Good morning. The City of Boston Zoning Board of Appeal hearing for November 25, 2025 is now in session. This hearing is being conducted in accordance with the applicable provisions of the open meeting law, including the updated provisions enacted by the legislature this year. The new law allows the board
to continue its practice of holding virtual hearings through June 2027. This hearing of the board is being held remotely via the Zoom webinar event platform and is also being livereamed. In order to ensure this hearing of the board is open to the public, members of
the public may access this hearing through telephone and video conferencing. The information for connecting to this hearing is listed on today's hearing agenda which is posted on the public notices page from the city's website boston.gov. Members of the public will enter the virtual hearing as attendees which means you
will not see yourself on the screen and you will be muted throughout unless administratively unmuted when asked to comment. Board members, applicants and their attorneys or representatives will participate in the hearing as panelists and they will appear alongside the presentation materials when speaking. Panelists are strongly encouraged to
keep video on while presenting to the board. As with our in-person meetings, comments and support will be followed by comments and opposition. The order of comments is as follows: elected officials, representatives of elected officials, and members of the public. The chair may
limit the number of people called upon to offer 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 plat platform. Click it again and you 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 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. Steambridge reads the address into the record. Do not raise your hand before the relevant address is called upon or the meeting host were not known to call on you at the appropriate time.
Mr. Stebridge. >> Good morning, Madam Chair. Present. >> Good morning, Mr. Valencia. >> Good morning, Madam Chair. Present. >> Good morning, Miss Turner. >> Good morning, Madam Chair. Present. >> Good morning, Miss Bavarza.
>> Morning, Madam Chair. Present. >> Good morning, Mr. Collins. >> Good morning, Madam Chair. President. >> Good morning, Miss Panado. >> Good morning, Madam Chair. President, good morning. The floor is yours, Mr. Sebridge. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. We'll begin with
the extension schedule for 9:30 a.m. I'll read through all the extensions. Um, they have been deemed appropriate um in terms of what they're asking for. after that uh when I reach the end. If
anyone has any questions, I'm directing them to Madam Chair and we'll go from there. We'll begin with case BOA 1247948 with the address of 80 to 104 West Broadway.
Next we have case BOA 153 8261 with the address of 215 to 217 Brighton Avenue. Next we have case BOA
1411397 with the address of 610 Chelsea Street. Next you have case BOA 138 6283 with the address of 24 Geneva Street.
And finally in the extension categories we have case BOA 1261313 with the address of 154 Terrace Street. Those are the extensions that we have before us as one. >> Thank you. Are there questions from the
board? Hearing none. Is there a motion to grant the extensions as requested? >> Motion to grant the extensions as requested. >> There a second. >> Second. >> Mr. Stebridge.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Valencia. >> Yes. >> Miss Turner. >> Yes. >> Miss Brazza. >> Yes. >> Mr. Collins. >> Yes. >> Miss. Yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries.
>> Next we have board final opportunity case scheduled for 9:30 a.m. This is case BOA 1617226 with the address of 53 to 55 Dustin Street. If the applicant andor their
representative are present, will they please explain to the board? >> Uh thank you uh Mr. Stebridge. Uh madam chair, members of the board, uh we were supposed to schedule for last week and um by omission it was pundited to this week. So thank you for your time. Um I can share my screen if it is relevant
for you just to make sure we are uh fully aware of the proposed change uh that surfaced uh during mid construction. Um the slide down >> to share your screen. >> Uh the slide two below where you just were. Uh one more right there to the
rear. uh that is pre-existing structure. That structure only extended to surface uh internal living area for the first and second floor. Uh it was cinder block foundation with uh sorry cinder block structure with improper footings. Uh the
plan was to uh take off the roof on the second floor, build a flat roof to basically provide rear decking area to service the third floor. uh in the process of analyzing the structure and in demo it was realized that the uh cinder block foundation and footings
were wholly insufficient which would have meant effectively rebuilding the structure. Um additionally uh the third floor was uh expanded internal livable area by having significant modification to the existing roof line for dormers. The magnitude of the change for the
dormers uh rendered the best means of reconstruction being the removal of the roof and the rebuilding of the roof. Uh in the process of needing to rebuild the rear structure and in rebuilding the roof a new if you're rebuilding structure from a new for the rear
addition, it makes sense to have that be in line with the uh lateral walls of the structure which are then used to be tied into for the additional rear foundation. So from a structural perspective, it makes sense to have your building effectively being a large rectangle and
then also to have the roof line for weight purposes and in rebuilding the roof to have a completely uh a roof line that would carry the length of the structure and then carry all the weight downward. The end end result was to rebuild the rear structure
in a rectangle with the uh lateral left and right portions following the length of the existing building envelope and to have the roof line go from front of structure to all the way of rear of structure which effectively meant the creation of additional livable area on
the third floor of the structure. So in realizing that the uh need to rebuild the rear structure and the pro the proper way to rebuild it made the building effectively stronger by uh making it uh a large rectangle of a footprint and then having the roof line
go from front of structure to rear of structure as indicated. So the net change was a slight expansion of the footprint of that rear structure and the additional livable internal square footage on the third floor uh above the existing uh prior just first and second
floor addition. Uh so so I have the GC on the line to comment on construction and and purposes. Um but that's what necessitated this change and uh the resulting rebuild. >> Thank you. Are there questions from the board? Uh can you just um clarify what's
the net gain of square footage? >> Uh our calculation is 180 square feet. >> That's that sounds good. I I see it's dim I see this as a very um reasonable request. No further questions. >> Any other questions from the board?
Is there a motion? >> Madam Chair, I'd like to prefer a motion of approval. >> There a second. >> Second. >> Thank you, Mr. Stumbrbridge. >> Yeah. >> Mr. Valencia. >> Yes. >> Miss Turner.
>> Yes. >> Miss Better Brazo. >> Yes. >> Mr. Collins. >> Yes. >> Miss Bado. >> Yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck. >> Thank you kindly. Next, we have the hearing scheduled for
9:30 a.m. We'll ask at this time if there are any request for withdrawals or deferrals from the 9:30 a.m. hearing. Hearing none, we'll move on to who will begin with case BOA
1784510 with the address of 21 to 23 Fairview Street. It's the applicant and or the representative present. Will they please explain to the board? >> Thank you, Mr. Stebridge. Good morning, madam chair, members of the board. Uh Richard Linds, the business address at
245 Summer Street, East Boston on behalf of the applicant. Um, Madame Ambassador, if we can jump down to slide two, uh, just to give a little bit of context here. Um, members of the board, this is a proposal, uh, that involves an existing structure that will be
demolished. We are proposing to replace that with two uh, three-bedroom townhouse uh, buildings. Um we require a number of items uh or require relief from a number of items as cited in the public notice as well as the refusal
letter issued by uh inspectional services. If you jump down perhaps maybe to slide five or six just give a street view of the existing building. It's a good good place to stop here. So on the left hand side of the screen we see the existing structure um at the
intersection of uh Fair View and Conway streets. as I indicated that would be demolished with a new structure uh in its place. We could go to maybe slide eight uh with the renderings to show uh a little bit of what the proposed condition would be. So here's one view
uh looking at uh the two town houses. They would be attached uh obviously at the at the center with the garages located beneath the building. uh because we do front on two streets and through the community process we did hear um some requests to uh create almost a
second front of the building facing command side of the screen. Uh we think the architect did a great job of uh incorporating that. Uh next slide please. Uh just a different view uh to show as you're coming up fair view as you get to
the intersection uh how that would be uh oriented. If we can go to the site plan which is slide 11 talk a little bit about how the site uh is set up for uh this proposed structure slide 11.
Perfect. Um so we can see here that we um do set the building back uh from our be our screen left but the right hand side is about almost 26 ft. Uh we do set it back almost 20 feet on the Conway up to 20 feet on the Conway street side and
about 14 feet in the front. I set back on the rear is 18 ft. Uh one of the things I will point out is that during the community process we did show on the right hand side of the building screen left uh two additional parking spaces. Uh we did hear uh from neighbors that
there was a preference to ensure as much open space on site as possible. Uh in doing so we eliminated the parking that was in the exterior. uh and include only parking at the garage level below the building uh which requires relief as two parking spaces per unit are required. Uh
with respect to the items that were cited uh madam chair members of the board uh the additional lot area was cited as insufficient. Uh there's a minimum of 5,000 square ft which is required although we do have 6,800 ft. Uh 3,000 ft² is required for any additional dwelling units. So 8,000
would be total. Uh we're at just under 6,900 square feet. Uh in addition the front yard being insufficient, 20 feet is a required setback here in this section of uh Roslandale. Um we do show it at 14 ft, we believe that we are meeting the modal setback requirement.
So while we do get cited for the minimum setback not being met, uh we do believe uh through a design review this could be uh adjusted to ensure a modal alignment. We show a rear yard setback of 18 ft as you can see here. However, we do require
uh 22 feet with the shallow lot exception being applied. Uh so we are slightly below the 22 ft minimum uh at 18 ft. Um we also are cited for as I mentioned the off street parking requirement. Uh there are four spaces that are required. We do uh include two,
one per unit in the garage. And the last is the floor area ratio. a 50% maximum is permitted. We are at about uh almost uh 89%. Um so because we are in excess of the F max, we do require relief for
that as well. Let me go to the next slide please. Um so we just include the elevations here. Um this is consistent with the height requirements at 2 and a half stories for the subd district. Uh but we also illustrate the um additional
doorways and and features that we've included on the sides of the building. So again, this was heard through the community process that they wanted to ensure that the building didn't have a a start wall that was facing a street. So we did incorporate uh that entrance way actually on both sides of the building
as well. Next slide, please. Uh just looking at the opposite side of the building and the rear. Next slide. I can jump down uh go probably right to the uh ground level plan at slide 16. That's probably the most relevant one to discuss.
Uh so yeah, so incorporate uh some amenities for the building as well. We do have a mud room, laundry, etc. as well as the garages that you see here uh as the mechanical areas towards the front. Next slide, please. Main level uh includes uh just living
area, kitchen, etc. And it's uh basically a mirror of um of each uh going both left to right. Next slide, please. Uh three bedrooms on the upper level with bathrooms. Next slide. And the half story just has some
finished space and includes a playroom. Um I do uh believe that the board has reviewed the recommendation of the planning department who recommends approval provos. I will pause here uh and answer any questions of the board. >> Thank you. Are there questions from the
board? >> Hearing none, may I have public testimony? >> Madam chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Benbury. I'm the Roslandale community engagement specialist for the office of neighborhood services. The applicant has completed the community process which consisted of an abot meeting facilitated on November 19th where many of us voiced
concerns for water runoff and the need for open space. The concern for water runoff was in reference to the proposed grading as the proposal sits lower in elevation than its neighboring properties and with slopes on both sides would create a water runoff issue and a butter voice support for the number of units and the proposal stating how they
like the changes that were made from a previous meeting. Next, the proponent presented to Longfellow Area Neighborhood Association which completed the community process and took a stance of non-oposition. 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. >> Okay. And next we have the Barbara Hub. You can unmute yourself name on and and the address, please. We cannot hear you. You're on mute. You're mute.
>> Barbara, you're mute. >> You're still mute. Barbara, you're mute. mute button should be in the lower left hand corner of your screen. >> Well, are there any other raised hands while she's while while Barbara's figuring out how
to mute unmute? Uh in the meantime, I have a question for Mr. Lind. Madam Sher, >> thank you. >> One of the letters from abers mentioned that there is a problem with rodents at the property at this moment and they are asking if you have a plan to do pest
control before you start any renovations. >> Yes. Um so in connection with the demolition, uh Mr. Valencia, we would be required to have uh baiting and trapping uh in connection with any building permit that issues for the property. Uh the city of Boston requires that we
demonstrate that we have a um licensed uh exterminator um in connection with the project and they will certainly inspect if there's some issues with the property um during construction or during demolition uh to ensure that we're addressing any uh rodent concerns at the site.
>> Thank you. I just got to make sure that the residents don't migrate to their property next door. Thank you. >> Okay. >> Okay. I see Barbara. It looks like you've unmuted yourself. >> Yes, thank you. Uh my name is Barbara Kibler. Uh and this is my husband, David
Sterns. We are adjacent to the proposed construction >> 26 >> at 26 Conway Street. Um and we are very concerned about the setbacks uh particularly the backyard
>> uh because our house is directly next to it. doesn't seem possible for any space for them and it's also uh going to block all the sun that comes in from that side of our house which may not be possible
but the setback is a real problem. Uh, and we would like it to be the actual proposed setback for Rosendale. >> Thank is there. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> And we did not receive any information
about a community meeting or any of this. >> So, >> so we're very concerned about that. >> We're catching up. >> Okay. Thank you, ma'am. >> May May I respond, Madam Chair? >> If there are no other raised hands. No, no other. >> Okay.
>> Oh, I'm sorry. There is one more person that just raised the hand. Greg from the Greg, you're allowed to unmute yourself now. >> Hi there. Can you hear me? >> Yes.
>> Uh this is Greg Buckland. I'm at 14 Sim Street. I'm about uh I'm just around the corner. I'm about four or five houses away. Um, in general, I'm supportive of infill housing and multiple units. The thing that I'm concerned about is that uh the parking garages. Also, I'll I'll
note I'll second that I did this is the first um opportunity I was aware of to learn about this project uh or comment on it. Uh, I I think there's plenty of park uh street parking and I don't like
the curb cut that's going to um make it much harder for people, specifically children, to walk uh along that sidewalk. Um the deep curb cut and the steep driveways. So, I would be in of just eliminating uh the parking
requirements. There's there's plenty of street parking on Fair View and on Conway. Um as Thank you. Thank you. And I think there is one another person. Arlene, I don't know if you're speaking for this project.
>> No, I'm sorry I'm not, but I'm okay now. Thank you so much and I'm sorry for the interruption. >> No problem. Okay. >> Okay. Linds. >> Yes. Uh, thank you, Madam Chair. So, just with respect to the comments that we heard from um neighbors, I'll address the concern of the setback. So, we did
show an 18t set back to the rear, which I believe is the setback. Uh, that was a concern to the neighbor who uh left on Conway. Um, I would remind the board that this is a um corner lot condition. Uh, we did have the option of uh facing
the building onto Conway. If we did so, our setback on the side would only be 10 ft or actually 8 8 ft more than that at 18 ft. and we would uh likely comply with the setback for the rear if again we face this onto Conway Street. The fact that we're orienting the building
towards Fair View uh has triggered those violations. But again, as this board is well aware, we have a corner lock condition. Uh sometimes looking at the sideyard is uh very telling uh when we look at what an appropriate setback is for the rear. So in this case, I believe that the setback uh meets the spirit and
intent of the code uh at 18 feet, which is more than what a sideyard setback would be if this were facing on Conway. With respect to the garage, I we certainly heard that during the community process that eliminating the garage uh would be preferable to some in the neighborhood, but we also did hear that there was concern about lack of
off- streetet parking for this particular site. So, uh, the compromise that we had come up with was to incorporate the garage with two spaces and eliminate the parking on the, uh, on the surface, which would allow for additional open space. >> Thank you. Are there other questions
from the board? >> The the the only um the only uh concern I have is in relation to the width of the curb cut. Uh, can you just clarify what's the width of the curb cut?
