be so kind to City of Boston Zoning Board of Appeal for April 7th, 20, 2026 is now in session. The hearing is being conducted in accordance with the applicable provisions of the open meeting law, including the updated provisions enacted
by the legislature this year. The new law allows the board to continue its practice 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 most administratively unmuted when asked to comment. Board members, applicants, and their attorneys or representatives will participate in
the hearing as panelists, and they will appear alongside the presentation materials when speaking. Panelists are strongly encouraged to keep video on while presenting to the board. As with our in-person meetings, comments and support will be followed by comments
in opposition. The order of comments is as follows: elected officials, representatives of elected officials, and members of the public. The chair may limit the number of people called upon to offer comment and the time for commenting as time constraints require. For that reason, the board prefers to
hear from members of the public who are most impacted by a project. That is those individuals who live closest to the project. If you wish to comment on an appeal, please click the raise hand button along the bottom of your screen in the Zoom
webinar platform. Click it again and your hand should go down. When the host sees your hand, you will receive a request to unmute yourself. Select yes and you should be able to talk. If you are connected to the hearing by telephone, please press 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 they can provide their comment. In the interest of time and to ensure
that you have enough time to do so, please raise your hand as soon as Mr. Stumbridge reads the address into the record. Do not raise your hand before the relevant address is called or after the or the meeting host will not know to call on you at the appropriate time. We ask that you keep your comments brief
and that all public testimony will be limited to 90 seconds per speaker. These instructions will be repeated throughout the hearing. >> Thank you, Mr. Stebridge. Good morning, Madam Chair. President
>> Good morning, Mr. Valencia. >> Good morning, Madame Sher. Present. >> Good morning, Mr. Langham. >> Good morning, Madam Chair. Present. >> Good morning, Miss Weell. >> Good morning, Madame Chair. Present. >> Uh, Mr. Collins.
>> Morning, Madam Chair. Present. >> Miss Bza. >> Good morning, Madam Chair. Present. >> Good morning. The floor is yours, Mr. Sbridge. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. We'll begin today's meeting with the approval of hearing minutes scheduled for 9:30,
excuse me. Um, these minutes are from March 19th and March 24th of this year. Uh, I will make a motion of of approval. Have >> a second. >> Second. >> Mr. Febridge?
>> Yes. >> Mr. Valencia? >> Yes. >> Mr. Langum? Yes, >> Miss Weell. >> Yes, >> Mr. Collins. >> Yes, >> Mr. Belzo. >> Yes, >> Chair Books. Yes. The motion carries.
>> Next, we move on to the extension scheduled for 9:30 a.m. There are 12 uh extension requests. I'll read them all in one after the other. If there's any questions on them, we can address those
to Madam Chair um after I finish. We'll begin with case BOA 1537925 with the address of 22 Freeman Street. Next we have case BOA 940697
with the address of 1102 to 11:06R Blue Hill Avenue. Next we have case BOA 147 2285 with the address of 344 Breman Street.
Next we have case BOA 1561839 with the address of 500 Western Avenue. Next we have case BOA155 3897 with the address of 29 Hive Street.
Next we have case BOA 1567789 with the address of 7 Cell Kirk Road. Next we have case BOA 1417476 with the address of 10 9inth Street.
Next we have case BOA1571297 with the address of 50 Princeton Street. Next we have case BOA 818377 with the address of 111 Terrace Street.
Next we have case BOA 992109 with the address of 24 Ram Street. Next we have case BOA 9992105 with the address of 28 Ram Street.
And finally, we have case BOA1562393 with the address of 7 735 to 745 River Street. All of the extension requests appear to be reasonable and can go from there.
>> Thank you. Any questions from the board? May I have a motion to grant the extensions as requested? I make a motion to grant the extensions as requested. >> Mr. Stebridge, >> yes. >> Mr. Valencio, >> yes.
>> Mr. Langum, >> yes. >> Miss Weo, >> yes. >> Mr. Collins, >> yes. >> Miss better? >> Yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Next we have board three board final
operator cases scheduled for 9:30. The first case is BOA 1767611 with the address of 11 Nwood Street. If the applicant and or their representative are present, will they please explain to the board?
>> Are you speaking on behalf of this case, Mr. Albas? >> Yes. Yes, ma'am. >> Great. Can you identify uh your your name and address for the record, please? >> Good morning. My name is Abra. Uh I'm a I I'm a contractor representing
11 Inwood Street. Uh the project originally was a three family. We have a approval for three family. It's already in progress. Uh but
then after we uh get approved for by CDA, we identify the uh a little smaller for doesn't cover the stair section. So the request is to
extend uh necessary just to cover the uh stair case. No, we don't we don't we don't need to add any more living space. We just need add
enough space to cover the staircase for the head room. The other situation is the uh uh the spring system. We already have uh the spring uh we
already have in place a sprinkler system for in three and the three unit. All we need is to extend the sprinkler system for the fourth unit. But that way we just request not to be
affect the sprinkler the existing sprinkler just to add the the new the new apartment. If we just want you to understand and you go for new operation
that be great for us because otherwise we don't think it's going to be a a great event. >> Thank you. Are there questions from the board? >> Hearing none. May I have a motion? >> Madam chair, I'd like to go for a motion
of approval. The modifications are minor. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Mr. Stbridge? >> Yes. >> Mr. Valencia? >> Yes. >> Mr. Lango? >> Yes. >> Miss Weel?
>> Yes. >> Mr. Collins? >> Yes. >> Miss Berazzo? >> Yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck. >> Thank you. You're on mute, Mr. Stebridge.
>> Thank Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, next we have case BOA 1582245 with the address of 50 to 52 Townson Street. If the applicant and or their representative are present, would they
please explain to the board? Is the applicant for 50 Towns in Street on? We seem to be missing our ambassador, so I don't >> Oh. Um, >> okay. The applicant is here. Um Cameron
or Stephanie, could you unmute them? >> Yeah, I just >> Okay, thank you, Cam. >> Good morning. >> I I think I shared Ser I allow you to unmute yourself.
>> Yes. Can you hear me? >> Yeah. >> Yes. Can you state your name and address for the record and please proceed? >> Uh yes, ma'am. My name is Sher Yoshu. Sher Yoshu uh from 50 and 52 Townson Street.
Um I am I was there this meeting a couple years ago and uh a request was made to have 50 and 52 uh two different field side by side buildings to be as one. But that cannot
be the case uh for mortgage reasons. So I'm requesting that everything uh on that request uh goes as is. I believe
totally uh confused request that uh ISC would like but to keep them separate not as not to be connected to be uh not to be combined to be one building but to
remain as two buildings 50 and 52 street are the questions from the Hearing none. Is there a motion? >> Madam Chair, I'd like to put forward a motion of approval. >> Is there a second? >> Second.
>> Mr. Stumbridge? >> Yeah. >> Mr. Valencio? >> Yes. >> Mr. Lang. >> You're on. >> Yes. Yes. Yes. >> Thank you. Thank you, Miss WoW. >> Yes, >> Mr. Collins.
>> Yes. >> Better Brazo. >> Yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck. >> Thank you very much. >> Next we have case BOA 1695772 with the address of 7 Tiptop Street. If
the applicant andor their representative are present, would they please explain the case to the board? Hello. >> Hello. >> Are you the applicant? >> Yes. >> Okay. Can you state your name and address for the record and please proceed?
>> Yes. Uh hi, my name is Preservari and the address is uh 7 Tiptop Street. uh I'm requesting minor changes to my uh application uh for my permit. So, and this uh is still with with these changes, it's still under u the proposed
FR and the plot plan does not have any changes with the changes I'm making. >> So, what are the changes you're proposing? >> Um as as we get into the plans, uh I'll explain a little bit more. Um the the floor plans.
Yes. Um so in these two floor plans like the uh basement level where I'm going to live in. It's like a walkout basement. I would like to add um a wall to add one more room like a guest room. Um and also in the uh kind of doing the same in the
uh in the first floor level as well. And uh uh can we move on to the next slide please? And in the top two floors, there are small decks. Uh there were uh the each each floor has uh three decks currently, but uh right right now I'm
proposing to close one of the smaller decks that is like uh 40 square foot each and increase the office space a little bit because it was too tight. Um that is all the changes I'm requesting. Are there questions from the board?
>> And the in the elevation um just to let you know this is where the decks were. They were small and just adding and closing it about 40 square footage. Okay. Other questions from the board
hearing? None. Is there a motion? >> Madam Chair, I'll put for a motion of approval. >> Is there a second? >> Second. Mr. Sbridge, >> yes. >> Mr. Valencio, >> yes. >> Mr. Langum, >> yes.
>> Miss Lewell, >> yes. >> Mr. Collins, >> yes. >> Miss better, >> yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck. >> Thank you very much, >> Madam Chair. Next, we have on the
agenda, we have a discussion of the of open meeting law complaint regarding the February 24th, 2026 hearing for 154 Terra Street. And these are assigned to uh case number
BOA1261313 /t124 0355 for the appeal. >> Thank you. The board has received and reviewed the open meeting law complaint and the legal advisor's draft response concerning 154 Terrace Street. Does any
board member have any questions? Hearing none, may I have a motion to adopt the legal advisor's response to the complaint? >> Madam Chair, I'll make a motion uh to adopt the legal advisor's response to to
this open meeting law complaint regarding 154 Terra Street. >> Is there a second? >> Second, >> Mr. Stebridge? >> Yes. >> Mr. Valencio? >> Yes. >> Mr. Mr. Langum.
>> Yes. >> Miss Weo. >> Yes. >> Mr. Collins. >> Yes. >> Miss Better Braza. >> Yes. >> Chair. Yes. The motion carries. >> Next, we'll move on to the hearings
scheduled for 9:30 a.m. Um, at this time, we'll ask if there are any requests for withdrawals or deferrals from the 9:30 a.m. hearing. Hearing none will begin with case BOA
179 2127 with the address of 101 Cottage Street if the applicants and or their representative are present. >> Hi, good day. My name is Anat Nafiga from Derek Rubenov Architecture in West
Roxbury, 82 Spring Street. I'm here to present Hannah Rocky and Kamal Nahas, their young family uh that would like to build a roof deck. Um the uh project uh if you can scroll down. So the owners
own the this is a two family uh building and the owners actually occupy the entire building. And what we would like to do is basically add a roof deck of the existing building. It actually matches the neighboring building on 103 cottage. And we're going to do the roof
deck uh similar to what the neighbor is doing, which is a 5t front setback on the roof edge. Um we'll have a 42inch high railing if you don't necessarily need to for safety reasons. There's a small child with the family. Um the
owners occupy the entire building. So, uh, what we would like to do, if you can scroll down a little bit, is, um, and turn it up a little bit. Stay on the second page. Can scroll up and stay there. Okay. Thank you. So,
what we want to do is there's um existing fire speed balcony from the third floor to the second floor. This is actually the third and second floors are the second unit. And we really don't need that exit. those two exit remains from the interior that take you to the
front and then exterior on the second floor that take you to the ground. So the stat fire balcony stays. We just want to do is that create a new balcony on the third floor which is the length of about 16 ft long and uh more than
three feet deep and that uh will create access to the roof deck uh via spiral staircase 5t uh diameter. Um, so that's pretty much the the the project. The the spiral staircase and
the balcony, they're in the rear setback. So that's why we have the violations. Uh, we have the rear setback violation. We have roof structure restrictions for the roof deck. And then um we have additional two violations
which are the reconstruction of extension of non-conforming building as well as uh insufficient building lot depth. Uh we want to mention that there is multiple uh roof decks in the area. Also
we mentioned the neighboring building and we have actually creating a deck connecting to them uh a gate connecting to them. uh we submitted four support letters uh and then from the immediate neighbors from both sides and as well from the rear which is uh I believe 247
mick. So all of the others are in support of this project um and uh we just want to mention also that it's really not going to be visible from the street view as it is set back five feet and it's a narrow street. Um I think that's conclude the presentation.
>> Thank you. Are there questions from the board? Hearing none. May I have public testimony? >> Hello, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Eva Jones representing the mayor's office of neighborhood services. Regarding 101 Cottage Street, our office defers to the board's judgment. A community process was
conducted including on a letters meeting held on 12325 that was not attended by any community members. Additionally, we did receive four letters in support uh three from director Butters. The proposal was also reviewed by the GO Street Neighborhood Association at their meeting on 12626 and they expressed
support at a vote of four in favor and one opposed regarding the proposal. At this time, the mayor's office neighborhood services defers to the board's judgment on this matter. Thank you everyone for your time and consideration. >> Thank you, >> Madame Chair. Next, we have Gabriella
from Consul Kleta's office. >> Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. Gabriella Reneer is here on behalf of Boston City Councelor Gabriela Kleta Sapata's office. At this time, the council would like to go on the record in support of this proposal. Thank you. >> Thank you,
>> Madam Chair. There are no additional comment. >> With that, may I have a motion? >> Motion. >> Second. >> Thank you, Mr. Stanbridge. >> Yes. >> Mr. Valencia. >> Yes.
>> Mr. Lango. Yes, >> Miss Weo. >> Yes, >> Mr. Collins. >> M Miss Brazza. >> Yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. >> Thank you very much. Have a good day.
>> Next, we have case BOA 1811057 with the address of 51 Sy Street. If the applicant and or the representative are present, would they please explain the case to the board? >> Good morning to everybody on the board. Uh my name is Tim Shen. I'm the
architect for the project. Um this is a single family house at 51 Sole Street in Charle Town. Uh it's owner occupied. Currently, it's it's a single family with a you know main rectangle section and then there's a back L, you know, a two-story section. The front section is
two and a half uh stories with the gable. Um we want to rebuild the rear L. Basically, the house is in pretty rough shape, so it's going to be a full restoration. Um the reason we're here today is um on top now there's two dormers, one in the front, one in the back. We'd like to do two separate
dormas in the front and a shed dormer in the back to allow for a master bedroom suite. We'd like to put a deck on behind that master bedroom on the twotory section. Um, that back L now is configured strangely. There's a hollow space in the middle. Uh, can't quite
figure it out, but we're just going to build it as a rectangle. Uh, we want to put a deck on the back. Um, which will cause a rare setback violation, but we also, you know, there's an existing driveway there. Now, I've shown two compact spaces and a full. They may use it as two full spaces, but you can get
three cars in there, I believe. Um, and we're adding what? We're adding like 850 square feet. We're going to finish the basement. Currently unfinished. We'll finish the forward section of it. Uh we're lucky we have 7T ceiling height there now. We'll keep that. And that's
basically, you know, the rear yard setback, parking, roof, open space. So that's why we're here. Um the neighborhood process has gone fine. We've talked to the neighbors. And with that, I'll leave it to your questions. >> Thank you. 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 completed the community process. Our office hosted an abuters meeting on February 11th. The butter had a concern about a fence jointly located with this property. Our office understands the
petitioners have had a dialogue with them. That background, our office defers judgment to the board. Thank you, >> Madame Chair. There are no additional comments. >> Okay. Was that May I have a motion? Madam chair, motion to approve um with
the proviso um that the plans are submitted to the planning department for design review focusing on the um proposed rear door. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Mr. Stumbridge.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Valencia. >> Yes. >> Mr. Langum. >> Yes. >> M. We will. >> Yes. >> Mr. Collins. >> Yes. >> Miss Benzo. >> Yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries.
>> Thank you everybody. >> Next we have case BOA 1747974 with the address of 142P Street. If the applicants andor their representative are present, would they please explain the case to the board?
>> Thank you. Um, uh, Mr. Sebridge, uh, Madame Chairman, members of the board, uh, my name is Eric Zack. I live at, um, 61 Monument Avenue in Charletown. I'm the architect for the project. Uh, the project is, um,
to to propose, uh, on these five uh, fairly recently constructed town homes in South Boston. Uh each of the five um unit owners represents a young family that's in B that has moved to South Boston and would like to um add a uh a
roof deck to their uh individual town homes. So the proposal is to add five individual uh roof decks. >> The the uh the parapit uh on this particular building happens to be 42 in or a little higher than that. And so
we've worked together to come up with a strategy using um a tile tech system which would um uh be white and alleviate the urban heat island effect and uh and the there would actually need not need to be a handrail around the the deck. So
the the idea is that this would uh then be uh a roof deck that is not visible from the the neighbors. Uh we um presented this uh presentation uh to the Abutters in October and then there was some concern about the pergola that
we had put over the top to shade uh a number of the um to to shade all five of the units. So after informally meeting with the neighborhood association, we removed the pergola. We have uh since then tried to meet with the neighborhood association a number of times, but that
hasn't been able to be scheduled. And so we are here today to present and ask for um the variances required to um basically convert this roof area into uh five individual uh roof decks for these
uh these families. >> Can I ask how recently this project uh was completed or approved? >> A couple of years ago. Um, I believe the tenants, uh, most of them have been living there for a year and a half to two years.
>> And why wasn't why weren't roof decks part of the original proposal if that was the intention? >> Yeah, I I can't say for sure. Uh, we were not part of the development team and there is no record as to why they were were not uh installed at that
point. It would have seemed like a nice way. Um, one of the situations is that this project actually sits very far back on the lot. So, there are no rear yard um uh no rear yards on the property. All of them uh there's a very large uh
lovely landscaped front yard, but that doesn't provide the kind of play space andor kind of private gathering space that we normally associate with a little bit of private outdoor space. So, this is this is set way back from the corner. Uh, and that gives great visibility and a great kind of green space for the
community, but the unit owners don't have any private outdoor space. >> And can you give me a sense of how many like are I I'm looking at Google Earth like there don't seem to be a lot of roof decks nearby. Are are you aware?
