##VIDEO ID:Cu7H7mY9grM## e e e e city of Boston Zoning Board of appeal hearing for October 29 24 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 last year the new law allows the board to continue its practice of holding virtual hearings until March 2025 this hearing of the board is being held remotely via the zoom webinar event platform this hearing is also being live streamed 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 the hearing is listed on today's hearing agenda which is posted on the Public Notices page of the city's website boston.gov members of the public will enter the virtual hearing as attendees which means you will not see yourself on the screen and you will be muted throughout unless administratively unmuted when asked to comment board members applicants and their attorneys or Representatives will participate in 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 com 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 platform click it again and your hand should go down when the host sees your hand you will receive a request to unmute yourself select yes and you should be able to talk if you are connected to the hearing by telephone please press press star 9 to raise and lower your hand you must press star six to unmute yourself after you receive the request from the host those called upon to comment will be asked to State their name and address first and then can provide their comment in the interest of time and to ensure that you have enough time to do so please raise your hand as soon as Mr stbridge reads the address into the record do not raise your hand before the relevant address is called or the meeting host will not know to call on you at the appropriate time Mr strid good morning Madam shair president good morning uh Mr Valencia good morning mam shair pres good morning Miss weell good morning Madam chair president good morning Mr Akin morning Madam chair I'm present good morning uh Mr Collins morning Madam chair present good morning Miss pado good morning Madam chair of President good morning the floor is yours Mr stbridge you madam chair uh we'll begin with the approval of hearing minutes from October 8th of this year um make a motion that we accept the minutes there a second approve the second Mr stbridge yeah Mr Valencia sorry yes Miss weell yes Mr Aken yes Mr Collins yes Miss pado yes chair also votes yes the motion carries next we have extensions gr scheduled from 9:30 a.m. um I'll read all of the extensions in one by one uh then request a motion for them uh all of them will to be in order asking for onee extensions so if we have any questions um feel free to ask once we get through case boa 126 6818 with the address of 12 to 12a Hudson Street case boa 133 9772 with the address of 33 Davidson street case boa 1041 086 with the address of 24 Spalding Street case boa 7991 147 with the address of 30 Bor Street case b 8134 1344 with the address of 635 H Park Avenue and finally we have case boa 126 8377 with the address of 594 East 7 Street any questions from the board yeah chair I'm sorry yes quickly I just wanted to maybe understand uh 30 Thorn Street is coming for its fifth extension uh just seems a lot of extensions wonder if there's any material update attorney zazula are you on yes I am sorry I'm having trouble with my camera um uh Mr Aken but I had a feeling you were going to ask a question so I was on for the extension um it's a great question the update is you're right um we we are asking for another extension um the project was originally approved in 2018 but it went through a notice a project change in 2022 right after Co or during the end of Co um to change some of the the building programming un to things like that so from the NPC it's actually only the second extension but overall you are corrected is the fifth um they have been kind of working and and watching interest rates they appear to be lowering finally construction costs to be out off their Peak levels as well and they're they're working on getting the GC and collecting bids from area contractors to you know basically assess the current pricing requirements to begin construction they do want to build it um it's just it's obviously taken a while to get to a place that's feasible um so that that's kind of the update um happy to you know answer questions but they they are working on it thank you if there are no further questions is there a motion to Grant the extensions as requested second okay Mr stbridge yes Mr Valencia yes Miss weell yes Mr Aken yes Mr [Music] Collins sorry yes thank you Miss pado yes chair votes yes the motion carries next week we'll move on to board final Arbiter hearing this is for case boa 14295 07 with the address of 1028 to 1044 Blue Hill Avenue if the applicant Andor their representative or present will they please explain yes thank you very much good morning chair dong good morning members of the board my name is Hannah kilson I'm here as councel to DVM Consulting Corporation um and blue hill ownership LLC for this board of final aitor request we're just requesting a minor modification to a project that you approved um back in April of 2023 uh due to two conditions on the ground that necessitate a slight adjustment to the building footprint um one relates to uh a trans eversource Transformer requirements which uh after assessing the site uh during pre-construction determined that we needed to provide an above ground uh transformer for the energy needs of the project uh the location of that Transformer necessitates a a movement of the building foot uh footprint uh back from the south uh border of the project the southeast corner but also upon the conveyance of the property uh to uh DVM in May of this year it was determined that there was a substantial encroachment by and butter uh onto the site uh necessitating moving uh the the Bild footprint back uh an add additional point of of 10 ft in order to accommodate uh that encroachment uh DVM and the mayor's office for housing spent some time this spring in attempt to consult with the abutter in order to uh reach a resolution for Access for the construction development that needed to be done and um and having been unsuccessful really determined uh that the best course of action was to reconfigure the building uh in order to be able to uh mitigate the financial impact uh of the situation avoid litigation around an adverse possession claim and move the project forward this um adjustment does not change the number of units in the development this is a 12 unit development as part of a large overall larger project uh that is being Advanced under the Blu Hill Avenue action plan for the B1 project but it does result in an adjustment of the unit minuts um we think this is di Minimus as it doesn't create any new non-conformity um uh that then uh already exists I think in our submission we provided you with a zoning comparison table uh which reflects uh that the uh impact uh in this project is a red reduction uh in a minimum side yard from 5T to 3 ft uh but that is uh there's no minimum sidey yard in this District uh and so there's no greater non-conformity being created you graded us variance around a number of dimensional issues back in May um April of 2023 and so we request uh a determination that this is a Dom Minimus