Yeah, I I >> because it's not it's not listed on your drawings. >> Yeah, I I believe it's at 16 ft. Especi I I I'm sure that we will have to address that with public works. Um because I I do believe that the limit is 12, but that would require two curb
cuts. So, review that with public works, >> right? BPD typically BPD typically recommends a 12T curb cut in residential areas. So that that would be my only concern, but it seems like BPD picked up on that concern as well. I don't have
further questions. >> Thank you. With that, may I have a motion? >> Madam Chair, I'd like to put for a motion of approval with a provisal that the project undergoes BPD design review specifically for site planning as it
relates to the width of the curb cut. >> Is there a second pass? >> Mr. December. >> Yeah, >> Mr. Valencia. >> Yes. And I would like to ask Mr. Lyn and
the proponent to follow up with the neighbors because it seems that they don't have the interest about the project. So I would like to invite you to organize a follow-up meeting with the others and let them know about everything that is going to happen there.
>> Miss Turner, thank you Miss Turner. >> Yes. >> Miss Verazzo. Yes, >> Mr. Collins. >> Yes, >> Miss Ponado. >> Yes, >> chairs. Yes. Motion carries. >> Thank you very much.
>> Next, we have case BOA 1755449 with the address of 82 Sycamore Street. If the applicant and northern representative are present, would they please explain the case to the board? Thank you, Mr. Stumbbridge. Um, and all
the members of the board. My name is Meredith O'Brien and, uh, I work with Great Day Improvements. Um, I represent, um, your neighbor on 82 Sycamore. Um, I'm not sure if I could share my screen at all to
show a picture or anything. Um, >> so screens. We don't share screens, but you should have submitted um what you want to view and so you >> Oh, I did. At the community hearing, I was able to share. So, I'm sorry. This is a first time for me. Um but, you
know, just to explain the situation, uh you know, you're she already has an existing deck and also a shed past that deck. Um they're we're going to be removing the shed that is past the deck
and just building right on top of the existing porch that she already has. Oh, there it is. Yep. I was going to share that. So there there are pictures that I had sent before. I'm not sure if they're here, but there is a shed that comes past what
you're seeing here already existing. If you want to stop right there, it would come out probably another 8 ft. We're going to be removing that. So, I believe there was an issue with it being too close. We're actually going to give more
space. Um there we're not expanding any footprint that she already has. In fact, the city of Boston built her deck. So, you know, she was a little confused why she uh was not approved for this, but um it's going to add value to the home out,
add value to, you know, the street, and we hope that you guys will approve this. It's been going on for quite a while for her. >> Thank you. Are there questions from the board? Hearing none, may I have public testimony? >> Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy
Benbury. I am the Roslandale community engagement specialist with the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process which consisted of an aboters meeting held on October 7th with two aboters in attendance who both voiced support for the proposal. Next, the proponent presented to West Village Neighborhood Association and with no opposition
completed the community process. To date, our office has not received any further community feedback at this time. Thank you for your time in the mayor's office of neighborhood services. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Madame Chair. There are no additional comments.
>> Okay. With that, may I have a motion? Motion to approve. >> Second. >> Thank you. Mr. Stebridge, >> yes. >> Mr. Valencia, >> yes. >> Miss Turner, >> yes. >> Miss Better Brazo,
>> yes. >> Mr. Collins, >> yes. >> Miss Panado, >> yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck. >> Thank you. On behalf of Miss Tebo, she greatly thanks you all. Next we have case BOA
1754871 with the address of 198 Metropolitan Avenue. If the applicants andor their representative are present, would they please explain the case? >> Uh hello um I am Douglas Miller. Um thank you for showing the slides and
again my apologies for not changing the title to today's meeting. So um if you can go to the next slide um and then the next slide after that that was just us we are been in Rosenale now for going on five years so we're educators in Boston and been in Boston
both of us for the last 30 years. Um can you go to the next slide please? Um and next slide. Sorry, I forgot the title. It was used to similar to last person I was used to presenting. Um we got this um we needed to get a variance
for the sideyard and for the 2 and 1/2 um height limitation, but I was going to show you that we were going to show you that in the slides why we do need that. So if you look at the first slide, no matter what we do, our house is only 5t
from the um from the fence line right there. And even though it says building excessive height, if you look at where we're planning to add an addition, it is actually on top of the first floor. So it's technically a second floor, but I think because of the elevation pitch, it goes down. That I'm not sure if that
makes it or requires a variance there. Um, can you go to the next slide, please? So again, just explaining sidear inefficient. Um this is just highlighting the picture here. Shows that we have um AC's on that side, but
definitely um nothing we could change unless we move the house at that point. And if you go to the next slide, please. Um again, just highlighting where the second floor would be. It's not a third floor. It is actually a second floor. The bottom part is the basement. That's
the um walk out from the basement. Um, can you go to and also we're not expanding the footprint of the building. We're just adding on to the first floor and yep and these are just some site plans here um showing um what the
architect had done. Um it basically shows everything you have there just in drawings. If you go to the next slide, um, again, showing where everything is right now, it's going to be on top of the the blank space. So, the one on the
left is the basement one. The one next to it, moving from the right is the first floor. Then you have the second and the adding space. So, we're only going to be in the third one from the left is adding the second floor addition for the master uh bedroom, which there is not one right now. It's a one and a
half bath currently. Can you go to the next slide, please? Yep. And this is just highlighting where it would be with more um schematics um being shown here. So, just showing you where it would be from going from the
first floor, but and then where nothing is second floor to what it would be on the right. And if you can go to the next slide, these are just the elevation um drawings here showing that it actually sort of fit actually fits in with the
building to add a second floor above the current first floor right now. >> Okay. Can you go to the next slide, please? And want to know if you have any questions. Yes. Next up was this this meeting here. Uh we did do the meet with the civic
association. Did our brother's meeting already and we did our um notifications. >> Thank you. Are there questions from the board? Hearing none, can I take public testimony? >> Madam chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy
Benbury. I am the Roslandale community engagement specialist for the office of neighborhood services. The applicant has completed the community process which consisted of an abot meeting facilitated on August 18th with two aboters in attendance. No concerns were raised and following their voters meeting. No further community process was required.
To date, our office has not received any further community feedback to my knowledge. Thank you for your time and the mayor's office of neighborhood services would like to defer to the board with their judgment. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Madame Chair. Uh there are no additional comments at the moment. >> With that, may I have a motion?
>> Ma'am, can I make a motion of approval? Is >> there a second? >> Second. >> Mr. Stebridge. Yes, >> Mr. Valencia. >> Yes, >> Miss Turner. >> Yes, >> Miss Barza. >> Yes,
>> Mr. Collins. >> Yes, >> Miss Panado. >> Yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck. >> Thank you. Next we have case BOA 1747236
with the address of five prospect prospect church. If the applicants and their representative are present, will they please find one case to the board? >> Thank you sir. Thank you everyone for joining here today. Um my name is Jose
Gonzalez and I wanted to walk you guys through the project here. So the two uh variances we're asking request a relief from uh would be the off streetet parking and loading requirement
uh and it would be the front yard insufficient. And you can see right here the grade out portion on the right is the existing home. And what we're proposing is to finish the garage that you see there on the left, darker on the
first floor and then extend the second floor. Uh we won't be raising the ridge. So we're going to keep the ridge at the same height and we're going to meet the front facades. If you can scroll down a little bit, please just one slide. Yep. And so you can see here for the for
the parking right now, currently the the owner doesn't use the garage for any type of parking. He uses it for storage. And so our thought is that the condition on site's not going to change. Uh and you can see here on the right image, um currently most of the neighbors actually
use the prospect circle as parking. And so you can see all the vehicles there of the neighbors. Often the neighbors actually put it on the street. Uh you can see our site there. The uh the owner actually is parked right there in this image. And so our thought is that the
conditions on the street won't really change in the neighborhood. And besides Prospect Circle, Prospect Street also has a lot of parking. Um, so that's sort of our thought process for the parking issue. Um, if you can scroll down a
little bit more. Right here is fine. Um, so we can see we're lining up the faces of the building from the existing for the new proposed section. That's the bottom half. Uh what we're asking for relief here is is on the magnitude of inches.
Uh we're really close to the existing um front setback, but you know, plus or minus a couple inches is what we're asking relief for. Our thought process on this is we could meet the zoning requirements by pushing back the front facade on the new proposed, but I think
architecturally speaking, it's just going to look very terrible if you see a tiny little setback for a couple inches on the front facade. If you scroll down a little bit more, you can kind of see what this is going to look like in sections. So, that's the the front of the garage that we're demolishing right there that we're going to bring forward
in line with the existing um foundation in the front. Can you scroll down a little more? Yeah. Keep on going. So, you can see that's the garage that they're going to start occupying. We're going to get rid of that roof. Keep on going, please. Yep. Keep on going.
Yeah. Right here. So, you can see the new the new wall right here. That's where it says office. That's the garage. We're bringing that wall in front to be flush. Uh just, you know, to maximize the space for sure, but also architecturally speaking, I think it's what works best. Can you scroll down a
little more? Yep. Keep on going. And right here again, we're going to uh line up the front facade with the existing. You can see there on the right, the right side is the street side. And you can scroll down a little bit more. Yep. Keep on going.
Uh okay, you can stop right there. So just you kind of see the overall. So you can see here the overall. Can you scroll up just a little bit? One sheet before. So you can see right here, this is the existing. If you see the elevation on the top left, that's the existing garage. We're basically going to just extrude that over. And if you can go
scroll down, you can see what the proposed is. Yeah. And right here, you can see we we're proposing right there on the top left at the same same elevation. We're extruding that over. Um and I think that concludes more or less the work. It's the two violations that we're asking for relief. We um
we've done the neighborhood associations. We've met in person. Uh we presented in front of um the neighborhood at the police department as well. Um the meetings took back in July 30th and the other one was uh August no, sorry, September 24th. And so it's it's
been a long process. We've set up the flyers and everything as you know, make sure everyone's aware. There was a couple neighbors that were asking a bunch of questions and we did have a lot of communication with I I believe the neighbor in the front that was concerned about parking and we exchanged quite a
few emails um regarding the the process you know the hours of working during construction uh and making sure that there is parking um uh the only you know we are going to have deliveries of equipment you or material u but nothing that's going to be over the top will have a lumber uh
delivery but you know that will be an hour at most uh and it'll happen likely just once. And we also submitted to the board two letters of uh support. Uh it's the neighbor on either side, both of the abuters. Uh one this is the the neighbor
to the left and the and the one is the the the neighbor to the right. Um and open up to any questions if you guys have any questions or want to discuss anything in more detail. >> Any questions from the board? Hearing none, let's take public testimony.
>> Madam chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Benbury. I'm the High Park community engagement specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process which consisted of an abot meeting facilitated on July 30th with two aboters in attendance. One did voice their opposition to the proposal. Our office
has also received one email voicing concerns regarding construction centered around the vehicles, the number and type of vehicles, their location during construction, and how it will affect parking. Next, the proposal was presented to Fairmont Hill Civic Association on September 24th, who voted to support the proposal. To date, our
office has received two letters of supporting the proposal currently as it stands. Thank you for your time in the Mayor's Office of Liquid Services. Would like to defer to the board with their >> Madame Chair. Next, we have Brian Price. If you can unmute yourself.
>> Hi, good morning board. Uh, Madame Chairperson. Um I am directly across the street from the proposed construction site and uh while I do not oppose the uh final result, I do want there to be some
uh concern uh expressed concerning the process itself and the vehicles on the street. Um, my parking my driveway is directly across from the site and backing out of my driveway is difficult
now as it is and if there are vehicles uh to the right of my driveway, uh it will be virtually impossible to get out of my driveway. Uh right now the the owner of the the property does have a big pickup truck that's immediately in
front of my driveway. So getting out of the driveway is a concern. Um, another concern that I have is because there's a narrow passageway uh on Prospect Circle before you get to the circle part of the culdeac. Uh, my
concern is that that ingress and egress area not be impeded in any way uh for package deliveries, for emergency vehicles, for just residents or visitors uh passing through that area. Um, and so
those are my primary concerns. The process itself, uh, and one other concern that we have is the proposed time for construction would be between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. 6 days of the week. So, if there can be some sort of
uh u plan made in place so that that is not as as large as a time frame as that. Um, again, this is a small area. Uh, and so it's really just my process and that there'd be some conditions that the board puts in place for this process to
to take place. Uh, and those are my primary concerns. Thank you. >> Thank you. Any other raised hands? >> No. The madam chair? No. >> Okay. Could the applicant address those concerns? >> Yes, for sure. So, as I said earlier,
there's there's plenty of parking also on Prospect uh street. Um, I think in terms of parking, um, I I just called the project manager early this morning to kind of review everything of what the construction process was going to be like. And, uh, the project manager
assured me that what we can do if it's a large issue, we can park or or we can drop off materials and we can just have, you know, whoever is doing the work that particular day, they can actually park on Prospect Street versus right on on the circle. Uh, that'll keep the the
street, uh, you know, fairly open. Um, it's a small project. There's not going to be a ton of vehicles coming in and out. It's not a major project. So, I don't think there's I know there's not going to be that much traffic. It's not going to be any congestion in the area just because of the small project. But,
you know, to assure everyone, we can, you know, be proactive and make sure any contractors that come on site actually park on the adjacent street versus right in front of the property, you know. >> Thank you. And what about the concerns about construction schedule?
>> The the the time. So the timing, you know, they won't be going there six times a week. Uh it'll be Monday through Friday, sometimes Saturday I if allowed. Um but it it'll be Monday through Friday. Some of the the crews do like to work at 7:00, but if if it's an issue
with the neighborhood, we can adjust that time frame and just move it later in the day. So we can do, you know, from 8:00 to 5:00 versus 7 to 4. Um when we were originally speaking it was a larger time frame because we wanted to cover all the aspects but you know we can
narrow that and define that you know more so to you know what's appropriate for the neighborhood. Um but it's just you know as as need be. We have a construction manager that's going to be there full-time on site. So any concerns they'll be able to handle them you know immediately.
