing driveway and not a driveway of the proposed development. Um, so it'd be good to show the curb line and the driveways where they will be in the
future. >> Um, I can speak to that. Uh we uh we noted that we have received a curb cut application um for this project. That curb cut is being closed and a new one is being opened um around the corner on Houston Street. And that curbcut application has been fully approved by
the commissioner of public works. So um the this plan that we're looking at is just showing the existing conditions. >> Hi, this is Patricia from Disabilities Commission. Um, could you put some dimensions on the proposed new poll,
please? Especially if there's any pinch points. Thank you. >> Could you repeat what you just said, please? >> Yes. This is Patricia from the Disabilities Commission. >> Okay. And I'm asking you to provide
dimensions on this on the drawings, especially if there's a pinch point. >> The dimensions as far as um the distance from the pole beside it
>> or 146 over 10 30 ft. Um are you is this um you want to know if it's ADA compliant? >> Correct. So yes, it is clear clear dimension on the on the drawing. So I can see if it's like 4T, 5T,
what >> I have on 30 ft. >> Um I'm thinking it's going to be uh a horizontal dimension. Yeah, >> we we need to know the dimension between the pole and the new building that is
being constructed to confirm that there's sign sufficient width on the sidewalk to allow people to accessibly travel along the sidewalk. >> Oh, okay. I don't have the distance. I just um I had a photo. I sent in a photo
where it lined up with the other pole in the sidewalk. That's all I have >> for next time. for next submission. >> You can add those dimensions. >> The the distance. Okay. From the um sidewalk to the building.
>> No, from the pole to the building. >> Yes. Clear. From the pole to the building. >> Okay. Okay. Yes. Okay. I will note that for you. >> Perfect. Thank you. >> The the dimensions on the um on the plan. Okay. >> Yes. >> Dimensions on the plan. Write that down.
And and just in general, this is a thing we ask for every single time Eversource comes with a poll request. And it's a little silly that we have to ask for it every single time. This just needs to be a standard feature of any Eversource submission that involves putting
something vertical in the sidewalk is the dimension so that we can confirm the accessibility requirements. >> Okay. Well, today I will send that to the supervisor of the survey department indicating what you need in the future. >> That will be very much appreciated.
>> Okay. Yeah, I'm covering for Katie for I already today. >> Understood. Understood. >> Okay. >> Yeah, but I'll take it back. >> Patricia, are you comfortable proceeding with a vote without having that dimension available to you? um given
that the you know are or you know and we can obviously make it a thing that we require on the final plans that are submitted to us but I just want to make sure that if we move ahead with approving this that you're okay with that that having that information formally written down >> um yeah I'm okay proceeding
>> okay great >> thank you >> okay and after after the the meeting I can also send her the photo >> that would be great >> if that helps Yeah. >> All right. Hearing no other questions
from commissioners, PIC staff, or members of the public. I will take this opportunity to remind everybody if you have questions or wish to add testimony, we ask that you please use the raised hand function uh which can be found at the reactions tab at the bottom of your screen. Um, if you are
calling in, I believe you can dial star six uh to unmute yourself uh to jump in at the same time. Um, I do not see any raised hands at this time. So, I think we're all set. >> All right. Dr. here. A motion to approve utility poll hearing number one.
>> I'll make a motion to approve a petition by Evers Energy for utility pool installation in Coburn Road is read into record by the chair. Second on uh right review by the commissions for persons with disability for adequate accessible path. >> Second.
>> All in favor? >> I >> I >> I >> I Any oppose or abstain? >> So moved. All right. Thank you very much. On to our next item. Utility full hearing continued. Number one on a
petition by Nstar Electric Company DBA Eversource Energy for a granted location to install an electric transformer vault and associated infrastructure within Whitby Street Public Way East Boston located at address number 16 generally northwest of Ford Street. This was new
business on 8:14 and had public hearings on 8:28 911 9:25 shown on a plan entitled city of Boston public works department engineering division grants publication plan of transformer MH manhole for EIC 16 Whitby Street East
Boston one sheet dated November 2025. Would the proponents please introduce themselves, their affiliations and let us know how you would like to proceed with this item. Okay, this is Chanel Brand again with Eversource Energy and on this one we would like to ask if the grant of
location can be continued. Aloise is still working on it. >> All right. >> On the edits. >> Understood. Um yeah and I believe um for the record that there are this is being held because there is a significant
backlog of a number of Eversource projects on uh license on agreements and uh paperwork uh which uh we need to finalize before we advance more projects. So hopefully that will get resolved. Um, with that, uh, commissioners, any comments or
questions, uh, before we move to continue, Todd, anything to add? >> No, our next hearing is on November 20th. I don't know if we want to go to that one or if we want to push out further to December. >> Chanel, do you have a opinion?
>> Um, November the 20th should be fine. >> All right. Do I hear a motion to continue public hearing continued number one to November 20th? >> I'll make a motion to continue public hearing continued number one as read into record by the chair to November
20th. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Any oppose or abstain? So moved. All right. Hopefully we get that paperwork in. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you very much. And I'll be working with Todd.
>> All right. Excellent. giving him as much information we can before November 20th. >> Much appreciated. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. >> On to public hearing continued number two on a set of petitions by for 4200 Washington LLC for the making of specific repairs within the following
public ways in West Roxbury consisting of curb realignment, roadway and sidewalk and pedestrian ramp reconstruction as well as new and relocated specialty pavement, speed lighting infrastructure, speed trees, landscaping, bike racks and driveway curb cuts. Washington Street at address
numbers 4198 to 4200 southwest of Basil Street Bile Street southeast of Washington Street. South Street generally across from Basile Street. This was new business on 9:25 and had a public hearing on 109 as shown on a set
of plans entitled City of Boston Public Works Department Engineering Division Pacific Repairs Plan 4200 Washington Street Roslandale 3 sheets dated October 8th, 2025. Revised November 5th, 2025. Would the proponents please introduce themselves, their affiliations, and give
us a uh brief reintroduction to the project as well as updates since your last hearing. Morning, commissioners. Uh Tim Hayes from Polar Engineering. Um I'm joined today with uh by Jana Hull from uh the other applicant team. Um a few
developments since the last time that we met with you all. Uh we did do some additional survey in order to um design the reciprocal ramps across Brazil Street and across South Street, which is reflected on the plans. Now, we also sat down with um both PIC staff and
accessibility staff to kind of talk through um some of the issues that were raised at the last hearing in regards to um the clear wits behind the new proposed light pole on Bil Street as well as the existing utility pole on Bil
Street um of which we also got more survey back on that um to understand exactly how that dimension um will be reflected in the field. Um what we've come up with is um a bit of a revised design in order to divide 5 ft um behind
the new proposed utility pole or a light pole that's been requested by lighting. Um and then um I believe we've gotten some consensus from accessibility that um you know we'll have an exception here for the 4.8 8 ft given that this is an
existing utility pole um and we can't really move that without significant cost um to the project working with Eversource. Um so um in addition to that we also reworked the the ramp here at the corner of Bile and Washington um a
little bit with staff to provide a little more of um uh a little more room with a with a tighter radius to match what's happening across the street. Um that actually resulted I think in a better ramp layout here um for that that
corner ramp. Um so other than that uh I think everything else is consistent with what we've seen before. Obviously um the easements um were approved in the last public hearing. Um and uh any comments or questions on the current design here?