>> There are quite a few. Yes. I I one of the tenants said that he believes he he could count as many as 50 within a couple of blocks. >> In fact, one of one of the comments from the neighbors was that they were concerned that the pergola would block
the view from their roof deck. So, we know that that was the primary concern for the roof deck was the pergola was the view from other roof decks. >> Thank you. Other questions from the board? >> Yes. First of all, a comment first since
the building is already there. I was wondering why you don't you don't have like pictures of the actual building to show what is there now in the proposal. But the comment the question is about the community process. We we received several letters of community members
asking for a second meeting. You mentioned that there has not been possible to have that meeting with a borders. Can you explain a little bit more about the community process? Yeah, absolutely. Um very I'm actually quite concerned about it. We um as I said, we
met with the neighbors in the abutters in October of last year. We um and we met informally with the neighborhood association then and then we um we decided to remove the pergola and since then we have emailed the neighborhood
association um quite a few times in both November, December, January and been either not put on the agenda or very often at the last minute told that we've been we're not we're not on the agenda
literally the day of. uh we expressed our concerns to BPD or to the office of neighborhood services and they they urged us to meet with them. We sent an email asking, "Can we meet with you?" The the Office of Neighborhood Services
gave us a um a zoning board hearing date. And after we had finally secured that, then the uh neighborhood association agreed that they could meet with us if we could wait a couple month uh a couple more months. And so, you
know, at some point we got we became um exasperated with the process of trying to get on the neighborhood association agenda even though we'd had informal meetings and we had already uh addressed the the primary concern that they had asked for. So, while we would love to
and we regularly meet with and and present to neighborhood associations, this particular association has not allowed us or not put us on the agenda since we first requested back in November 10th of last year. >> And which association are you talking about? Just so we're clear.
>> Uh I believe it's the Cityoint Neighborhood Association. >> Other questions from the board? >> No, that's it. Um, I have a question regarding your roof plan. Uh, if you can go to the roof plan
right there. Yep, that's great. Um, I'm seeing um, grills that are right adjacent to exterior walls. Um, can you talk to me a little bit more about what type of grills barbecue you're
proposing? Yeah, the we haven't gotten into it terribly much, but the idea is that they would be outdoor grills adjacent to the parapit wall. Um, but because these grills tend to be 36 in tall, they're shorter than the the parapit wall. And so, um, in answer to
the other question a moment ago, we actually have a photo though on the cover sheet because there are because there's no guardrail, it you would not be able to see this from the street. >> Okay. Yeah. So um my only my only concern is that in the city of Boston,
the fire department kind of um regulates the use of grill and what type of grill. So that would be my only um um concern that uh typically you're not supposed to put them near rail links nor um near
exterior walls. So uh just for you to take a look at the fire department codes regarding grills on roof decks. >> Absolutely. And that that's part of the reason we want to show them is to be very transparent as we go through the process and make sure that we uh that everybody knows that they're going to be
there or comments on and we get them arranged appropriately. >> Typically only electric grills are allowed. Um but you should just read into the regulations and I'll just put a provisal on there on >> if I may. I'm one of the unit owners and um we're I'm talking with the other unit
owners too and we're comfortable with moving the location of the grill so that they're not against the walls. Yep. Um, I'll head it back to uh the the chair because I I think it's not public testimony yet, but thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Are there any other questions
from the board hearing? None. Let's open it up to public testimony. >> Good morning again, Madame Chair and members. Sigy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This application had an abutters meeting on October 9th at which were divided on the proposal. Uh some supporting cited a need for open
space for families and the positive character of the applicants. Uh those opposed cited deterioration of their sightelines and public nuisance issues associated with roof decks. Additionally, an issue came up regarding a compromise in the community process for the construction of this building that included no roof decks as part of
the original construction. Our office received 13 letters of opposition, 12 of which have signed an address in the 300 ft abuts radius. Visa Butters also felt that more changes could be made in response to feedback and requested additional community meetings with the petitioners. Austin has received 26
letters of support. One has provided an address in the 300t abutters radius with the other addresses in other areas of South Boston. The applicants met informally with the Cityoint Neighborhood Association. That group felt that more community process was needed and has requested additional community meetings. Concerns were raised
about the proposed pergola at the abuters meeting and the association meeting and the applicants have uh de or um indicated they have removed the pergola in response to this feedback. That background our office defers judgment to the board. Thank you.
>> Next we have Sydney from councelor Flynn's office. >> Thank you madam chair members of the board. This is Sydney Scandlin from councelor Flynn's office. Uh, councelor Flynn would like to go on record in opposition based on overwhelming feedback from abutters, nearby neighbors, and the cityoint neighborhood
association. As you know, councelor Flynn maintains a long-standing policy against the construction of additional roof decks based on eight years of meetings and concerns voiced by our seniors, persons with disabilities, veterans, and young families on quality of life issues, parties at all hours,
trash removal with pizza boxes falling into the street, our pest control crisis, and public safety issues with the presence of girls on decks. But what councelor Flynn heard from his constituents in this case was issues of public and community process. The neighbors and civic group asked for another abutters meeting to discuss a
change. Councelor Flynn asked ONS for their partnership asking for a deferral as was customary for over 8 years. Unfortunately, that did not take place. Councelor Flynn believes this is public service. An additional meeting was in no way unreasonable with the amount of meetings with much lower in the city and
the ability to quickly schedule a zoom. Lastly, Councelor Flynn opposes as a major compromise in 2021 that garnered his support and that of neighbors was the removal of the roof deck. South Boston neighbors continue to support addressing the housing crisis only to have the rug pulled out years later in
bad faith. Lastly, Councelor Flynn believes we cannot continue to call ourselves the most family-friendly city in the country if we continue to willfully disregard the quality of life issues of many residents and families in favor of projects that do not improve the housing crisis. Thank you.
Thank you. Uh, next we have um Kimberly Matthews. Kimberly, if you can unmute yourself. >> Yes. Hi, good morning. Uh, my name is Kim Matthews. I live at 137 P Street. Um, we had, as mentioned earlier, um, provided information in opposition for
the roof decks. Um, to the earlier point, I think when they had done the development, it was promised that roof decks were specifically not going to be put on there. Um and now we're here again maybe two years later and they're proposing to put five roof decks. We have expressed concern with regards to
also the grills um whether wherever they're placed. Um I think that if you were to go and as you looked um Madam Chair um there are not a lot of roof decks in that area. So um I'm not sure what the other person was referring to where there's 50. So again um we are just looking to have conversations about
that. I think that that's why I've also written a letter of deferral as well. Thank you. Thank you. >> Thank you. Next we have Christine Mcumville. >> Hello. Can you hear me? >> Yes. >> Hello. Yeah.
>> I just want to say um to the zoning board members, consider if this happens in your neighborhood. Shame on these people. It's a shameful disregard of the public process. The attorney uh that represents it, her name is Ky Sugamarin.
Um, she's claiming to have a seven-year-old child that needs private outdoor space to play in. We are within 100 ft of Castle Island in Marine Park. Um, there's another person who got on the public hearing and said that
his I think his elderly parents need a place to sit in the sun. Again, we're right here at Castle Island. Um, I've watched this evolve and I think that, you know, if people care about community, if people care about neighbors, you should make this group
adhere to the way things are done and the public process. And what's being gone on here is a circumventing a very sneaky, deceptive way to circumvent neighbors who do not want this. And so, they've gone and done runs. Uh, a lot of
what the architect has said is patently untrue. Um, he said there's no record of not allowing roof decks. There's sort of a cozy arrangement. It was a neighborhood agreement. Um, talking about no outdoor space. I mean, just look where we are on the map. Um, no
private outdoor space. It's it's frankly laughable. They want to put grills and fire pits up there and then they say that they need a place for children to play. So, I just hope that um the zoning board can take a bigger picture look at this and see what this kind of um
entitlement does for communities and listen to the neighbors. Process is utterly important in crowded cities. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> And next. >> Good morning, Madam Chair. Good morning, board. Ruan O' Connor, president of the
City Point Neighborhood Association. Uh, I would like to start with um going through what uh Zachar, I'm sorry, or Zach stated. Uh, I negotiated this building. This building came from nine units down to seven units down to five
units specifically with no roof decks. And that's how the community supported this building and the deal closed with um the developer at the time. With that being said, the proponents have come back asking for reef decks. The process
here has not in fact been followed. There was an abutters meeting, an official city of Austin of Butters meeting at that point. Um there was opposition, mostly opposition from people that are directs. with that they uh Matt use who is one of the the um
proponents in the homeowners association asked if they could come before CPNA to have a conversation with community. The answer to that was yes we would welcome and always do welcome conversation but it would not be considered an official
city of Boston meeting. It was just a conversation. So why that's being brought up here is um questionable. Uh with that being said, they came in uh there was a perllor on there. They agreed to um take the pergola off after
that meeting. We asked for a second abutters meeting. Now why did we ask for a second of Butters meeting? Because nobody knows that the change of plans has happened. You can look at Lenin Court which is directly in front of this building. There's 40 people in there
that um have no idea what the plans are. They're directly across the street. Unless you are a member of the Citypoint Neighborhood Association, you don't know what the plans are either. So the reason why they were told that they were not going to meet with the association was
to complete the process a second of meeting once that happens absolutely come into City Point present. City Point will then take a vote either to oppose to support or take no stand. then they
go off to ZBA. That has always been the practice whether we're talking about the Manino administration, the Walsh administration uh andor the Woo administration. So that's really important that you understand that is the process. We were denied that second
uh Abut's meeting and Lindsay Santana from the uh ONS gave them a zoning board appeals date without anybody's knowledge. So now here we are running around crazy and chaotic and we're not
moving the city forward amicably. Um we're pitting neighbor against neighbor and that's not okay. So again at this point in time I would ask for the deferral so that this can be sorted out with all of the neighbors within 300 ft.
uh their letters of support that I pulled from their jacket uh are within South Boston and they are their friends and neighbors that uh most of them attend and our parents of South Boston Catholic Academy. So with that um I
would ask well again let me just finish either a deferral or a denied without prejudice so that the process can continue. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh we have one more person madam chair. Okay, please be brief and add new information.
>> Person user, somebody with a user talk. You have 90 90 seconds, please. >> Hello. Can you hear me? >> Yes, sir. Please state my name and address for the record. >> Yes. My name is Paul Kus. I live at 132P
Street in South Boston. Um, and just regards to the roof tech itself, the the other folks that talked about the process, etc., Uh just want to point out that uh this is not a simple roof deck request. It's actually a large roof deck spanning the five units in a
concentrated space and uh I firmly believe that this concentration will be a noise multiplier regardless of how quiet each group happens to be. And uh terms of the zoning variances requested uh restricted roof district and the
existing roof exceeds the max building height limit. These were quality of life restrictions that were put in place for a reason after much thought and uh throughput from the community and it seems lately that a lot of these uh exemptions to restrictions are just a
variance request away. So that's all I have to say. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Any other hands? >> No, no additional comments. Caroline, I'm just wondering like sort of
we've we've heard uh comments about the the project being originally approved, you know, with support without a roof deck. I mean, is that something that we have access to or can confirm cuz it it does seem a bit disingenuous if there
was support without a roof deck and then it comes back a couple years later asking for a roof deck. I think Jeff has his hand raised. I can comment, but if you wanted to say something first. >> That would be lovely. Thank you. >> Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of
the board. Jeff Hampton, City of Boston Planning Department. Um, this project was approved as a five unit back in 2021. Um the original hearing date was early 2021 and the can got kicked down the road a few months. Um
as uh City Point neighborhood uh representative, I apologize, I forget her name, had said that the number of units had gone down. um any uh agreements that were made uh with the neighborhood about no roof decks that
was done uh between the neighborhood and the developer. I am looking at the decision signed on October 12th of 2021. There is no proviso stated that says no roof decks. It only says BPDA design
review. So, um, and we were in support of that, uh, development back in 2021. So, I just want to state that, uh, for the record, there were no provisos added to this decision that said no roof
decks. >> Be my comment too that it would have been a proviso if it was really heard at the at the ZBA. Um >> yeah, I think the takeaway is if if that's an important point, it should be
included as a provisor moving forward. Any other questions from the board? Any response from the applicant? Yeah, I I would like to reiterate if possible that um we did email the Cityoint
Neighborhood Association four times in November, five times in December asking for a hearing date and we got um no real response. And then in as soon as the to the comment that u the neighborhood association hasn't had an opportunity as
soon as this date was assigned we emailed them and asked if again if we could present and that's when and that was uh over 6 weeks ago that's when they suggested that they couldn't meet with us in March but would meet with us in late April. Um so we um we have really
tried to present this to the neighborhood association and we will continue to try every time we do a project here. Is there a concern for you to like to go back and do this the second of meeting that seems to be requested from folks?
>> Yes, it's that we have waited we waited six six or seven months to get to this point. We um we don't believe that um there's any particular um reason to to delay the project further. And actually, I'm af I'm afraid that this is actually
this is largely a stall tactic on on their part to uh to just not let us present even though we had we had talked to them to present and and I think that that would set a bad precedent that they can refuse to meet with us until the zoning board hearing and then ask for a
deferral so that they can eventually put us on the zoning board um in front of the zoning board. >> Thank you. Any other questions from the board? Hearing none. Is there a motion?
>> Yes, madam chair. I I know that the planning department is recommending approval, but at this moment based on the comments from the proponent and the community members, I think that the project needs just a few more weeks so they can try one more time to meet with the community.
And if the meeting doesn't happen, well, they have to come back anyway. So I make a motion of a deferral deferral hoping for a short deferral for the proponent to go back and meet with the boards and if that not is not possible a new date has to be set for the hearing.
>> Bara I I support um Javani's as well. >> Thank you Mr. Stebridge. >> Yes, >> Mr. Valencia. >> Yes, >> Mr. Langum. Yes, >> Miss Weell.
>> Yes, >> Mr. Collins. >> Yes, >> Miss Ba Barazzo. >> I'm going I'm going to say yes, but I'm also going to comment that this should be an opportunity to for the architect to also just connect with the Boston Fire Department and provide something
that is approvable. Um, that would help make the case as well. >> Thank you. The chair votes yes. The motion carries. Do you have a date, Caroline? >> Yeah, Eric, when was the meeting um that they were offering? What
was the date of that? >> They said tentatively uh April 14th, I believe. >> Okay, we can schedule um the next hearing for April 28th. That's our next full board hearing. >> Does that give you enough time to update
the plans as well as that Braza requested? We don't have any requests to update the plans. We made the change that the neighbors asked for back in October. Um we removed all the the pergolas that the were the major concern at that point. So if we meet with them
on the 14th, um I'm not we don't know if there are going to be any further comments, but we did, as I said, we we made those changes back in October. >> Okay. Y put a Yep. Like I said, it would be good for you to
just double check with the Boston Fire Department and and to look at the roof deck locations for your grills. >> All right. Are you good with that date? >> Yeah, as soon as possible. Love to hear.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. Next we have case BOA 1808920 with the address of 78HH Street. If the applicant and or their representative present, would they please explain to
the board? >> Yes. Brent Kippenberg, uh 289 West 3rd Street, South Boston, representing this project. I'm also here. Laura Lee Johnson at 8H Street. Excuse me.
>> Pardon me. >> Who's presenting? >> I am. >> Okay. Please proceed. >> Laura Lee is a butter. So, just >> Okay. So, she's not presenting and correct. >> Yes. If you want to speak, that's public testimony time. Thank you.
>> All right. So, this project is a it's currently a single family property. It's formerly been a two and three family property. The owners wish to convert it from a single family back to a two family by separating the first floor and basement into one unit and then the
second and third floor into another unit. The basement space is currently finished. There is no additional square footage being added to the property. It's legalization of the the finished basement that was never done by previous owners. So, there's no new square
footage being added. It's just a legalization of the basement space. There will be a um rear egress um small deck and staircase leading from the second floor down to the rear yard. That is what creates the sideyard uh setback
issue. It's just that rear staircase that's being used for egress purposes. And we uh we have received eight letters of support that we have forwarded to the board as well from uh local neighbors. >> And uh if you want to review the plans,
I can step through those too. >> Are there questions from the board? >> Hearing none, we have public testimony. >> Madam Chair, members, Sigi Gatsman with the Office of Neighborhood Services. Uh this applicant completed the community process. Our office held an abutters meeting and a butter had concerns about the poor conditions of the property,
citing issues with trash. Gate of Heaven Neighborhood Association also expressed concerns regarding the conduct of the absentee landlord at the property and allowing expansion of the property when it's in poor condition. The applicants were not >> able to meet with Gate of Heaven. Our
office would like to pursue them to continue to attempt to meet with that group. That background, our office defers judgment to the board. Thank you. Councelor Flynn's office. >> Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. This is Sydney from Councelor Flynn's office. Councelor Flynn would
like to go on record and support. Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Madam Chair. There are no additional comments. >> Okay. Any other questions from the board? >> May I have a motion? >> Uh, I would like to speak, please.