>> Thank you. Other questions from the board hearing none. Is there a motion? >> Motion to approve. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Mr. Stumbbridge?
>> Yes. >> Mr. Valencia? >> Yes. >> Miss Turner? >> Yes. >> Miss Beverza? >> Yes. >> Mr. Collins? >> Yes. >> Miss Panado? >> Yes.
>> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Thank you very much everyone. >> Next we have two companion cases. These are case BOA 174 7995
with the address of 128 to 128B Kitridge Street. Along with that we have case BOA 1747994 with the address of 130 to 130 beat Kit Street. If the applicant andor their
representative present please explain the cases to the board. >> Yes. Thank you Mr. Secretary and good morning madam chair members of the board. Uh for the record, attorney Matt Eckle with Fletcher Tilton on behalf of the applicants, Steve Ddario and Sarah
Valardi, who are also uh with us today. Uh I also have Eric Zacerson, the project architect from Context on the call. Uh we're proposing to raise the existing structure and erect two townhouse buildings for a total of four
residential home ownership units. Each unit is proposed to contain two interior parking spaces. Uh I would note this does look to be the uh bold renderings. We have redesigned the buildings uh to have a pitched roof with dormers rather
than the mansard. Um so I'm not sure if we have the more recently submitted plans that were reviewed by ISD and actually issued a new refusal letter. If those could be shared that'd be great. Thank you. Uh just to give a little background this is essentially a double
lot. It contains over 13,000 square ft. So, it's between two and three times the size of most of the surrounding lots. Uh, we are proposing a single curb cut as you can see there on the site plan kind of right there in the middle of the property with a 12T wide driveway that's
going to provide access for all the units for their vehicles. We're proposing to have that traditional driveway which is going to provide access as I mentioned to the parking which is now all located uh within the buildings. We previously did have some overflow parking in the rear of the site
uh for visitors or just extra parking, but working with the community, we did eliminate that to create some more open space. So, we still meet code at two parking spaces per unit. Uh and they're all located within the building, and we've maximized green space towards the rear. Uh going through the floor plans,
uh we're proposing main entries for both units uh at the at the ground level, one door facing the street and one interior. Uh so you'll have your own private entryway. As mentioned, we have a twocar garage for each unit uh which is accessed through that 12t common
driveway. The lower level will also have uh an office and a storage mechanical room. Uh moving up to the second floor, if we can scroll through the plans a little bit, we are proposing a open concept living room, dining room, kitchen uh with a half bath and then the
front unit will have a front deck facing the street and the rear unit will have a rear deck. So each unit will have some uh private dedicated open space in the form of a deck on the second level. Then moving up to the third floor, we are proposing uh three-bedroom units. So
each unit will have three bedrooms and two bathrooms. Uh in terms of zoning relief, we do need relief for the townhouse use. Uh we're also proposing an F of approximately 83 where.5 is allowed. Uh we're proposing a three-story building where 2 and 1/2 is
allowed, but I would point out we are within the 35 ft height requirement. Uh we also are seeking relief for front yard. We're have a 15 foot setback where 25 is required, but we are in line with the abuing properties on both sides. And as you go down Kitridge Street, uh
you'll see a dichotomy of kind of front yard setbacks with some being even smaller. So we feel 15 is in line with both our direct abutters on either side. And finally, multiple dwellings on one lot was cited because these are two separate buildings. Uh the applicant did go through an extensive community
process. Uh we attended multiple AB of butter meetings and we also met with the West Village Neighborhood Association. We've had several conversations uh with members of the Rosendale Coalition and Director of Butters. Uh based on all these change based on all these conversations, as mentioned, we have
made several changes to the project. Some of that included redesigning the building, as I noted already, to better fit within the streetscape. We removed previously proposed roof decks. Uh we did reduce two units. This originally started out as a six-unit project. We're now at four total. Uh, as mentioned, we
eliminated the previously proposed exterior parking and that allowed us to increase the open space and we've also worked with neighbors and an arborist on tree preservation and we'll be maintaining the majority of the trees around the sideyard and rear yard uh wherever possible or the trees are are
healthy. Uh, just to conclude, we did submit a few letters of support through the board. Uh, and with that, I'll pause and take any questions the board may have. >> Thank you. Are there questions from the board? >> I do. >> I was just going to ask, is there a
landscaping plan on this set? >> Uh, I believe if we scroll up, there is on the architectural site plan. We do have some landscaping called out, I believe, which also highlights uh many of the trees which are being maintained. >> Thank you,
Miss Barza. >> Yes. Um, I wanted to get an uh an assessment from the arborist on the front tree. Um, and the plant is it's noted that it's poor condition, but did the arborist actually say it was poor
condition that it should be removed or poor condition that it should be maintained and trimmed? >> So, the arbor support as mentioned um did look at all the significant trees and noted that front tree as in poor condition. It noted significant decay,
uh, insects burrowing into it and and structural deficiencies. So, um, it was actually one of the worst trees on the on the site plan, the arburous report. Um, they didn't specifically recommend immediate removal, but certainly recommended that there's structural
issues and it's it's probably should be removed in the near future. >> Any other questions from the board? Let's open it up to public testimony. >> Madam chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Benbury. I am the Roslandale community
engagement specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process which consisted of two aboters meetings facilitated on August 5th of 2024 and September 4th, 2025. The most recent of which was well attended and very well received by a voters. Abot voiced their appreciation to the proponent for
implementing changes to the proposal according to the feedback from the first meeting. A further discussion regarding the trees on the property was also agreed upon for a later date as a concern for trees was raised during the meeting. Next, a proposal was presented to West Village Neighborhood Association and with no opposition completed the
community process. To date, our office has received eight letters of support from the proposals with its changes. Thank you for your time and the mayor's office of neighborhood services would like to defer to the board for their judgment. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Next, we have Lorie. >> Good morning. Thank you for taking my
testimony. I'm Lori Radlin. I live at 49 Augustus Avenue in Rosundale. I am a director of butter. I share a lot line. Although I am the coalition coordinator in Roslandale, I am here as an individual and I want to voice my fullthroated support. The development
team and the abutters agre are to be commended in my opinion. This has been a nearly perfect community process. Thanks to Jeremy, by the way, on this no person got everything they wanted, but everybody got something. And the project will add housing to our neighborhood
without tearing down trees and while maintaining the quality of life that the abutters um expressed uh their preferences for the developers redo drew and redrafted their plan based on the community process incurring this expense without complaint and I urge the board
to support the proposal as written. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> And next we have Erin Mackin. >> Hi. Yes. Can you guys hear me? >> Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. Yeah. My name is um Aaron
McDonald. I I live across the street. Um as a longtime resident and a butter who was, you know, born on the street and I've lived here the past decade. Um I believe that the new re rebuild is, you know, a good fit for the neighborhood. Uh during the whole process, I mean, the
owner and the designers have been, you know, really wonderful and receptive to our feedback. Um, I think they took the time to really hear us out and and you know, make those changes. Um, and yeah, I just support this development and I think it's going to, you know, positively impact our area and, you
know, give us much needed housing. So, I am in support as well. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Madame Chair. There are no additional comments. >> All right. With that, may I have a motion? Madam Chair, I I'd like to um also just
commend the the architect's effort in the way that they propose um increased density in the way in which they designed a massing and just not allowing for a curb cut uh to be right in front which we have seen already in in kind of
past submissions. So I just want to commend the architect for their uh planning of the project. That being said, um I did notice that the front yard set back of requirement is 25 ft. I think BPD can work with the architect to
relocate the building in such a way that uh we preserve the mature mature tree that is in front. Um so with that's basically just my recommendation comment. I would like to put for a motion of approval with a provisal that the project undergoes BPD design review
to specifically look at the location of the building in its site plan. >> Is there a second >> to to preserve the to preserve the mature tree? >> Second. >> Mr. Stebridge. >> Yes.
>> Mr. Valencia. >> Yes. >> Miss Turner. >> Yes. Miss Berazzo, >> yes. >> Mr. Collins, >> yes. >> Miss Ponado, >> yes.
>> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck. >> Thank you. >> Next, we have case BOA 17771652 with the address of 148 Milan Street. the applicants and or their representative president would they put
an important case to the board. >> Yes, Mr. Secretary. Uh good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is James Christopher of 686 Architects with the business address of uh 10 Fors Road in Brainree. >> Excuse me. I'm here today on behalf of
>> Yeah, I need to recuse. >> Okay, so we are now a six member board. >> Thank you. um here today on behalf of Bonnie Alves and the she's the owner of 148 Millet Street which is currently a paved vacant lot uh uh
uh 278 square ft. We are proposing to construct a threetory 3unit residential building. Uh next slide please. Uh as a part of this project we are seeking some relief from the zoning code which includes offshrink parking screening and buffering uh lot area. The
required lot area is 6,000 ft and again we are at 2780 lot width and frontage which is required to be actually I think we meet that at 48 I think that violation is an error but we were cited for at 40 ft and we have 48 ft of proposed frontage uh F
which is allowed to be uh point4 and we are at 1.29 29 with 3,492 square ft. Building height is excessive in stories which is uh this is allowed to be 2 and 1/2 stories. We are proposing three. And then the front and
sideyard setbacks. The front yard setback is 15 ft. We are at uh 6'5 to the bows and 9 ft to the main building which is consistent with the modal and our abutters. Um and then the sideyard is insufficient at 10 ft and we are at
uh uh 3.7 on the right at the smallest point at the narrowest and uh 12.8 to 6.3 on the left. Next slide please. Uh this is our site use plan. We have uh 1,400 square ft of open space. So the
violations for the screening and buffering we can certainly uh include um uh robust planting and fences along the property line which we can work with the BPDA in design review on that uh should the project be approved. Next slide please.
As we get into the floor plans, we are only proposing a partial basement which will house the mechanical electric room and sprinkler room at the front of the building which will be accessed by a common stair. And then on the first level uh each unit is typical. It's a 959 ft unit. Uh, three bedrooms, uh, two
baths with the living on the right side and the bedrooms wrap around toward the rear. Next slide, please. Uh, this is the second and third floor. Next slide. Uh, roof plan. No roof deck on this building. And this is the building in elevation. Again, it's a pretty
traditional uh, double boat deck. There's a there's a lot of examples in the area. The building next door is very comparable to this. Uh we met with the bunners and the civic association. The project was fairly wellreceived. Um but with that I'll turn it over to any questions. >> Thank you. Are there questions from the
board? >> Hearing none. May I have public testimony? >> Madam chair and members of the board. For the record, my name is Jeremy Benbury. I'm the Dorchester community engagement specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the committee process which consisted of an aboters meeting held on May 6th with no guests in attendance.
There were no concerns raised. Next, a proponent presented to Tavick. Milford Triangle where the vote remained neutral and the proposal was allowed to move forward. Thank you for your time and the mayor's office of neighborhood services would like to defer to the vote of the judge. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Next we have Timothy.
>> You are on mute. Timothy. >> Sorry. Good afternoon madam chair, members of the board. Timothy Geon from councelor Warell's office. We would like to go on record in support of this project. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Madame Chair, there are no additional comments.
>> Okay, with that, may I have a motion? >> Motion for approval. >> There a second. >> Mr. Stebridge. >> Yes. >> Mr. Valencia. >> Yes. >> Miss Turner.
>> Yes. >> Miss Benabzo. >> Yes. >> Miss Panado. Yes, >> chair votes yes. The motion carries the box. >> Thank you very much. >> Next we have case BOA
175 9646 with the address of 49 Alpha Road. If the applicant and or their representative present, would they please explain the case of the board? >> Good morning. Uh madam chair, members of the board. Uh my name is Gary Webster. I
am the president of Taj Development Company LLC uh with an address of 49 Mather Street in Dorchester uh just a short walk from the project site. I'm also joined by Daniel Fugar, senior associate at Stack Architecture. Um before you today, we'll be presenting a
classic Dorchester triple decker um ADA compliant with a fourth dwelling unit proposed in the finished basement. Uh the newly constructed building would replace a longstanding vacant lot at the top of Alpha Road. Uh completing a row of existing triple deckers and serving
as the type of infill development uh we believe the Dorchester zoning code Dorchester section of the Boston zoning code seeks to promote. Um, Alfao begins along Wall Deck Street as single family Victorian homes built in the 1890s. And according to city records around 1910,
the street began to transition to the triple- decker three family homes we're more accustomed to seeing in Dorchester today. Um, this was presumably to offer housing for workingclass families. Um the Lucy Stone School right nearby was built in 1899 and the three families that were built after that tract which
are a lot different than the uh Victorian homes that were built previously to that in the Melville Park neighborhood. Um the proposed project aims to fill in this remaining vacant lot where a structure once once sat. Uh according to public records and available maps, there was a structure
here that was demolished sometime around 1968 or 1969. Um, and we're seeking to replace that demolished building with a new building, you know, in consistent and scale and form with the existing neighborhood. Uh, with an understanding that safer building codes and modern
utility systems allow for greater use of below grade spaces, below grade areas for living space. Um, but I'll now turn it over to Dan Fagari who will go through the design presentation. >> Yeah, we can um go to the next slide. This is just showing the kind of access
to um public transit which is also the four corners and shot at red line stops are within a 10 to 15 minute walk. Um as well as the main bus 23. Um as you can see we're kind of trying to fill in the
missing tooth of of the street with the triple decker um kind of matching consistency of of height and uh front yard setback to its neighbors on the left and right. Um, as Carrie had mentioned that we're
proposing a four-unit structure. Um, units one through three are similar in kind um, in layout and the basement unit um, has access via the central stair. Um,
yeah. So, level one, um, we have the main living room off the the front porch. Um, the ground floor unit. uh has access from that common porch and then there's a dedicated stair to the central stair to bring you either down to the
basement or to the units above. Um these are the similar floor plans. Um all two two-bedroom units, two bathroom. Uh these are the elevations. We're proposing 35 ft. Um the building is
raised 38 inches above uh above the grade. Um this is kind of in kind to the other projects on the street with the side sideways entry off the the porch. So the stairs um have a greater landing
space uh for for pedestrians to access the the covered porch. Uh next slide. These are the side elevations. Um, this east elevation is showing the the size of windows in that basement unit. So, we're still allowing
for a decent amount of natural light to that basement unit. So, it won't feel like a basement while you're within that space. Um, and then these are just the typical sections cutting through that that space, giving a generous 8 foot five
interior height for each unit. That concludes the project. >> Thank you. Are there any questions from the board? >> Hearing none. May I have public testimony? >> Madam chair and members of the board for the record. My name is Jeremy Benbury.