change that doesn't require further zoning relief and that these design plans which have been approved by the mayor's office for housing and been reviewed by the the uh plan reviewer uh be accepted and we be allowed to obtain our build comment thank you any questions from the board is there a motion I I make a motion of approval I requested is there a second second Mr stbridge yeah Mr Valencia yes M yes Mr Aken yes Mr Collins yes Miss pado yes the chair votes yes the motion carries good luck thank you very much next we have groundwater conservation over the district hits this this is case boa 164 5114 with the address of 179 West Brook L street if the applicant and or their representative of presid would they please explain hi it's Marcus Springer from Springer Architects 46 walam Street Courtyard 1 Boston M 02118 please proceed any uh so this project involves the comprehensive renovation of 1850s Brownstone in the South End uh and restoration of the facade there this triggered the gcod uh rule so that there was a gcod installed in 2013 so that first slide so first slide is the refusal letter and the second slide is the original approval of the 2013 system uh and then the the following drawings are of that system that was installed then um we have uh updated the drawing to include uh the full sprinkler system which we are installing in the in the renovation along with a fire alarm system and we did discover uh during our project that one of the roof drains was not uh attached to the gcod so we are doing that so this is the new drawing um you can see the sprinkler line coming in uh from the street as well as the new drain line to the gcod uh the uh the this strategy was approved Again by Boston Water and Sewer you can see that letter uh and as well as a no harm letter from the civil engineer thank you any questions from the board is Mr selli on yes madame chair good morning Christian simel good morning uh members of the board Madame chair Christian simell Boston gr I want to trust we do have both gcard letters from the applicant and we do also have the updated Boston Water and approval letter from the applicant as well uh we did reach out to the applicant that uh it did need to be revised uh he worked with us and went to water abur to get the system revised and the updated letter great thank you thank you thank you with that may I have a motion motion to approve is there a second second Mr stbridge yes Mr Valencia yes Miss weo yes Mr Aken yes Mr Collins yes Miss pado yes chair votes yes the motion carries thank you next we have recommendations from the recent subc commit hearing excuse me on on the 24th I'll read through all of them if the result and then we'll ask for a motion we begin with case boa 16145 65 with the address of 36 rocken rocken road that that was approved next we have case boa1 161 3879 with the address of 42 3 to 45 Wood Avenue that case would deferred until December 5th case bo8 161 1785 with the address of 105 Odin Avenue that case was approved and finally we have case bo8 16210 90 with the address of 22 parent Street that case was deferred for a full Board hearing scheduled for November 26th and those are the cases from the subcomittee here mam chair may I have a motion I'll make a motion to approve the recommendations may have a second second Mr stbridge yeah Mr Valencia yes Miss we yes Mr yes Mr Collins yes Miss canado yes chair votes yes the motion carries next we'll move on to the hearing scheduled for 9:30 a.m. at this time we'll ask if there are any requests for withdrawal or deferral from this time frame uh yes Mr secretary Madam chair yes oh who was that first was that Mr Barosa or uh first was attorney Kyle Smith okay uh the first called matter on the 9:30 docket boa number 164 3116 property address 13 windship Street uh bear with me as I repeat that provoked that would be case bo8 164 3116 with the address of 131 ship Street would you go ahead and pleas yes sir uh so we concluded a second presentation before the Bia on September the 12th we represented to them with some changes and updates to site plan and building configuration in light of the prior requests of the Bia uh concluding the baa meeting on the 12th of September we did obtain a vote of non- opposition from them we've updated our plans we' res submitted them back to uh ISD for their further review um we had a St uh an a site plan that had not been stamped our fault that's been updated we also had our plans examiner who was uh out of uh or out of office for a little period of time so we're slightly delayed in having ISD further review but we should be ready to represent before the board um in the very shorter of time okay Samantha do youate um good morning morning Madam chair we have December 3rd and December 10th as options just we will take the soon available okay may I have a motion motion to defer to December 3rd is there a second okay Mr stbridge yeah Mr Valen yes Miss we yes Mr Aken yes Mr Collins yes Miss pado yes chair votes yes motion carries see you then thank you kindly any further request for withdrawal to deferral from the S uh yes this is Andrew Melton Melton Frey Architects yeah I was second on that list I had mention um right after the okay Mr Barbosa and then Mr Melton thank you very much appreciate I'm requesting deferral for 93 Howard Avenue so that would be for Cas Goa 161 5071 with the address of 93 Howard Avenue would you go ahead and explain for it just we're requesting um a later date uh hopefully after January 2025 um just out of respect for my neighbor to the left of me um with uh in regards to size of the building okay uh Samantha do you want to offer some dates um if you could just give me one minute to double check our 2025 dates second sure how far into 2025 are you requesting Mr Rosa January should be fine okay she needs to pull up 2025 hold on a second um Madam chair we could do January 14th or January 28th Mr mosa January 14th works okay may I have a motion motion to defer until January 14 2025 is there a second second Mr stbridge yeah Mr Valencia yes Miss weo yes Mr Akin yes Mr Collins yes Miss panado yes chair votes yes the motion carries to you then thank you colleagues Mr mton uh yes Madam chair thank you um we'd like uh to request a deferral uh for 36 afron Street uh it's a case boa 159 we'll read it into the record thank you Mr Case boa 159 1 1933 with the address of 36 Street go ahead Mr uh yes the reason for the deferral uh we submitted uh the uh um stamped drawings less than 14 days from today um so um the plan examiner plan examiner at ISD uh wasn't able to get the drawings back to zba uh that's the request for the deferral okay and how far out are you looking uh earliest date possible that would be appreciated okay December 3rd uh December 3rd that would be that would be great may I have a motion sorry go ahead sorry motion to to December 3rd thank you second second Mr stbridge yes Mr Valencia yes Miss weo yes Mr Akin yes Mr Collins yes Miss pado yes chair V yes motion carry see you then thank you m chair and again any further request for withdrawals of deferrals from the 93 time frame if not we will then move on move on to the second case for 9:30 case boa 160 9149 with the address of 50 Street Bonia Avenue if the applicant Andor a representative of