>> Thank you very much. Uh, commissioners questions. Yeah, I see staff or members of the public. Uh, I believe we are all set on this one. >> All right. Seeing no raised hands, do I
hear a motion to approve public hearing continued number two? I'll make a motion to approve a set of petitions by 4200 Washington LLC for the making of specific repairs within Washington Street, Bilal Street, and South Street as read into the record by the chair. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I
>> I >> I >> I. Any oppose or abstain? So moved. Thank you very much. And Dennis, thank you for correcting our uh Bely Street pronunciation in chat there. Much appreciated.
All right, on to public hearing number one on a petition by West Boilston Investments LLC for the widening and relocation of the existing rightofway lines of Hide Park Avenue Public Way, Hyde Park, as well as for the acceptance of a highway easement located on its southeasterly side at address numbers
1690 to,700 generally northeast of Milton Street. new business on October 23rd as shown on a plan entitled city of Boston public works department engineering division widening and relocation plan 1690 to700 Hide Park Avenue hide park one sheet dated
September 5th 2025 would the proponents please introduce themselves their affiliations give us a very brief reintroduction to the project and then update us on any changes related to this specific action uh since your new business hearing. Sure. Uh,
good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the commission. My name is Joe Connelly, project engineer with Howard Stein Hudson. Uh, I'm presenting today on behalf of the proponent, West Boilston Investments LLC, and I am joined by project attorney Dennis
Quilty. Um, the project is located at 1690 to,700 High Park Avenue in Boston's High Park neighborhood. Um, the project involves the de demolition of an existing building and accessory office trailer to be replaced by a six-story
mixeduse residential building containing 115 residential units and 1500 square ft of ground floor commercial space. Uh there will also be underground resident parking containing 69 spaces
with access off of High Park Avenue and 115 secure bike spaces for residents with additional outdoor ramps for visitors. Um as part of the project, we are seeking approval for specific repairs, a widening relocation, and vertical
discontinuence. Uh so for the first of these three, we're focusing on the widing and relocation area shown. Uh so it extends the inst the entire length of the project parcel uh and is
approximately 8 ft wide. Um this will facilitate a minimum 5 1/2 ft clear width along the proposed sidewalk. Um this was updated since new business uh based on the new proposed sidewalk
layout uh that you will see later. Um, and just some more general background there, there was a need for widening relocation instead of a pedestrian easement because of the proposed bike lane that encroaches onto the project parcel.
Um, but we've incorporated all the city's comments and producing this final version. Um, so with that, I will open it up to any comments or questions. >> Commissioners, >> thank you very much. Commissioners, any
questions or comments? DIC staff or members of the public. >> Uh, looks like we have a raised hand by Craig Martin. Um, Craig, please go ahead and jump in. >> Yes. Good morning, commissioners. Thank you. Um, I'm I'm calling behalf of H
Highach Neighborhood Association. just kind of found out about um this hearing today and um quite frankly a little bothered that we have not been informed at all. There's the Reedville Watch neighbor assoc neighborhood association,
the High Park neighborhood association. It's should have been informed about these changes. This is the busiest most controversial spot in Hide Park right here at this location. Everybody uses it all day every day and we should be aware
of what the changes are planned. It may be that we think it's hunky dory, but we should at least be aware of what the changes are. I feel like we kind of got blindsided today. And we're asking commissioners if we can just defer it until they can come before the watch
monthly meeting or the Hide Park neighbor association monthly meeting and tell us what they're envisioning in front of our elected officials who are at who are at these meetings every month. >> I would appreciate if you could um respect that request because we just
think it's unfair that this is coming before the commissioners for a board today when we had no knowledge of any of these changes. C could could the proponents maybe speak Thank you, Craig. Could I just ask if the proponents could maybe speak to the the public process
here because this is this relates to a development project >> um that I believe has been, you know, undergoing article 80 review for some time. So, could you just speak to what engagement has happened there? >> If I may, Mr. Chairman, excuse me, Dennis Quilty, I'm a project attorney
other commissioners. Mr. climbing. We had a lengthy and detailed public process in this matter uh including multiple meetings with the Hide Park Neighborhood Association at which the speaker attended every meeting. Uh also
with the Reedville Watch Neighborhood Association. We met with and discussed the project with State Senator Rush, State Representative Consalvo, District City Councelor Pepin. Uh we had a mayor's office of neighborhood services of Butters meeting. We had a followup to
the High Park Neighborhood Association meeting requesting a site visit which we conducted with the members of the High Park Neighborhood Association. This project has been fully vetted, approved by the BPDA uh approved by zoning. It has literally
gone through every possible review uh one could imagine. uh and of course we uh we leave the uh details and particulars of such uh matters as the widening and relocation to the PIC which is why we're before you today but that
this project has been completely and fully vetted in the process and the speaker was in attendance at multiple meetings that we held on this matter and >> if I also may speak Mr. Mr. May May I
interject? >> Yes. >> Yeah. I think there was another member of the project team that wanted to speak briefly, but but please go ahead, Michael, and and then we'll Craig, happy to come back to you for a response. >> Yeah, thank you. Thank you. I just
wanted to comment also, Dennis Smith. We also had three meetings with the director Butters along with the state representative and we accommodated every single of Butter's wish in this project including building walls that are uh
quality of the Mass Highway for sound including putting a clause in the lease regarding our neighbors businesses and we had that meeting three times and they have also our director has also approved
this And to Dennis's point, Craig has been at every single one of these meetings. Thank you for uh allowing me to speak. >> Thank you, Craig. Do you want to respond to that? >> I just Oh, I don't know. We never had we were never discussing the um the
fairness of the lack of meetings in general on this project. Oh, I get it that it's been um thoroughly vetted. I'm just saying but we're always it was always dismissed that there's going to be changes to the roadway and what have you and and we accepted that. Um but when when the changes came we wanted to
know what the this is the busiest most controversial complicated uh approach to the intersection in Hide Park probably close to the city. Um and we would like to get the details of the road and sidewalk and what have you changes. Um,