I'm the 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 September 11th. With one guest present, no concerns were raised. Next, the proposal was presented to Melville Park Service Association which completed the community process. To date, our
office has not received any further community feedback at that time at this time to my knowledge. Thank you for your time and the mayor's office of neighborhood services would like to defer to the board for their judgment. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Next, we have Timothy. >> Thank you again, Madam Chair, members of the board. Timothy Geon from councelor
Brian Warell's office. Uh we would like to defer to the board's judgment on this matter. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Next we have Arlene. >> Hi. Good morning um board members and madam chair. Can you hear me? >> Yes ma'am.
>> Okay. Thank you. Um uh my name is Arlene Simon. I live at 25 Alpha Road. I've been living on this street for 39 years. The lot has been vacant for 60 or 70 or 80 years because it's actually too narrow to build on.
Um, we sent we and I mean uh my neighbors, 25 of my neighbors and I we sent a letter of opposition to the board um last week were opposed to this project for a variety of reasons. Number
one, it violates every single code um available and the board itself has denied this through a rejection letter back in August. Um, as it's designed, there's going to be a minimum 5 foot setback all around,
including the front and back. Um, which greatly imposes on the neighboring residents privacy. Um, the location itself is in a very dangerous location. Alpha Road has a dog lake turned to the left and this lot is on the left, right
at that dog lake turn. And so when you turn on the street, you have no idea what you're coming up to. And there's no way there can be any construction vehicles on the street because it's too narrow with parking on both sides. >> Thank you. Can you please just
>> Yeah. So anyway, it's just it's it's just a dangerous location. The lot is too narrow. It imposes on everybody's privacy and parking on the street as it stands is impossible. We have cars parked in front of the fire hydrants all the time because there's no parking on
this street. There's no place for construction vehicles or any new vehicles >> and there's no storage for car for >> Thank you. >> future tenants. >> Okay. Next, we have another person from the tennis section is with the iPhone
22. >> Yes. Um my name is Mercedes Tomkins. I am in a butter down at the bottom of the hill. Um I would like to uh reinforce what um Arlene uh has said that it's
I don't know this development on Park Street. We go around the street on uh from from Park Street and it's the parking has been it's grown and it's a it's really bad. We also I want to add we had another community meeting that of
the abutters on the street and actually Arleene hosted that meeting and there were about 10 um uh 10 abutters um that were at that meeting some who lived directly across the street that didn't get the notice to the original meeting.
So the process uh for us was you know I understand it it can be sticky but it not everybody got notified. Uh the people next door the people behind did not get notified. Um I am opposed to
this because of quality of life issues. Um, a number of our a number of our butters have sold their houses because they can't really have kids on the street. Traffic, parking, we're downhill and people speed down the hill,
especially now because we don't have bumps on our hill and we won't have them for another two years. And that is um the extent of what I want to go into. I just think for quality of life, it's just not okay. >> Thank you, ma'am.
Thank you, Madam Chair. There are no additional comments. >> Can the applicant uh address these concerns? >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, so I I believe, you know, we we did flyer the entire neighborhood within the radius
for the Abutters meeting and we took photographs and submitted them to the mayor's office, which allowed us to move forward with this process. Um on Alpha Road, on that stretch of Alpha Road, the majority of the lots are about 37 to 38 ft wide. And so within, I believe it's a
300t radius, you need to be flyers. That leaves about eight or nine houses in either direction. And so there were a butterers at the bottom of Alpha Road who were not within the 300t radius that expressed concerns that they were not notified. Um we then held a follow-up
meeting with those of Butters at Mr. Simon's house um where we proposed the project um and a lot of the concerns that were raised were could not be could not be addressed by the project. They were mentioned you know quality of life or parking or traffic things that you
know we're experiencing in Dorchester in general could not be you know directly addressed by the project itself. Um the the lot size is the same as all of the three family lots on that end of Alpha Road. Uh we did receive support letters
from our direct butters to our left and our right at 47 Alpha Road and 51 Alpha Road which were submitted for the record um prior to the hearing. Um and the the volume of the the violations
in my opinion is more just an example of the the zoning code is is restrictive as opposed to this building being out of context with the surrounding neighborhood. uh logistically, you know, uh logistically, you know, scheduling is the will be a major part of this project
to limit the impacts, limit truck deliveries and parking, you know, potentially going with modular to to to to to lessen the the framing and construction process. Um but the gist of the project we do believe is entirely consistent with the three families and
that and the Alpha Road, but due to the topography of the site, it somewhat slopes down. we were able to capture some height, you know, you know, building code height for a finished basement. So, we proposed the fourth unit. Um, also the the site is within walking distance of Melville Park, Four
Corners, Fields Corner and and Cotton Square neighborhoods. Um, and we believe that, you know, those who may not rely on a car for their primary mode of transportation would find this location desirable. Um, and and we're very happy with the scale and form of the project.
>> Thank you. Any other questions from the board hearing? None. Is there a motion? >> Motion of >> there. A second. >> Second. >> Mr. Stebridge. >> Yes.
>> Mr. Valencia. >> Yes. >> Miss Turner. >> Yes. Miss Bter Brazza, >> yes. >> Mr. Collins, >> yes. >> Miss Panado, >> yes.
>> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck. >> Next, we have case BOA 1711024 with the address of 9 Longfellow Street. If the applicant and or a representative president
is there anyone present for nine Longfellow Street >> I think Steve one second Steve is in the tennis section. Please accept the request.
Good morning, Madame Chair and the board. Can you hear me now? >> Yes. >> Okay. Good morning, Madam Chair and the board. This is Steven Dubois. I'm a contractor speaking on behalf of the family New Yan family at 9 Longfellow
Street. If you could scroll to the second slide, we're just proposing a dormer for their existing storage room because the roof was leaking and it's a confined space and they just wanted to add more
adequate heads height in this space. So, if you scroll to the next slide, this is the proposal on the next slide of what it would actually look like from the street view. a slight rendering of the addition just to give adequate head
height in the in the storage room. And if you scroll to the next slide, that is currently the exist uh go back one slide please. Um that is currently the existing storage room and there's not enough
adequate head height for to walk through it and store anything properly or efficiently. and owners would like to add a dormer so that it can be a more usable space. Um, if you scroll to the next slide, this is currently the
existing condition and the reason for our refusal letter is sideyard is insufficient and we're asking for some relief so that this dormer can be raised and then the livable space would actually be more usable and for the
family. store. >> And just to be clear, that sideyard insufficient is pre-existing. You're not exacerbating that with this project. >> No, we're just going straight up. It's a existing there. We're not There's no overhang. There's no
>> Great. Thank you. >> A better. Thank you. >> Are there questions from the board? >> Hearing none, may I testimony? >> Madam Chair and members of the board for the record, my name is Jeremy Bry. the Doorchester community engagement specialist for the office of neighborhood services. The applicant has
completed the community process which consisted of an aboters meeting facilitated on October 1st with no guest present. Uh no concerns were raised. The following about his meeting following the voters meeting no further community process was required and our office is confident the proposal is non-controversial. It's approved to go before the zoning board. To date our
office has not received any further community feedback. Thank you for your time in the mayor's office of payment services would like to defer to the board for their judgment. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. So madam chairman members of the board Liam Reis from councelor Fitzerald's office go on record and support this proposal. Thank you
>> chair we don't have a additional hand race at the moment. >> Okay with that. May I have a motion? >> Motion to approve. >> There a second. >> Second. >> Mr. Stebridge. >> Yes. >> Mr. Valencia.
>> Yes. >> Miss Turner. >> Yes. Miss Better Barzo, >> yes. >> Mr. Collins, >> yes. >> Miss Ponado, >> yes. Chair votes, yes. Motion carries.
Next, we have case VA 172 4120 with the address of 157 to 157A Howard Avenue. If the applicant and or the representative are present, will they
please explain the case and report? >> Good morning, Madame Chair, members of the board. My name is John Lions. I'm an attorney with an office at 80 Copeland Street in Quinsey. >> Can you speak closer to the mic? I don't know if anyone else is having trouble hearing you.
>> Can you hear me now? >> Not that much better. >> How about now? Okay, thank you. >> Sorry about that. My name is John Lions. I'm an attorney with an office at 80 Copeland Street in Quinsey, Massachusetts. I'm here this morning
with the proponents, Lisa and Al Beasley, who are lifelong Boston residents and 30-year residents immediately adjacent to this project. Um, also with me is Jennifer Ha, the architect at Hugh Architecture located
in Dorchester. This property is located in Dorchester. It is within the Roxbury zoning district in a three or 4,000 uh district. The proposal is for five units. Um you Jennifer will get more into the
detail about the dimensional um requirements and violations and the specific um uh design of the project, the unit sizes etc. I would just briefly outline the fact that uh this is creating five
units of housing in a neighborhood uh on a a lot which has been vacant for probably 50 or 60 years. It is on a corner, a curved corner. And I think when you see the design that Jennifer presented, um, it fits perfectly not
only with the streetscape and the context of the neighborhood respecting the existing architecture, but the way the building is scaled down on the corner, it almost appears to be two attached dwellings. It fits well. There are violations, but they're fairly
typical within this neighborhood, which is fairly dense. Um the lot is trapezoidal in shape so it tapers along the front of the proposed building and is located on a corner lot. I think that creates difficulty and the hardship uh
which justifies granting relief here. In addition, the cost of construction now um almost dictates building um a few more units than the code would permit to justify doing the project
economically. Again, the violations in this instance are common among the existing dwellings in the immediate area. It's a mixture of two, three, and multif family dwellings all within the 300 ft radius. There are some newer structures in this
neighborhood, but the majority of the existing structures are early 20th century construction. Parking requirement is five spaces. Opposed rear yard parking will provide three which again is comparable to other properties in the immediate area. The lot has
frontage on Howard Avenue and Dal Keith Street and there is parking on the street. Um and I think that the presentation by Jennifer will include some photographs that show um how much u curb there actually is in this
neighborhood. Uh it when you hear Dchester or Roxboro, you think it's so dense that you'll never find a parking space, but this particular location does happen. Um and it and the reduced parking is also um in conformity with with the uh and the the current planning
initiative of the city to reduce uh parking when it's possible. Again, the design complements the existing character of the neighborhood. I believe the proposed relief is minimal in harmony with the spirit and intent of the code. And now I will hand off to
Jennifer to explain the the actual proposed design. Thank you. >> Hello madame chair and the board. Um I apologize for a little tardiness. I turned on my video and my zoom crashed. Um so I will introduce myself. My name is Jennifer Ha the principal architect at Q Architecture. My office is located
at 53H Harvard Street in Dorchester. and I will be presenting the proposed 5-unit residential project at 157 Howard. Um, if we can go to the first page, that would be helpful. Thank you. Um, the site is 4,330 uh ft as a vacant corner lot abuing
Howard A and D Keith Street. It is in the 3F4000 zone. The proposal is to build a new 5-unit dwelling facing Howard A with three on-grade parking spaces facing D Keith Street. The Locust site map, you can see the proposed building massing. We feel the scale fits
in context compared to its neighboring buildings. The houses on this block are comprised mostly of three families that sit on a parcel averaging 3,000 square feet. We feel the proposed five family dwelling on the 4330 ft² fits well in this context. Um next page um is the
zoning refusal letter and you can skip that and you can skip the next page as well. This is the proposed site plan. Um and we can go to the next page actually for the the plans. So from these um sorry next page with the the next plans the first floor plans please. Um so from
these plans you will see the project comprises of five units. One on the first floor, two on the second floor and two on the third floor. Three of the units are three-bedroom units and two of the units are onebedroom units. The owners Lisa and Al live in the brick
building next door at 159 Howard A for 29 years. They are retired and they plan to reside in the first floor ADA accessible unit during their golden age. So you see on the first floor plan that is meant for uh Lisa and Al to live with their family. Um the second and third
floor um is uh two units on each floor. Uh three bedrooms, one bath and one bedrooms, one bath and they they're identical to each other. Um there is a small basement to host mechanical and utility use only. Um and we can go yes the next. Thank you. The design um is a
traditional three-story flat roof facade and it resembles the neighboring threetory story dwellings on the street. Um if you go to the next slide, um we designed a two-toned building to reflect the two units of two halves of the floor plan. The design includes front porches,
balconies, front yard landscaping towards Howard and Doll Keith, and we think that the design supports an attractive and desirable neighborhood appeal. Um that's the end of the presentation. Thank you. Thank you. Are there questions from the board? Hearing none, we have public testimony.
Uh, >> no, I have a question. Sorry. Sorry. >> Um, have you looked at an alternative parking design which which pays over less of that site and maybe uh increases the usable open space.
>> Um, the parking is can we go to the site plan if possible? So, uh we can uh walk through that. Yes. So, um because of if you zoom in quickly, um the backup space, so the backup space right now we're
allowing um a little bit over uh 20 ft. And so we basically are limited by just the backup distance of the cars. It's possible to have the cars be set back from the the left lot line, the side lot line, so that we can have a little bit
more green space in front of the cars and then um a little bit smaller backup space uh for for the cars. So, it is possible to gain a little bit more green space and we're happy to review that. >> Yeah. And and is that curb cut, how many
spaces are you taking from the street with that curb cut? The curb cut is only um I think it is 12 ft. Uh so there isn't too much. It's actually not too much that's being taken care of. Um let me check on how many spaces are allowed
on that street. It looks like it's maybe taking away one parking spot. >> Do you plan to enclose Do you plan to enclose the parking the way that it's showing the enclosure right now on Google Earth?
Um the enclosure right now is done from the owners to protect the site from people loitering. Um but the there will be new fencing that will be uh for the site. Uh I think the the actual cur will actually remain open and then the fence
can be removed so that there is actually people living they will be living in there so security will be put up for for the property and that type of fencing is no longer needed. >> Okay. Thank you. Okay, I don't have any further questions. With that, may I have public testimony? >> Madam Chair and members of the board,
for the record, my name is Jeremy Benbury. I'm the Roxberry community engagement specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process which consisted of an abundance meeting held on June 10th with four guest president. All inquiries were addressed during the meeting with no opposition voiced. Next, the proponent moved forward to present
the Feton Street Residents Association, Lawrence A group and Blueho Avenue, Quincy Street, Magnolia Street, and Howard A Neighborhood Association, and they have approved the proposal. Today, our office has not received any further committee feedback at this time. Thank you for your time in the mayor's office of neighborhood services would like to
defer to the board for the >> Thank you. Next, we have a Michael Kosu. >> My name is Michael Kosu with Project Right. I hosted the uh neighborhood association meeting that Jeremy um um
referenced. Uh the neighborhood uh recognizes that these are long-standing residents who've been uh positive for the community and are supporting this project. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. There are no additional comments.