presid would they please find the case to the board good morning Madam chair members of the board my name is Matthew Panino I'm here to talk to you about my house at 56 Bostonia have in Brighton um this is house where I reside with my wife and uh family um I can just run through the list of violations um the first violation is lot area insufficient uh the lot is 4,50 Ft um it's in a 1f 5000 Zone um the second violation is lot width insufficient um Lots 45 by 90 which is identical to every other lot on the street I believe the lot width needed it is 50 uh next violation floor area ratio excessive uh it's .5 allowed um I'm increasing to 85 um next violation Building height uh two and a half stories are allowed um I am uh requesting three stories um next violation side yard insufficient uh the side yard setback is set at 10 on either side I'm going off the current setback which is six um so I'm not actually changing the footprint of the uh of that setback and the last one is rear yard ins sufficient um 40 ft is required and I'm proposing uh 30 ft okay thank you other questions from the board hearing none may have public testimony Madam chair members of the board sigy Johnson with the office of Neighborhood Services our office hosted in a Butters meeting on the 20th of June at which no concerns were raised the applicant additionally presented at the Brighton Alon Improvement Association the active Civic group in this area they voted to support this proposal with that background we defer to the Judgment of the board thank you thank you any other raised hands person put their hand down I don't see any additional raised hands Madam chair thank you with that may I have a motion motion to approve there a second second Mr stbridge yes Mr Valencia yes Miss weell yes Mr Akin yes Mr Collins yes Miss pado yes CH vot yes motion carries good luck thank you next we have case boa 63 8069 with the address of 358 chest Hill Avenue this is an article 8 case and if the applicant and or the representative of present would they please explain yes thank you Mr stbridge good morning Madam chair members my name is George morancey I'm an attorney with the business address of 350 West Broadway in South Boston Madam chair members this um is an article 80 project as Mr stbridge indicated for a new six-story mixed use building situated at 358 Chestnut Chestnut Hill Avenue in Brighton uh this matter was approved by the board on June 4th of this year uh the reason why it is back is that um as I was drafting the written decision of the board it came to my attention that there was a missing zoning violation on the issued refusal letter uh and much to my shrin it's uh quite U an obvious missing violation the refusal letter did not cite violation for the building's height um the fact fact of the matter is that this is a six-story building approximately uh 67 1/2 ft uh in the zoning sub District that it is in has a maximum height limit of 35 ft so uh without going through the entire presentation again I would incorporate by reference my testimony provided on June 4th for the project uh all of the relief besides that hyped uh variance uh was previously granted the purpose of this hearing is is uh therefore of course to uh add in the uh the missing violation and seek the uh necessary variance for the height violation of this previously approved project thank you are there questions from the board hearing none may have public testimony yes Madam chair members of the board Conor with the mayor's office of Neighborhood Services this time mayor's off to defer to the Judgment of this board as the applic representation mentioned uh this previously went through a bbda Le Community process uh over the course of uh 20123 uh before being board approved uh February 15th 2024 uh they secured Brighton Altin Improvement Association support which was the active Civic group in that area um with some residents feeling that this would be uh an improvement over the current building that is there of course as is the case there was some concerns raised during the community process regarding height and whatnot but if that will defer to the board at this time thank you thank you I don't see any additional raise hands Madam chair thank you with that may I have a motion motion of approval I have second second Mr stbridge yes Mr Valencia yes M weell yes Mr Aken yes Mr Collins yes Miss pado yes chair votes yes the motion carries thank you next we have two companion cases the first being case boa 5820 82 with the address of 165 Park Park Drive along with that we have case boa 15820 79 with the address of 165r Park dve these are both article 80 cases and if the applicant and their representative present will they please explain to the board hi my name is uh Paula Deo and I'm here on behalf of Holy Trinity Orthodox Cathedral um Rock N gavic um sorry rock natovich is also here on behalf of the cathedral I'm not sure if you can see him but he would like to also um testify if he could um but let me start off these are two companion cases um Jay samansky will go through what the presentation is um there are two separate board of appeals because um ISD looks at this as two separate Lots even though it's not going to be a separate lot um these will be um on the same lot and that's where some of the relief comes in that I'll get to later um but I wanted to have jay walk you through the property and um the proposed development so Jay you want to take over sure thanks Paula uh my name is Jason mansy I'm an architect with the architectural team We Are The Architects for the project um on slide one you can see the existing site plan uh so the the subject site is located on the corner of Park Drive in karik Street in the Fenway neighborhood um currently on site is the Holy Trinity Orthodox Cathedral that will remain uh to the rear of the site is an underutilized surface parking lot which we propos to um build a sstory um Residential Building uh I do want to note on this first slide as you look down K Marik Street our property line actually vears off at an angle um so that triangle of land between our site and Kil Marik is actually not not part of our site um next slide please so these are some existing photos of the site uh top left you can see the existing Cathedral again that will remain in place um bottom left is a view from Park Drive looking into the parking lot and you'll note there's a a significant amount of large mature trees that will remain uh and will provide a a screen or buffer to our new building uh top right is an image of that parking lot that I mentioned that triangular piece of property so we're looking through that parking lot into our site Beyond and bottom right is a view another view from Park Drive looking at the Cathedral in the existing surface parking lot uh you'll also note that the elevation of the cathedral in the parking lot is 6 or 7 ft below the surrounding sidewalk so our building will be set um a little bit lower than the the surrounding next slide um so what we're proposing to build again is a seven-story building it's it's labeled here as building one and building two but it's in fact one building um we have a single Podium so on the ground floor will be parking uh mechanical space bike storage and lobbies to two towers that will rise up