we vet totally vetted the building um, in the in in in the in the parcel. We I I never said we didn't. Um, it's just the specifics that we thought when they got the specifics done they could bring it before the neighborhood. So, she like I said, we might be all I don't know
about it, but we just like to at least know what it is. We don't know. As I'm listening today, I still don't know what the changes are. Um, >> we know. So, so the way the way these hearings work, um, you know, at the new
business hearing two weeks ago, we reviewed the total package of street changes, but, um, just for technical reasons, the PAC has specific actions. So, what's up on the screen is the first of a series of actions. Um, we will get
shortly to specific repairs, which is where the sort of changes to the design of the street would be um, shown. So that that is a it's a separate hearing item for today for us. Um I guess with that said though, I was reviewing some
of the material that was um shared publicly as part of the article 80 review process. And I do see that the transportation aspects of this changes to the street layout were all discussed as part of
that article 80 process and were shared in the presentations that were made publicly. You know in the PIC process there are sometimes small refinements that get made to specific dimensions of you know a foot here or moving a street
light from here to there. Um, but what I'm seeing looking at the material that was shared within the article 80 process is that the the the core changes of the street of uh the sidewalk, the bike lane, the the street itself, the parking
were all sort of part of that article 80 review process. >> Indeed, they were. >> Not specifically. And um I'll I'll leave it at that. Um it's been unfair and I'll just leave that on record. Unfair. We're asking for a simple attendance to show
us exactly where the bike lane, where the people are, where the dog lane, whatever else is. Um, we did not get that during during the public process, article 80. Um, but we knew we'd be coming and so we will just say it's apparently unfair that we don't get to know to know this before the vote. And
um, and I appreciate your time again this morning. >> All right. Thank you. Thank you for for that perspective. I think um you know what I'll say from the commission's perspective is typically we defer to our office of neighborhood services um in their uh review of the the public
process that accompanies actions that come before the PIC and I obviously am not involved and the commission is not directly involved in the article 80 review process and so I I can't speak with authority about what was said in which meetings um as it relates to um uh
you know the the specifics of streetscape changes. I do see that much of the information was presented in some fashion, but um I think we will uh my my recommendation to the commission is that we do defer to ONS in this matter and I
my understanding um and Todd please please confirm is that ONS has uh signed off on uh and provided support for this uh this final stage of approvals advancing at the public improvement commission. Is that uh is that accurate Todd? Yes, we do have an email from Zoe
Petty um who was the local representative for ONS um and she's confirmed that the um her office is satisfied with the community outreach for this project. >> Okay. So, Craig, I I I I note your concern and and uh certainly if there's
things we can do in the future to do a better job making sure that neighborhood associations are aware of public improvement commission hearings that may have relevance and uh you know, we're happy to to talk about how to make sure that we're um making sure that that everyone who has an interest in a PIC
action has the opportunity to to know upfront at the new business hearing. Um but I think um in this case my my recommendation to the commission is that we we proceed um given the uh support that we've heard from um some of the other agencies that are have been
working on this process. >> Mr. Chairman, would you like any further information from the applicant as to what we discussed and went through? >> I would I would absolutely please feel free to add that for the record. I I I just would like to say that in all of
our meetings, the uh property in its entirety was discussed in every way. Bike lanes, street changes, movement of elements to satisfy the utters. Uh these things were fully discussed at every
level. And what as you know has occurred as well is that we have been to you for um new business. uh we had some interaction with other city agencies uh that we've been working on for the last 10 days and as you know uh minor changes
develop from time to time and as I suggested earlier obviously we as the applicants leave it to the professionals agencies who we had to notify to tell us what they'd like us to change which we've done and we present that to you and this is a very normal process as you
are certainly aware but these these matters of the exterior and street use were fully discussed and vetted at at multiple meetings with multiple parties uh all the way through the process. Thank you very much.
Okay, thank you for adding that perspective for the record. Um much appreciated. So, uh, and I think if if you can just for our benefit, um, and, uh, you know, for the commission's records, just provide us, um, a written
summary of the community outreach that occurred, um, associated with this project. Uh, that would be appreciated. >> We'll be happy to do that. Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh, any comments, additional comments or questions, uh, PIC staff or members of
the public? Um, I have no outstanding concerns with this action and I do not see any more raised hands. So, I think we're all set on the widening and relocation. >> All right. Do I hear a motion to approve public hearing number one? >> I'll make a motion to approve a petition
by West Boilson Investments LLC for widing relocation in High Park AB as read to the record by the chair. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I I >> I. Any oppose or abstain? So moved on to public hearing number two
on a petition by West Boilston Investments LLC for the vertical discontinuence of a portion of H High Park Avenue Public Way Hide Park located on the southeasterly side at address numbers 1690 to700 generally northeast of Milton Street vertically above the grade of the sidewalk. New business on
1023 as shown on a plan entitled City of Boston Public Works Department Engineering Division Vertical Discontinuence Plan 1690 to 1700 Hide Park Avenue, Hide Park, One Sheet dated October 1st, 2025. Would the proponents please reintroduce themselves and their
affiliations and give us an update on any changes to this action since your new business here? >> Thank you. Uh, good morning, Mr. Commissioner and members of the commission. My name is Joe Connelly, project engineer with Howard Stein
Hudson. I am presenting today on behalf of the proponent West Boilston Investments LLC and I am joined by project attorney Dennis Quy. Uh the second of our petitions is for a vertical discontinuence of approximately 316 square ft above uh the street
sidewalk. Uh the building's second through sixth floors project 4T over the street sidewalk from elevations 80.96 to 138.96 Boston city base uh with a minimum separation of 12 ft from the
sidewalk grade. Uh so this projection hasn't changed at all. uh just the discontinuence area itself has been expanded to match the new widening area that was just shown. Um so all city
comments have been incorporated into this final version. Um I don't think there's too much to explain. So with that I'll open it up to any comments. Thank you. Commissioners questions, comments, IC staff or members of the public?