>> Was that I have a motion? >> Madam Chair. >> Oh, go ahead. Um, uh, yes. I'll make a motion approval with provisos that the plans be submitted to the planning department for design review with attention to the
landscaped area, permeability, and potential redesign of that off- streetet parking and rear yard. >> Is there a second? >> Second, >> Mr. Valencia. >> Yes.
>> Mr. Stebridge. Yes, >> Miss Turner. >> Yes, >> Miss Bterzo. >> Yes, >> Mr. Collins. >> Sorry. >> Thank you, Miss Ponado. >> Yes,
>> Chair Voss. Yes. The motion carries. Good luck. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. >> Happy Thanksgiving. Next we have case BOA 173 43 0 with the address of 36 Julian
Street. If the applicant and or the representative are present, will they please explain to the board? >> Thank you, Mr. Stembridge. Uh Madame Chair and members of the board. My name is Vernon Woodworth with the business
address of 11 Elizabeth Street in Madapan. I'm here with the owner and applicant Manny Baptista to describe the construction of a new three family at 36 Julian Street. I believe you'll be hearing confirmation
of our successful neighborhood outreach both in a butters meeting and a successful meeting with the Dudley Street neighborhood initiative. Uh this is a 3D version of the proposed project showing a canal lever to allow
parking off streetet parking of two spaces, two out of the three required. Next slide please. And the plot plan shows this is a narrow lot. It's unders sized. Uh which is why we are cited for minimum lot area.
Uh the parking is behind the building with access along the side making the first floor uh specifically very narrow but the second and third canolvering partially over that uh parking access. Next slide
please. Okay, we have the the violations cited here which I'll go through one by one. Uh I mentioned minimum lot area. This is an allowed use of three dwelling units in this 35000 zone.
The actual lot area is only uh it's less or less 3,000 square ft and uh so we require variance for lot area and additional lot area lot width
and frontage are cited as well but for the F the maximum allow is 0.8 8 in this zone and we are only at 0.9. So that's not a major increase. Height is compliant usable open space
somewhat below the required 650 with 528 ft. The front yard is 6 ft but it's not specifically cited because of the street line alignment provision. Uh the sideyard is compliant on the
parking side but uh tapers down to 5t on the other side and the rear yard is 4t and a few inches short of the required 30 ft and parking as I mentioned uh requires
three spaces. We're providing only two. So, uh, that more or less sums up our presentation. Happy to take any questions. >> Thank you. Are there questions from the board? >> Hearing none, I have public testimony.
>> Madam 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 abort meeting facilitated on September 18th that was well attended and received overwhelming support from all. Next, the proposal was
presented to Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative where they approved the proposal to move forward in the process. To date, our office has received two letters of supporting the proposal addressing the housing crisis from Senator Liz Miranda's office and state representative Warel's office. Thank you for your time and the mayor's office of neighborhood services would like to
defer to the board for their children. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Uh Madame Chair, uh I'm sorry. I think there is one person who wants me to read the support that is in the chat. Um
do you want me to read it or is is >> if you want. >> Okay. Uh this is from a new beginning re-entry services 36 caston street as a dull the square merchant daughter Kerry
Kim from Alpha and Omega. We have been an advocate for re-entering the community since 1980s. I have also been a board member and advisor for many re-entry nonprofits including the Haley House since 1988.
uh re-entry day programs have been overdue to our Roxbury community for decades. We support MBRS uh as a proud enable of the amazing ongoing re-entry work especially with our senior neighbors coming home. Thank you.
>> Okay, thank you. >> Okay, thank you. >> Any other raised hand? >> There are no additional comments. >> Okay, any other questions from the board? May I have a motion?
>> Make a motion of approval um with so that um they coordinate with the planning department for design review. >> Thank you. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Mr. Sebridge? >> Yes.
>> Mr. Valencia? >> Yes. >> Miss Turner? >> Yes. M Brazza, >> yes. >> Mr. Collins, >> yes. >> Miss Pado, >> yes. Chair, yes. The motion carries.
>> Thank you very much. >> Next, we have case BOA 173 0941 with the address of 36 Gaston Street. If the applicant and or the representative present, would they please explain the
case to the board? >> Madam chair, I need to recuse myself. >> Yeah. Thank you. We are now a six member board. >> Good morning, Madame Chair and members of the board. I'm Steve Bartlett from Foley Hoag LLP in Boston. On behalf of
our client, New Beginnings Re-entry Services, Inc., which is the applicant in this appeal. We're here today to request a conditional use permit for a community center use at 36 Gaston Street in Dorchester. A community center use would allow New
Beginnings to continue to provide re-entry and other critical services to formerly incarcerated individuals who are in the process of rebuilding their lives outside of correctional institutions. I'm here today with Stacy Bordon who is the executive director of New
Beginnings. Uh in a minute, Stacy can speak in more detail about the proposed day program that is at the heart of this appeal. Uh before that, I'll just briefly explain the procedural history of this request and the property at 36 Gaston Street. Um, for several years
now, New Beginnings has been providing re-entry and wraparound services to formerly incarcerated individuals at 36 Gaston Street as part of a tradition uh, transitional housing program. The board of appeals first approved the transitional housing use in 2021 along
with certain revisions to the building, which is a single family home uh, in Dorchester. That initial board approval had a one-year sunset. Uh then in 2022, the board extended the approval for the transitional housing use for an
additional three years. Uh and the construction activities that were approved by the board were completed in 2023 and a final certificate of occupancy was issued on October 18th of 2023. Uh, as Stacy will explain in just a moment, New Beginnings has made the
decision to pivot away from a transitional housing model to providing services through a day program format. This programmatic shift is for a number of reasons, including the fact that changes to applicable laws and
department of corrections policy have led to a decrease in the number of formerly incarcerated individuals who are seeking transitional housing services. Uh, however, there remain many formerly incarcerated individuals who would stand to benefit from the variety
of in-person and virtual services that New Beginnings provides. Therefore, consistent with its mission, New Beginnings is modifying its program structure and applying for this new conditional use, uh, which again is for a community center in an effort to meet
those individuals where they are. Um, and finally, before I turn it over to Stacy, I just want to confirm to the board that the present appeal does not propose any construction activities or physical changes to the building at 36 Gaston Street. The the only relief being
requested at this time is a is a change in occupancy of the premises from transitional housing to community center. Um, and I'll I'll now turn it over to Stacy so she can speak about the details of the day program, but I'm also available to answer any questions that
the board may have. Um, Stacy, >> thank you so much, Attorney Bartlett. Good morning, Madame Chair and board. My name is Stacy Bordon. I am the founder and executive director of New Beginnings Re-entry Services. I hold a master's degree in mental health. I'm a licensed
substance abuse counselor and I'm trauma informed certified. As Steve Attorney Butlet explained, we are a day center now and we serve a number of genders, all genders actually.
And we've um cut down right from Monday. Ma'am, you um are freezing on and off. Sorry, sir. My computer keeps shifting. >> You can try to >> Is my voice cutting off? >> Yeah. Maybe just go off camera. It's
probably just bandwidth. >> Okay. >> Little better. >> Yes, ma'am. >> So, we have an amazing team here at New Beginners Rentry Services. I want to say that all the um programs that we provide
to focus on our population that are coming out of prison environments to help them um really be successful in their re-entry. We've had um 99% um recidivism rate since the past nine
years and we continue to keep our policies basically the same as when we were residential. Our policies is the is the same. Our population comes out. We have good neighbor policies. We um feed the
community as we have a pantry on the lawn. We have a a book pantry. We have a knock kiosk. Um we provide substance abuse counseling to financial literacy to anger management
and healing. We have a amazing culinary artists in partnership with Berkeley School of Music and Emerson Prison Project. Um, we do a lot of communication skills with the bridge project through everyday Boston and
really just trying to provide holistic care to our um, population that comes out of these prison environments. So, our mission again is really to empower and uplift our individuals that are impacted in coming back to community and
families. And so, I know that I keep going in and out. Um, I think I can stop there. I'm really grateful for this presentation and grateful for our uh Fully Hoag team that has really been guiding us these past almost four or
five years. >> Thank you. >> Attorney Bartlett explained. That's that's good. Madam Chair, >> you're great. Uh are there questions from the board? >> Thank you. Hearing no questions from the board,
we'll take public testimony. >> Madame chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Berebury. I'm the Dorchester community engagement specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process which consisted of an abot meeting facilitated on August 11th that was well attended and received support from majority of
attendees. Supporters were outside of their voting radius with one civic member voicing concerns for how a community center, a commercial property being placed between residential properties can be justified as a necessity. Next, a proposal was presented to Hogwart Ganet Gaston Otisfield Betterment Association on
October 27th where a vote from non-opposition was reached with the request for a provisal deed restriction to remain residential. Again, so their vote was the nonopposition with the request for a provisal deed restriction to have the uh place remain residential.
To date, our office has received two letters of supporting the change from transitional residential housing to an adult re-entry day center. Thank you for your time in the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services elected to defer to the board for the judge. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Madame Chair.
We have two people in the attendee section. Uh but the person Michael Kosu, I'm not sure if you're speaking again. >> Yes, my name is Michael Kosu. I'm with Project Ry, Inc. We're at 320 the letter A Blue Avenue. We're actually in a
butter uh to the property as well. uh we actually hosted the whole organic gas and noticeville berment association meeting. They do want to uh ask that provisor be um submitted uh as part of
this process that this um conversion uh this um decision would be made to this applicant only. Uh this u and that any future development or changes to the property uh with a new property owner be brought back through a community
process. This uh site is in a block of two family houses and um the association wants to make sure that um once um new beginnings uh uh goes on to another uh
adventure that this property comes back to committee process. Thank you so much. >> Thank you. Next we have Eva Claire. >> Yes. Uh good morning uh madame chair and zoning board members. I'm Eva Clark for
Austin Street in Dorchester, executive pastor of Life Church. Just wanting to express my enthusiastic support uh for this proposal. Thank you. >> Thank you. And the last comment is that the person that the comment that I read previously,
it was in support for this project from Kerry Kim. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. With that, may I have a motion? M >> sh I think this is a really good project project and important to support the community. We also receive several
layers of support. So I make a motion of approval. >> May I have May I have a second? >> Second. >> Second. >> Mr. Stebridge. >> Yes. >> Mr. Valencia. >> Yes. Miss Turner,
>> yes. Miss Better Brazza, oh, she refused herself. Sorry. Mr. Collins, >> yes. >> Miss Pado, >> yes. >> Chair, yes. The motion carries. Good luck. >> Thank you so much. Happy holiday. >> You too.
>> Thank you. >> Next, we have case. >> You want to ask about >> withdrawals? Thank you for the Thank you for the reminder, Madam Chair. Um, since we passed the 11:00
hour, uh, we'll ask if there are any requests for withdrawals or deferrals from the 11:00 hour. Hearing none, return to case BOA174 4076 with the address of 32 Hansen Street. If
the applicant andor their representative are present, will they please explain the case to the board? >> Yes, Madame Chair. John Moran, Alpine Advisory Services with the mailing address of 130 Beach Road, Orleans,
Mass. Uh this is a project in the south end in a multi-residential rowhouse district and subject to landmarks review. Uh the scope of the project is to change the occupancy from three dwelling units to two dwelling
units. Extensive exterior facade renovations including a new windows. Interior alterations to accommodate the change of occupancy. To extend living space into the basement
for the use of unit one. To legalize an existing roof deck for the exclusive use of unit number two. to install two roof condensers, uh, rear facade renovations and openings, including two rear decks
above the street level, which will be, uh, ex project six feet into the rear yard and be supported by brackets. the scope of the work and the cost triggers groundwater applicability.
The approved Boston Water and Sewer Commission site plan plus its compliance letter has been filed with ISD and the whole harmless letter has been filed with the groundwater trust. Madame
Chair, do you wish a separate vote on this and have Kristen confirm conformity with these filings or should I proceed? >> You should proceed. We'll do this together. >> Okay. The violation, the first violation cited is the proposed townhouse uh
extension in the rear yard. If we could screen to A 202 for reference. This is it. It shows the proposed two rear decks which would be supported by brackets and extending into the rear yard. It also shows the existing roof
deck which is screened from the Hansen Street by existing architectural features. If we could screen down to 201. This shows the view of the front facade. Landmarks has approved all the proposed
facade restorations and renovations. Again, the architectural feature of the roof screens the existing roof deck uh to seeking legalizing the roof deck. It triggers restrictive roof structure
regulations which are intended to preserve the uniformity of the streetscape. uh in uh respectfully suggests that legalizing this existing deck will not alter the viewscape of Hansen Street.
The last violation is sighting for Riyad insufficiency. Uh this is a technical question and I respectfully suggest that this is not a violation pursuant to section 375 of the
code. Uh if we look at the initial diagram of the project, we'll note that the rear wall is not parallel with the lot line. Uh and at one corner of the of
the right on the diagram, the extension is 18 12T rather than the required 20 ft. However, the average of
the extension is 22 1/2 ft and pursuant to section five, this is deemed compliant. So, I would leave it to the board to to determine uh if any relief as to this cited violation is necessary.
With that, I am open to questions. >> Thank you. Any 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 near Services regarding 32 Hansen Street. Our office
defers to the board's judgment on this matter. A community process was conducted including an abutters meeting held on 91625 that was likely attended by about two community members. The feedback from this meeting was concerned with the scale of the project and the historical nature of the neighborhood.
Due to the description and the ref on the refusal letter al um oh excuse me due to the description on the refusal letter not aligning with the proposed work on the first abutters meeting my office requested a second abutters meeting to ensure that the community was appropriately notified and was hosted on
962 or 10625 excuse me uh that was not intended by any community members. The proposal was also reviewed by the 8th streets neighborhood association and did not require the applicant to meet with them. At this time, the mayor's office of neighborhood services defers to the board's judgment on this matter. Thank you everyone for your time and
consideration. >> Good morning. >> Sorry. Good morning, Madame Chair and members of the board. Um, my name is Melissa Lou and I would be speaking on behalf of councelor Flynn's office. Councelor Flynn uh would like to go on
record in support based on a good community process and no concerns raised by neighbors and the Ellis Neighborhood Association. He respectfully asked the team to continue to work closely with the community on any quality of life issues during the construction phase.
Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Christian Simoni. >> Good morning madam chair, members of the board. Christian Simmonali Boston Grater Trust and we have both G Cods from the applicant and happy Thanksgiving to everybody. >> Thank you. You too.