>> Okay. Okay. Well, we were in public comment, so can you state your name and address for the record? >> I'm sorry, I don't quite I'm not good at this. Um, Laura Lee Johnson. I'm the abuter at 88 Street. Um I had gone to the Abutters meeting that was held prior to this and I had
expressed some concerns and I had submitted um some commentary um prior to this meeting and um the concerns that I had expressed um are still in in play I guess and haven't been addressed in the
in the plans. And um the to me the changes that are being suggested in this are not going to improve the anything on our street and as in a butter my concerns are still intact and I don't
see how what they are proposing is going to um add anything to our street but instead be uh kind have more of a negative impact and I as the abuter and one of the only owner occupied buildings left on the street. I'm trying to find a
way to maintain the quality of life on our street. And as owners, I feel like I'm kind of shouting into the wind trying to maintain a standard of living and I feel surrounded by a lot of rental buildings now with absentee owners and
no one cares about the state of >> We focus on this your support opposition for this project. I'm opposed because first of all there there is no way to store the trash appropriately for this building and this has been an ongoing issue and probably my number one
concern. This trash is always stored in front of the building and with several barrels and they migrate in front of our house which we make we take great pains to keep our barrels in the back and this isn't being addressed at all. Um, it
seems like with two units instead of one, there's going to be an overcapacity of people in the in the building itself. They want to add and expand the roof, the the decks on the house, which is going to add for more parties, more noise, more um activity over there,
which is already a problem. Um, >> please wrap up, man. >> So, anyway, it's all it's all listed in the in the notes that I sent in, and I haven't heard anything to address the issues that I had um and how the the changes in the building are going to
negatively affect our property. And >> thank you, >> Madam Chair. May I address those concerns? >> Yes, please, before we deliberate. >> Um, so the owner I would like to go on record as stating the owners are not absentee owners. They own 14 properties
in South Boston, live within two blocks of the current property, 78H Street. They are very active in the management of all of those properties. So, they are not absentee landlords by any means. Uh we previously met with Miss Johnson in March, addressed her trash concerns.
There is a rear egress um that goes behind several buildings um that has been planted over by other neighbors. So, we are in the process of working with those neighbors to free that egress which would then allow trash to be stored in the rear of the building. As
currently stated, it's not a trash is there's no way to get the trash to the rear of the building because people have planted over the the egress. So, we are in the process of working through that process with those neighbors. Um, obviously it took some time for the snow to melt before we could really address it and see the condition of the egress,
but that is a concern that we are working on. There's there's no additional decks being added to the property. There's a you know a small walkway being added to be able to exit from the second floor to get down to the yard in the case of an emergency. It is
not designed to be a everyday usage. There's no space to put a grill or any type of hangout space there. Um there is an existing roof deck on the property and we did address with the butter that we would build a privacy screen to kind of shed that a little more from her
property. So I do feel we have addressed the majority of their concerns at this time. >> Thank you. Are there questions from the board? >> Hearing none. Is there a motion? >> Madam Chair. Oh, go ahead Katie. >> Okay. I'll put forward a motion of approval. I think these are largely
internal renovations and much of the zoning relief is uh pre-existing. So I will base my motion to approve on that. Is there a second? >> Barza. Second. >> Mr. Stebridge. >> Yes.
>> Mr. Valencia. >> Yes. >> Mr. Langum. >> Yes. >> Miss Weel? >> Yes. >> Mr. Collins? >> Yes. >> Miss Better Brazo? >> Yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck.
>> Thank you. And next we have case BOA 1807562 with the address of 126 Crawford Street. If the applicant andor their representative are present, will they
please explain to the board? >> Hi, good morning. Um, my name is Lynette. I'm the owner at 126 Crawford. Um so the current conditions it is an existing uh two family residential
dwelling. Um the first unit occupies the first and second floors. Um the second unit occupies the third floor. Um the current access um configuration to unit 2 requires um indirect entry via the
rear stairs and does not provide a secondary means of egress. Um so the proposed project will provide a um a dedicated safer and clearer front entrance for the second unit. Um there will be no change in use or occupancy.
Um I had the butters meeting back in February and everything was positive. Um so this is currently where we stand. Thank you so much. >> Thank you. 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 am the Dorchester community engagement specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process which consisted of an abundance meeting held on January 26th with no abutis present.
No concerns were raised. Next, the proponent presented to Crawford Holland Ruth Manona Wombbeck Block Watch where residents were very supportive. 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 for their judgment. >> Thank you, Madame Chair. There are no additional comments. >> May I have a motion? >> Madam Chair, I >> go ahead. No.
>> I'll make a motion of approval. >> Second, Mr. Sunridge. >> Yeah. >> Mr. Valencia. >> Yes. Mr. Langum, >> yes. >> Miss Weo, >> yes.
>> Mr. Collins, >> yes. >> Miss Better Brazo, >> yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck. >> Thank you so much. >> Next, we have case BOA
172164 with the address of 2 to 20 Fairmont Avenue. If the applicant and or their representative present, would they please explain to the board? >> You see?
>> I don't see anybody. Let me check. >> Shall we come back to this one, man? Sounds good to me. >> Then we for the moment we'll move on to case BOA
180 9219 with the address of 123 Kilsis Road. If the applicant andor their representative present, would they please explain the case to the board? Is the zoom user? Are you here for 123
Kilsth Kilro? >> Does he need to be unmuted? Jesus. >> Yeah, the person can unmute. Um, oh um some user you you are allowed to >> please state your name and address for the record.
>> My name is Charles Dumand. Uh I I live at 83 Pleasant Street in Cambridge. I'm the architect of the project. >> Can you hear me? >> We can. Please proceed. >> Okay. Okay. So So uh I was asked to uh
design a new rear porch and egress. These units the existing porch porches or the existing egress did not meet code. Um, so we we
made improve the stair. We um we we added a a few feet to the the decks to just allow uh better use of the decks and um there
there appeared to be no opposition. Uh we there was there was an issue uh with uh zoning about uh which were the you
know what was a setback requirement because it's a corner lot. Um it was a question of which side of the building was the rear and which was a sideyard. Um we we had um
we had claimed that the the uh the the only the rear deck was um was a sideyard at a sideyard. So the the the requirements setbacks were a little bit less and and based on that it met um
the setback requirements. So um so in any case um so we're hoping that um we can improve the safety for the residents and and and improve their
uh quality of life to be able to to sit outside and have some outdoor space. Um that that's all for now. >> Are there questions from the board? Hearing
none. May I have public testimony? >> Madam Chair and board members, Sigy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This applicant distributed anformational flyer to all abutters within 300 ft of the parcel which solicited no comments to our office. The Brighton Alston Improvement Association is supporting this application. That
background, our office defers judgment to the board. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Um, we have a person from the Annabel Gomez. Yeah, Annabella Gomes from Brighton Austin Improvement Association. We'd like to go on record in support of this. Thank you. >> Thank you,
>> ma'am. Chair, there are no additional comments. >> Thank you. With that, may I have a motion? >> Motion to approve. >> There is. >> Mr. Stebridge. >> Yes. >> Mr. Valencia.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Lang. >> Yes. >> Misswell? >> Yes. >> Mr. Collins. >> Yes. >> Miss Bazraza. >> Yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. >> Okay. Great. Thank you. Very good.
>> Next we have case BOA 1 180 4160 with the address of 2 R to 4R Vermont Road. the applicants andor the representative of the front. Will they please explain
to the board? >> Uh good morning madame chairman, members of the board. Eric Zacherson, architect for the project to present this this project. Um 24. Um let's hold on the site plan for just a second just so we can be clear.
There's a fairly large building at 24. Uh our project is in the upper leftand corner of this diagram. you see a what was, I believe, formerly a garage and has been occupied as a two family uh dwelling for quite some time. Our client
has has purchased those two uh units and uh the project you'll see on the following pages is to expand and and rehabilitate those two units and has nothing to do with the the main house um although they are part of a a a single
condominium association. So, next slide, please. uh cover sheet. Next slide, please. Uh so you can see how the the building sits um adjacent to our neighbor at 1666 Commonwealth A. Um very close to the
property line on that side and then um actually has its own entrance and uh on Commons. Um so Cummings, sorry, next street. Uh next page. Yes. And so you see here uh uh the on the existing the
proposed plans in the upper right uh the first floor would continue to be a single um one bed unit and the upper unit which is currently um a kind of awkward studio would be expanded to a third floor and so the second and third floor uh represent that two bed um two
bath unit. Um next slide please. So you can see the proposal would be adding that uh that third story with a kind of gable roof and dormers. We wanted to be reflective of the existing the existing home which has a more traditional feel and and to kind of
enliven the the feeling of the current building which quite frankly looks quite a bit like a garage even though as I said it's been an existing two family for quite some time. Uh but you generally you see the the the look of the building. So, uh, with that, I'll open it up or return to you for
questions and and answers. >> Any questions from the board? >> Hearing none, may I form the testimony? >> Madam Chair and board members, Sigy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This applicant attended an abutters meeting hosted by our office on January 20th of this year where
questions were asked, no opposition was voiced. The Brighton Alustin Improvement Association is supporting this application. That background, our office defers judgment to the board. Thank you, >> Madame Chair. We don't have additional hands raised at the moment.
>> Thank you. May I have a motion? >> Motion of approval. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Mr. Stebridge. >> Yes. >> Mr. Valencia. >> Yes. >> Mr. Langum. >> Yes.
>> Miss Weo. >> Yes. Mr. Collins, >> yes. >> Miss Better Brazo, >> yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. >> Next, we have two companion cases.
First is case BOA 1822588 with the address of 140 Strathmore Road. Along with that we have case BOA 1822577 with the address of 1863 Commonwealth Avenue.
If the applicant andor their representative are present, would they please explain cases to the board? >> Good morning, Madame Chair, members of the board. Luis Santana with HS
Construction Consulting Services. Um these are two cases uh two buildings in one lot. Uh 1863 Commonwealth Avenue is an existing two family uh which were planning to make to make
slight modifications in order to accommodate the new structure. Uh this this is an 11,25 ft lot altogether and is also a corner lot uh facing a Stratboard Road and Common Avenue. Uh we have multiple
violations. This is a six-unit building uh brand new construction. We're going to have three dwelling units that are two bedrooms and three dwelling units that are uh one bedroom. And these will be facing uh Stra Road. Uh the as you
can see from the number of violations uh they are connected because you have uh two or more dwellings on the same lot and we are reviewing this from the zoning perspective as as if each dwelling was in a separate lot and and therefore that generates a significant
number of violations. As you can see from this uh uh block plan uh the existing uh two family facing comvenue and the rear uh darker uh uh almost rectangular area is the
proposed new construction. Uh I want to emphasize that there are existing garages in the back. Two of them connected uh very old uh from the uh late 1800s. And this project is subject to most on landmarks commission
review. We met uh extensively with them and uh agree on the design that we are presenting to you today. Uh those garages will not be demolished because they have historical significance and as you're going to see on the later uh uh later on of the presentation they have
been moved to they will be moved to the front of the u of the lot and they will be connected to the proposed structure uh because they have to be preserved based on the landmarks standards. You can go to the next slide please.
As you can see on that lower right corner, there is an existing uh picture of the uh uh rear portion of that lot and the garages at the very far uh end. And those are the ones that will be restored uh relocated to the front and
incorporated into the new construction. Uh the the rear deck which is basically the only change to the existing uh to family. You will see that on the next presentation for that uh case. uh we will shorten that deck and remove a small one in order to accommodate the
new construction and that is the only change and the the dash uh red line indicates the existing garage to be relocated to the front and you will see that on the renderings that we prepared at the end of the presentation. Next slide please.
Uh this is a these are the typical uh floor plans and and and those two squares on the front of the building. Uh those are the actual existing garages. Uh the rest behind uh that L-shaped uh
in the front of the building uh those are the garages and the new construction will be on the towards the rear of them. We're going to have as I said three units that are two bedrooms and three units that will be one bedroom. This is a three-story building within the high
limits of the zoning in that area. Next, please. And this is your second and third floor. Typical uh basically duplicate of the uh other stories and the area without construction. That is the roof outline
of the single story garages that we are uh adding to the property. Next, please. These are elevations and as you can see the front elevation is showing the garage would be retained and it would be used for parking uh adequate for one
compact space and the other uh side garage would be used as part of the first floor unit and those are rear and side elevations of the adjacent block. Uh the next slide uh is a rendering of how the two
structures will work together. I just want to emphasize that uh landmarks was uh critical on this uh in creating this presentation. They insisted in duplicating some of the historical uh components to the existing buildings
such as the uh roof uh materials and the stock of uh the sightings for for both buildings and that's where we end up. We don't have a final approval for landmarks but the staff work with us in order to come up with this uh final design. The front of the building can
accommodate up to two compact spaces. So we are the deficient on the number of spaces that are required uh for zoning. We go to the next slide please. And that is the site elevation from the rear the view from the rear of the existing building. As you can see the
two the garages on the front and the rest of the structure. I just uh I am here representing the honor which is Rabbi uh Noki and uh he's an active member of the community. Uh
he's a rabbi for a synagogue in the area that has more of a thousand uh members in the congregation. Uh we receive extensive overwhelming support from the community, the voters and the association and um the project has been
very well received. uh we have uh the variances that we have are uh related the significant variances are the use which is forbidden use uh because it's a three families zoning district. Uh the variances in terms of dimensional requirements in parking are the the
minimals. they uh are excessive or deficient by a fraction in what pertains to the open space uh the load area and the uh and the yard uh requirements. Uh so they are not significant and and also
the intent of these six units for excuse me for the most part is to accommodate the large uh family or the rabbi. He has 12 kids and he's planning to bring them all them to live at the property as well. So with that I conclude the
presentation of the next case which is related to this one. If you have any questions I'll be happy to answer them. Thank you. >> Any questions from the board? >> Okay. >> May we have public testimony? >> Madam chair and board members. Sigi Johnson with the office of neighborhood
services and a butters meeting was held for this application in conjunction with the 1863 commab application on January 29th at which an overwhelming number of abutters were supporting the application citing the positive community contributions of Rabbi Schlommoinsky to the Brighton community. One Abutter
expressed concerns about the density and whether the design was in fact compliant with the regulations of the Aberdine historical district office received one letter of opposition from an abuter that has been forwarded to the board. Brighton Alustin Improvement Association is supporting this application. That background our office defers judgment to
the board. Thank you. >> Next we have Moira McCree. >> Hello Moira. You can >> morning can you hear me? >> Yes we can. >> Sorry about that. My name is Laura McCrae. I'm from counselor Braden's office. The council would like to go and
work with support for this project. Thank you. >> Thank you. Next we have Annabela Gomez. >> Madam chair, members of the board, Annabella Gomes from the Brighton Alson Improvement Association. We'd like to go on record and support. Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Madam Chair. There are no additional
comments. >> With that, may I have a motion? >> Motion to approve. There >> a second. >> Second, >> Mr. Sambridge. Yes, >> Mr. Valencio. >> Yes,
>> Mr. Langum. >> Yes, >> Miss Weo. >> Yes, >> Mr. Collins. >> Yes, >> Miss Better Brazo. >> Yes. >> Chair votes. Yes. Motion carries. Good call.
>> Thank you. Next we have case BOA1809679 with the address of 55 Bostononia Avenue. If the applicant andor their representative are present, will they please explain to the board?
Uh John I I'm not sure if John is speaking on behalf of this case. He will be on the panel section now. >> Hello. Can you hear me?
>> Yes, we can. Are you here to speak on 55 Bostononia? >> Yes, I am. Sorry. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. Matthew Panino, 56 Bostononia in Brighton. Um, just coming back to you uh today to um
go over an F violation that I got um while the building uh two family was under construction. Um I decided to add a uh master bedroom and master bath uh in the attic um which uh then triggered
a F violation. So that's the only violation. >> Are there questions from the board? Hearing none, may I have public testimony? >> Madam Chair and board members, C. Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This applicant distributed anformational flyer regarding the
previously approved project to all abutters in a 300t radius which solicited no comments to our office. The Brighton Alustin Improvement Association is supporting this application. That background, our office defers judgment to the board. Thank you. Next we have Moria McCrae.
>> Good morning. This is Laura McCrae from councelor Braden's office. Council would like to go on record in support of this project. Thank you. >> Next we have Annabella Gomez. >> Madam chair, members of the board, Annabella Gomes from the Brighton Alson Improvement Association. We'd like to go on record and support. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Madam >> Chair, additional comments. With >> that, may I have a motion? >> Motion to approve. Do >> I have a second? here. >> Mr. Fenbridge. >> Yeah.
>> Mr. Valencia. >> Yes. >> Mr. Langum. >> Yes. >> Miss Weel. >> Yes. >> Mr. Collins. >> Are you on mute, Mr. Collins? >> Yes. >> Okay. Miss Better Braza? >> Yes.
>> Chair Wils? Yes. The motion carries. you mad here. Uh return to one cases for 11:00 and ask of our case BO8 172 1164
with the address of 2 to 20 Fairmont Avenue. If the applicant and or the representative are present, could there please? Um, still not seeing anybody for
this case. >> Okay. In that case, can I have a motion defer or to deny with operatives? >> Motion to defer this case. Madam Chair, >> may I have a second?
>> Second. >> Mr. Stebridge. >> Yeah. >> Mr. Valencio. >> Yes. >> Mr. Langel. >> Yes. >> Miss Wheelo? >> Yes. >> Mr. Collins? >> Yes. >> Miss Better Braza? >> Yes.
>> Chair votes? Yes. The motion carries. >> All right. We'll see you in three minutes. Mr. Valencia >> present. >> Mr. Langum >> present. >> Miss Weo >> present.
>> Mr. Collins >> present. >> Miss Better Braza >> present. >> Floor is yours. Mr. Stebridge. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh we'll begin with the hearing schedule for 11:00 a.m.