>> I am not seeing any raised hands at this time. >> All right, Todd, any comments >> you'd like to add? Um uh the one thing I will mention is I have had a conversation with the project team about um the discontinuence fee that we
typically would charge. Um it's my understanding that they are interested in requesting that that fee be waved considering that this building element is projecting only over the area of rightway which was just approved a minute ago on the previous um on the
previous action. Uh project team would you please speak to that? No. >> Um, do you do you have any thoughts, Dennis? >> I I I was unaware until this moment, so I don't I don't really
>> I I think the only time that was mentioned was by Utah, Todd. I don't think the project team has actually discussed. We'd certainly if if the commission would see it clear to consider waving that fee given the uh limited nature of this discontinuence and the overall you
know the positive changes we've made to to move the project forward. We certainly appreciate that. >> Is is the uh fee waiver a thing that has to be voted on uh by the commission or is that something that we can sort out administratively after the action is
taken? Um I believe that is at the discretion of the PIC chair. Um so we probably don't need to decide that right now on the record but it >> okay be determined before >> I I think it is a very reasonable
request um given that uh you know you we are discontinuing something that was not ours uh an hour ago. So um I uh am happy to have that conversation. uh we can discuss it offline of the meeting. Um but uh yeah, happy to make space for
that and I think it it seems like a very reasonable ask um of the commission. >> So So I would add uh I would >> Can you hear me? I'm sorry. >> Yeah, we can. >> So I'm Mitch Fisherman. I'm the permitting manager for the project. And I guess the only thing I would add in
addition uh Mr. Chairman, as you indicated, uh it was formerly land that we had that we uh provided to widen the sidewalk. And the other part of it was that we widened the uh drop off or we created a drop off area at the request
of the neighbor, which again was one of the factors that uh allowed us to widen the sidewalk while leaving a portion of the building in this condition. >> Understood. And uh yeah, I appreciate how this the need for this discontinuence is tied to some of those
other project elements that were um you know beneficial to um the city and to uh the public realm. So um I I I don't think that will be an issue. We'll just want to discuss the the finer points uh offline of the hearing. So happy to have that conversation.
Um, all right. With that, any further questions or comments on the discontinuence? Once. All right. Do I hear a motion to approve public hearing number two? >> I'll make a motion to approve a petition by West Boilson Investments LLC for
vertical discontinuence in High Park AB is read to the record by the chair. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I I >> I >> I. Any oppose or abstain? So moved. >> On to public hearing number three on a
petition by West Boilston Investments LLC for the making of specific repairs within Hide Park Avenue Public Way. Hide Park located on its southeasterly side at address numbers 1690 to700 generally northeast of Milton Street consisting of curb realignment roadway and sidewalk
reconstruction with structural soil as well as new and relocated specialty pavement street lighting infrastructure storm drain infrastructure hydrants street trees bike racks driveway curb cuts and bicycle facilities. This was new business on October 23rd as shown on a set of plans entitled City of Boston Public Works Department Engineering
Division Pacific Repair Plan 1690 to 1700 Hide Park Avenue Hide Park three sheets dated September 4th, 2025. Would the proponents please reintroduce themselves, their affiliations, and walk us through any changes to these plans since your new business here?
>> Sure. Uh, good morning, Mr. Commissioner and members of the commission. My name is Joe Connelly, project engineer with Howard Stan Hudson. I'm presenting today on behalf of the proponent, West Borston Investments LLC, and I'm joined by project attorney Dennis Ky. Uh so the final petition is for the specific
specific repairs shown. Uh the proposed work within High Park Avenue includes one driveway curbcut closure, one driveway curbcut modification, street light and street light infrastructure installation that was coordinated with and approved by the public works street
lighting division, sidewalk reconstruction, and the installation of permeable pavers, visitor bike racks, and street trees within the furnishing zone. Uh in addition to the two street trees now proposed, we are creating the
pocket park contained on site. Um the planters shown up against the widening area have been reduced slightly uh based on comments from the disabilities commission. Um
so that is one of the comments addressed since our new business hearing. Uh we also met with the planning department to discuss project updates since our article 80 approval and incorporated all major comments. Um into the plan shown.
Um so the most significant changes include pulling back the planters to provide 5 1/2 ft uh minimum clear width uh to create a a straight and continuous uh public path of travel across the project
frontage. Um, we've also adjusted the street lighting infrastructure layout to remove one street light and relocate the proposed control cabinet to remove it from uh the location here. Uh, that had created a pinch point that was
concerning most. Um, we have also labeled and expanded our limits of structural soil uh on both sides of the sidewalk where the proposed street trees are located u based on comments from the
planning department. Um, we've also pulled back the permeable pavers adjacent to the 72 High Park A parcel and removed the furthest right bike rack. Uh, that was creating an
awkward interim condition between our proposed sidewalk and the adjacent existing. Um, we've also received additional minor comments yesterday that we plan to incorporate into our plans and details. uh prior to submitting any MYAR copies
if approved. Um so with that, I will open it up to any comments or questions. Thank you. >> Thank you very much and appreciate the um work to address some of the issues that were brought up by uh this uh commission during the uh new business
hearing. Uh commissioners questions, comments. Uh you have a street lighting control box that's really tucked, it's hard to see on this, tucked in at the end of the um bike racks and we should make sure that these are
positioned such that you can put a bike on the rack. >> Understood. Um we'll make sure that it's not too close. Uh >> yeah, you can slide them down a little bit, right? I think it'll be all right. it. There's enough room there, but that looks close.
>> Yeah, I agree. Um, yeah, we'll make sure that that's adjusted prior to submitting my >> commissioners. Other questions, comments? >> Yes. I I don't have any comments on the sidewalk. I just want to know that the
park and the stair just make sure that next to the stairs all of those levels are are accessible and you don't have any like awkward in between landing. I'm looking at the stair on the right of the the park and next to it there's some
steps that I'm not sure that they're all accessible. Sounds like the middle step may may not be. So please make sure that uh everything is accessible in the park. Thank you. >> Sure. Uh so we have a a flush condition
in the middle of the pocket park shown here. Um the dash line is the building below. Uh I apologize if that was confusing. >> No, no, that's not confusing. I'm talking about the stairs on the right
side of the page. Okay. Right there you have your cursor. So next to it, it looks like there's to the left of the leg there. It looks like two benches. And be behind the two benches, it looks like there's like in the like a landing
like in between level. It's not labeled, but it I just want to make sure that it's not an inaccessible level. Make sure that those are connected so everybody can um walk around there or or
see it. So just make sure that you are designing a space where everybody including people with disabilities can can use. >> Yeah, understood. Uh the landscape architect has definitely made a point of
making all of these areas within the pocket park accessible as can be. >> Okay. Thank you. >> But I will confirm this piece. >> Perfect. Thank you. Yep. All right. Thank you very much. Um,
any additional comments, questions from members of the commission, PIC staff, and I see Craig has his hand up. Um, so Todd, do you want to start there? >> Yes, Craig, go right ahead. >> Oh, thank you. Thank you again. Um, just
be real quick. And during the article 80 meetings um it was brought up what their intention was with the um I would say historic but indeed at least in nine park they feel historic. Um the cobblestone walls um that have been
treasured for um generations here. Um and they said they were going to try and find a way to incorporate those cobblestone walls which are right now we are planning to change for the sidewalk. Um, can I ask if they found a way to incorporate those walls? Are we just
going to destruct them and um and render them useless for anybody's you purpose? I I appreciate if they came up with an idea if they could tell us. Thank you, Commissioner. >> Yeah. >> If is Mike still with? May I I'm sorry,
Mr. Chair. May I respond briefly? >> Yeah, please go right ahead. These are um um depression era um public um oh my god I'm gonna forget my my initials but one of the many federal programs back
>> yeah exactly uh and we have looked into preserving as best we can there kind of from the 1930s I believe Craig and uh >> I there about yeah >> yeah we're very aware of it I know we've looked into it. I don't know, Mike,
whether you have any updates, but we certainly don't intend to destroy uh these elements. They may have to be relocated, moved, or made a part of uh of our general project, but they will not be destroyed. Yeah, that's true that Dennis said, we've talked to the
historical commission about incorporating them into the sidewall there that separates the properties uh from our neighbor to looking at this plant here to the right, which would be to the uh I guess the U south.