above this combined Podium uh what we're showing is building one will include um uh affordable uh for sale units 48 in total and then building two will include 69 market rate rental units so a total of 117 units um for parking we're proposing uh eight surface parking spaces and 34 spaces within the garage for a total of 42 parking spaces next slide so this shows our proposed site plan on the right you can see the Cathedral on the corner and then our u-shaped uh proposed building to the rear of the site and Associated surface parking um on the left of this slide you can see the um uh the zoning chart which calls out all the dimensional dimensional requirements um which we meet all of those requirements we can go through them if you'd like but generally uh everything we meet the F the building height the usable space for dwelling units front yard rear yard um in the rear yard occupied by accessory buildings next slide so this um just demonstrates the height of the buildings again this is a section taken through Kil Marik street so you can see how our site is below the surrounding Street um so uh the building height measures 74 ft 10 in uh using the definition of um measured from average grade to the top of the highest um structure of the main roof next slide um so we did go through the the gcod so these were the drawings that were submitted so this is the plan and then it's followed by a couple detail Sheets if you go to the next slide in the next next slide and this is the approval letter based on that um that submission next slide please so these are just a couple uh renderings of the proposed this first one is taken from Park Drive you can see the cathedral in the foreground um those mature trees to the left of the slide and then our proposed building to the rear next slide so this is taken a little bit further down Kil Marik Street and you can see how the the site slopes down into the first level um in the two kind of separate towers that I described the one in the foreground would be the affordable for sale units and the one in the rear is the market rate rental units next slide so this image is taken from Park Drive here you can see those trees that provide some buffer and screening for the um the proposed building that's on the rear of the site and the church remains as a sort of focal point uh front and center next slide so that that actually concludes our presentation we did we did include all the floor plans in this uh as well as the elevations should any questions come up um but I don't think there's any need to to go through those IND individually unless any the board members would like to do that thank you are there questions from the board uh question Madam chair comments uh there were comments from the Boston transportation department um the commment themselves to remove spaces 4 and two for proper maneuverability I didn't know if any if anyone was here from the CH BTD uh that was for 358 Chestnut H right we're we're on uh we're on 165 Park my my apolog M here no worries any other questions from the board Madam chair I have a question if no other board members have any um I have two actually so one I'm curious about the program um what was the rationale for affordable home ownership units and rental market rate um so I think it struck me that they were separate um but that sort of makes sense of their one's home ownership one's rental and two how will the parking be assigned with 34 spaces and sort of the number of units exceeding [Music] that um I can answer the parking will be shared with the church and the residential so it it's not really assigned per se um you know Space by space uh but one of the um relief mechanisms that um article 66 of Fenway neighborhood District gives the board is the right to Grant a conditional use permit for shared parking where um the board can find that a reduction in sparking parking spaces is warranted um given the nature of the uses and here with affordability um with a large it's 41% affordable um there's been um a recognition in the city that um the affordable units aren't aren't required to have spaces so the applicant believes that they'll be able to program and um and utilize the spaces to work out for both the marade and the resarch thank you any other questions oh sorry I just wanted to ask more about the decision of rental home ownership and Market affordable um I think it was more it it was more to um go to the actual constructibility and the ability to get financing to do both um there's um this uh the affordable is taking advantage of um an uh another development that was approved I think it was approved by the bo I'm not sure if it was board approved by the board of appeals and the bpda or the planning department um but it um will take advantage of some offsite contributions for the affordable from 1400 bson street so uh that project and um it was seen as this unit mix was kind of the most um financeable if you will um and to do a a fair amount of affordable housing here 41% is a lot of affordable housing and the cathedral I know was very um anxious to have a development on what they considered sort of a back parcel and underutilized parcel that really um uh helped alleviate the affordability issues that the Fenway is fac okay thank you for that may I have public testimony yes Madam chair members of the board Conor Newman with the mayor's office of neighborhood services at this time the mayor's officing to defer to the Judgment of this board uh this went through a lengthy BPA Community process starting back in 2022 before being board approved by the BPA uh August 17th of 20123 uh that public process involved uh both public meeting as well as uh meetings with the ieg um there was Community Support regarding uh affordable home ownership being offered in the neighborhood um the applicant uh worked closely with with mem members of the iig uh to create deed restrictions to ensure that those uh affordable condos would be owner occupied um as part of their deed restrictions uh and they did meet and connect with the Fenway civic association uh with that would refer to the board at this time thank you thank you Mr selli good morning Madam chair members of the board Christian selli Boston gr trust and we have both keycard letters from the applicant okay roock yes can you hear me um yes so my name is Rock anovich I'm here on behalf of the cathedral itself uh the cathedral is the property owner for the current petitions a number of years ago the parish uh expanded its mission to investigate providing affordable housing to the fen neighborhood uh we subsequently selected th uh Acquisitions as our partner to develop our parcel uh that to include 48 new affordable home ownership units which on a residential square footage basis it's actually 46% of the of the total uh wanted to emphasize the cathedral will continue to fully operate and service the community while sharing the site with these new residential buildings and the cathedral and its parishioners respectfully ask for your support of these petitions thank you thank you any other raised hands I don't see any additional raised hands Madam chair thank you uh may I have a motion make a motion to approve with continued second Mr stri yes Mr Valencia yes a great project and happy to I'm happy to