>> Thank you, Madam Chair. There are no additional comments. >> Okay. With that, may I have a motion? >> A motion of approval. There second. >> Second. >> Mr. Stebridge. >> Uh, yes. >> Mr. Valencio.
>> Yes. >> M. Turner. >> Yes. >> Miss Better Braza, >> yes. >> Mr. Collins, >> yes. >> Miss Panado, >> yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. >> Thank you very much and wish you all a
peaceful and happy Thanksgiving. >> Thank you. You too. Next, we'll move on to the hearings scheduled for 11:00 a.m. Again, I'll quickly ask if there are any requests for withdrawals of deferrals
from this time frame. And if not, then we'll go on to case BOA1774198, excuse me, with the address of two to four Danny Road. If the applicant and their representative are present, would they please explain the case to the
board? >> Morning. Um, my name's attorney Anthony Mto. Um, I represent the applicant, Aleandro MTO. of uh 167 Needm Street uh D of Massachusetts. And um this proposal is to seek a
variance on uh parcel 181278 00010. It's uh the address it's currently listed as 0 Danny Road in the um High Park neighborhood of Boston in the rebuild section.
um the denial letter which I can share on my screen or the refusal letter. Um let me show it. Okay, I'm unable to believe I'm unable to share on my screen right now. >> So please uh let us know let the
ambassador know where you want to go. >> Okay. Um, okay. This would be the refusal letter. I don't know if it if it's showing up on my screen right now. >> Well, we don't see your screen. You can only refer to what is displayed from the
ambassador. What are >> Okay. All right. Okay. Okay. I apologize. Um, okay. So, right right now what's being shown on the on the screen uh looks like the uh floor plans. Um the the project
essentially uh received a denial for >> insufficient street um >> insufficient off streetet parking um insufficient lot area um excessive floor area ratio
um insufficient usable open space insufficient front yard setback an insufficient sideyard setback. And so this the the history of the lot here is that um it's it's it's two lots. It essentially uh is adjoining to a three
family residence in that area. Uh the address is 6 Dany Road. This is 2 to 4 Danny Road. Uh the the address at 6 Dany Road uh the three family lot was built back in 1910 prior to the zoning code uh
within the city of Boston. It was actually a um it was actually under the Norfol County's jurisdiction at that time. Um subsequent to that in uh 19 I believe it's uh 1947
um the owner of the uh six Danny Road uh purchased uh became the owner of both the this lot in question and that specific uh three family property. The property uh remained there uh adjoining
to uh two to four um rather 6D road uh up until now. Both of the properties um are next to each other. They have separate tax bills. Uh, Alex Mto or Aleandro Mustoto, the petitioner, has a
bonafide purchase and sale agreement for the lot itself um and not the three family residence that that has a separate uh tax bill. This has been presented to the um neighborhood
committee and the mayor's office in the past. I wasn't present at the original neighborhood meeting. However, uh the from what I from what I heard, the the neighborhood was opposed to uh building anything on the lot. Uh notwithstanding
the fact that uh the petitioner, Alex Musto, is seeking uh to erect a two family dwelling. In the past, I believe there was a previous buyer who uh backed out or or did not proceed with purchasing the property. He was seeking
a three family residence. Uh Mr. Must um thought a two family residence uh is reasonable for the area. It's um you know it's a smaller project but given the housing crisis it will still lead uh
to prospective buyers uh to homeownership within the city of Boston. Uh Mr. Must is has been a builder, a very experienced builder for 30 years and he's um you know done similar projects within the High Park uh
neighborhood in the past. Uh his he's even built a residence on the um on the other street uh for his own son on Ko Road in High Park. And so uh this particular project, you know, he'll be addressing any sort of issues. He's he's
not a he's not a factory by any means or um he's not a large large company. He's a sole proprietor. So he'll be he would be if he's if this variance were allowed, he would be able to um you know essentially he's there from on a day-to-day basis uh micromanaging the
project. Um he's had nothing but uh great things said about him in the past for for previous uh home sales. >> Mr. Why don't we pause here and let folks ask questions? >> Sure. >> Can you just go through the the the
dimensional violations, particularly the sideyards? >> Yes. It's just um I guess I'm a little um >> like what's required and what are your proposing, >> right? >> What's missing is a site plot plan. Usually we see a survey plot plan. It's
not included in the plans. I do have it right here. Um, let me see here. >> And you can't share screen, so we don't we don't have it. >> Okay. I do. That's um Is there any way I could email
this over if we get a second call uh to to try to try to share it? >> Well, I don't know if it's just a deferral or what are >> Yeah. Can I make a recommendation? I'm not sure which one's sooner. a full board Tuesday meeting or a subcommittee,
but I can see this being brought in front of the subcommittee if that is sooner. >> Caroline, >> um, looking at dates, the next >> this could be on would be January 27th.
The next subcommittee would be January 22nd. >> Okay. So, we're talking about the difference in 5 days. So, any preference? >> Um, January 22nd. That's a good day.
>> Okay. So, >> may I have a motion? >> Madam Chair, I'd like to put forward a motion of deferral for January 22nd. And please, if the applicant can ensure that you submit your survey plot plan to the ambassador to be included in the
submission right after this meeting would be helpful. We can't review the project without a certified plot plan. So, we need to see that. >> Thank you. >> Second, >> Mr. Sunbridge. >> Yes. >> Mr. Valencia.
>> Yes. >> Miss Turner. >> Yes. Miss Brazza, >> yes. >> Mr. Collins, >> yes. >> Miss Bernado, >> yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. See you then.
>> Thank you. >> Next, we have case BOA 175 4250 with the address of 18 Winchester Street. Is the applicant and or their representative are present? Will they please explain to the board?
>> Yes, Mr. Stridge. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board, attorney Derek Small of a business address of 51 Doppson Road, and we're here today seeking relief to replace the existing head house and erect the roof deck at 18 Winchester Street. The zoning subdist
here is a rowhouse um subd district and we have one violation and that's roof structure restriction. Madam chair, members of the board, the the the deck and the head house already exist. Um but because we had did some renovations
within the property, we were cited by the zoning code for the uh roof structure restriction which the zoning code requires a hatch and the building code um requires the head house because
we are nine stories. Um no because we are five stories, excuse me. and the the building code requires us to have a head house on on top for access to the roof and that is our sole violation. Um I don't you guys probably saw in the file
this did go through Bay Village um historical society and was approved as well. So we're just replacing what was there and we recited um on the conflict of the hatch versus the head house um which exists in a lot of areas in the
city of Boston. Thank you. >> And the roof deck is is exclusive for unit 9 on on on the top floor. >> Okay. Are there questions from the board? >> Hearing none. Now for public testimony.
>> Hello madam chair, members of the board. My name is Eva Jones representing the mayor's office and neur services regarding 18 Winchester Street. Our office diverse boardment. A community process was conducted, including on a Butters meeting held on 9:15 that was attended by two community members. The
feedback from the meeting was overall no issues with the project, but some expressed some concerns about the construction vehicles in the neighborhood. My office did receive one letter in opposition expressing concerns over the head house. The proposal was also reviewed by both the Bay Village Neighborhood Association Planning
Committee and the BBNA Executive Board at their meeting, and no formal opposition or support was expressed regarding the proposal. At this time, the mayor's office of neighborhood services defers to the board's judgment on this matter. Thank you everyone for your time and consideration. >> Thank you.
>> Good morning, honorable Madame Chair and members of the board. Um my name is Melissa Low and I would be um speaking on behalf of councelor Flynn's office and councelor Flynn would like to go on record in opposition. Thank you.
Okay, Madame Chair, there are no additional comments. >> Okay. Uh, with that, may I have a motion? >> I'll make a motion of approval. >> There a second. >> Second,
>> Mr. Stebridge. >> Yes. >> Mr. Valencia. >> Yes. >> Miss Bavarzo. >> Yes. >> Mr. Collins. >> Yes. >> Miss Bernado. Yes. >> Car votes yes. The motion carries. Good.
>> Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. Have a good day and happy Thanksgiving to all. >> Jerry, did you call? Did you say did I don't know Turner? >> Yes. I don't think you did. Thank you. >> That's okay. >> Thank you. Okay. Now, now the chair
votes yes and the motion carries. >> Thank you again. Next we have case BOA175571. >> You want to sorry to interrupt. Do you want to ask about 11:30 deferrals or up withdrawals? Thanks for having me. That's good. Um
yeah, if we have any requests for withdrawals or deferrals from 11 from the 11:30 time frame. >> Yes, Mr. Stebridge 87 Street. So those would be two companion cases a BOA
148 2368 with the address of 87 Mar Street and also case BOA 148 2378 also with the address of 87 Mar Street.
Um if you would go ahead and turn. >> Yes. Thank you, Mrs. Hemorrhage. U members of the board, Richard Lind, 245 Southern Street on behalf of the petitioner. Uh requesting a deferral. We've got a few items to still deal with on the building code matter, and I
believe there's a groundwater um item that's still being addressed. Um so, requesting a deferral. >> Okay. uh dates >> we could do January 27th, February 3rd,
February 24th, March 10th, March 24th, April 7th. >> Jan uh end of January is fine, please. >> Okay, so January 27th. >> Okay, with that, may I have a motion? >> Motion to defer this cake the cake until
January 27th. >> There. Second. Second. >> Second, >> Mr. Embridge. >> Yes. >> Mr. Valencia. >> Yes. >> Miss Turner. >> Yes. >> Miss Benabraza. >> Yes.
>> Mr. Collins. >> Yes. >> Mado. >> Yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. >> Thank you. >> 100 Huntington. A please. Mr. Stembridge.
The that this request is for case BOA 170 3445 with the address of 100 Huntington Avenue. Uh would you go ahead attorney Drago? >> Thank you Miss Stebridge. Thank you
Madam Chair. Members of the board attorney Jeff Drago with Drago and Tuscano with the business address of 11 Beacon Street. Uh we are asking for a deferral on the matter. We need to go before the back before the neighborhood associations uh for updates uh to both
uh we were asked um by some of the elected officials as well as the group to appair and we do have to meet with the city councelor again uh to go over some changes and updates to this matter. Um so we are seeking deferral. >> Thank you. Did any of those dates
mentioned >> the 27th? The 27th would be perfect if that's available. Is that still available? >> Okay. So, January 27th. May I have a motion? >> Motion to defer this case to January
27th. >> Is there a second? >> Was that a second? >> Okay. Mr. Sunbridge? >> Yes. >> Mr. Valencia? >> Yes. >> Miss Turner? >> Yes.
>> Miss Better Brazo? >> Yes. Mr. Collins, >> yes. >> Miss Ponado, >> yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. See you. >> Thank you all. Have a wonderful Thanksgiving. >> Mr. Stembridge 18 Interval Street,
please. So this will be for case BOA 1707353 with the address of 18 Intervil Street. Uh would you go ahead attorney Spitz? >> Great. Thank you, Mr. Stebridge, Madam Chair, members of the board. Attorney
Ryan Spitz with the Adams and Morancey business address of 1688 street first floor. Um I'm here requesting another deferral on this matter. Um, in full disclosure, Madam Chair, members of the board, I was retained uh by the applicant to represent him just at the
hearing, uh, with my advice, the applicant is making substantial changes in the plans, but there's been some lag time of getting an updated site plan as well as updated architectural drawing. So, I'm here today uh, again requesting that deferral um, in order to allow for
these substantial changes to be resubmitted to the board. >> Okay. And what time frame of the dates that was mentioned? I would say I if anything later would be possible. So, you know, I would say late January if that's available or beginning of February just to allow them enough time
considering that there's been some lag time between the two. >> Caroline, >> we could do January 27th, February 3rd, February 24th. >> January 27th should be perfect, please. Thank you. >> Okay, last one. Caroline, uh, may I have
a motion? Motion to defer this case to January 27. >> May I have a second? >> Second. Second, >> Mr. Stebridge. >> Yes. >> Mr. Valencia? >> Yes.
>> Miss Turner? >> Yes. >> Miss Better Braza? >> Yes. >> Mr. Collins? >> Yes. >> Miss Ponado? >> Yes. >> Chair votes? Yes. Motion carries.
>> Thank you. If there are no further requests for withdrawings from the 11:30 time frame, we'll return to the 11:00 hearings and go to case BOA1755712 with the address of 242 Newbury Street.
If the applicant andor their representative present, would they please explain to the board? >> Hi, uh my name is Jason Zubie. I'm the owner of the Boston Tattoo Company. Uh currently we are uh licensed to operate
at 244 Newbury Street. Uh we've been using 242 as our uh lobby area um which we uh were able to acquire after uh opening 244. So we are looking to uh add that use to
that uh that parcel um for possible future uh expansion. I also have another um address uh next coming up. Uh so I decided to do both at the same time.
Um the 150 State Street address um was a temporary uh we were licensed here temporarily and we >> I'm sorry. Were these supposed to be read as companion cases because we're on New Gray Street and you just mentioned State Street. >> I'm sorry. Yes. Uh I think the the next
case will also >> Okay. So let's focus on this case and then we'll get to the next case. >> Sure. So um that's that's that's the end of it. and we just look at that uh down. Um
>> thank you. Are there questions from the board? >> Hearing none. May I have public testimony? >> Madame Chair and members C. Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This applicant completed the community process. Our office oversaw distribution
of anformational flyer soliciting comments to all occupied parcels in a 300 ft radius that solicited no responses. The applicant met with the neighborhood association of the Backbay and has secured their non opposition. That background, our office defers judgment to the board. Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> Any other >> madam chair? There are no additional comments at the moment. >> Thank you. With that, may I have a motion? >> Motion for approval. Is >> there a second?
>> Mr. Stumbrbridge. >> Yes. >> Mr. Valencia. >> Yes. >> Miss Turner. >> Yes. >> Miss Ber Brazzo. >> Yes. >> Mr. Collins. >> Yes. >> Miss Panado.
>> Yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. >> Thank you. >> Next we have case BOA 175 5641. with the address of
150 to 152 State Street. I believe this is Zubie. >> Yes. >> Okay. Please proceed. >> Sure. So, uh, at this particular address earlier this year, we did a pop-up
event, and we were licensed as a temporary body art studio through the city of Boston, and we are looking to change the use of the third floor to a a body art studio. Um, which really won't require much work
at all. Um, since it had already been inspected by the city health department, it really doesn't require much work other than the equipment needed to run a a tattoo studio. Okay. Thank you. Any questions from the board hearing? None. May I have public
testimony? The mayor's office neighborhood services regarding 150 to 152 State Street. Our office differs to the board's judgment. A community process was conducted including a distribution of subcooneyers on age 1125. Uh during the community comment period, I did not receive any
feedback regarding the proposal. The Warf District Neighborhood Association reviewed the proposal and has expressed support. At this time, the mayor's office and neighborhood services defers to the board's judge judgment on this matter. Thank you everyone for your kind consideration. >> Thank you,
>> Madam Chair. There are no additional comments. >> Okay, with that, may I have a motion? >> Motion. >> Is there a second? >> Second, Mr. Benbridge.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Valencia. >> Yes. >> Miss Turner. >> Yes. >> Miss Federraza. >> Yes. >> Mr. Collins. >> Are you on mute? Mr. BS? >> Okay. Miss Ponado?