Uh before that, we'll ask if there are any requests for withdrawals or deferrals from the 11:00 hour. Hearing none, we'll begin with case BOA 1772081 with the address of 885
to 91 Essex Street. If the applicant and or their representative are present, will they please explain the case to the board? >> Good morning, Madam Chairwoman, Mr. Secretary, and members of the board. My name is Andrew Cara. I'm an attorney at Ruben and Rdman having a business
address of 53 State Street. Also with us this morning is Carol Rash, the director of property management and asset management for the Hamilton Company. We're both appearing on behalf of the applicant Hamilton Essex Development LLC. We're here before the board this
morning because we're seeking to extend the zoning relief that allows for the current parking use at 85 Essex Street for an additional 3 years from this morning's hearing date. The parking use has existed at the property since the early 1990s and is subject to periodic
extension under the original zoning relief that was granted allowing for the parking use. The property consists of a 50 vehicle surface parking lot located at 85 Essex Street in the Chinatown neighborhood of Boston. The parking lot is currently
leased to and operated by 88 Beach LLC which is managed by Albert Leon. 88 Beach Street LLC has run the facility since 2017 and its lease expires in 2028. My client has owned the property since 2025.
The parking use at the property has existed since at least the early 1990s based on the historical records, but access to the parking lot is provided off a legal curb cut off of Essex Street. There's a full-time parking attendant that closely monitors the use
of the facility on a day-to-day basis for a number of years. The parking lots provided safe, convenient, and affordable off- streetet parking to the Chinatown neighborhood and its many thriving businesses. The facility also provides off- streetet parking to visitors and helps alleviate the use of
on street parking in the area. Uh during the community process and at the request of the community, my client has agreed to complete some landscaping improvements to the property this spring to help better screen and buffer it from the neighborhood. We're happy to incorporate this commitment into a
formal design review proviso. I will stop there for any questions. >> Thank you. Are there questions from the board? >> Hearing none. May I have public testimony? >> Hello, madam chair, members of the board. My name is Eva Jones representing the mayor's office of neighborhood
services regarding 85 to 91 Essex Street. Our office differs to the board's judgment. A community process was conducted uh with the uh excuse me, a community process was conducted including the distribution of a subcommittee flyer on 102325
in which my office received no responses from the community regarding the proposal. The proposal was also connected with the Chinatown Residents Association and the Chinatown Neighborhood Council where productive conversations were had regarding the repair of the sidewalk. And at this time, the mayor's office and
neighborhood services defer to the board's judgment on this matter. Thank you everyone for your time and consideration. >> Thank you. >> Next we have Sydney from Councelor Flynn. >> Thank you madam chair, members of the board. This is Sydney from councelor Flynn's office. Councelor Flynn sent a letter of support to the board yesterday
and would like to voice his support today. Thank you. >> Thank you madam chair. There no additional comments >> that. May I have a motion? chair make a motion of approval. >> Can I add >> this set? Yeah, provise
>> and the provisor for screening and buffering. >> Uh uh yes, please. >> Okay. May I have a second? >> Second. >> Mr. Sunbridge? >> Yes. >> Mr. Valencia? >> Yes.
>> Mr. Langum? >> Yes. >> Miss Weel? >> Yes. >> Mr. Collins? >> Yes. Miss Brazza, >> yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck. >> Thank you.
>> Next we have 220. Next we have case BOA 1807850 with the address of 226 Beacon Street. If the applicant andor their representative are present, will they
please explain the case to the board? >> Yes. Uh good morning, Madame Chair, members of the board, attorney Nick Soula, McDermac, Quilty, Miller, and Hanley, 28 State Street in Boston. Uh here on behalf, uh of the applicant. Uh
next slide, please, Mr. Ambassador. Yep. Um the owner of this property, Sugar Megan Trust, uh Janet and John, uh they purchased this building at 226 Beacon Street, uh in the Back Bay approximately one year ago. had sat empty for several
years. Uh and they've been working hard to preserve uh the interior of the building while restoring the exterior to some of its original conditions. Uh with me as well uh from Carpenter and McNeel Architects and Builders is uh Eric and
Joanne. Um because this is in the Backbay uh historic district, architectural district, William Young uh is on as well as our uh historical consultant. and uh folks from Carpenter and McNeel are also the contractor and builders uh for the project. Uh next
slide, please. And as I mentioned, um you know, they've been working hard over the past year or so uh to preserve the interior, but why we're here today is because of a uh a change to the exterior of the building. and they're looking for permission uh
for the construction of a new portico structure uh with related improvements to the front building entrance um at this long existing residential building. Basically looking to restore the building's uh front facade which you'll
see in a moment uh to its original 1864 appearance which had a portico. Uh you can see on the left hand side the existing condition uh and then on the right hand side is the proposed uh the allowable setback is 20 ft for a front
yard uh at this location. Um the existing setback's actually a slight nonconformity the way it is today without the portico 19t 8 in. Um but the historic setback what it was previously in 1864 and what's being proposed now is
actually 16 ft. Um so uh you'll see on the right hand side there's that uh vestibule kind of bumpout um which is the reason behind uh the variance requirement for front yard setback. Uh if you go to the next slide I believe is
just our refusal letter. Again the only thing that's required here is uh front yard insufficient. Uh again just to to reinstate that front uh portico. Um, with that, I'm going to toss it over to Eric at Carpenter McNeel, um, who can
just quickly show you kind of his the historic aspect of of why this is being proposed and then show, uh, a mockup of what's going what it's going to look like, uh, when it's constructed. So, Eric, I'll I'll toss it over to you. >> Great. Thank you, Nick. Um, next slide, please. Good morning. Um, I'm Eric DM.
I'm a senior architect with Carpenter McNeel, and I'm here with my colleague, John Powell. Um these three images show the original uh state of uh 226 and its partner building 228 on Beacon Street circa 1867. There were projecting
porticos with stairs to landings. Uh sometime around 1942 um the portico at 228 was removed and a bay window or oral window was uh built in its place. Um sometime around 1960
1962 the portico was removed at 226 and the entry was moved from the center of the first floor down to the right hand side at the garden level um with a sunken entry um courtyard. Next slide please.
Uh you two photographs um one from 2013 one uh current photograph just showing the condition. Um you can see in the lefth hand photograph the uh artificial um stone base that was applied sometime
around 1960. Um that accounts for um because it projects about 4 in from um the existing um rusticated base at 228. We believe that that is the cause of the current non nonconformance. Um and you can see that that base is still in place
at um 226 in the contemporary photograph. It will be removed as part of the construction um of the proposed portico. Next slide please. Um looking back at the Brmley maps from 1895 and also from 1898 and 1909. Um you can see
the area where 226 is within the square. Um that is highlighted on the map. If we can go to the next slide. So 226 is highlighted here with a red arrow. You can see that the projecting portico at that time projects about as
far as the uh adjacent projecting bay at 224 um and also about the depth of uh the adjacent um property 228 with its bay window. But we're basically asking to um reapply to the same distance from um the
encroachment within the setback has previously historically been. Next slide, please. So, in this view down um uh Beacon Street looking east, you can see 226 and 228 with their matching porticos just um on the left hand side
of the photograph. Um series of uh staircases running up to first floor landings um the length of the block. But these two projecting porticos present a somewhat unique condition. There aren't um many examples like them within Backbay. Next slide.
A detailed photograph from 1941 showing uh the portico that we hope to restore. And uh another contemporary photograph on the right um showing the condition in 1941 when it was still extent. Next slide.
Uh just a view down uh Beacon Street looking toward the property at 226 with an arrow indicating roughly where it would be. um an example of the steps that are typical uh and the landings that are typical along Beacon Street and throughout Backbay.
Next slide. This is a close-up view showing the sunken port uh sunken courtyard and uh existing entry into the lower level. Next slide. So again, returning to this slide showing um our proposed um our proposed
portico and steps. We project four feet from the setback um giving a total setback of 16 feet which is similar to what's happening um at 224 and also at 228. There'll be a plan sorry there'll be a
planning bed um to the left of the or to the west of the stairs and then stairs down to a lower level entry underneath the portico. Next slide. So, two drawings showing the existing conditions on the left and our proposed
portico on the right and then a section drawing showing how um the stairs with a storage area underneath it for um mechanical devices. Um we assume that the gas shut off and water shut off will be in that area. Uh
and then how we have recessed the lobby vestibule uh into the facade a little bit in order to maintain that 4 foot setback next. And then here are two renderings showing how that might look on the street.
>> So thank you for your time. Yeah, Madam Chair, if I may, just wanted to thank um the Backbay Architectural District and Commission, the Neighborhood Association of the Back Bay. Although this is just a front yard variance and fairly straightforward from a zoning perspective, um as you can tell, there's
a lot that went into this uh to get it to this point. Uh and we had really great discussions with both groups. Um so, I just wanted to wrap up by by saying that. Um and and also to mention that we did uh get a planning department recommendation of approval uh for the project. So, thank you, Madam Chair.
>> Thank you. Any questions from the board? >> Right. Um, I do I I have a question regarding accessibility. Um, I'm not sure how many units are existing, but I would imagine that you would trigger accessibility issues and are you getting
a um MMA variance for that? >> Yeah. Eric, do you want to address anything? >> It's a It's a single family residence. >> Okay. >> It's a single family. Okay. Any other questions from the board?
We have testimony. >> Madam Chair and board members, Cy Johnson at the office of neighborhood services. Our office hosted an abuters meeting regarding this application on January 27th. Two of Butters had concerns about how the proposal would affect the historical aesthetics in a landmark district. They cited that the
proposed portico is 2 ft deeper than the original one and the building is intended to be a symmetrical twin of the next door building. The applicants explained that they needed to balance the historical aesthetics with uh changes to the building code since the building's construction that
necessitated the design that they are proposing. The abutters and the neighborhood association of the Backbay and the Backbay Architectural Commission will continue to engage in a dialogue that background. Our office defers judgment to the board. Thank you. >> Uh good morning, Madam Chair, members of
the board. I'm here on behalf of councelor Sharon Durkin who represents the back bay. Um just want to thank the proponent for the work that they've done with um the neighborhood um to get this right and uh we did receive the letter from NAB of non opposition to this. Um
so for those reasons councelor Durkin urges um support of this proposal. >> Next we have Christian Simonelli. >> Good morning madam chair members of the board Christian Simmonelli Boston groundwater trust. Uh I just wanted to confirm that although this project was not cited for GCOD because this is
exterior work only. This was before the board in 2021 and there is an existing recharge system that has been approved and is in place. Um there was just some question of that in the neighborhood and I just wanted to confirm that here today the board. >> Thank you. >> Thanks madam chair. No additional
comments >> with that. May I have a motion? >> Actually madam chair may I address one of the comments that was made? This is Eric D. >> Yes. Sorry. Um the at the neighborhood meeting on January 27th, there was a recommendation that we um pull the
building uh pull the projecting portico back 2 feet and further examination we were able to um pull the building back. So we listened to the neighborhood committee on January 27th and were able to comply with their request. >> Thank you.
Was there a question from the board? May I have a motion? >> Madam Chair, I really um appreciated learning a little bit about the history. Um the architecture team consulted a historic consultant that's pretty well known. Um with that, I would like to put
forward a recommendation of approval. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Mr. Spebridge? >> Yes. >> Mr. Valencia? >> Yes. >> Mr. Langum? >> Yes. Miss Weel, >> yes.
>> Mr. Collins, >> yes. >> Better Brazo, >> yes. >> Sher votes, yes. Motion motion carries. Good luck. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you very much. >> Next, we have companion article 80
cases. The first is case BOA 1822716 with the address of 52 Plton Street. Along with that, we have case BOA 1822720 with the address of 65 to 79 Street. If
the applicant andor their representative are present, will they please explain these to the board? Uh good morning uh members of the board. Uh my name is Josh Brandt and I am the developer of the project and uh wanted
to walk you through uh the project at 52 Plimpmpton Street. Uh next slide please. Uh this project is 44 new residential units. Uh eight of which are affordable artists live work units. uh which puts us over the 17% minimum on affordability
both by uh uh percentage unit count. We're actually at 19% of the the building square footage. Uh the project has garnered a lot of community support and uh for good reason. It includes a arts gallery and community cultural space uh uh on the ground floor that
supports the arts live works use and also supports the history of artists in this neighborhood. uh uh that uh uh indoor space is then connected to an outdoor sculpture garden that will be an extension of the the gallery and community space uh during warmer months.
Uh it has uh contextual design uh uh that has been uh uh had a number of advisory already with uh uh uh the landmarks commission. Um uh uh we are going to be improving the public realm in the form of a complete streets
compliant sidewalk in front of the building as well as extending uh the sidewalk beyond our property down to Albany Street where there is no sidewalk. Currently uh we have 44 bike parking spaces and uh uh uh up to 19 uh
uh vehicle parking spaces. Um uh uh uh we have a payment to the Boston Transportation Department Blue Bike Program and uh during our article 80 process we had 100% community support and I believe we have support uh uh
today from Newark Business Improvement District as well as Blackstone Franklin Neighborhood Association. Um uh uh environmentally it's an all-electric building. It is climate resilient in the form of uh compliance with the seafraud zoning overlay. Uh uh we are going to be
building it to a passive house standard and we are going to be exploring and looking very hard at uh on-site renewable energy uh as well as three new trees. Uh next slide please. Um so the site is located on Plton Street between
Harrison and Albany. Um, and here you can see sort of kind of below to the right of the building the section of the sidewalk that will be completed uh uh beyond our property line. Uh, next slide please. Um, so there's currently uh
parcels all in common ownership and that part of the companion variance that was is next up on the document uh is to redraw the lot lines. Uh, next slide please. Um so that we end up with two parcels uh one supporting 52 Plimpmpton
Street which is on the lower half of the page now and then uh uh to enable potential future development of the three existing buildings that front on Wearham Street. Uh next slide please. Uh
uh the garage is underneath the building accessed by a ramp along the left side of the property. Um, we have uh uh worked very nicely with the BPDA and specifically our our project manager Dylan Norris uh to coordinate um uh uh
through their modernized article 80 process uh comprehensive review of our sidewalk and our entry sequence to be both complete streets compliant um uh uh uh cross department approvable and uh uh allowing for our handicapped access uh
to uh uh access the building from the main entrance without a lift or lula while also complying with seaf fraud which elevates the top of first floor approximately 4 ft above the sidewalk. Uh next uh next slide please. Uh this is our ground floor plan and you can uh uh
uh see that we have eight of our artist live work units which are actually duplex with a mezzanine above. So these are going to be very uh interesting and unique spaces that we think are conducive to an artist live work use with uh double height space for
approximately half and then live work as well. Uh on the left hand side uh uh toward the rear you can see the uh gallery community use space and how that connects to our courtyard in the rear. And then we also in the front in the lobby have an additional gallery space
that is uh from a just uh building program and wayfinding perception is is part of the residential building but is an opportunity to publicly display and showcase artwork ideally from the artists who are living in the building.
Uh next slide please. Uh so we are using uh uh contextual massing contextual materials uh while also uh celebrating the fact that it is a new building and we it is uh uh in our
opinion doing a very successful job of both uh respecting the architectural tradition and the architectural vernacular of the neighborhood while also not pretending to be an old building while being a a new building. And should the board have any questions
specifically around the design, uh, our architect, Katril Tulian of, uh, SAC architecture is available to answer our questions. Uh, next slide, please. Uh, from a zoning perspective, um, uh, uh,
the only dimensional variance is for rear yard setback and that is actually only required because of projected balconies we have on the rear of the building. uh to to add to usual open space for the people who live on floors
2 through five. The actual footprint of the building is uh 20 ft away per the required setback. Uh we are not required not seeking any zoning relief for height. We are not seeking any zoning relief for uh uh uh for density just the
rear yard setback as dimensional variance. Uh our parking we are uh at 36 per unit. Um we are signal variants do not have a loading bite and that is largely because we don't think it's
needed given the nature of the building and also we have uh through our design made accommodations for trash removal uh without a a loading dock. We have a variance for an accessory structure in the rear yard and that structure is primarily to support uh the sculpture
garden and exterior programming. Um and we also have the companion variance that we'll hear next for 6579 wearham which is functionally a redrawing of the lot lines uh uh is what is triggering that uh conditional usewise uh residential
and public work uses are conditional uh uh in the EDA and uh uh while that was a conditional use when the zoning was when the overlay was established I believe about 15 years ago the neighborhood has been trending very meaningfully towards
was mixed use. Um, and we even though it's just outside the Newark uh uh business improvement district, we had a lot of direct engagement with new Mark B and they've uh uh offered their support including the residential use. Um uh we
also need a conditional use for GCOD. Uh, and we need a uh it's in a restricted parking overlay district uh uh uh to allow for a parking space accessory to the gallery. Uh so with that, I would open it up to the board
for any questions. >> Thank you. Are there any questions from the board? >> Um yes, Madam Chair. Um >> yes, >> there's a a number of um home ownership units being um provided which is a good
thing. Um there there are eight income restricted units. What's the AMI for those? >> Of those are at 80%, half of them are at 100%. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yes, I have a follow-up question about
this. I see that the project has three bedrooms, two bedrooms, one bedroom, lots and studios. And my question is why uh out of the eight IDP units that you are offering to the city, why there are
no one, two, and three bedrooms? I I I understand that there should be a mix. And so I that is a question for you and also for anyone who is from the mayor office of housing here. Uh from our perspective the because
there is a clear cultural use for the artist uh uh uh live workspaces that this is a different this is an intentionally differentiated unit to support live work. Uh and I think that that that is the short answer for it.