support Miss Miss weell yes Mr Aken yes Mr ollins yes Miss pado yes chair votes yes motion carries good luck thank you thank you next we have two two more companion cases first being case boa 165 0371 with the address of 103 Burke Street along with that we have case bo8 165 0369 with the address of 99 Albano street it's the applicant and their representative of pres will they please explain to the board yes good morning Madam chair members of the board attorney Nick suula mcder quy Miller Hanley in Boston uh here on behalf of Tanya Pano the property owner and her husband uh venzo de Mayo with me today is our architect uh Derek rubenoff uh who you know um from uh appearing before the board um next slide please and uh this is good the team info I just wanted to um just relate that you know Tanya does have roots in the neighborhood in the property um you can see here some information uh her father purchased the property in 1976 when they immigrated from Italy they lived there until 1986 they then sold it she purchased it back in 2011 uh completely renovated the existing two fames that's on the property uh over 2 years and her brother uh and his family still live in that uh tube family uh next slide please this is just a project location as you can see uh the lot itself uh is approximately 6,65 Square ft uh it is on the corner of Albano in Bird Street in Rosendale it is a few blocks off of Washington Street um and the proposal is to subdivide the property into two separate Parcels maintain the existing two family that's there now on a separate lot and build a new single family on the new lot uh next slide please this is just some context you could see the existing two family home in white uh on the left hand side of most of these photos um and at various points on the corner of Albano in Burke Street and you can see also here uh the corner um uh of um Albano and Birch where the proposed new single family is proposed to be constructed Ed uh next slide please uh this is a summary of the project um The Proposal will subdivide the over overall lot again into two uh the new lot will be uh 3300 Square ft about and the existing two family will remain on its separate lot of approximately uh 2800 square ft um you can see on the right some of the project metrics uh although this is a single family proposal uh originally we did propose a uh a two family uh this is a to f5000 Zone um this has been significantly reduced to this uh to this proposal today for a single family um from 2023 this was in direct response to you know neighborhood and community outreach and so what's being proposed today again is a new single family building uh for Tanya and her husband and for her three kids to move into um the revised proposal in front of you has been reduced by over 1,000 square ft or about 32% % and the F has been reduced from a. n to a 6 which is proposed what's allowed is a .5 um and the project will retain two off street parking spaces for the new single family home uh which you'll see in one of the next slides uh next slide please um this is just again just to show the iterations of the project the difference in the site plan between that 20232 family project on the left and the 2024 single family project that's in front of the board today as you can see on the right uh the side yard setback uh with the site's only direct uh separately owned a butter is at 97 Birch has been doubled from 10 ft which is what's required by zoning to 20 ft which has double the zoning requirement of that 10 ft in the building as you can see here has been pulled back off the corner off Albano uh to allow for more plantings invisibility um from the original proposal and it is approximately 182t off the rear property line uh which is what it shares with the existing team fan uh next slide please this is just a continuation as you can see kind of of the previous slide again showing in red here um the previous proposed building footprint and now the currently proposed iteration of both buildings both buildings plan to use an existing curve cut along Albano you can see here in the middle that is an existing kind of double wide driveway in between the Parcels so they would both have their own driveways for off street parking the idea here is this was kind of seen as a natural lot subdivision Point uh in order to avoid requiring a new curb cut in order to avoid taking up any other uh permeable space um by adding a new driveway so the idea here is to utilize that existing driveway uh for parking for both um for both Parcels the driveway is about 60 ft uh in length so you do have the opportunity to have two vehicles even three depending on the type of vehicle um next slide please very quickly this is just a proposed floor plans you can see the basement floor plan on the left the first floor plan on the right uh with an open concept first floor again this is a single family there is no garage um so the idea was to leave the basement unfinished uh for storage they have three kids and all the uh things that go with them so the idea is to have this to be a large storage area for um for all of that uh next slide uh second floor and attic planes again left and right proposals for five bedrooms and four and a half baths um for the for the single Fame next slide um this is just a massing in 3D views of the proposed new building from various uh Vantage points and how it fits in the neighborhood um I'm sure the board has uh seen the planning board recommendation of approval um but they do talk about kind of a consistent rhythm of residential buildings and the lack of a residential structure at this corner lot kind of providing a visible Gap in the street wall and inconsistency in the public realm again this is a corner lot on Albano and Birch and you know planning board did mention this that you know building housing at this new uh vacant lot to be subdivided um you know is fitting with the surrounding residential context in use and in form you know as an infi development that is consistent with the broader uh residential neighborhood character uh next slide only a couple more slides Madam chair I'm trying to be as efficient as possible but this slide U very quickly shows the difference in zoning relief between the 2023 on the left and the 2024 on the right uh it is an allowed allowed use you do not need zoning Bel the building height uh we are more than double the side yard set that compliance uh at 20 ft and of course I'm happy to go through each of these uh if the board would like us to do so during Q&A um I will say it is a unique corner lot uh area that is right for infi development the zoning relief we think is the minimum necessary to accomplish the purpose of this new single family home uh and again don't need the use don't need the building height and we're also compliant with uh open space as well uh next slide again this is just a zoning chart um Madam Ambassador can can zoom in a little bit if she wants but or he wants but happy to go through this I think you know floor area ratio we do need relief for that but it is a 6 versus the allowable .5 and the other thing I'll highlight is two of the six variances that we need are for off street parking uh amount insufficiency and the design and maneuvering of it due to the tan uh parking program