But yes, we we are going to preserve it in some form with a plaque that says it was a WPA wall. >> Okay. As we as we mentioned at all the community meetings, >> can I ask are those walls currently on
located within the p public way or are those part of the the property uh the private property here? >> They they seem to be right along the property line. We only have a small portion of the wall. the uh majority of it is at our neighbor to the right, but
it seems to be from our survey that it's on the property line, but we are committed to to to uh saving it and incorporating somehow either in the pocket park or along our neighbors.
>> Uh can if I could add to that uh Mitch Fishman, permanent consultant for 1690. Uh there is I just checked it a stipulation. uh Craig in the in the BPDA board memo approval uh under mitigation that uh
says exactly what uh Mike Sheen has indicated that uh we'll try to incorporate it within the landscape design and there's other words that describe it a little bit further. >> Okay, that's that's better than nothing. I I appreciate you explaining that that
that it is stipulated. >> Yeah. >> So, we'll follow up with that. Definitely follow up on that at the neighborhood because we do treasure those walls and nice to see them preserved. >> Yep, >> we do. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Craig, for raising that and
appreciate the project team um restate reiterating that commitment that was part of the board approval memo. um you know we're our view as a commission is confined typically to the public right ofway which we just widened slightly and
maybe to include some of these walls but ultimately I think we defer to the agreements that were uh established during the planning process um for article 80 to uh you know govern elements like this and and preservation of historic elements. But I appreciate
the project team um uh speaking to that commitment that was made and uh you know hope to see those uh fulfilled um for the benefit of the neighborhood and historic preservation. >> All right. Um AC staff or any other public comment?
>> Um I'll just mention that there are a few notations um that are going to be added to the specific repair plan before they submit myars. Um there are a few flex posts um adjacent to the bike lane at the parking area and a couple other spots. Um but we'll we will coordinate that with the project team.
>> All right. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> All right. With that to hear a motion to approve public hearing number three. >> We'll make a motion to approve a petition by West Boon Investments LLC for the making of specific repairs within High Park Gav as read to the record by the chair. Second.
>> All in favor? I I >> I >> I >> I Any oppose or abstain? So moved. Thank you very much. >> Thank you commissioners, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. >> Great. >> Moving on to public hearing number four
on a petition by Verizon New England Incorporated for granted location with lead company status and no participants to install new telecommunication infrastructure with city shadow conduit within the following public ways in Roxbury. Heath Street between address numbers 219 and 221 and Lawn Street,
Lawn Street, northeast of Heath Street. This was new business on October 23rd as shown on a set of plans entitled City of Boston Public Works Department Engineering Division granted location plan Verizon 219 Heath Street proposed conduit installation two sheets dated October 2025. Would the proponents
please introduce themselves, their affiliations, and give us any updates since your new business hearing? >> Yes. Good morning, Commission. Ross Bilu representing Verizon New England. I'm going to go ahead and share my screen to once again present the plan.
Okay. Hey, like you just said, uh, Verizon is trying uh proposing 570 ft of 1 in uh 1 4 in schedule 40 PVC duct with a city shadow from an existing manhole 605A located on Long Street up around
the corner up Heath Street. Can I get my There it is. Sorry about that. Um up to a future shared handhole uh placed by Crown Castle again to provide fiber
services along Heath Street. Um I have no updates. I don't believe there were any specific questions or concerns at the new business hearing on the 23rd. All right. Uh, commissioners, questions, comments? All >> right, Ross. This is Denise Stein from
the Boston War and SWAT Commission. Uh, we'll be doing work on Heat Street sometime next year. I was just trying to get an idea when you think you'll be out in construction with this project. >> I don't have a specific start date or a timeline for this one, unfortunately.
Um, I can ask them to coordinate with you. >> Oh, yeah, that'd be great. >> Okay, very good. All right. Thanks, Russ. >> Thank you. >> All right. KC staff or members of the public. >> All set. >> Do I hear a motion to approve public
hearing number four? >> I'll make a motion to approve a petition by Verizon New England Inc. for a grant of location in Heath Street and Long Street is to record by the chair. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> I. >> Any oppose or abstain?
So moved on to public hearing number five on a petition by Verizon New England Incorporated for a grant of location with lead company status and no participants to install new telecommunication infrastructure with city shadow conduit within Highland Street Public Way. Roxbury located generally between address numbers 273
and Center Street. New business on October 23rd shown on a set of plans entitled City of Boston Public Works Department Engineering Division Grant of Location Plan Verizon 273 Highland Street proposed conduit installation two sheets dated October 2025. The proponents please reintroduce
themselves, their affiliations, and give us an update along with any uh changes since your new business hearing. >> Yes, good again. Good morning. Ross Billy representing Verizon New England. Uh again, Verizon is proposing 343 ft of
a single 4 in schedule 40 PVC from our existing manhole 15 over 41B on Highland Street extending to the private property at 273. I do have some updates to this drawing. Um per request we showed the
speed humps with a note that is uh directing Verizon to fully mill reconstruct and repaint each one. So there's one on this sheet here uh connecting to the next sheet. There is a second speed hump in this dig. So
we again will be re uh fully milling, reconstructing and repainting that speed hump. Um you can see our condor coming in and entering the private property at 273 Highland. Um we also recognize that this section of the project is you know
adjacent to the town one of the town DPW garages. So we were working with them. I again don't have a a an exact timeline for when they want to start this project but I will make sure that they you know coordinate with the DPW to avoid you know plates in the roadway during a
snowstorm etc. So, >> thank you, Ross. Appreciate the responsiveness on both the speed hump and the public works coordination issue. And uh if anyone needs uh assistance with the public works uh points of contact, uh just feel free to reach out
to me. Uh we can make sure we get you the right folks. Um but appreciate that. >> Sure. Thank you. >> Uh commissioners, questions, comments? PIC staff or members of the public. >> All set. >> All right. Do you hear a motion to
approve public hearing number five? >> I make a motion to approve a petition by Verizon New England for a grant of location in Highland Street is written to act by the chair. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I >> I. Any oppose or abstain?