And in terms of them being uh on the the ground floor, which is not not typical, the idea is to create a center of gravity around the arts use when the live workspaces on the ground floor supported by the by the gallery space uh
uh on the ground floor as well. >> Thanks. Thanks. >> Thank you. Any other questions from the board? I have public testimony. Yes, madame chair, members of the board, Conor Newman with the mayor's office of neighborhood services. This time the
mayor's office deferred to the judge with his board back information to the community process. This went through a Boston community process involving a public meeting over the summer. Uh the applicant connected with the Blackstone Frank Neighborhood Association, which was fully in support of the project and
appreciated working with the proponents without the first to the board. >> Next, we have Dylan Norris from the planning department. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Dylan Norris. I am the project manager with the development review division of the planning
department and the project uh manager for the article 80 small project before you today. The proponent team filed their small project review application in relation to the 50 Plton Street project on June 27th, 2025, which was distributed through the South End neighborhood distribution list. The
planning department also sponsored and hosted a virtual public meeting on July 23rd. Uh public meetings were posted on the planning department calendar and website advertised in the local newspapers. Email notifications were also sent out to subscribers of the south end email uh neighbor neighborhood
email update list. Local elected officials and their staff were also notified of the meeting. The comment period for the small project review application closed July 28th, 2025. The public meeting was well attended and the project wellreceived. During the course of the comment period, the project
received 11 letters of support uh from the community and zero letters of opposition. The project was then reviewed and brought before and approved by the planning department board on November 12th, 2025. I am happy to answer any questions that the members of the board have related to the article 8
process and we defer to your judgment. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have Cindy from councelor's office. >> Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. This is Sydney from councelor Flynn's office. Councelor Flynn went on record and support in November at the BPDA board with this project and would
like to go on record and support again today based on feedback from the Blackstone Franklin Neighborhood Association. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Next we have Christian Sim. >> Morning madam chair, members of the board, Christian Simmonali, Boston Groundwater Trust and we have uh GCard
letters for 52 Plton Street and the companion K65 to 79 Street. >> Thanks. Next we have Minor Perez. >> Uh thank you Mr. Ambassador, Madame Chair, members of the board. This is Minor Perez, executive director for the
carpenter labor management program with the Carpenters Union. Just want to go on record in support of the project and remind the developer uh to kindly hire subcontractors, general contractors that meet community standards
uh and will hire our Boston residents in this project. Thank you. Thanks. And next we have Jessica Bulko. >> Good morning everyone. My name is Jessica Burko. I am commenting on 52
Plimpmpton Street. Uh I am a working artist with a studio on Wearham Street for 20 years and I'm the president of the board of the United South End Artists and I want to wholeheartedly um support this wonderful endeavor.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. And we have Ben Murphy. >> My name is Ben Murphy. I'm with the New Market Business Improvement District. Uh the New Market Bid is a representative of all the property owners, residents, and businesses in the New Market area.
As was mentioned earlier by Joshua Brent. Uh this project is just outside of our uh physical borders, but they have been very engaged in bringing it before us. Nonetheless, um we are very much in support of this project. Uh
normally New Market would not be thrilled about the conversion of an industrial building into residential, but seeing as the building has been historically underutilized and is incorporating a significant amount of maker space, we're happy to make an exception for this project and fully
support it. Thank you, Madam Chair. No addition there are no additional comments. Okay, >> with that, may I have a motion? M I'll make a motion of approval. There >> a second. >> Second. >> Mr. Stebridge.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Valencia. >> Yes. >> Mr. Langum. >> Yes. >> Miss. We will. >> Yes. >> Mr. Collins. >> Yes. >> Miss Braza. >> Yes.
>> Chair votes yes. Motion carries. Madam Chair, before we move on, um it's 11:33, so at this point I'll ask if there are any requests for withdrawals or deferrals from the 11:33
discussion case. >> Are you raising your hand for one for deferral? Um, I just wanted to make sure I s had seen on the screen that we skipped over the second uh item that we second BOA case we have and I just wanted to make sure we were going to be heard.
>> Okay. Well, let's finish what we're doing right now. >> Okay. Um, we had read that in. Um, so whether that counts or not. Okay. Um, >> okay. So, it sounds like there are no
deferrals for 11:30, so we'll go back. >> Okay. Um, so believe we're referring to case BOA 1822720 with the address of 65 to 79 Street. >> And to confirm, Mr. Stemer, you had read
that as a companion case already, correct? >> That is correct, Madam Chair. >> Okay. So, that's what we voted on. Thank you. >> Please proceed. >> Okay. So, with that, we'll then return to the 11 a.m. cases and we will be
going to case BOA 1721560 with the address of 323 Washington Street. This is a canvas case. So we'll ask if the applicant andor their representative are present to
present to the board. >> Yes, we have a puzzle. >> Please state your address for the record and proceed. >> Yep. Thank you, Madam Chair and board members. I'm Azard Parzbach, a business consultant helping Josh Gomes, uh, who's
also present with cannabis licensing. This is Josh's one-stop shop, a convenience store since 2019 that was approved to add legal cannabis by the BCB in December 2025, and it got its host agreement in January. Uh, in going
through the process, Gosh determined that the landlord, and we can actually scroll down to the drawing if you would, the floor plan. Um, there it is. Thank you. Uh, he determined that the landlord only had 323 Washington for his building. uh
which includes a currently unused tenant space. So Josh formally uh changed this space to 323A. Um so in the drawing here you can see that uh this is actually what the exact foot of the current convenience store
is. And the only changes that were made were to add the little room that idle vault uh in the uh central right part of the drawing. and below that is an ID check where a second door was added. So
those are the only changes that were made uh structurally. Uh VCB approved it as far as security and operations. Can you confirm is so this is converting from a sort of a general kind of a I
don't know if it was a convenience store or something else to solely cannabis or adding cannabis. >> Uh yeah, that's a good point. This it's the original intent is and was is to um add cannabis because it's a smoke shop.
So, it kind of already had a over 21 section in the back and it did sell food and things up front. Um, the Cannabis Control Commission has now allowed food to be sold in stores because they're preparing for the social consumption
regulations. So essentially Josh has turned this into a convenience store or proposes to turn it into the same convenience store that's adding cannabis removing tobacco because you cannot sell tobacco and cannabis in the same
facility. So we're removing tobacco and then his store will his convenience store um/canabis store will be 21 and over. So, it's sort of the first of its kind in Boston to just try and create a a model of a convenience store that that
is compliant with the state regulations for cannabis. So, you can still go in and get chips and soda and you can get cannabis um but you are uh required to be 21 and over. So can you talk a little bit more about
the security aspects then because you know obviously this is a little bit different uh than we've seen before. You're comingling things >> for sure. Yeah. So the only So if you look at the far right of the drawing
that's the entrance. There will be a um an ID check person security guard at uh outside who checks IDs right upon entry. You also see a white rectangle in the middle of that first space. That is a
little counter where uh a employee sits and that purple space there is where the um non-cannabis products will sit. So there'll be shelves. Um that is literally what it is right now. There's shelves and that's where chips and soda
and things are are sold. And then if the customer only wants those products, they buy it and they leave. If they also want cannabis products, they go back to the back of the store through the ID check um little
area. And then in the green center part, you see another white rectangle perpendicular. That is the point of sale area for cannabis. Um the vault there is obviously where it's stored. There's going to be another employee that's in
the back at the point of sale area there. And then the rest of the hole where the skinny hallway is to the left and then all of the corridors and bathrooms, etc., those are all private um back backup house uh facilities.
>> And what hours of operations? Uh Josh, chime in if you have this uh better than me because you're currently operating. Josh, is it uh 10 to 7, I believe, of the hours >> or you're going later? It's sorry, 10 to
900 p.m. >> So that's uh you're you're changing the time to make it later or is that already the time? Um, you know, I I believe the time is actually 10 to 9:00 p.m. And Josh, if you're on here and you can
>> I think that's incorrect. I know it's not seven because it it goes later. >> Thank you. >> Other questions from the board. >> Madam Chair, I just have a quick clarifying question. So, I think um you kind of lost me after the shop. How
would someone a customer exit this facility? And I think what I'm sort of honing in on is that lobby space in blue. >> Uh that is actually Yeah, it's a little confusing there. That is all private, completely private. Um the reason why
that's called a lobby is because the doors on the lower part of the drawing um go into the tenant space that is next door to them. That tenant is a hair salon. they can go into that back lobby because they are tenant only and they
can access those ADA bathrooms but they do not have access to the store that is only for um tenants of the building. It's a common space and so any customers that enter from the right hand side of
the of the facility go in through the purple space through the ID check into the uh sales floor area and then they go back out the ID check when they are finished with with their purchase >> back out the front door just like a regular convenience store that you go in
this one door and you go out that same exit door. So, anything to the far left of the drawing is all completely private displaced. >> Okay. Um, yeah, I think just kind of honing in on
the ID check area, if people are going in and out, how will that be secured? If customers are exiting through there as well? I if I think there's typically sort of locks on the door and people have to be buzzed in, will it work that way?
>> Mhm. It it is um though going the person at the front of the store will buzz them into that first ID check area and that secondary door um does stay closed but it it's got a window. So um in fact I
think Josh will have there is a third employee so that that person there's an ID check person there. So essentially there's four. One at the front door, one at the first uh point of sale area, one person who is running the sales floor
and making sure the ID check happens. They don't have to technically have their ID check at the second ID check door, but that person buzzes the people in that secondary uh door. And then there is the fourth employee. Sorry. 1 2
3 4. the fourth employee that is at the point of sale. So, it's a very tiny operation. He currently, you know, serves his neighborhood and we've sort of done calculations about how many c customers he gets now for his CBD products and tobacco products. There are
dispensaries nearby and a lot of dispensaries. We've got a little saturated in Boston. So, we don't anticipate, you know, drats of people in here. it's just a maybe, you know, a few people per hour that
come in and leave. So, we anticipate that it's going to be um more like a small convenience store and less like a big uh you know, retail dispensary that serves hundreds of people a day. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Any other questions from the board? Let's take public testimony. Yes, madame chair, members of the board, Connor Newman with the mayor's office of neighborhood services. This time the mayor's office like to defer to the judgment of this board. Uh some back
information the community process onset hosted a butters meeting on July 23rd. It was well attended. Uh there was a mix of opinions in the meeting. Um some residents were in support uh citing uh Josh's outreach and work with the community uh and felt that this was an
opportunity for another minority owned business to thrive in this space. Um there were those who had concerns uh expressing they felt there was already a number of dispensaries in the Dorchester area and were concerned about another one being added to that. Um as well as concerns with the spacing um you know
would be large enough uh for this type of operation. Uh we received nine letters in support from Doorchester residents, a couple of them with addresses uh not far from the uh 323 Washington Street. Uh we also received notices from the Harvard Washington
Norwell Neighborhood Association which was opposed as well as the Greater Chamberlain Neighborhood Association who was also opposed as well uh citing that they felt that this kind of highlevel uh business with a lot of regulations uh
would be difficult for the applicant to uh succeed at um without information will defer to the board at this time. Eventually, it was, as you're aware, uh, approved by the Boston Cannabis Board. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Next, we have Anastasia.
>> Anastasia. >> Anastasia. >> Keep going. >> Um, well, there's another person who wrote a comment on the that is an opposition. Um
not sure if this is part of like some of the comments from the community process, right? >> Can I ask are there any other raised hands? >> No m um Moira. >> Okay. Yeah. I'm just wondering can you
hear me? >> Yes. >> Okay. Perfect. So I am also we sent an a message also in from four corners main streets where we were like very very concerned along with the fact that there are those two churches on either side actually three churches in the
neighborhood. It's a convenience store. We definitely as a main streets want to see all of our local small businesses thrive and do well. But I just think as we are cleaning up the four corners area, um we we're we're really disturbed and troubled that this this that it even
passed that it went through that the commission approved this. Um but we don't want children going into this establishment to buy soda, whatever, you know. Um and then there's this dispensary that people have to walk past them to get to. It's just a bad idea, period. And I just wanted to convey that
um and just speak. I know many of our surrounding neighborhood associations um opposed it. So I'm I I it's not even clear to me how this community how this even passed, but that's beside the point. It did, and this is where we are now. We are not approved. We're not in
um we we just don't want anything like that to happen in that area. I think he's doing fine as he is, but a dispensary, there's one like around the corner, not a good idea. So, thank you for hearing me. >> Thank you. and madame chair Anastasia from council
moral would like to call opposition. >> Okay. Yeah. Uh can the applicant answer how long has this person been in business and is this the like the only store
they've operated that relates to >> I I can answer that. So that's uh uh since 2019. Uh and he does have another uh convenience store that he operates um I believe in Roxberry.
>> Any other questions from the board? >> I have a motion. >> If I could provide one last point of reference possible >> quickly. uh just that he is a social equity applicant who is the recipient of
a grant and he's slated to get a $200,000 grant which he can only apply to this business. So um this will that that uh grant from the state will provide a lot of u benefits to the
actual you know cosmetics of the the front of the store. >> So the grant is specifically for this cannabis proposal. Is that what you're saying? That's correct. >> Can you can you remind me again how
close is uh a near a nearby cannabis store to the proposed location? >> Um I so by my calculations it is about u4 miles. So um it's about you know several blocks away. Um there was one uh
called 617 that that did close down. So I believe the closest one is Pure Oasis which is almost a half mile. >> And can you remind me again uh the regulation from the cannabis how far away the cannabis should be typically a
mile radius? >> Yeah, the state does not have a buffer requirement for other establishments only for schools of 500 ft. But the city of Boston has a buffer requirement of half mile >> half a mile. And that's right. And
there's a lot of precedent for uh waving that just because of various neighborhoods or um you know the board determining that two can be in the same neighborhood. There are some neighborhoods where there are literally two within uh a couple hundred feet of
each other. Uh in this case it would be many blocks. >> Okay. Thank you. I don't have any further questions. I guess have more of a comment uh and a question. I guess I you know I appreciate that your client's a a social equity applicant. I think the
thing that's giving me pause personally is that you have this sort of unrestricted use of a convenience store colllocated with a use that requires additional security measures. So, I just I don't know if I really have the
confidence that the two uses can coexist on the same site. And I just question whether your client would be eligible for the grant at a different site. I think I'm just not convinced that this is the right location for this with how
the two uses will operate together. >> That's a good point. If I could just are you looking for other board members? >> I think just throwing it out there. I'm
not sure where my my colleagues are at, but if the client would like to respond to that, I just want to be transparent where my >> I think Katie don't want this to be coming back and forth at >> No, no. I think Katie, you do have a good point in regards to like setting a a typology like a new precedent of a
mixed use of convenience store/cannabis has that you know do we have that in existence currently in the city of Boston typically the use separate. So I think it it you know I would love to hear um
Hampton let us know if for zoning wise if there is a mixeduse that has been approved in the past. >> Are you available Mr. Hampton? >> Yes. Thank you madam chair members of the board. Jeff Hampton uh city of Boston planning department. This is the
first uh that I can recall where this is going to be in addition to an existing use specifically the the convenience store use. Um as you had mentioned uh Miss Better Barazza usually it's a standalone use um and this is the first
that I can recall uh of this being added to an existing retail use. >> Great. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. I don't have any further questions. I think we're good. Can I make a comment on that? >> Yes, please. >> Yes. I was just uh sitting here
listening to what they were saying. To me, that doesn't The neighborhood is kind of against this. That doesn't sound really good. A variety store and a cannabis because a lot of the children that lives in the neighborhood's going to go back and forth in that store. So,
me myself, I'm I just have to say I'm against this. >> Okay. Any other feedback from board members before we have a motion? >> Madam Chair, happy to put forth a motion, >> please.
>> Um, I'm going to put forth the motion of denial without prejudice. I, like I said earlier, I just don't think this is quite the right site for this. And I I don't know if within this existing confines and layout that the two uses can operate together. Um, so those are
the same concerns I echoed earlier. So that's the motion I'm putting forward. >> Thank you. Is there a second, >> Mr. Steambridge? >> I'm going to vote no. Um, I believe that I would believe I'm from what I've
heard, I think they have enough measures in place to take care of this. Um, it's one thing to have to start a standalone business. um on its own uh along these lines um it makes it yes may maybe not a right thing
to say more convenient um but more um but in terms of getting getting things going so I'm going to vote no >> okay Mr. for Valencia. >> When I will vote yes, there are similar establishments in the area. So, I think
based on the community feedback about this location, I agree with the motion, >> Mr. Langum. >> Uh, I vote no. The the motion >> I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I I'm sorry. Oh, yes. I'm sorry. >> Thank you.
>> Yes, ma'am. >> M We will. >> Yes. and for the reasons I stated earlier, but that I hope um your client can find another space that's better suited to this and utilize the grant. >> Mr. Collins,
>> yes, >> Miss Better Barza, >> I'm I'm going to vote yes. Um I I don't think um location is an issue. Uh, I think it's more of a zoning issue in
regards to use and um and setting precedent. Uh, so this is why I'm voting yes. I I I think the convenient use um that h that any age can enter an establishment versus one of cannabis
which is a regulated use per age. Those two use needs to be separated. here votes yes. The motion carries. >> Next have case BOA
181 8661 with the address of 5 Ashen Street. If the applicants andor their representative are present, they're please explain to the board. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Charlie Tevin. I'm
an attorney with 15 Broad Street, Boston. I'm appearing on behalf of the applicant, Sean George of Certified Boston, and the developer, Raymond Bogos of Bogos Properties LLC. The existing property at 5 Ashland Street contains a
two family residence in some disrepair on a 16,37t4 square ft lot which is 75 ft wide by 204 ft long. The proposal is to construct a townhouse style dwelling with six units which
units live like civil single family homes each with three bedrooms, an office, three and a half baths and catering towards families who wish to stay in the city. Each unit comes with two garages, parking spaces at grade.