but this is a single family home uh the driveway style parking is Common Place in Rosendale uh for single family homes the idea here again was to minimize the need for uh any existing new curb cut while maximizing you know open space uh at the ground equipment um next slide and we wanted to include this we are here for a companion case uh we do need zoning relief as well for 99 Albano Street uh this is that two family to remain on that on that lot uh that's there now there's no other changes to the two family at 99 Albano um it will remain a two family no expansion or other changes the zoning relief is needed here uh because the lot subdivision makes it insufficient uh for uh next slide I think is the final slide Madam chair I'll just end by saying uh we did meet with the West Village neighborhood association uh they submitted no objection to the plans um as I mentioned the planning recommendation which you're aware of was approval with provisos and um there is opposition to the project we did uh Eva has it stand today as a single family however you can see we made a lot of revisions to try and accommodate the comments we heard in 2023 we've also submitted a plethora and a large amount of our own support letters uh from rosale residents so I know that was a lot of information I'll stop here happy to answer any questions um that you or the board might have and thank you madam chair you're on you're on mute sorry I so long you muted yourself I apolog apologies apologies no no no I was coughing so um apology you you had mentioned the F uh you're going from 0.5 to 6 and what about so what about the front yard and the rear yard so what is the what what is it going from to from you know what to what from the revisions yeah I mean from what's allowed to what you have absolutely you said the front yard and the rear yard yes I'm just looking at your violations yes mam Shar so the front yard is insufficient we are on a corner lot um because uh we are in Albano in Birch um we did push the building over as much as we could away from that direct the butter uh to the side um we actually are modal so we were a little surprised that we got cited for front yard because modal setback is we we calulated about 7 ft for the existing block alignment and we're at 9.3 ft at Birch and 7.9 ft at Albano so we would be uh compliant with the Modo setback um although we are there is a 20ft setb back requirement um for front yard without the motor um as far as rear yard 40 is required um we are at 18 1/2 ft proposed again this is to the subdivided lot line um and it's with our own our own property our own two family and that 18 and 1/2 ft is just to the the lot line in the middle of the driveway there's another 10 plus feet from there uh to the building the existing two family doing okay questions from the board I have a question Madam chair um can you describe what type of screening is proposed along Birch Street I saw the recommendation about the window well and I'm just wondering you know will it be well screened or you know more on that uh yeah Derek I think Derek's our project AR Tech Derek do you want to uh discuss that a little bit yeah sure thanks so much it's derck Ruben off from d off AR 82 Spring Street in West rockberry um as you can see in the image in front of you at the bottom right there um we were allowing um some natural light into the basement even though the basement's storage uh be good to get some natural light into that corner of the basement so uh as you can see in the rendering here on the bottom right we're proposing a series of shrubs um both uh in front of that proposed window well and then carrying kind of around to the left and uh in the back so um we'll submitting um a landscape plan um along with uh um the rest of our drawings as if the project is to move forward um and I think it's also important to note that the the project is proposed for very large uh existing sidey to 99 Albano that's um really just all grass right now with a fence around it partial height fence and so the proposed house actually only sits on a little over 25% of that grass yard yard that's there right now to to um to uh to the right of the driveway if you were looking back in plan so the relative footprint of the house is is pretty small compared to the size of that grass yard it's not in a Wetlands uh it's not in a um flood zone or anything like that so really we're just um building on a grass yard here proposing to anyway thank you other questions as we yes Mr aen couple um Can the proponent just talk a little bit about the you know we've had a little bit of a conversation with f but can we talk a little bit about hear a little about the size of the house gri footage wise compared to some of the uh other neighbor neighbor homes um and also hear a little bit about uh you know the parking plan uh because of course you know these two things seem to be uh big piece of uh neighborhood concerns yeah I think I can answer Derek why don't I answer quickly the um the the question about um the parking um you know I think Mr Aken it's a good question I know the the planning board recommendation ofal did include design review to look at parking which of course we're happy to do um it just was a natural Point um to again I know I mentioned it throughout the the presentation it was a natural kind of point to subdivide the lot so both Parcels could continue to use a curve cut as we know you know any new curve cut in the city is looked at very specifically and and and highlight so we didn't want to do that um I think again this is a single family um so you know the idea would be you know right now they have they there's two adults and three kids uh the kids do not have cars yet they're they just had a newborn a few months ago um so we got a little bit of time till then uh but the idea would be you know when you own a single family you have two cars or three that there's a relationship there to be able to work out the parking um the idea with the two families again it would it would be worked out um the same way um you know this is a two family and a two family Zone and a single family and a single family in a two family Zone um and you know the the the if I didn't mention it the idea is for the two family uh at 99 Albano to remain in the ownership of of her family so they would be able to work on all that program from a parking perspective is it perfect no but it's a pretty common occurrence in the area and you know especially if it's in the same family should even work out the parking parts being able to move uh around um but understood that you know we we're we're looking hopefully looking forward to working on that with be with the planning department from a design perspective uh to get into the best case sary um as far as the size um you know Derek I don't know if we'd looked at that um again we do need an F variance uh it is 6 in the 0.5 which is um you know not not in a not a a crazy amount of relief required um but I think you know it's it's it's a new it's a new uh construction so I'm assuming it is probably a little build bigger than some of the buildings some of the existing single and two families around us but it's not substantially bigger than the two family next door uh on 99 Albano um Derek do you have anything to