>> So moved. Thank you so much. >> Thank you. >> All right. Moving on to the new business section of our hearing. Starting with new business 1, 8 Old Road, 14-6 Ellington Street, Michigan Avenue,
Doorchester Pedestrian Easement, Pacific Repairs, Projection License, a set of petitions by Harvard Street Support Corp. Uh this is, I believe, their second appearance uh for this project on the new business. Uh so if the proponents could please introduce themselves, their affiliations, um give
us a a brief reintroduction to the project and uh let us know about why you are back here for new business again. >> Uh good morning commissioners. My name is David Valis and I'm with uh Harbor Street uh Neighborhood Health Center.
I'm actually uh representing them. I am uh a member of the community builders and we're acting on their behalf as the owner. Um what you're seeing today is the three parcels that Harbor Street has uh ownership of and we'll be discussing in more detail their new health center
located at the intersection of Ellington and all road. We were here two weeks ago and um this is actually a process that uh we have been involved working collectively with the city for about a year and a half uh having several meetings with PTD
disabilities commission about um how we can better design uh the public realm. Um as of uh last week um it brought it got brought up to us that uh the intersection of Ellington and All Road can be better designed for the pedestrian experience which we agreed uh
by doing a elevated or raised uh intersection. Uh right that's the view exactly of the intersection and um at at little or um equal cost. we explore in the last two weeks uh with the general
contractor and uh it is an increase in cost but not a significant one. So um as in compared to the to the scope of the project uh we agree with you all that u that it will be uh better for the neighborhood and the patients. Um and so
we're happy to be showing that today. Um we also during the process of a year and a half or so we have explored different curve uses uh like because we understand that it's tight for the uses that there are but we feel that there's some small changes that this will bring that you
will see today but uh but I feel like in in that area we can do little uh given the multiple trade-offs that we have at hand and the and the importance for the for the health center. We are hoping uh to break ground on this project in Q1 of
of next year. So uh this is becoming kind of like a critical uh path uh item for us and we'll appreciate uh your consideration for fully approval uh at the next meeting. But uh with that I will let our um our team uh show you
what we have today and uh I I hope that uh um that that satisfied the comments that you we received from you all uh last week uh two weeks ago. Thank you. Hey, good morning. I'm Frank Holmes with Langan Engineering. Uh I'm a civil engineer and and project manager uh for
the project here at Langan. Um so, uh what we're looking at here is is the original version of the specific repair plan. And you know, we understand or I understand that the at the first new business hearing, you know, there was
some concerns and comments and we um you know, have taken those and made some revisions to the plans that I'd like to walk through. And I think it's our goal here is to maybe leave the meeting here with you know um uh understanding that we have addressed the comments so that
we can finalize these plans and and submit them uh to to discuss at the uh public hearing in a couple of weeks. So this is the revised plan and um I want to point out a few specific things that
we've done here. So firstly, uh we we have looked at providing a raise intersection uh at the at Old Road in Ellington. Um I do want to note that um there would be a ramp, you know, up to
the to the raised intersection as you're traveling north on Old Road and then a ramp down to the old road uh elevation. Uh and if you're on Ellington Street, you know, heading west, you would ramp up to the raised intersection. Um
however, given some, you know, constraints with first floor elevation at this door, um we um don't show a ramp down. So the the intersection would actually be flush with Ellington as you're heading west. And that's to avoid
having to lower the grade of the road which there could be complications there with reducing cover over utilities etc. And we feel that that is okay because um uh Ellington is a one-way street. So we have the ramp on the approach where we really want to be slowing people down
but then if they were to continue in a flush condition you know we think that we're accomplishing the intent of of um of the raised intersection with trafficcoming. Another element or revision that we made
to the plan here is increasing the the length of the bus stop. What we were previously providing was 80 ft, which is within MBTA's recommended range, but it was on the lower end. And and so what we've done here is increased the length
of the bus stop to um 100 ft. uh and and that is at the at the higher end of the of MBTA's recommended range for for this kind of bus stop. The next thing we did was provide a a
5ft striped out area between the end of the bus stop and and the drop off pickup uh that that we have uh for the front door um of of the new building. And that was to address some concerns that we
heard of, you know, whether cars and the drop off pickup would maybe be, you know, into the bus stop and and taking away some space from the bus stop. So, we're doing what we can with providing that 5 foot striped down here as a visual indicator to to to drivers that,
you know, they shouldn't be there. Uh but we also think that with the increase in the length of the bus stop to 100 ft that also is uh you know helping to to mitigate you know that concern as well. And then lastly the the last significant
change we made here was some adjustments uh to the bike lane you know on both the approach to the intersection and um the bike lane as it's crossing through the intersection. So, um we did make the um
uh the transition as you're as a bicyclist is would be you heading north on old road. Uh we did make that a little less abrupt going through the intersection by you know adjusting the alignment of the bike lane as it's approaching the raised intersection. And
we also have provided, you know, green um uh uh paint markings both on the approach and through the intersection uh to to make that more visible for motorists as they're approaching the intersection. Um and for bicyclists,
right, to make it more not um noticeable for them as well. So, um, those are the changes that we made to the plan and and I'm hoping that we addressed the the the comments and concerns that we heard two weeks ago
>> and uh this is David again just to uh there was another comment about the uh whether we have checked the plans with the MBTA. We have verbally and shown it on on multiple meetings. We don't have written confirmation but we have had several meetings with them. Of course, if we are to make these changes, we have
to run this again by then. But we're feeling that because of the approach that we're taking that they will still be comfortable with this, but uh we will we will confirm that after we know that you all are okay with this. So, with that, uh thank you so much. >> Thank you very much. And uh really appreciate the responsiveness here to
the um issues that were raised. Uh, commissioners questions, comments >> on the other raised intersection side, you have ramping up and down on three sides of it and not on the other Ellington. >> I don't know if it's just me. I'm not
hearing Amy. >> I was able to hear her. >> Yeah, I think it's you, Frank. Uh, uh, Amy, can you repeat? Can you hear me, Frank? Or is it just with Amy? H uh let me text Frank on the side. Uh what was your uh question, Amy? Maybe
I'm hoping to uh maybe I can answer. >> So on the next sheet. >> Oh, then maybe Frank can hear you. I don't know. >> Right. This one. >> Oh, you you're the one managing the Uh-huh. >> Okay. Well, this
sheet looks different than the sheet that I'm looking at. So that >> Yeah, this is the previous um Hi, Amy. Maximo here and I work with Frank as well. Um, this is the previous sheet. This is not This is the sheet that you're looking for. Yep. >> No, we ramp up. We ramp up. We ramp
down. What happens on the other side of Ellington? >> So, it's where >> Go ahead, Frank. >> Sorry. Yeah, this is what I was describing uh earlier uh
where this would be a flush condition as as a car continues west on Ellington and and the reason that we don't ramp down is because we would need to actually lower the grade of Ellington in that
location and you know we would have some concerns there potentially with reducing cover over utilities that are there. Um and but um Ellington is also a oneway, right? So we have the ramp up to the raised intersection and there's a stop
sign right at that intersection. So you know cars should be um have slowed down significantly. They should have stopped approaching the raised intersection. So, as they're exiting the intersection and heading west on on Ellington, we felt
that having that be a flush condition is is acceptable against, you know, balancing several things here and trying to avoid lowering the grade in Ellington Street. >> Yeah. No, I I I understand that. I'm
just trying to understand how this all works with grading and drainage. um that we come out flush on one side after raising the other three sides. >> So um we we're working through the
grading now, right? We we we may need to add a a catch basin uh on Ellington. grades are generally heading uh west to east down Ellington and and there's also a
high point on the intersection um with old road in Ellington where um runoff is to the south down old road. So there'd be a high point right around at the uh at the ramp up to the raised
intersection. So we would not need to add any drainage structures there. And similarly on the north side of the intersection uh drainage and grades are heading north uh on old road. So no additional drainage structures are necessary there.