There are three stories proposed. The height is 33 feet and the size of each unit is approximately 2100 square ft. The building is designed to appear more like a single family dwelling from the street and with the pitched roof and
gable end facing Ashland Street. It ties well into the fabric and history of the plant made. The property is located approximately 1 half mile from the Fields Corner MBTA station and approximately 1 half mile to the Savin Hill Natural Area and waterfront into
the Freeport Street and Marcy Boulevard thorough affairs. The proponent John George and Bogos Properties LLC has completed the neighborhood process in the ABA process with strong support from director Butters. We have submitted to the board a number of letters of support
from director Butters including Butters at number nine Ashland 11 Ashland 31 rear Ashland etc. There is no opposition of which we are aware. We've also been in close communication with the office of district city council John Fitzgerald
regarding proposed project before during and after the community process. Looking at the surrounding context we feel that this project is appropriate. There are multif family residences located on nearly all sides of the property and as noted by the planning department number
five Ashlin Street is the largest residential lot on the block and is suitable for development of multiple units of housing and the design respects the surrounding scale and character of the neighborhood and furthers city planning goals.
We understand that the planning department has recommended approval of this project with design review with an eye toward increasing the existing building alignment to preserve historic character where appropriate and the planning department recommendation
concludes that the requested zoning relief for this project is appropriate. We would like to note that page two of the planning department recommendation further suggests that the building be set back 6 ft further than designed to increase the alignment with other
buildings on the street and the existing 15t yard depth. Again, what is proposed is a 9 ft setback from the lot line to the edge of the front porch. In response, we believed that the planning department's recommendation could be met by adjusting the plans to increase the
front yard setback from 9 ft to 15 ft. Which adjustment would also then not create an additional variance needed from the rear yard setback. Finally, I would like to also note there's a minor typographical error in the planning department's recommendation supporting
the requested relief and that the statement refers to the uh proposal as a five unit project when it has always been a six unit project. I would respectfully defer to Jeff Hampton from the plaint who I believe can confirm that the reference to five units in the
recommendation is a minor typographical error. Lastly, the proponent Sean George and Raymond Bogos as well as the architect Eric Eric Stacken context architects are also availing
to answer any process or design related questions. Thank you. >> Thank you. Are there questions from the board? Hearing none, may I have public testimony? >> Hello, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Eva Jones representing the mayor's office of neighborhood
services regarding 5 Ashlin Street. Our office defers to the board's judgment. A community process was conducted including an abutters meeting held on 2326 that was likely attended by community members where productive conversation was had regarding the proposal. Additionally, we did also
receive six letters in support two of which were from director Butters. The proposal was not in the catchment area of any civic associations and was not requested to meet with any at this time. the mayor's office of neighborhood services to first of the board's judgment on this matter. Thank you everyone for your time and consideration.
>> Aloha madame chair members and board leis from councelor Fitz Herald's office. Our office would like go on record in support of this proposal. Thank you. >> Thank you madam chair. There are no additional comments. >> Okay with that. May I have a motion?
Madam chair, I'd like to put forward a motion of approval. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Mr. Stebridge. >> Yeah. >> Mr. Valencia.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Langham. >> Yes. >> Miss We will. >> Yes. >> Mr. Collins. >> Yes. >> Miss Brazza. >> Yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. >> Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the
board, and also Mr. Ambassador. >> Book. >> Thank you, everyone. >> Next, we have case BOA 182 3317 with the address of 185 W Street. If the
applicant, excuse me, and their representative are present, would they please display their employment? >> Hi. Uh, good morning. Uh, I am Steven Dailyaly. Um, I am a homeowner here at
185 Street and, uh, we seek, uh, uh, a few a few items of relief for our home in order to expand, uh, up a level on an existing conforming, non-conforming, uh, property. uh to add a couple of bedrooms and a bathroom for our family uh in an
effort to stay in the city of Austin and uh our kids uh schooling and education going strong here and maintain our kind of neighborhood networks. Um the we are looking to add uh approximately 600 gross square feet to the building at the
rear of the property which you uh can see there in this demo plan. That blue square was where the addition will be. Um we are as a result that uh means we need uh F relief uh relief in number of stories and sideyard setback relief uh
given the existing conforming non-conforming nature of the house. We're looking to go from a 0.53 uh existing F to 68 with 6 being the threshold and going from two stories with a unconditioned attic to a partial to essentially a threetory uh partial
threetory building. Um we are only encroaching on our side setbacks and uh as as the um zoning request uh zoning relief request uh outlines and um height
is is uh all good and we're just it's just a number of stories that we're trying to go for here. Um we're designing the building. Um the Woodborne neighborhood that we are in, we've been part of been here for 13 years and love it and has a very strong sense of uh history and community around the
typology and the diverse buildings in the neighborhood. And uh we're looking to maintain the craftsman character of this home and bring details of the existing home into the addition that really homogenizes the whole building and maintains the existing character in the neighborhood. Um we've been through
the community process. So there have been no comments uh or requests for changes uh that we've received directly and really looking to um you know just uh improve our family's quality of life and and stay residents of city of Boston. Yeah.
>> Thank you. >> And with that I turn it over. Thank you guys for the time. >> Questions from from the board. >> Hearing none. May I have public testimony? Madam chair, members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Bevery. I'm the Jamaica Plan community engagement specialist for the Office of
Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process which consisted of an abunders meeting facilitated on December 8th that was very well received by the community with overwhelming community support. Our budders were pleased to be informed and happy to see the proposal constructed. Next, the proponent presented to Jamaica Plane Neighborhood Council on January
7th where they voted to approve the proposal. To date, our office has received one letter of support from the Jamaica Clan Neighborhood Council requesting the board to approve the proposal. Thank you for your time and the mayor's office of neighborhood services like to defer. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. No addition no
additional comments. May I have a motion? >> Madam Chair, I'd like to put forward a motion of approval with BPD design review. uh paying special attention to um the the third story addition of roof
geometry to make it work in alignment with this neighboring context. There >> a second. >> Can I respond to that comment if that's >> No, we're taking the vote. >> Sorry, >> Mr. Stembridge.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Valencia. >> Yes. >> Mr. Langum? >> Yes. Miss Vio, >> yes. >> Mr. Collins, >> yes. >> Miss Better Braza, >> yes.
>> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. >> Next, we have case BOA 1808115 with the address of 67 Bell Avenue. If the applicant andor their representative are present, would they please explain to the board?
>> Thank you, Mr. Stembridge. Good afternoon, Madame Chair, members of the board. I want to thank you all uh for granting us time to speak on this proposal at 67 Bell AB in West Roxbury. Uh with me this morning, this afternoon is Antonio Ferrara, who is the
proponent. 67 Bell AB, it's one of 6,000 zoning. Lot size is 3600 square ft. project's pretty straightforward. It's proposal to construct a single family home upon an existing vacant lot. The proposed house would be two and a half stories comprised of two uh four
bedrooms with two off street parking spaces. The total living area is approximately 1743 square ft and this will provide a home ownership opportunity on a currently unutilized yacht lot. uh the dwelling itself will
fit into the context of the community which is uh primarily made up of single family homes. This proposal went through a full community process uh with an abundance meeting as well as a meeting for the West Ros neighborhood council zoning committee who unanimously uh
supported this proposal. Additionally, outside of that, we have provided the uh the board as well as ONS the uh 16 letters of support. I think 10 of which come from U Bellab, which is really not a long street. As far as the violations,
the only real violation we have on this project is F. Allowed in this neighborhood is a point 4. We are at a point 48. You can notice that we have everything is else existing because of the undersized lot, but we don't have a rear yard. We do not have sideyard violations because the developer and
architect work directly with the community to work all that out. In the front yard violation required is 20 ft. We're at 13 and that is you can look for the BPDA recommendation of approval also states that that is consistent with what's in the neighborhood. I'm happy to
answer any questions. Appreciate the opportunity. >> Thank you. Are there 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 completed an
Abutters meeting on January 22nd where abutters were supportive. No concerns were raised. The West Roth neighborhood council is supporting this application and our office has received 15 letters of support all from abutters that have been forwarded to the board. With that background, our office defers judgment to the board. Thank you.
>> Thank you, >> Madame Chair. We don't have additional comments. Okay. With >> that, may I have a motion? shall make a motion of approval. >> Is there a second? >> Second.
>> Mr. Stumbridge? >> Yes. >> Mr. Valencio? >> Yes. >> Mr. Langum? >> Yes. >> Miss Weel? >> Yes. >> Mr. Collins? >> Yes. >> Miss Bter Brazza?
>> Yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. >> Thank you everyone. Enjoy the rest of your day. Thank you. >> Next we have case BOA1803940 with the address of 40 to 42 Ashford
Street. If the applicant andor their representative are present, would they please explain the case to the board? >> Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the board. I'm attorney Jacob Taylor with Klein Hornig at 101 Arch Street representing Alustin Brighton Community
Development Corporation. Uh we're here today to request relief under section 9-1 for extension of a non-conforming use in connection with the rehabilitation of the affordable housing development located at 40 to 42 Ashford Street in Alustin.
Also, Brighton CDC plans to renovate the building to update the interior of the units, incorporate energy efficiency upgrades, and provide a fully accessible kitchen on the first floor level. Uh, Mayor's Office of Housing is providing funding for these renovations. Uh, and as part of the renovations, a
one-bedroom unit would be converted to an SRO unit to make space for the new kitchen. um which which our architecture team is is um or we'll show you renderings of um as part of the uh we're requesting the relief uh for the
extension of the non-conforming use to formul formalize the occupancy as 10 SRO units, one studio unit and one bedroom unit, one one-bedroom unit. Uh the history of the official occupancy of this structure is a little bit complicated. Records indicate that the property was
operated as an SRO or lodging facility going back to the 1940s. Alston Brighton CDC acquired the property in 1991 and has operated as affordable housing uh for individuals since that time. It was initially operated as housing for persons with HIV
and AIDS, but it's no longer targeted for this population. Um, since ABCDC or Awesome Brighton CDC has acquired the property, it's included a studio and two one-bedroom units. Uh, records within the building jacket are inconsistent as
to the number and the makeup of the units. A 1992 determination by ISD listed the occupancy as 11 lodging units. Uh, but other records from that time and earlier show 12 lodging units or 11 lodging units and a larger unit.
Um and in connection with the proposed renovations, uh we are requesting relief under 9-1 to formalize the post renovation occupancy um as it will exist at that time with 10 SRO units, one studio unit and one one-bedroom unit.
Uh Austin Brighton CDC has engaged with the community regarding the renovations and the proposed change in the occupancy. They've met with the Austin Civic Association on February 18th. No objections were raised from neighbors or from the civic association and the civic association has submitted a letter
in support of the project. Uh Senator Brownsburgger, Representative Honen, and Councelor Braden have also submitted letters of support. Uh and with that, I'll turn it un unless the board has questions at this time, I'll turn it over to the project architect, uh Shannon Festy from Joy Square to provide
a very brief overview of of the proposed renovations. Hi, I'm Shannon Pinesi, an architectural designer with Joy Square Design. Uh 40 to 42 Ashford Street is a proposed level 2 residential renovation that provides improvements to accessibility
opportunities to build community and social connections and an extensive deep energy retrofit to reduce energy consumption. At the exterior of the structure, all existing finishes are to be removed and replaced with a continuous air barrier, rigid insulation, and new composite siding or
roofing material. All windows and doors will be replaced, and the exterior decks will have new composite decking material. Within the site, new concrete walkways will be installed to provide an accessible entrance to the building, as well as a more permanent path to the trash receptacles at the rear of the
building. At the interior of the structure, the existing floor plan at each floor will be minimally modified to improve egress. At the first floor, a group 2A accessible studio apartment will be created, providing an accessible bathroom and laundry facility within the
unit. The first floor will also provide an accessible common kitchen and common laundry that will be available to all residents. 40 to 42 Ashford Street will have an all new ERV units installed at each floor, providing constant fresh air
and exhaust to each. All building systems will be fully electrified with new heat pumps providing residents air conditioning for the first time. The existing sprinkler system will be modified to accommodate the new floor plan revisions and all existing plumbing fixtures will be replaced with energy
efficient water sense fixtures. All proposed updates are to provide the residents with a more accessible home while providing significant energy savings. Thank you. Any questions from the board?
May I have public testimony? >> Madame chair and board members. Sigy Johnson with the office of neighborhood services. This applicant has completed the community process. Our office oversaw distribution of anformational flyer to all occupied parcels in a 300 foot radius which solicited no comments and the Austin Civic Association is in
support of this application. That background judgment is deferred to the board. Thank you. >> Thank you. Next we have uh Joe Baker from Office of Housing. >> Thank you very much. I'm Joe Baker, senior development officer with the
mayor's office of housing. We have awarded $800,000 in funds to support the deep energy retrofit that was described at this property and have been working closely with the team throughout the process to ensure the benefits for the residents
that were described. So, we are in support of this project. Thank you. >> Thanks. Next, we have a Moira McCrae. >> Good afternoon. This is Mor from Council Councelor Braden's office. Councelor would like to go on record in support of
this project. This project will enable the Alzheimer CDC to preserve and improve this property which will allow them to continue to house uh you know um create um enable affordable housing for
um lower income residents in Austin. Right. Thank you. >> And we have Tony Doro. >> Good afternoon madam chair, members of the board. Tony Dadoro representing the Austin Civic Association. The Austin
Brighton CDC is a shining star in our community. We'd like to go on record in support >> chair. There no additional comments. Okay. May I have a motion? >> Motion to approve. There
>> a second. >> Mr. Stebridge. >> Yes. Mr. Valencia, >> yes. >> Mr. Langum, >> yes. >> Miss Weo, >> yes. >> Mr. Collins, >> yes.
>> Miss Better Brazo, >> yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck. >> Thank you. Next we have case BOA 1807244 with the address of 15 Chester Street.
If the applicant and or the representative are present, would they please explain to the board? >> Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. Attorney Shawn Regan with the business address of 125 High Street, 4th floor, Boston. On
behalf of the applicant, 15 Chester LLC, we are before you today just seeking to legalize existing living space in the basement consisting of two bedrooms with no new work proposed. The basement living space was constructed
approximately 15 to 20 years ago uh and was not uh properly legalized at that time. In 2017, ISD and the fire department discovered the nonconforming space and issued a violation that the
fire alarm fire alarm and unpered uh bedrooms needed to be um legalized. Uh the the fire safety work was completed at that time including fire alarm and eress eressible windows. But
unfortunately uh that builder also passed away prior to finalizing uh the permit with ISD and BFD. Uh this year ISD contacted the owners after an internal audit and realized that the
permits were never properly closed out. Uh and so we have submitted uh this uh proposal to legalize that space which uh has triggered uh extension of non-conforming use and a violation of
floor area uh ratio. Uh key points for the board. All life safety measures are in place con including conforming fire alarm and egressible windows with window wells and there is no building uh code relief being sought. And with that I'll
pause. >> Thank you. Are there questions from the board? >> Hearing none. I'll take public testimony. >> Madam chair and board members Johnson with the office of neighborhood services. This applicant attended an abutters meeting hosted by our office on February 10th at which no comments were
made. The applicant has also met with the Alston Civic Association. With that background, our office defers judgment to the board. Thank you. >> Madame Chair, we don't have additional comments. >> Okay. With that, may I have a motion?
Madam Chair, I'd like to put forward a motion with a provisal that the project doesn't undergo any uh code building code relief. >> Approval with a provisal no building code relief. >> Thank you. Is there a second?
>> Second, >> Mr. Stebridge. >> Uh yes, >> Mr. Valencia. >> Yes. >> Mr. Langum. >> Yes. >> Miss Weo. >> Yes. Mr. Collins,
>> yes. >> Miss Betterazza, >> yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. >> Thank you. >> Let's take a 15minute break. Stembridge mad >> Mr. Valencia
>> present. >> Mr. Langham >> present. >> Miss we >> present. >> Mr. Collins >> present. >> Miss better Brazo >> present. >> All right the floor is yours. Mr. Stebridge.
>> Thank you Madam Chair. Uh, we will go to the red discussion hearing cases scheduled for 11:30 a.m. We'll ask again if there are any requests for withdrawals or deferrals from this time frame.
And hearing none, we will go to case BOA177 6341 with the address of 19 Bwell Street. If the applicant andor their representative are present, would they please explain
the case to the board? >> Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. Verna Woodworth, 9 Elizabeth Street with the applicant, Marco Daras. Uh Marco resides at 19 Bodwell Street.
It's a two family building and I believe the board has heard the particulars previously. I'll just reiterate briefly that uh a deck on an existing garage and a awning on the side of the house
described here as a covered side entrance uh were built without permits during the COVID pandemic. You can see that the lot is relatively small with very little usable open space.
The garage did have a flat roof uh and the opportunity for exterior uh enjoyment was uh irresistible. But there are several code violations of the
zoning code as a result and uh it's my understanding that there have been minor concerns by one abut butter but that uh otherwise abutterss are in support of this application.