>> Yes. >> Chair votes? Yes. The motion carries. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Next we have case BOA 1783949 with the address of 100 Utah Street.
If the applicant andor their representative are present, would they please explain the case to the board? >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Stebridge. And again, Madam Chair, members of the board, Richard Lind, 245 Summer Street, East Boston. on behalf of the applicant. Um if we could just jump down maybe to
slide three uh to give us a little bit of perspective here for what we're looking at. Uh next. Yeah, perfect. Um so madam chair, members of the board, this is a proposal that would combine uh three separate lots into a single lot. Uh the lot would then be about two a
little over 2,000 square ft. Uh historically, these lots have been deeed restricted through the city's Butters Lots program uh and have remained vacant probably since the late 1980s. I believe there was structure on this site uh previously and it burned down and the site had been cleared and remained
vacant after a tax foreclosure. Um so we are proposing to introduce a new uh three-story 4-unit residential dwelling on the site after we combine the lots. And although this is in the uh EBR3 zoning district, which typically allows
uh three family or three units on a single lot, there's an exception EBR3 that if your lot is more than 55 ft in width, uh then you are eligible to go up to a total of six units on a single lot. This lot once combined would have uh almost 60 ft of frontage along Brook
Street, which is the longer side of the lot. uh and therefore it does qualify for the exception in EBR3 uh zoning subdist. Um if we jump down to the next slide, I think we can probably go to slide 10 uh just to give a better perspective here of what we're looking
at. Okay, so yeah, so we have the site plan here showing the three lots that are involved. Uh three particular lots are at the corner of Utah and Brook Street. This is located in the Eagle Hill section of East Boston. Uh we go to the next slide please.
We show the combined condition and the next slide would show the proposed condition. Uh we can talk a little bit about the relief that's necessary for the dimensional violations that were cited. Next slide please. So our structure would be u located at
uh close to the corner at Utah Street. Uh we do have a setback in the which would be the rear of the property at 10 ft. Uh we also have a setback on the right side at 3 ft. Uh the 3-foot setback on the right is compliant with EBR3. Uh because it's a corner lot fronting on a street. Uh we would have
to address setbacks uh both along Utah and Burke Street, which is one of the items that the planning department has cited in its recommendation to approve the project uh subject to design review. Uh with respect to the 10-ft setback, um similar to the previous project I
presented today, uh when we're dealing with a corner lot, the condition for the rear yard, uh is really dictated by where the front door is located or where the front door can be located. Um we, as I said, we would be allowed to be within 3 ft of the sideyard if this were
considered uh a sideyard, but because it's a considered a rear yard, we'd be required to have one/ird of the lot depth. I would remind the board that there is an exception in the code, although this doesn't specifically qualify for it, but we do have a shallow watt exception in East Boston that would
permit uh a minimum of 10 ft and can where where a um a calculation would be applied to show that this does not need the full depth of the rear lot rear lot setback that um a rear setback that would be required. Uh because we are at 10 feet, I would suggest that this is
compliant with uh the purpose and intent of the code to allow for the shorter setback. Uh if we go down to um we can probably go down to 17, which is the elevations of the building. Yeah. So we show this is a threetory building. There
is an overhang that does come out over the public way. Uh that is consistent with the dimminimous projection policy of the city of Boston applies uh for overhangs over the public way. um we do not particularly require a vertical discontinuence as long as we keep that
under 36 in. Uh and that is something that would be permitted and certainly addressed as part of a design review. Uh we have slide 19 if you go to the perspectives. Um just to give you an idea from a three-dimensional standpoint as to how this would set up on the site. Uh again
you see that walkway down the right side would be 3ft setback and then how it would sit on the lot in relationship to the street in the corner. Uh we keep that set back in the rear as I said at about 10 ft. Uh with respect to the relief that would be necessary and which was cited in the public notice and
refusal letter. Um the front yard a minimum of 3 ft is required. We are proposing 1 ft. However, we would suggest that the modal alignment may come into play, especially on the Brook Street side, uh to allow for this to be a close a closer setback than the 3-foot that's required. As I mentioned, the
rear setback would be one/ird of the lot depth because u by combining the lots, we no longer qualify for the exception for the shallow lot. However, uh the code does permit a 10-ft setback in those instances. Um and with respect to the off- streetet parking, uh we opted
for rather than having uh curb cut and parking at the ground level, there's really limited space for off- streetet parking in the site. Uh instead, we're opting for variance. I would point out to the board uh that we are while we are able to address the uh fourth unit or allow for the fourth unit based upon the
lot width. Um we would not require any off- streetet parking at three units. Uh it's the trigger uh up to the fourth unit that is uh result of the violation uh of the off- streetet parking requirements where it says one per unit is required. Uh so I will pause there
and take any questions from the board. >> Thank you. Are there questions from the board? No. >> No. I I do agree in regards to um to the moto alignment. Uh
um sorry, I'm I'm I just lost my on Brook Street. The moto alignment does make sense and the three-foot setback as recommended by BPD on Utah Street. Makes sense given the uh the adjacent property. No, no further questions.
Thanks. Any other 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 and neighborhood services regarding 100 Utah Street. Our office differs the board's judgment on
this matter. A community process was conducted including at a voter's meeting held on 82025 which was attended by one community member who was not opposed to the proposal. The proposal was also reviewed by the Eagle Hill Civic Association at their meeting on 9:2425
and they expressed support regarding the proposal and have voted 12 yes and 8 no regarding the proposal. At this time, the mayor's office and neighborhood services defers to the board's judgment. Thank you everyone for your time and consideration. >> Yeah, >> thanks. And we have somebody from the
councelor Kleta Steven. >> Yes. Hi, my name is Stefan. um from councelor Kleta Sapata's office and we would like to go on record in support of this project. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. There are no additional comments. >> With that, may I have a motion?
>> Madam Chair, I'd like to put for a motion of approval with a provisal that the project underos BPD design review. uh specifically paying attention to um the three-foot setback on Utah Street,
but to maintain the moto alignment on Brook Street. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Mr. Stebridge? >> Yes. >> Mr. Valencia? >> Yes. >> Miss Turner?
>> Yes. >> Miss Benzo? >> Yes. >> Mr. Collins? >> Yes. Miss Ponado, >> yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck. >> Thank you very much. Have a great
Thanksgiving all. >> Thank you. With that, can we take a 15-minute break? Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Recording stopped. ress. >> Let's do roll call. Um, Mr. Stebridge
is Mr. Are you back, Mr. Stebridge? Okay, we'll keep going. Mr. Valencia >> here. >> Miss Turner >> here. >> Miss Beverzo >> here. >> Present.
>> Mr. Collins >> present. >> Miss Panado >> present. >> Mr. Stebridge. >> Bear with me, Madam Chair. Can you hear me now? >> We sure can. Uh, I'll hold off on the
camera for right now, please. >> Um, >> okay. No worries. >> Uh, yours is December. >> I think you skip. >> I did again. Did I skip you, Miss Turner? >> No, you didn't. No, I'm here. Oh, thanks.
>> Okay, guys. Listen, I know. >> I'm sorry. >> Okay. All right. Well, the floor is yours, Mr. Seidge. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, with that, we'll go we'll go to the red discussions
scheduled for 11:30 a.m. and we'll ask again if there are any withdrawals or deferrals requested from this time frame. In that case, we'll move on to case BOA175
0079 with the address of two Bonand Road. If the applicant andor their representative present, will they please explain the case to the board? >> Hi, good morning. My name is uh Edwin Lawrenzan. I'm the homeowner. Um can you
guys hear me? Okay. Just want to make sure. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Um, the the changes that we're making um is just to the home that we live in. Uh we've had a family member, my mother-in-law, who had a double lung transplant, so she's going to be living with us.
>> Um the unit the the part of the basement uh was unfinished. I just used it as a the home office before. Um all we're doing is adding a bedroom in a bathroom. Um there's no structural changes. There's really no other changes. Uh we
had something that it said was a FRA. Um, I guess that's that's what we what we didn't qualify. Uh, too much square footage. Uh, so we're just looking to be allowed to to finish the, you know, the project here. Uh, basically this is what what was originally there. If you go to
the next one, uh, that's what we're looking to do. Um, we just uh want my mom to have an additional sort of room for herself, just a room and a bathroom and a closet. So, I'm sorry I don't have all the I feel a little bit un overwhelmed because the other people you had presented
definitely had a little bit more scarce than I do. We're just trying to I don't not quite sure how we got here, but we're definitely trying to just follow the uh the rules. >> You're fine. Thank you. Any any questions from the board? Hearing none. May I have public
testimony? >> Madame chair and members. Sigy Johnson with the mayor's office of neighborhood services. This applicant has completed the community process. Our office oversaw distribution of anformational flyer to abutters which solicited no comments to our office. The West Roxbury Neighborhood Council voted to support
this application. Our office would also like to express support for this medically necessary renovation. We urge the board to approve the relief. Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Madam Chair. There are no additional comments.
>> Okay. With that, may I have a motion? >> Motion. Motion to approve. >> I have a second. >> Second. >> Mr. Stembridge. >> Yes. >> Mr. Valencia? >> Yes. >> Miss Turner?
>> Yes. >> M. Better Brazo? >> Yes. >> Mr. Collins? >> Yes. >> Miss Pado? >> Yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck. >> Thank you. Have a good day, guys. Have a
mayor. Have a happy Thanksgiving. >> You too, sir. >> Next, we have case BOA 176 0292 with the address of 19 Minland Street. If the applicant andor their
representative are present, would they please explain to the board? >> Yes, Mr. Secretary. Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is James Christopher of 686 Architects uh with the business address of 10 Forbes Road uh in Brainree.
>> Okay. So, we are a six member board. >> Thank you. Uh with the business address of 10 Forbes Road and Brain here today on behalf of Van Hong, the owner of 19 Midland Street. Uh this project was before the board. I guess it was earlier this year with a larger rear edition and was denied without prejudice. Uh as
such, we went back and redesigned the project. We are still seeking relief from uh the use itself. This is a uh uh proposed three family unit. Um we need relief on the F which is required to be 0.5. We will be at 0.95. Um the maximum
allowable building height and feet and stories. Um and uh and the use itself. Uh next slide please. This is our existing site plan and the addition will happen on the uh right and
slightly to the rear just a two-ft bumpout on the second and third floors. Next slide please. This shows our proposed site plan. Again you can see that small bump out to the rear uh at grade parking. Previously the addition went all the way back over the
and cantally over the parking. Since uh this process we've removed uh that part portion of the addition. will be adding on to the right side of the building. You can see in that rectangular shape there and then the driveway is to the right of that. Um, next slide, please.
If you could skip down to the A drawings, these are the existing plans. It's an existing single family twotory. Right there is good. Thank you. Um, so again, the proposal is to create a three-unit uh building. The first floor consists of a a three bed, two bath unit
of 1,335 square ft. Um, we are now proposing to extend the basement. So, the new addition will be on a slab on grade with minimal excavation on the site. Next slide, please. Uh, the second and third floor, again,
three bed, two bath units. Unit two being, 1442 ft and uh, unit uh, 3 being, 155 square ft. Um, we conducted the community process. We met with the abuters on the civic association. Uh we
did remove some um balconies from the right side of the building, the driveway side here at the request of one of the abutters and those balconies have now been added to the left rear of the building so that each unit gets a little bit of outdoor space. Uh it's a small balcony, large enough for like a chair
or something along those lines. Next slide, please. This is our roof plan. Um again, you can see the small bump out to the parking in the rear. Next slide, please. And then in elevation, we are proposing
a mansaw roof with a small rear extension um and uh the third floor addition. Next slide. Uh and I believe that's it. Um this project has been through uh a lot of community process. The Midland Street
consists of a lot of housing stock that's very similar to this directly across the street at 18. And a project was recently constructed like this. uh and next to that building. So I I feel the the use and the design are very appropriate. But with that, I'll I'll answer any questions that I can.
>> Thank you. Are there questions from the board? >> Hearing none. May I have public testimony? >> Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Eva Jones and I will be representing the mayor's office and neighborhood services regarding 19 Midland Street. Our office will defer to the board's judgment on this matter.
Another community process for this proposal was conducted on 41525 which was lightly attended by the community. The feedback was some concerns about the size and the density as they had expressed previously. But there was some support regarding the proposal because of the change of the
deck plans as well as some community members also expressed support citing that it was a good project and they were happy that it included parking. Additionally, the proposal was reviewed by the Columbia Savin Hill Civic Association in July and they did vote to support the proposal. At this time, the mayor's office and neighborhood services
defers to the board's judgment in this matter and thank you everyone for your time and consideration. >> Thank you. >> Hello, Madam Chair, members of the board. Liam Remis from councelor Fero's office. Our office would like to go on record in support of this proposal. Thank you.
>> Thank you madam chair. We have Steven George. Steve, Stephen, you can unmute yourself now. >> Stephen George that in the you are in the attend section. You can unmute yourself.
>> Okay. My name is Stephen George. I am a direct 16 Maryland Street right behind to the rear of 19 Midland Street. I also own 14 Merlin Street which is also a direct butter to 19 Midland Street. I am
opposed to the project as presented. Uh I would not be opposed if the concerns that I brought up in both the buttons meetings and also the last CBA hearing in November were addressed. During the last meeting, the CBA meeting
and the Abuas meeting, some members of the board expressed concern on the excess excessive square footage of the building and also eliminating green space by turning the rear yard into a parking lot. Progress has been made on reducing the size of the building, but
the rear yard is still being eliminated or the green space being eliminated and a park installed. the rear yard of 16 Maryland and 14 Maryland Street that are actively used by families that reside there as it is the only usable
green space. There is a narrow stroke of grass shown adjacent to a 7 foot wide parking space on the Maryland Street uh 60 Maryland Street lot line. The fact that the parking space is about
7 ft. I envision parking and roaching onto the grass strip and also right onto my lot line at 16 Maryland Street. I don't think 7 ft is sufficient for an SUV or most cars. Uh, one option could
be to keep the existing driveway as is, eliminate the rear yard park and show the landscape and fence of the solutions on the design drawings to lessen the impact of turning a single family house into a three family which more than
doubles the F square footage. Thank you for your consideration. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Madame Chair. There are no additional comments. Does the applicant want to briefly address the comments?