So we we might need to add one catch basin. Um we're looking at that now and that would be you know part of what we're doing when we as we're finalizing the plans. >> Yep. I think that's kind of my question is that either something's flush and we're sheeting water somewhere we don't
want to or it seems like we need at least a structure uh right for drainage. So I think it's more if we could have the basic draining grading plans along with right whatever um drainage you might be adding just to understand where water's going to end up.
>> Yep. We'll forward those along you know after the meeting. Yeah. We'll forward those along. We're just continuing to to put those together. All right, Patricia. >> Hey, Frank. This is Patricia. Um, it's great that you are achieving the table
intersection. I have a quick question on the detectable warning strip on the top right of the intersection. Is that a flush condition? >> Yeah, this would all be flush. Okay. And
then can can you put the curb the tactile warning strip right just like you have it on the opposite side? >> Yeah. Just like that one but the >> just fill that in. >> Yes. If that's flush condition, then EV
needs a curve detect warning strip just like you did in the >> Okay. I mean, we were we were keeping the detectable warnings within the limits of the crosswalks, but if that's what is desired by the city, we we, you know, could extend the
detectable warnings like you're saying, but we we thought it might be best to keep the detectable warnings within the limits of the crosswalks. >> Um, okay. So the the preferred configuration is to have it continuous. So you have it on the crosswalk and then
you have it in the corner and then you have an AC crosswalk again. >> Okay, understood. So we will continue that. Can we >> can we do a treatment similar to what we see on the lower left part of the intersection where the crosswalk lines
are sort of extended in such a way that the the curved corner is encapsulated entirely within the crosswalk markings. >> So maybe do something like that with the >> widen the crosswalk, >> right? Just widen them. Okay.
>> Yeah, widen the one on the right, the flush side. Um so that and you can even widen the one coming up on Oldfield Road so that you can get where they intersect in you know kind of out in the street like you have on the other side. >> Okay.
>> Yeah. Let's just we'll we'll I think just let's let's confirm between now and the public hearing that we have a design that meets all ADA requirements and and achieves the goal that Patricia just outlined. And uh hopefully that is uh
something that we can just sort out the details of. But I think more more more of that pedestrian space is is better. >> Thank you so much. >> Thank you so much. A table intersection and it's great. Thank you. >> Yeah.
>> All right, commissioners. Other questions, comments, PIC staff or members of the public? Um, I think we're all set on this. Uh, I would just ask that the project mention at least briefly the pedestrian easements and
um canopy license. >> Sure. So, um this sheet is showing the the two pedestrian easements that are needed. Uh the the first one um is along Ellington and it, you know, it's a total
of about 144 square feet. It's I'll zoom in here. It's generally, you know, a little over a foot wide uh along the the rightway except at the intersection here where it's triangular in in in shape. Um
again, about 144 uh square ft total. And then on Michigan Avenue, this one is really more just a straight shot without that sort of triangular shape. And it's about 2 feet wide in general and it
totals uh 142 square ft plus or minus. Um and then we also have a uh canopy projection here. So, this is on Old Road, the corner of Ellington and
Old Road. And this is trapezoidal in shape. It's um about 3/4 of a feet uh of a foot um into the right way on the north side, about 3.3 ft on the south side, and the total length of that is
about 33 1/2 ft. Uh, and so that's a total of uh 667 square ft for the canopy projection. And if um and there's also 11 ft clear from the sidewalk to the bottom of that canopy. And if we go back
to the rendering here, you know, this is that canopy projection uh at the intersection, you know, over over the front door. Great. And then one followup from your original presentation two weeks ago. Um
these plans still appear to show what maybe I'm not sure exactly what it is. Might be a landscaped area, something like that on Michigan Avenue. Um that's leaving 4.5 ft clear behind a street light. Um, we would just ask that you
take a look at that and modify this design to ensure that at least five feet clear or whatever is determined to be appropriate by disabilities um is available there. Understood. and and we're going to make
that change by firstly we're going to measure to confirm you know the dimension that we have exactly from that uh utility pole and then if needed there's a planter there that is the constraint between the utility pole um
and and if needed we'll pull that planter wall back uh to provide a minimum of five feet. We're assuming if we could confirm that five feet is what the minimum should be. >> Uh Patricia, I'll look to you. >> Yeah. >> Yes. 5T.
>> Yeah. >> Clear would be great. >> So we we will make that change as well. We're planning on doing that too. And and Todd, we know there were some other just minor, you know, comments to the plans um that that uh that we will be making as well. Um but uh we want to
talk about the major the major elements which I think we've covered. >> Yeah, definitely. Great. Thank you, Frank. That's fantastic. >> All right. Hearing and seeing no other comments, do uh will you be ready for your public hearing in two weeks on November 20th?