You can see from the uh floor plans the relationship uh to an existing exterior egress from a second floor unit which also provides access to the roof deck and uh the covering the awning I guess
it's described as or in this case asphalt shingle roof um also integrates two exits from the existing residence in a covered area which was built for the applicant's mother during the co
uh pandemic to allow her some exterior enjoyment. Um so maybe there's been confusion but the garage has been existing for some time. So framing plans were submitted. My understanding is that ISD will review
building code issues separately if variances are granted from the zoning code. Are there any questions from the board? >> May I have public testimony? Um not sure if somebody from ONS is >> sorry I wasn't sure if my colleague
would be jumping on but I can fill in here. So um we conducted an abuters meeting on uh October 21st of 2025. It was very lightly attended. No questions were raised. Uh we did receive a letter in opposition uh from a resident
expressing uh concerns related to the setback and how uh the deck was installed uh on the property um you know without permits and just the safety aspects um of that deck being installed without railings etc. Um it sounds like
that's since been addressed the railings uh but the resident remains in opposition. Um they were connected to the ups corner uh civic association. Um I don't have uh a result from that um up in the corner west side. Excuse me. Uh
but with that information defer to the board. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Next we have Anastasia. >> Councelor Warel's office. We cannot hear you. Any other raised hands? >> Yes, I think we have
Chrisman. >> Unmute yourself now. What's happening? But um Met or Mete, I'm not sure if you want to speak. Um I'm sorry my name is Ma. It's for the next case. I was just asking to be added. Apologies. >> Yeah. Without Madame Chair, we don't
have additional comments. >> Okay. Mr. Hampton, I'm not sure we saw a recommendation. Can you weigh in? >> Uh yes. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. Jeff Hampton, City of Boston Planning Department. Uh my apologies for not having it uh included in the package that was sent over to
you. This was originally supposed to be heard on March 24th and I don't believe that the appellant had shown up so there was no deferral date given to us so it just appeared on the agenda. Uh but
backboard that hearing we recommended approval of this case. >> Thank you. Any other questions from the board? May I have a motion? >> Motion of approval. Is there a second?
>> Second. >> Mr. Stebridge. >> Yes. >> Mr. Valencia? >> Yes. >> Mr. Langum? >> Yes. >> Miss Wheel? >> Yes. >> Mr. Collins?
>> Yes. >> Miss Better Braza? >> Yes. >> Chair votes? Yes. The motion carries. >> Thank you very much. You're on mute, Mr. Stumbridge. >> Sorry about that, Madam Chair. Uh, we
have case now we have case BOA 164 2295 with the address of 33R Princeton Street. If the applicants and their andor their representative are present,
will they please explain Uh yes, members of the board, Madame Chair, my name is Joseph Luna. I am the principal of Luna Design Group Architects representing Rick Parachi, the project um owner on 433 Rear Princeton Street. Um we had asked a
continuence from the last meeting to do a little bit more investigation about the permanent and um kind of to the best of my knowledge and ability. This is how I believe what um happened. In July of 1992,
a permit was granted for the rear garage. you can see in the lower leftand corner of the site plan on your screen um to do um some roof replacement and replacement of part of the exterior walls.
Um at the time the inspector was John Walsh who was now since retired sometime after that permit was granted and I should also note that the applicant on the permit was the homeowner Richard Barra. Um, copies of
those permits were submitted to the board um, two days ago to be included in this presentation. Um, at some point that permit was amended or at least we believe it was amended but there was nothing ever
recorded on that. Um, subsequently during this time Mr. Varachi he could speak more about this in the public comment phase was going through some personal difficulties with the loss of his wife. There's nothing on file showing the amendment of the permit and
in 1999 um the permit was actually just abandoned um in on four on April 1999. Um there was no records of anything um
in the file as far as final sign offs etc. and on or around the time in 1993, the apartment that was built over this was occupied. Um the current current tenant is um Meta Cruzman who actually
just came on earlier um who's been in the apartment for 14 and a half years and pays below market rate rent. Um, we have reviewed and inspected the the unit and determined that there are some code violations that would need to be updated, which is there was no second
egress and a new proposed egress ster. Um, we put in the egress door needs to be widened to 3 ft and we need a code compliant smoke and CO detector as part as part of the work. I cannot confirm any of the work that was not exposed at
the time. Um, but the department um was clean and and did not did not pose in our opinion any potential life safety safety orders. Um we are seeking a number of zoning reliefs on this u but
we would request that the board um grant relief since it is been an occupied apartment for this amount of time. the current tenant that's been in here again for the last 14 and a half years and on the provise though that the that the proposed improvements for egress smoke
detectors and widening the door be included. >> Questions from the board? >> Yeah, Mr. Luna, I was looking at the presentation and the documents that you submitted and there are no elevations. So it's really hard to see what is
existing right there because I I understand that this is an existing addition on top of the garage. So unfortunately there is not really much to see at this moment. Now I wanted to ask actually the planning department uh Jeff Mr. Hampton if you can come for a
second. I see that the recommendation from the planning department is for denial and my question is what will be the um followup for this case if there is higher denial the structure is already there so what is what they have to have to do after the the zoning
hearing >> that I can't answer that's a legal question I mean I'm I'm just I can speak to our recommendation and why I mean there are no records that shows that any work was done we don't know any legal record of when this was a dwelling unit.
I mean, we can take the appellent's word for it, but our recommendation is based on what we don't have, and we don't have any records of this uh being done legally, nor do we have any record of it being a dwelling unit for as long as they say they have. What happens after
the fact, I don't know. I don't know what happens. >> Yeah, thank you. I was thinking about that. are they going to be in the limbo like with a a building that is already there with no approval but also no recommendation for demolition or getting new permits. I'm not sure if anybody
from ISD can provide feedback but that is that is all at this moment madam chair. >> Thank you Mr. Stebridge you're on mute if you have a comment or question. >> Sorry it's Caroline Bard.
Um, so he would have to restore it back to the original condition when it was not a dwelling. >> So he they would have to remove the unit and just keep the garage if that was existing. >> Correct.
>> Thank you. >> Other questions from the board. Um I'm trying to understand um the existing unit five. So
so basically the existing garage is no longer a garage. It's actually >> there is a garage. There is a garage you see on the first floor that says EX1. There is an existing garage. >> Okay. So the studio the unit five >> is built on top of it.
>> Is on top of it. And and then I see another another um so there's an existing first with proposed studio apartment plan and I guess there's only one studio apartment.
>> Yes. And the proposed if you look at the proposed studio plan >> Oh, you're adding the egress. >> We're adding the egress. I got it. I got it. >> The existing does the existing does not have the stair. >> Um it's still the building is not sprinkled roof. still requires two means of egress. So, we're adding the proposed
stair. The sliding door is not an acceptable means of egress on that and we're adding a new egress door as part. >> Yeah. So, then what's happening is um in your site plan, you're not showing that egress there on your first on your site.
>> No, that that is that is an existing condition site plan, >> right? So, you don't have a proposed site plan. >> Not yet. We would submit it as part of the building permit. >> Yeah. So I think when it's when we're looking at zoning, it's kind of important for us to understand
how far off is that proposed second means of egress from the sideyard, right? Because we're looking at sideyard setbacks, rear setbacks. And so I'm almost commenting along the lines of Javanni where you're presenting to us
something that is completely um uh not cohesive and it's kind of representation for us to even judge on any merit of the project. So um you know uh we're trying to help you but you're not allowing us
to read the whole project as a whole. So that that would be my >> it would not be difficult for us to submit a a site plan with the proposed stair on it. Uh we did not do any exterior elevations cuz we we weren't doing any alteration of the building
volume or structure. >> Right. But again, if we're looking at massing from a zoning perspective and character of the neighborhood, you're again not really fully drawing out the the conditions. So that that's just my
my uh comment. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, I'd also add if this project were before us without the work having been done, those are the types of things we would want to see is the complete plot plan as well as elevations of how the project would look
>> or before and after photos like this is what the f this is what the building looks like. Um and >> well in this case the before and after will be identical. >> Correct. But we don't we're not even seeing that. And I'm looking at Google Earth and I can't even get to the rear because of all the beautiful trees that
are >> now this criminal reacts to a lengthy >> Oops. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. No further comments. >> Okay. May I have public testimony? >> Hello, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Eva Jones representing the mayor's office of neighborhood
services regarding 33 Princeton Street. Our office defers to the board's judgment. The community process was conducted, including two of Butter's meetings held on 102324 and 62325 attended by several East Boston community members. The feedback from this meeting was significant
opposition regarding the proposal, especially from one of the direct abutters to the property whose family has been significantly impacted by the ongoing issues at this property, including the building of unpreented apartments and complaints of renters moving in and out of these properties regularly, which the abutters and family
members have made several 311 complaints. There were also about three community members in the meeting expressing support for the applicant. Additionally, we received one petition in opposition signed by 51 community members expressing opposition to the proposal submitted to the board. The
Eagle Hill Civic Association has chosen not to vote or review this proposal. At this time, the mayor's office of neighborhood services defers to board's judgment on this matter. Thank you everyone for your time and considerations. >> Next, we have Stephan from Consular Kleta's office.
Hi, Madame Chair, members of the board. My name is Stefan. I'm from Councelor Kleta Sapata's office. At this time, we would like to uh oppose this proposal. Um, thank you, Eva, for uh all of the the the reasoning there. We we echo all of that that was said there. Thank you
so much, >> Nick. Next, we have Mit. >> Hi there, everyone. Board members, my name is Moritzman. I live at 33 Princeton Street, East Boston. I am indeed the tenant in the studio
apartment in this case. Um, I would like to be recorded in support of granting this variance application. >> I've lived here u I've lived here since September 2011, almost 15 years, and this is a place I've lived the longest
ever. Um it was then when I was looking and it still is very difficult to find affordable living places uh space in Boston and especially suitable for a oneperson household. Um and my home is in the back. Um it's away from the
street. It offers a lot of light, a lot of air, peace, privacy, and big green trees. Um the neighbors in the main house and up and down the street are super nice and I know very many of them very well. We help each other out. Um,
and no one has ever complained to me about me living in the studio garage all these years. Um, it's a great place to live and I'm also very much committed to East Boston in the neighborhood. I live. Okay. Thank you, >> Madam Chair. Can I have a followup question
>> just for the record? So, for the record, you're stating that you've been living in unit five, the studio apartment for over 15 years. >> Almost 15 years. This September. >> 15 years. Okay. And it's just now that it's got cited. Okay. Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> Any other raised hands? >> We don't have no comments at the moment. >> Yeah. I I have a um I have a quick comment. >> Can you state your name and address for the record? >> Oh, absolutely. My my name is Mr. Liato.
Neil Rockado and um we're we're a director of butter who lives at 31 Princeton Street, a family home since 1923. My family and I oppose the request for a variance at 3 33 Princeton Street, East Boston. But before I begin, part one
variance granted for legal basement unit by ZVA board is under appeal by us in Superior Court. You should have a copy of that in the ZVA folder. Being heard today is part two of a legal garage.
The superior court complaint stating argument will also apply to a legal garage. 53 Princeton Street East Boston is an investment property and the owner resides out of state. Princeton Street is a very dense neighborhood with most
properties only 3 to seven feet away from each other and most have locking gates to prevent entry to rear properties. Parking is horrendous. Enclosed in your folder, you will see 55 neighbors in opposition of garage
conversion. Copy of original variance when no and void clause as exhibit with superior court filing. Copy of Superior Court appeal filing for a legal basement variance granted by ZBA when exhibits
dated February 9th, 2026. Four, three-word documents explaining why any granting of zoning and variance relief doesn't meet any of the criteria necessary for such certified letters and emails with photos sent to city
attorneys requesting removal in 2023. The applicant seeks to legalize an unauthorized garage to dwelling conversion that was the subject of criminal complaints filed by the city of Boston. No such address as 33R as on the
same as on the same waters house. Nothing unusual about the property as the same as other properties in the area. Long and rectangular shape. There is no hardship related to the land. We filed a complaint with inspectional
service and request removal of both illegal units basement and garage back in 2023. Property criteria doesn't meet any zoning or variance relief as illegal units were created illegally in violation of variance in null and void
clause in self court filing a ZBA folder. The legal units have created severe overcrowding of the land with nuisances. These legal units also allow a direct view into bedroom.
See letters in the folder in superior court filing. Now this is a very important plan submitted by architect to ZBA missing walkway to driveway conversion width on uncertified plot plan bypassing fire
department review rejection letter zoning and state laws for minimum widths. Fire department rejection violations missing from BISD notice property won't pass fire department minimum access and egress requirements
for illegal units located at rear of dwelling in East Boston Mass. There is also no access to sides or rear of garage in mere feet away from our back porch. This is a fire safety issue for us and
the neighborhood along with tenants of the illegal units buildings. The decision by ZBA members previous decision to make legal and illegal basement apartment unit showed a complete disregard of our property rights and how it affects our enjoyment
of our family home. See letters in the ZBA folder. We request that this appeal be denied with prejudice. Thank you board members and chair for your time. >> Thank you >> madame chair. There is one more person
not sure if the hand okay uh Richard Barroi Richard Barro you mute yourself? >> Yes. Can you hear me? >> Yes we can.
>> Yeah. This is the the 33 streets. Um, >> are you the owner? Are I'm sorry. Are you the applicant? >> The owner? Yes, the applicant and owner. >> Okay. So, is there any other public testimony before you weigh in?
>> Any other raised hands, Jesus? >> No, Madam Chair. I just um there was a letter submitted um um we submitted um yesterday from a letter support from Claudia um Fakata and Helina Fakata. I
want to make sure that is included in the public record in the public testimony supporting the project. >> Okay. So can you can you briefly address the uh concerns that we heard in public testimony before we uh continue? either
Mr. Lunar or the owner since you're both I mean he's the applicant. >> Uh yeah, I will defer that to to the owner to to elaborate more on what I've already presented. >> Go ahead, Richard. >> Yeah. Can you hear me? >> Yes.
>> Yeah. Um back uh 1992 there was permit pulled, the work was done, there was an addendum. John Wallace was the inspector back then and it wasn't all inspected. Uh I don't know. Uh I had some
difficulties in my life. I lost my wife to cancer and left with my uh one-year-old beautiful uh daughter that uh which ended up moving and changing my life a little bit to take care of her. I uh couldn't find there was plans
submitted. There was there was uh it all. Um I went to uh the archive and uh they dug up some of it and they said there was uh some things that are missing. Um and it's uh not unusual to
happen. I guess that they were telling me. Um I follow directions of building inspector and uh to try to legalize this after 34 years. Um uh I'm here today to uh to remedy this,
you know, and hope the ZBAs will grant the variance to legalize this. The uh the thing with the uh the neighbor, it's been going on. He's got opposition against me from my own driveway that I've owned for since 1984.
So um um I again I just uh hope to u to remedy this as soon as possible. The uh they also there was plans submitted showing the staircase uh to
the zoning and the building department showing the new proposed uh staircase that comes down. Uh there is two doors that go into that unit and they open out. There's not a sliding doors, they open out. Uh building inspector
recommended uh another door, a separate se separate set of stairs coming down to uh to bring it up to code and uh I agreed and agreed to any inspectional um
>> I'm sorry. C can I can I ask ISD to weigh back in because you're you're saying you pulled permits and you you know ISD needs to tell us if that is accurate or not. >> I pulled >> I don't know if Caroline can say that or if someone
>> Madam Chair there are no permit records of a complete permit application for this unit that he's proposing today. >> So thank thank you. So I I think it's uh it would be helpful if the board members
can uh deliberate at this time. Are there questions additional questions for the applicant? >> Any other >> I just want to make a quick note before you make a decision. the the original variance as a null and void which it didn't allow any
additional units and that was that was the judgment of the appeals board when that was granted to him to go from a one to a three because >> thank you. >> All right. Okay. >> Thank you. >> All right. >> I have a question I'd like to put out.
How are the utilities sort of administered here? And you know are there meters? Does this unit have its own meter? How is that handled? >> The four units in the main building have individual meters. It's my understanding
that the um carriage house unit is running off the house meter. >> So there's no separate meter. >> There's no there's no separate meter. Um >> it's running off the house meter. >> How's the building being taxed? building.
>> What is being taxed as? How many family unit? >> Richard, you still on? >> It's an hour four. >> Can you hear me? >> Yes. >> Y >> Thank you. >> What are you next?
>> You're on mute, Katie. M speaking. I think my question was sort of leading to that if there were evidence of a separate unit such as its own meter then I think the assessor's department would have seen that and had it on in their
records as a five unit even though that's not the zoning permits. So I think >> thank you. Yeah, I what I wanted to say is that I don't see any new impacts because this is an existing structure.
At the same time, I believe that the proponent is claiming that they have some permits or some some other documents that could be relevant. I think they have they they have to go and figure it out what documents they have and maybe work with ISD finding
those documentation also providing to the board some elevations and pictures so we can see the reality of that uh structure I'm not sure if um the without prejudice can help them have the time
they need to go and find information >> I can I can speak >> so we're deliberating now so I think that's >> Yeah. I just in terms of addressing we've scoured what electronic records are available. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> You would need two variance.
>> So are there so can >> can everybody where the board is discussing it now? There's no more public testimony. So Giovani has expressed uh some concerns. I don't know if that's a if there's other comments or if someone's ready for a motion. Mr. Stebridge is that do you want to say
something? >> That's that's that's that that's me, Madam Chair. Okay. >> Um because what we're discussing is for um I believe for the garage unit there's nothing else on the on the table before us.
>> Correct. >> So it's in regards. So as um was mentioned earlier >> if we could see the if we could see compl the plan so we could see a before and after and if that meets all the
requirements. um in terms of regulation wise then that's what we're discussing here nothing else I I believe >> okay >> so I think so I think SO I'M SORRY SO I
think that's what we need to focus on >> it um because it was because it's seen as a four unit it appears that we um allow for the basement unit so now it's an R4 Um, does that necessarily put it
as a >> multif family? Um, or is does it fall into was it cited as a >> as as no change of is is the occupancy still the same as a multif family? Can
Caroline can you can you um clarify or is it a or is it a four family plus ADU? I don't think you have zoning for four family. There is a multif family or you
know um three family but I don't think there's a four. So is the zoning currently as a multif family right now as a occupancy? >> I believe it's zoned just as a three family. Um this he was also before the
board I think about a month ago um to make his basement unit legal um so to go to a four family. >> So it changed then to a three family to a multif family.