>> Um, we certainly um uh understand Mr. George's concerns. We did try to address them. Um, we did reduce the building significantly. Um, but the uh parking we felt was uh something that was beneficial and some of the neighbors liked it. We understand that we can't win on um on on all fronts, but we tried
to maintain as much open space on the site while making the building function. Um and I was mentioning that directly next to in uh Mr. uh George's property into the rear of ours is two parking lots um for the record. But uh thank you
very much. >> Thank you. Any other questions from the board? Hearing none. May I have a motion? >> I make a motion for approval. >> There a second. Second,
>> Mr. Stumbbridge. >> Yes, >> Mr. Valencia. >> Yes, >> Miss Turner. >> Yes, >> Miss Better Brazo. >> Yes, >> Mr. Collins.
>> Can't recuse. >> Oh, sorry. Miss Ponado, >> yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. >> Thank you very much. >> The next two cases have been deferred. So that takes us to case BOA
171 8356 with the address of 25 to 27 Edinburgh Street. If the applicant andor their representative present, would they please explain to the board? >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Stem Branch. Madam
chair, members of the board, attorney Ryan Spitz with Adams and Morancey, business address of 168 Street First, South Boston. Uh joining me today are the owners Jackson and Alice Lee, as well as the project architect, Alita Alba from Chewin Associates. The
proposal in front of us today is for a change of occupancy on an existing five-story commercial building from a showroom, retail store in restaurant with unfinished space in the basement to office professional use on the fourth and fifth floor, a pool hall on the
third floor, office professional use on the second floor, community and retail use on the first floor, and a social club within the basement. Currently, the first floor larger space is occupied by Best Printing. There is also a smaller space that is vacant on the first floor.
Second floor is occupied by a spa in a prayer room and also has an additional vacant space. The fourth and fifth floor are both currently vacant. The social club in the basement and the pool hall on the third floor both require conditional use permits. The proposed project is located within the historic
Chinatown protection area. There are many different uses within this area such as small restaurants, cafes, spas, and even other social clubs that contain maong tables just as this proposal does specifically at 11 Edinburgh Street, which is a building that contains five
floors of these tables. I'd like to stress the fact that there is no gambling being proposed with either of these two uses. I understand the stigma surrounding the two uses in gambling, but the landlord and the tenants both agree that there will be no tolerance for any gambling within these locations.
Both uses, particularly the majong tables, are a big part of Chinese culture relating to the social aspect. Again, these locations will be made available for social aspects and fun, not gambling, just like chess and bridge. I'd like to draw your attention
to a recent Globe article on September 6th, 2025 talking about the uptick in these type of social clubs, mentioning that it's really a game and it's really a social club and a place to unplug from phones while connected to their Chinese culture. Again, this is exactly the scope of business being proposed here. I
would ask the board to be not not to be tainted by many of these underground locations that exist in the Chinatown neighborhood that give a social club like this one a bad rap without even an opportunity. I've read the planning department recommendation and I respectfully disagree. It appears that
recommendation is based upon a concern that these uses could lead into gambling. Well, if that's the case, then many uses being approved by this board could be looked at as potentially leading to gambling, which I personally believe that should not be the basis of their recommendation. This is a conditional use where the code has
already determined that this use is appropriate here. We need only demonstrate that the specific conditions are met. Neighborhood impact. This type of use is already operating at many locations in this neighborhood. Specifically again at 11 Edinburgh Street. These these uses here are
appropriate for this location. It will not adversely affect the neighborhood. Traffic and safety. There will be no hazard to vehicles or pedestrians as the majority of the participants will walk to the location. It will be in harmony with the zoning intent by allowing the community to socialize within their
culture. There will be regulated hours and this will be membership only club. In fact, this is aligned with the imagine Boston 2030 by activating spaces with community oriented uses. No nuisance will be created by such a use that is common in this area. The
applicant will continue to work closely with the community and are committed to ensuring that there will be no gambling associated with these uses. These uses will serve as a genuine neighborhood need while respecting the character of the neighborhood. The social club will serve as a vital cultural function in
Chinatown. Ma Jang is not merely a game, but an integral part of the Chinese social tradition, spanning for centuries, bringing together multiple generations for social connection, mental stimulation, and building communities. Uh, at this point, um, I'm going to turn it back over to you, Madam
Chair, for any questions or comments from the board. >> Thank you. Are there questions from the board? >> Um, yes, I have a question. So, it's a private membership. How does one gain membership? What is the process like? So the membership here would be typical is
just you would apply for a membership and there would be a fee um to become a member itself. Okay. >> Thank you. the I and one to um I would just figure I didn't add in uh the hours of operation for for the for the club would be from 11:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
and then for the pool hall from 3:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m. >> And can you talk about how they will ensure that there's no gambling going on during these ma games? >> So that would have to you know so the tenant itself so the landlord is here
bringing this application on behalf of the two tenants there. So between the the lease agreements that they do have in place u specifically not allowing any sort of gambling. So that would be respectfully out of the tenants obligations to ensure that no gambling
is being conducted on these properties. >> Other questions? >> Have there been have there been issues about gambling at this property in the past? Is there anything there that's could construe one to think there might be gambling? >> Yeah, I mean so Miss Parl, that's a great question. So, a couple of things
in here. Um, so as as we know, there are some of these organizations uh that are underground in Chinatown which give bad raps for social clubs like this. Um, yes. So, back I believe it was prior to the pandemic um is when this work took place. So, the the landlords and the
tenants pulled permits, had a contractor, it was brought to their attention after these uses were put into play um that these uses were not allowed uses within the zoning code. So at that point in time when it was first discovered that they put a stop. I'm not aware of any sort of gambling that was
being associated uh with the proposal during that time period. But what I am disclosing is that they were currently operating. Um and under that current operation once it was discovered they weren't allowed uh to operate those uses. They shut those uses down and closed them down and hence here trying
to legalize the uses uh in front of the board today. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Are there other questions? >> Are there any mam are there any age restrictions for this uh project for this proposed project and also what is
the security plan for the site? >> So I didn't I didn't hear your second part Mr. Valencia of the question. >> Yes. The first one is about age restriction is that for 21 and older and the second one to ensure that there is no gambling. Are you is the project
going to have private security or what is the plan for security? >> So um I I definitely think they could consider some type of security. The security would be with the managers who are um who are who are used to dealing in this type of of business itself to kind of oversee it. Um there as of right
now there is no age restrictions on there primarily uh when it does consist of of the senior citizens in the neighborhood who actually take you know the benefit of you know an organization but again they're not going to discriminate on the actual age but we would consider if it was you know if it
was approved and there was some sort of provisal putting an age an age restriction on there of of you know of joining as far as the membership I'm sure the uh applicant would be happy to to do Thank you. >> I understand. >> Can you hear from the city on this at
some point? >> Let's go through your member testimony. I mean, member questions and we can uh receive them there. >> Understand that what you're saying, Terry Smith. Um are the owners present to speak to this also?
>> Yes. Um I believe so. Alice is I don't think she is. I think Alice and Jack are both logged in under Alice. I think they are I don't think they are able to speak. I think they're just under the participant um list. Let me just I think they're under attendees. Yes, Alice is
here under an attendee and just I mean I could probably try to answer your questions, Mr. Stembridge, as best as possible. >> I just I I just like to hear from them. >> Um no no offense to you for sure. So, so Alice and just just to remind you, so
Alice and Jack are the the landlords here and, you know, they're taking the goodwill of trying to bring the tenants, you know, forward for these uses as as many of these. I mean, as you can see, this building is being vacant, right? Um, at this point, and just trying to bring something that would be beneficial to the neighborhood. But Alice, I think
if we can elevate her to a panelist, that would be great. And while she's being elevated, you're requesting um of relief for a conditional use. And can you can you specify specifically what that uses?
>> So there's two there's two uses here. One is for a social club. >> Social club. Okay. And the other >> that's the one in the basement and then for a pool hall. That's >> okay. So you're asking for relief for the pool hall and the social club. Thank you. Thanks for that clarification.
>> Thank you. Has uh your owner been elevated? >> Is Alise >> Alice? She's not elevated. >> No, we can hear you. There she is. She has
>> Can you hear me now? >> Yes. >> Yes. Mr. Stbridge, you had a specific question for the owners. Um my question is again I'm not doubting what um attorney Spitz is saying but Alice um in terms of you heard you've heard most of
the questioning towards obviously people aren't comfortable that gambling may not occur and we understand it's up to the tenants uh that you assign but um
is that your is that your intention that there will be no gambling um allowed. >> Yes, that is my intention. Um and also you know while it was operating before we shut it down because we knew that it wasn't allowed while it was
operating um my husband and I were very careful you know we um visited the site the business often during during operating hours and we did witness that all the people who went down there they
they were seniors you know we're not talking about you know 18 year olds or younger people but these These are all seniors and most of them it's you know they may be home watching grandchildren so they may be down there just socializing for a couple of hours when
the kids are in school you know that sort of situation. >> Thank you. Any other questions? I mean I I can just make a comment to my to my colleagues um which is the board
can impose a sunset provision um and and you know in regards to the condition of use um setting a duration just to you I think the most important thing is to see if the use is going to impact um the
community and so uh you know whether one is gambling or Now that's that's being regulated by a different commission. That's really not in front of the for us to to decide. You know, we decide on land use. So
that's that's my only comment. >> Thank you. So let's let's go to public testimony. >> Hello, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Eva Jones representing the mayor's office and neighborhood services regarding 25 to 27 Edinburghough Street. Our office defers with the board's judgment. A community
process was conducted, including an ups meeting held on 7725 that was well attended by community members. The feedback from this meeting was significant concern about trash, loitering, and significant opposition to possible gambling concerns that could arise. Additionally, we received a letter in opposition from the Chinatown
Main Streets Association expressing many of the same concerns with the focus on trash disposal and the 2 a.m. closing time and the type of proposal in the residential area. Although attorney Spitz did outline that the uh closing hours were amended. Uh the proposal was also reviewed by the Chinatown
Neighborhood Council on 72125 and the Chinatown Residents Association on 8625. Both of the associations expressed opposition to the proposal and have submitted letters in opposition citing many of the same concerns, including the ongoing issues with gambling in the neighborhood and the 2 a.m. closing
disturbing the residents of an already busy Edinburghough street. At this time, the mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services defers to the board's judgment on this matter. Thank you everyone for your time and consideration. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Next, we have Melissa.
>> Thank you so much. Um, good afternoon, honorable Madame Chair and members of the board. My name is Melissa Low, and I would be speaking on behalf of uh, Councelor Flynn. Councelor Flynn would like to go on record in strong opposition due to feedback from the
Chinatown resident um association, Chinatown Neighborhood Council as well as Chinatown Main Street um who have submitted letters of opposition uh regarding this proposal based on persistent concerns regarding the
potential for gambling issues and activities in Chinatown. Gambling addiction has been a disorder that has long plagued our immigrant communities. While there has been harm reduction efforts in recent years to address this
long-standing concern, residents believe that opening up yet a similar establishment would further bring harm to those struggling. Concerns on city resources and public safety were also highlighted when it comes to issues surrounding late night hours of
operation such as violence and noise disturbances impacting the quality of life for the Chinatown community. On account of these reasons and others, Councelor Flynn remains strongly opposed at this time.
Thank you so much. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Okay, we have another person, Steve. >> Hi, good afternoon everyone. Can everyone hear me? Okay. Okay. >> Yes, sir. >> All right. So, my name is Steven Moy. I'm a lieutenant with Boston Police
Department uh based out of headquarters. Uh prior to that, I was I spent 10 years of my supervis supervisory experience in uh downtown under um district A1. Uh I'm not here to support or oppose, but I am here to um you know, give my the facts
that I as I know of this location. And so back on I'm not sure if people aware that back on November 29th of 2024, we did receive a 911 call regarding a person with a firearm. Uh when officers arrived on scene, they were they talked to the victim who said that they were
inside the pool hall at that time and uh an altercation ensued where uh one of the persons displayed a firearm and and left uh prior to police arrival. um officers did enter um the location and did observe what they believe to be um
the pool hall and some other gambling um going on and they wrote a report and they forward that to our uh licensing division and then on July go ahead is someone talking
>> sorry so then fast forward to July 30th of this year uh Sergeant Detective William Gallagher from our licensing division did um uh did do an investigation. I also had a chance to talk to him as well as instructional services where they uh
based on their observations, they did uh observe what they believed to be uh illegal gambling on the premise and I believe an officer did talk to um I forget which of the lees that they talked to, but there was an admission that there was some gay gambling going
on. Um, so based on that, you know, I do have concerns about how things would proceed moving forward at this location if they were allowed to um be granted um their their permit to go ahead and have
the pool hall and the social club. I strongly believe based on experience and the 10 years I sent spent down Chinatown as the police officer that uh there are better and more productive ways to engage our seniors um as opposed to a ma jang social club or a pool hall. Um so
based on those those facts uh the reports and talking to the investigators involved uh I'm just I'm just here to present that information to the board. >> Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. There are no additional comments.
>> Okay. Uh does the applicant want to respond to the concerns that works for us? >> Yes. Great. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um so I'm not aware, this is the first time I'm aware of any sort of illegal gambling that was that was occurring. Again, um what the officer um spoke
about is when that's when it first became aware that these uses weren't um in fact allowed uses on the property itself. Hence, those businesses were shut down at that point in time. Um, and the reason why we're here today is seeking um we're we're we're seeking
those um those legal to legalize those existing uses now for the conditional use permits. And again, a lot of the stuff is implying uh that gambling could be associated with it. Again, that gambling is not a part of this application that we have here today. So, um with that being said, I'm going to
turn it back over to you, Madam Chair. >> Other questions from the board? hearing none. Is there a motion? >> Um, I'll put for a motion of denial um due to strong community opposition and and some of the historical issues with this property.
>> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Mr. Stebridge. >> Yes. >> Mr. Valencia? >> Yes. >> Miss Turner? Yes,
>> Miss Better Brazza. >> I'm going to vote yes due to again the concerns of uh community opposition for this project. >> Mr. Collins, >> yes. >> Miss Ponado, >> yes.
>> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Happy Thanksgiving to everyone. >> Happy Thanksgiving. >> Happy Thanksgiving to everyone as well. >> Happy Thanksgiving. Happy Thanksgiving. >> Happy Thanksgiving. Vote. >> Happy Thanksgiving. Bye-bye.
>> Recording stopped.