>> Will be. Yes. >> Wonderful. All right. We'll see you back here then. Thank you so Thank you so much. I appreciate it. >> Thank you. >> All right. On to our next item. New business 2. Major Michael J. O. Conor Way, General Lawrence J. Logan Way, South Boston. Grant of location on a
petition by Verizon New England Incorporated. Would the commissioner please reintroduce themselves and let us know what you are proposing to do here. >> Sure. Once again, Ross Spu representing Verizon New England. Um,
get my screen to work again. Sorry about that. Okay. Um, this is a multi-phase project. This was just a continuation of the um, Mary Ellen McCormack project. Um, so again, another phase from something
that's already proposed to be built. Um Verizon is going to be connecting a lot of pipes out here to a lot of different uh developments uh buildings. Um there are joint trench with Comcast and Astound.
Um so I'll I'll go over some of this stuff here. Um from a future manhole 33 over 118B, the joint trench to a future building off Logan Way. uh a stub for future use down O' Connor
Way onto the next sheet to a proposed manhole which is a part of this petition coming north out of that to a future stub for future use. Future stub for future use and another
future stub for future use. Again, all these um markings on here are to be joint trench with Verizon, Comcast and Astound. Thank you very much. And I know I said this when you came through with the
first uh part of uh this project, but we very much appreciate the coordination amongst the utilities here and only digging up our street once and in one place. Um it is uh delightful to see. So appreciate that. Uh commissioners
questions, comments. Patricia. >> Hi, this is Patricia. Um, thank you for your presentation. Uh, the thing that I would like to ask is please submit uh a form to our commission regarding the
relocation of any on street accessible parking. Please. >> Sure. >> Thank you so much. All right. Uh PIC staff, members of the public, um I'll just ask that we get astound and
Comcast uh either to submit either a signed counter or um counter sign the petition before your public hearing or have them and or have them appear um at your public hearing. >> Yep. Good point, Todd. Um, I meant to
mention that as well. Um, as of late yesterday afternoon, um, we haven't heard back with their their letters or whatnot. Uh, but they were working on them. Uh, I know the representative from Astound was probably out of office until sometime next week,
but we should have that by next time. >> Great. Thank you. >> All right. Uh, will you be ready for your public hearing in two weeks on November 20th? >> Yes, I will be then. >> All right. Excellent. Thanks so much. We'll see you then. >> Thank you very much. Have a great day.
>> You too. All right. And on now to our final item, new business 3, 1517 Witchaw Terrace, Doorchester Pedestrian Esman, Pacific Repairs on a set of petitions by 1517 Witchaw Terrace LLC. The responents please introduce themselves, their
affiliations, and let us know what uh you are proposing to do. >> Hi everyone, my name is Tim Longen, uh one of the owners of 17 Witchah Terrace along with Teddy Hearn, who's also on this call. Um
just going to share this. All right. So, just to give you a little background as to uh why we're here today, um we purchased 17 Witchah Terrace, 15-17 Witchah Terrace. Uh in May of 2024, uh we
uh filed an application for seven residential units. Uh we went through ISD, uh the ZBA process, uh then back to the BPDA after we approved by ZP uh by the ZBA. um came up with a design, went back to ISD and we were ready to pull the permit
um but then we were told that uh the fire department would not um would not approve it uh because the street is not wide enough for firet truck access. Um, so we went on to learn that there was a years ago there was a two family at uh
15 Witchah Terrace um that actually burnt to the ground and one of the reasons that it it burnt all the way to the ground was because the fire trucks uh could not have access to the building. The Witchaw Terrace is not wide enough um for fire truck access. Um
so we worked with the fire marshal Colin Kelly uh to come up with the design that we have in front of you today. Um we've actually so the fire marshall Colin Kelly they they approved and they support the project. Uh this is actually a quote from uh the fire marshall that
the proposal significantly improves fire department access to this narrow deadend street. It would make life for the fire department operationally easier. Um so what we're proposing to do is to repair the existing sidewalk. Uh we'll change all the curbing so the curving is
rounded uh so firet truck tires could fit up on the uh curbs in case of an emergency. Um so we're uh we're also proposing a 3-foot pedestrian easement in front of our proposed building um that that would
widen the sidewalk to 5t in front of the building. um as part of this rounded curb, if you were to include the sidewalks now, the the fire department would have 20 ft of width uh in order for fire truck access. Um so it it was a
life safety issue. Uh really the the the most feedback we got uh from the mayor's commission um for persons with disabilities, Sarah flagged that uh the 3-foot sidewalk may need a variance from AAB um as it doesn't meet the 4ft minimum. Um, we've already, I guess you
could say, we've started the that AAB variance process. We spoke with Molly at AAB yesterday. So, we we will be moving forward uh to try to obtain a variance from them uh in order for this project to move forward. So, uh with that, I'll open it up.
>> Thank you very much. And um I will add just uh wearing my chief of streets hat that there is a um active conversation happening with uh the abutters on which Terrace uh the Boston Transportation Department, the fire marshall and the
office of neighborhood services about potentially posting um clearer parking restrictions within Witchah Terrace which currently um is sometimes uh parked in. uh and so that is also part of that uh larger um effort to ensure
that in a final condition that there is uh good emergency vehicle access uh here where needed. Um so with that uh commissioners questions comments >> go for it.
>> Thanks Amy. Um yeah, regarding the the variance, I'm glad that you started that process and um we look forward to seeing the the final decision um before voting. >> Thank you. >> Thank you,
>> commissioners. Other questions or comments? >> Uh is the intention here like there's two curb cuts that don't have curb cuts on the opposite side of the street from you guys? Uh, are we just recurbing them in?
>> I mean, as of today, yes. I haven't had a conversation with the owner of that building. Um, you know, to uh to apply for a curb cut. Um, so I I guess it would be as is for right now. We haven't we haven't had that. >> I mean, you're making it better because
it's not vertical curving anymore, but um they should apply for curve cuts. >> Yeah, I I'll let him know. I I do have his contact info, so I can pass that on. >> All right, commissioners, any other questions, comments, PIC staff, or members of the public?
>> No. Uh, this has been a interesting and tricky one. So Tim and Ted, I appreciate your working with us on this. >> Thank you as well. >> Excellent. Um, all right. We'll be ready for your public hearing in two weeks on
November 20th. >> We will. >> Excellent. We will see you back here then. Thank you so much. >> Thanks, guys. Appreciate it. Bye now. >> All right. And with that, we have reached the end of our agenda. Do I hear a motion to adjurnn? >> I'll make a motion to adjurnn. >> Second.
>> All in favor? I >> I we are adjourned. Thank you all very much. See you soon. >> Thank you.