>> Correct. And it's currently under appeal. That decision is um so I'm not sure if it would be if it would be a four or multi Yeah, >> but that's not what's in front of us now. >> Yeah, looking at just that. >> It helps clarify because
>> because we don't know in if we were to um >> Yes, because it's a zoning issue like you know is if it's if it's already classified as a multif family he's um >> but that's separate that's separate though
from this. >> No. So Caroline was saying that it was three family, but it's been appealed when we when we uh moved forward with allowing the basement use. >> So I just wanted clarity in terms of what is the zoning currently in front of
us for the for this um dwelling unit above the garage. >> That's what we're here to discuss today. But I think what maybe Miss Better Barz is getting at is while there's a pending court case,
is it a four or a three right now if that decision to go to four is being appealed? So I I understand Miss Better Bar's sort of line of thinking. >> So I believe four to five
>> because he has not been given the CO yet. >> Got it. So, it's still a three family, >> I believe. So, >> okay. So, if it's still a three family potentially with the addition of the dwelling, is he are they going for three family plus ADU because you can do
carriage conversion or is he going from three family to multif family? >> Three family to multif family. >> Okay. Thank you. That's all I wanted clarity in that because those are the zoning issues as well in front of us.
>> Okay. Is there further discussion from the board? >> I think my only comment when we were asked to sort of legalize pre-existing uses, it would certainly help if there were more sort of research or legal um
justifications submitted by the applicant. I know you can do that via voting records, any anything to sort of prove your case. um you know in in instead of coming with sort of incomplete plans when we need more
information I know outside of Boston um attorneys often have to prove a status of nonconformity since it's protected over 10 years that doesn't apply here under chapter 40 but um of state law but it's certainly comparable
and would help the board I think if the attorney were able to do a little bit more research to um sort of prove how long this has been and how long the resident has been there instead of just the testimony.
>> And Madame Chair, um from ISD, just to provide just some insight, um this originally came before you because it was a building code violation that has gone through the court system. Um so we've tried, the ISD legal council has tried to work with them for the past two
years. Um, and so this is why he's now at the ZBA to get relief for this. >> Thank you. >> Is someone ready to make a motion? Now here I I'm going to propose this to my colleagues that we make a motion of
denial without prejudice so the proponent has more time to go and figure it out what other documentations they can find even with ISD or any other agency and also to create other documentation for the board to consider
the proposal like pictures um um elevations etc and when they are that we come back to to to the board for consideration again. >> Is there a second?
>> Second. >> Second, >> Mr. Stanbridge. >> Yes. >> Mr. Valencia. >> Yes. >> Mr. Lang. >> Yes. >> Miss Weo. >> Yes. >> Mr. Colony.
>> Yes. >> Miss Better Barzo. I'm I'm going to say no. Um uh I I don't think um any other way you want to spin it um in regards to a change of plan
uh proposal but being almost the same outcome as a habitable unit above the dwelling is going to make any any any different. Um, I would I would say that with with um with a push for the city to
increase housing stock, the the conversion of the basement to an apartment unit is along those goals in in regards to increasing housing. But but in this case I think um there it is
shown that it it that the new proposition is creating an impact um into the abutters and so and so this is why I would say no. >> Okay. Um yes motion carries.
U Madam Chair, just a clarification on this since it's being um denied without prejudice. >> Can you please deal with the staff after this meeting? >> Yeah, just just real just quick question. This would then mean we'd have to reapply and go through the whole community process all over again. Correct.
>> So, can you talk with ISD staff after this meeting? Thank you. >> Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. Next we have case BOA70 3445 with the address of 100 Huntington Avenue. If the applicant andor their
representative are present, will they please explain to the board? >> Thank you, Mr. Stebridge. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. Attorney Jeff Drago with Drago and Tuscano with the business address of 11 Beacon Street. Here on behalf of the
applicant, New Tradition and with me I have Yano Amara who's a representative of that company. Uh the proposal you're looking at in front of you in the diagram in front is uh to affix two separate advertisement decal
windowscapes. one on the north side and one on the south side at 100 Huntington A. And this is the pedestrian foot bridge that connects the Copley Mall uh to the Credential Center. And the foot bridge and Copley Mall are owned and
managed by Simon Property Group. So that's a privately owned bridge. Uh what you're looking at is a rendering of what the advertisement would actually look at. We've got uh more pictures and more site pictures. Um just to point out uh
the uh this would encompass seven of the glass panels of a very large bridge which would be less than 30% of the total windowscape. The uh ads themselves would be translucent so light can pass through. You could see through the other side if you were walking through the
foot bridge. This is a decal so there is no structure. There is no illumination. This is not a billboard. There is no electronic scape to this. It is simply a decal that can be taken off from the inside um of the actual bridge and be
replaced. The idea is in the economic study by the city of Boston, the Back Bay was hit one of the hardest areas because of its business community uh during the pandemic and has slowly been trying to build uh business back up over uh the last 6 years. The idea for these
ads is to bring foot traffic uh or continue to bring foot traffic back to the business community within this area. We do have letters of support from from businesses and you'll also hear from the Backbay Association uh Meg Cohen who's
here uh in in a little while to to speak. We did get the support uh of that civic association. Um the we also had a study done if we can go to the next slide please. Uh Mr. ambassador. This just shows you sort of an aerial view so you can see the the the scape of the
bridge. If you could go to the next slide, please. And this just shows you different angles of the bridge and the size and scope. Uh there's a lot of traffic lights as you drive in uh to stop. Uh so this isn't like one quick stretch that folks can
drive right through. Um there are stop and go areas with the traffic lights. Um the we also had a study done by ANC. ANC is a is a leader in digital and static signage and technology. Um and they reviewed this particular location where
it would be affixed to to ensure that there would be no glaring caused by the signage um of how it would hit the light because that did come up uh at the community during the community process. If we could go to the next slide please. This just shows you this is one this
would be one of many different uh uh billboards advertisement on-site ads um in and around this area. You can just see if we go a little bit lower. Um thank you. It just shows all of the on ad on structures uh media billboards
street ads on and around this area. So this would not be uh these signs would not be unique. The other point is that the CPPley mall itself does not have any signs uh which many businesses do affix to the exterior of its of its mall. So this would allow for for on-site
business advertisement um which many of the the other surrounding businesses had. If you could go to the next slide, please. And this just shows uh some of the uh within au 100 to 300 feet um all just many of the different signs uh in and around uh the
area of 100 Huntington A. Um the uh the other point to note is we also in speaking with uh the community offered as mitigation inside the mall there are kiosks that have that have advertisement as part of the community give back. are
offering uh uh two weeks a month to run ads inside the mall for civic uh for nonprofit organizations uh within the area as well. Um if we can go to the next slide, please. Um and again, this just shows more of
the streetscape sky signs right in and around this immediate area. Um next slide, please. These are just the dimensions. So, as I mentioned, this would only be seven panels out of the total uh bridge on either side. The top uh portion, all of the glass on the top
of the bridge would remain open and all of the other panels would remain open as well. If we go to the next slide, please one more. Thanks. And one more again. Sorry. These are just examples in other areas where this
type of uh decal sign is is prevalent. This is actually in New York City uh where this company has other decals uh affixed just to have an idea of what they actually look like in real time. Next slide please. And this just goes to show so if you were on the foot bridge
uh many months throughout the year there's already advertisement on the inside but it's only visible to folks walking through the bridge. Point being is that the back of that sign is still covering that windowcape. So, we would actually be going on the other side. So,
if the interior signage was present, this these decals would go in the back of those interior signs. So, if you were driving most times through the month, you would see the back of those signs. Now, um this would just a fixed on the front part of that as well. Next slide,
please. And this is just more to show what those interior signs look like. Now, uh, with that, I I can pause, uh, and answer any questions that the board may have. >> Thank you. Just confirming, um, it would
be on both sides of the glass or just the one side. >> So, it would be on both sides of the glass, which is exactly where those interior ads now, Madam Chair, run. >> Okay. Questions from the board. Uh you mentioned that the advertisement
was to help um bring people into their businesses. Are they are um is there a fee uh to advertising their product? Um or is a landlord just doing that to help their business bring >> No. So there Yeah, I'm sorry. Uh was
better. There would be a fee. These are paid for ads. Uh they could be rented by any business. However, you there's a strong uh enthusiasm from the businesses within the mall to to put their ads up on there.
>> Okay. And you're and there's a company that's going to be curating and seeing whether things are appropriate. Um >> correct. So, we also agreed to have no alcohol uh products. Tobacco is already prohibited, but we were asked to prohibit that and we agreed to that as
well. And these are and these signs are toward companies in on the property in the mall. It >> it it it can't be man it wouldn't be mandated but given the proximity of that many businesses that that is where the
majority of the interest is coming from >> but anybody could approach you and approach. >> Correct. And what and and in that case what would be the process to accept or deny?
>> So the the Yeah. So it's new tradition is an advertisement uh company. So that would all run through uh them uh and uh so they would you know given just to see what the tenor is or you know uh what businesses actually apply for but that
is up to them and those signs can change. So they can change monthly at any time. make a change bi-weekly. So with these, unlike a billboard that takes a lot more uh uh activity to take down or move, these are simply decals removed from the interior of the
building. There's no illumination. There's no electricity. Uh and at night you these would not be advertised at night except by any natural light someone could see from area buildings or lighting. >> Thank you, Mr.
>> And I might have not been clear. Is it covering the whole length of >> the dimension? So, we wouldn't cover the top part, Madam Chair, the entire window roof, but the seven plates uh would be covered. So, the the dimensions are
actually 60 ft wide by 8 ft high for the total area. It ends up being about 55 ft when you add it all in. But, >> I'm looking at what what is being displayed here. So, it's >> not correct. >> Not the entirety. It's like 2/3 of it maybe.
>> Oh, of the bridge itself you're saying? >> Yes, that's what I >> Yes, the bridge is a lot longer. This is only Yeah. Right under 2/3 of the of the total panels >> and only in that center area. So, all of the peripheral area, all of the glass
housing, all of the roofcape would all remain untouched. >> Other questions from the board? Yes, I may have missed that. But were you required at any moment to provide like a traffic analysis or a impact analysis to
ensure that drivers don't get distracted and jeopardize pedestrians? >> So, we weren't asked to have a transportation site. There's actually uh Mr. Valencia a number of traffic lights as you drive through here. So, there's not like an open roadway in this
particular area. Um, we also had ANC that I had mentioned do a glare and sun study to make sure if you were driving there would be no glare off these signs at all. And right now if you were to look up you would see the back of signage on the bridge when the ads in
the inside are up. So it's not like right now most of the time these are open glass panels. Those are already a back to those interior ads. But to answer your question, we did uh hire ANC uh to run a glare study from from lighting at different angles.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. Yeah, I mean I think it seems um appropriate to put forward um a potentially sunset clause on this because um you know we can't really not
necessarily zoning can't necessarily regulate uh the content, but we can see um how successful it is and at least have a a timing on it. you know, it's no different than when parking lots are
being leased and they're being forward in terms of a use with a sunset cloud. So, I'm I'm just discussing this out loud with my my colleague. It is it is like a one instant where, you know, the the ideas of signage being in front of retail doesn't necessarily apply here,
but the conditions are so unique that it's not necessarily a large billboard either. Um, so one way to ensure that is not impactful to the neighborhood. Um, it seems a appropriate to do a sunset
clause here. Just commenting. >> Okay, let's have public testimony. >> Yes, madame chair, members of the board. Conor Newman with the mayor's office of neighborhood services. At this time, the mayor's office on record in opposition to this proposal. Uh, some background
information. the community process. Uh ONS hosted a buddies meeting on April 9th at which there was a discussion regarding the impact of the proposal on the public realm perspective of those on the street level and those on using the bridge. Um we understand that the Backbay Association was supportive of
this proposal uh citing uh the positive uh attention it might bring to businesses in the area. Um the neighborhood association of Backbay, however, was opposed uh due to the president it could set in regards to other types of outdoor advertising um in that area as well as
the belief that there's no community need or benefit for this type of advertising. Our office echoes these concerns raised by now and as stated before the mayor's office like to go on record in opposition to the application for this zoning relief. With that, thank you so much. >> Thank you.
>> Next, we got from councelor Flynn's office. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. This is city from councelor Flynn's office. Please note councelor Flynn would like to go on record in opposition and sent a letter to the board yesterday. His opposition stems from shared concerns from neighbors in the neighborhood association of Backbay regarding our
existing pedestrian safety crisis and serious concerns on the potential distracted driving. Pedestrian and road safety is a significant challenge across the city of Boston, but particularly in this area, which has been exacerbated since 2022 due to the city encouraging the use of mopeds by third party
delivery companies. Again, councelor Flynn shares the serious concerns and legitimate concerns from the community and the neighborhood association of Back Bay that this advertisement may cause distracted driving and further add to existing traffic and pedestrian safety issues in the area. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Next we have a Conrad Armstrong. >> Hi, I'm Conrad Arm I'm Conrad Armstrong from 439 Marorrow Street speaking as vice chair of the neighborhood association of Backbay. This we're uh we've heard from this application twice.
Um NAB strongly opposes it. This intersection is very wide, very complicated and very busy. And these large advertisements could be a detriment to public safety of pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists. Secondly, uh this really could set a precedent. There are actually three
other existing pedestrian sky bridges just in Back Bay. And there certainly could be more in the future in the business district. And if this is passed, the owners of those sky bridges are immediately going to want to apply for the same thing to earn more advertising revenue would really change the nature of Back Bay. Find it
interesting if the applicant put a picture of an intersection in New York City. that picture was very busy and ugly and we don't want this intersection or part of balcony to look like Time Square. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> I'm sure there are no additional comments. >> Um
so I know that um Oh, I'm sorry. Meg Cohen is here. Sorry. I just wanted to see if she was able to she has her hand up. >> This is me Cohen and I did ask to speak um if that's okay. >> Yes, please proceed.
The Beck Bay Association is in support of this application. We met with Simon quite a few times just as NAB did. We um encouraged and were happy to see Simon Property add some advertising in for
community groups within the within the center. And a lot of how we've looked at advertising is that advertising is a part of life and we have JC do benefiting the city and we have the MBTA
with a lot of advertising and MBTA buses are wrapped sorry that was a knitting needle falling are wrapped with um with advertising and so we think that this would be a benefit for people to see the tenants that are in in Copley Place and
what's available there. So that's why we are in support of it. Thank you for your consideration. >> Thank you. Any other race fans? >> Madame Chair, there are no additional heads raised at the moment. >> Madam Chair, may respond.
>> Sure. >> Uh thank you. Quickly, u I just want to point out that uh if this was to be approved by the board uh in any capacity, we would a sunset provision as it was hinted or talked about potentially is something that we would
be more than willing uh to agree to if it was put on because we're confident that this would not cause any traffic disruption in the area and would like to show the board that at after a period of time. Secondly, this would also have to go before BPD uh because of the signage
for regulation and then ultimately it would still have to go to the outdoor advertising board uh to go over things like content and the size of the signs as well. So, this will have a lot of regulation over it. Thank you. >> Any other questions from the board?
>> You commented that there is no illumination, correct? I just want to make sure that's on the record. >> There's no what? >> Illumination signage illumination. It's all decals. Okay. >> No structure, no illumination of any kind. >> No illumination. Thank you.
>> Okay. Any other questions? >> May I have a motion? >> I'd like to um put forward a motion of approval uh with a proviso that we put
um a 2-year uh sunset clause. Um I and and in a second proviso that states no signage illumination. I I think that um uh that would ease the fear of it being
Times Square because there's no alum, you know, a lot of lighting. Um but I do think that it's um a benefit potentially uh for the for the businesses that are in the area. Um and you know, it's it's just decal. So I think we postco I think
we have to be creative um and and provide opportunities for for um um for the urban environment. Um that's it. Thank you. >> Is there a second?
>> Second. >> Mr. Steambridge. >> Yes. >> Mr. Valencia. >> I'm going to vote no. And here are my reasons. I am concerned about the negative impacts of this proposal
starting with visual visual pollution and distraction for drivers. Also for me the main idea of having a a glass bridge is that people can see each other and they can see and enjoy their city. This proposal will transform a glass bridge
into a tunnel and for that reason I vote no. >> Mr. Langum. Uh yes, >> Miss We will. >> I'm also going to vote no. I think sort of on the same track as Mr. Valencia.
The positive urban design elements of the sky bridge outweigh sort of the need to advertise and I agree that I think one of the positives of the sky bridge is the activation of it with people walking back and forth.
>> Mr. Collins. >> Yes. >> Mr. Bear Braza. >> Yes. >> The chair votes no. The motion does not carry. Is there another motion? >> Yes. I would like to put forward a
motion of denial. >> Is there a second? >> I will second for the reasons I stated around the urban design components of the application. >> Mr. Steambridge. No,
>> Mr. Valencia. >> Yes, for the results that I expressed before. >> Mr. Langham? >> Yes. >> Miss Weell? >> Yes. >> Mr. Collins? >> Yes.
>> Miss Better Barazzo? >> Yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. >> Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. Thank you to everyone. Have a good rest of your day.