add on the the thanks Nick the the footprint of the house is 830 Square ft um and if you were to take a look at the other houses around there that's well within reasons probably less than than a lot of the surrounding houses we have singles twos even a three family Ross the street so there's a good variety of of mix and as I mentioned earlier um on the proposed subdivided law the footprints only 25% of the lot I think I think DK just to be clear I think the house is what probably about a little under 2,000 sare feet under 2000 uh the gross floor area that's proposed is 2,183 and that includes a finished attic and and finishing just a small portion of the basement most of the basement the large the vast majority of the basement will remain unfinished so you know it's two and a half story with a finished attic yeah and and I would just say the final and not to keep answer answering the same question I mean they are kind of building this for themselves and they do have three kids so I think the idea is right they're building it for their own use how they would like to use it and that's part of the part of the equation too thank you other questions from the board hearing none may have public testimony Madam chair members of the board for the record my name is Jeremy bbery I am the Rend Community engagement specialist for the office of Neighborhood Services the applicant has completed the community process which consisted of an abers meeting held on July 16th where all the BS were opposed to The Proposal with the exception of one supporter uh the major concern being the size of the property to the size of the lot uh neighborhood density was brought up as a concern potential environmental impact uh potential impact on the water table parking again uh and the building height the opponent then met with the rest of Village neighborhood association where they voted neutral our office has received 66 letters of support and 16 letters of opposition as well as a petition in opposition with 42 signatures uh thank you for your time in the mayor's office of Neighborhood Services would like to defer to the board for the thank you madam chair I have seven raised hands and we did have a lot of um comments in the chat as well yes thank you for that then uh please please be brief so we can get through everyone Charlene I sent a message to unmute you hi can you hear me yeah you state your name and address for the record yes it's Carol Rosen swag 97 Birch Street I live with Charlene Grant and we are the property next door uh the one that's most likely to be affected by any new construction the five-bedroom house would run parallel to ours essentially blocking our light and our air and our view from from the kitchen would be the house up front and the parking lot I'm a little concerned about um several things on this but one is I can't think that we can make this personal about Tanya and her family and whether her family's going to live in it and whether her family's going to keep the other house in there and keep the compound Tanya is lovely we knew her when she um was there and uh she was renting to other people so this is not personal and it's not about her lovely family um but it's about our neighborhood and how long we will all stay here and who will it go to next and while it's listed as a one family house it sure seems likely to be a two family two units house soon this house this lot is 10% larger than my lot and anyone that I have suggested that you does not think I should even have a small new house in my backyard that that's how out of whack this construction is proposed this process I find a bit confusing I missed the fact that there was a planning board that we did not have any input in and I don't know who signed the solicit uh who signed in support of the architect solicitation to people in Rosendale but I do know that it was a little bit misleading we keep talking about this 6 F my match show it's a 66 which would Round Up in anybody's math class to 7 it's not please wrap up we have others who wish to speak yes I would wrap up and I think some of my neighbors would yield me their time I know you're the experts on this but there are 57 people that signed and were submitted to you that they are the experts on the street they're the ones that walk their dogs by they're the ones that try to park we're the ones that know this neighborhood and know that this is not the right proposal for this neighborhood that are um that this is not a modest home that was suggested in the architect in his solicitation the people who signed this 57 people they saw the plans they had opportunity to review the letters of they're thank you ma'am I I would like to hear from others can I just let me just finish my sentence please they're the ones that are in the neighborhood of the people that are be required to be notified of this so please take note and I implore you to listen to the local experts on the ground thank you ma'am Alan I sent a message to unmute you hi thank you my name is Alan Wright I am uh speaking uh not in taking a position on this um and I'm saying that because I'm a board member of the neighborhood association the West Village nebor neighborhood association I just want to make clear that the neighborhood association does not take positions on development proposals rather we provide a form the uh architect presenting this suggested that there was no opposition from the neighborhood association that is not the case we did not take a vote because we have a policy of not taking votes thank you so noted so noted thank you am I am I allowed to speak to that uh I would like to get through the comments and then we will Circle back to the applicant Robert hi good morning um hopefully you can hear me my name is Robert Orman I live at 11 I live at 112 Rosendale Avenue so U around the corner about a block down the street or so um I'm in full support of the project uh Tanya is is my cousin I've known her a long time this would enable her and her young family to move back to the neighborhood um these are people that are known to the neighborhood they've lived here before they've been good landlords I've attended um there's been a lot of meetings on this I've attended uh some of them and I feel that they've made very significant accommodations um at the request of folks obviously some of my neighbors are opposed and I certainly respect their opposition but I think as someone that lives very close to the site I think this is a very reasonable um proposition at this point and this is the kind of housing we should be encouraging to let a young family U Move and invest themselves in Rosendale thank you for your time B who speaking hi my name is Sam Schneiderman I live directly across the street from 99 albo Street I want to go on record as being clear that I believe this project is being misrepresented um I could talk through 10 minutes of the opposition the people that were being sir can you speak up I could go on for a while on the reasons why this is not going to work for this neighborhood um but the people who are directly affected by this have posted in the chat and comments are there so iore you will read the chat the biggest problem that we most of us have with this um aside from the scale of this being outrageous is the impact that we're going to have on parking and the emergency vehicle access which is already a problem here in the winter this is also not going to be a single family if you look at this um you will see that there is in the basement a full bathroom there's also exits there are entrances and this is being set up for finishing adus are going to be legal in in February this this house is going to turn into a single family with an Adu resulting between both properties in the necessity to park up to eight cars we don't have that much room on the street we don't have emergency vehicle access already school buses can't maneuver the corner of elbano and and Birch there's a sight line problem as it is with this house it's going to be worse people are running the stop signs I mean this needs more studying at least for scale and also for Public Safety um thank you conclude and defer to other people thank you please read the chat any other raised hands and thank you for the opportunity to speak Stephanie any other raised hands no have still have raised hands Madam chair uh let's how many more if looks like Charlene had two um devices I didn't know if there was another person there to speak well I'm going to ask folks to uh start putting in the chat if there are lots of them we've been reading the chat uh so please if there's one or two more okay Brook can you state your name and address for the record yes hi Brook Nash uh 16 Penfield street can you guys hear me yes ma okay thank you um I just want to reiterate um the concerns that have already been outlined um I've lived in renale 30 years I've been in a neighborhood with um larger lots and single family I bought the unit at 16 Penfield in 2017 um parking is a huge challenge in this area the intersection of Albano and Burge street is already really challenging people use that as a cut through to get up to Washington Street or down around the Village um it's the visibility is challenging and I find it hard to park on Penfield street because people on bir Street come into the village they drive they can't find Village parking in roale they drive up bir Street which is one way to Penfield Street and then they turn right on Penfield or keep going down in Parkman Albano so this is this is really a neighborhood congestion issue adding reducing the parking space for an existing two family by 50% and then adding what we can all agree really is a single family posing as a two family um because of the obvious um the the construction of a full second laundry and a full bathroom in what's being deemed a storage space um is is you know it's I I would like like for somebody with a straight face from the proponent to tell me explain why there is a full second laundry and a full bathroom in in a storage space in the basement we know this is going to be an APU um and um I also think it's highly irresponsible to reduce the permeable services around um 99 Albano Street we live in the area of climate change please please consider the implications of this for the neighborhood and for the climate and for Public Safety thank you thank you um the applicant would the can the applicant speak to some of the issues that have been uh highlighted including uh Green Space uh reduction of Green Space congestion uh and the size yeah absolutely laundry in the basement that and whether there's two laundry facilities in the building absolutely yeah a lots of thanks m f a lot to a lot to respond to uh Madam chair um again I think you know as you saw and you know we there was a lot of project revisions here to try and address some of these concerns the first time around when it was a two fing to a single family uh we do need zoning but it's uh it is a a compliant uh single family use in the 2f zone it is compliant with Building height uh it is compliant with open space um so we've heard a lot about you know you heard the architect Derek mentioned the footprint uh we are open space compliant I believe the open space requirement 1,750 square ft for a uh single family we have 1850 something like that so we are compliant with that uh front yard we had mentioned that although we were cited for it we are modal um so that is uh you know in conformance will be existing block alignment and you know we heard a lot about the parking again um you know we are parking requirement is two two spaces per unit per single family uh we do have two spaces if not three with a 60t or so uh driveway um you know the reason why we need zoning Rel that because it's it's parking um and because of the maneuverability so it doesn't technically count as two spaces under the zoning mode but but in essence it is um you know I I I think there's um some discussion as well about the open space so again I I mentioned that we are open space compliant uh the project as a single family will comply with Boston Water and sore requirements including making sure to mitigate uh storm water on site with an underground underground drainage system uh we'll provide a landscaping plan as you can see uh you can see in the presentation there is a landscaping plan with a plan to design the idea there was to uh although we are taking up some of the open space of the bacon area of the corner that this would help absorb runoff meaning the plan is that again no storm water would be displaced off site as result of the project um you know trying to make changes to um what was heard I think we did make a lot of changes as you saw you know 32% reduction um over 1,000 square ft and yeah you know the project is is on is uh a large single family that do have uh three kids and they're building it for themselves um the extra bedroom would be used for for themselves to work from home for guests uh for tin's mother-in-law as well as an opportunity who does help with kids so I think there is some rationale behind all this listen we we understand the concerns and all I can say is we did our best uh to abide by them to to listen to them and make make actual changes versus just uh lip service and I think we did um as far as the Abu in the basement again there's no garage here um and and you know with all the family there's all that stuff that comes with it um if and if there was ever an uh proposal that uh that that uh encapsulated some of that basement space to an Adu or to a new unit which is not the case right now and not the plan of course we'd have to come back to the board for any Zoning for that so any any of those changes that would that would require zoning we'd have to come back anyways to the board um and then I think Miss Pata you asked about the basement the laundry yes there is an additional laundry room I believe uh Derek I think and again the idea is you've got a single family with a lot of laundry to have an additional area to do it um I do believe part of the planning board recommendation of approval the provides for to look at some of that stuff downstairs but right now that is planned to be shown on the plan is uninhabitable space uh and we use for storage um you know if the if the board has an issue with that we're happy I I guess we're happy to remove it but um the idea there is to have uh you know again an additional mon own uh for the family so D is there anything that you want to add quickly again I know yeah just very quickly the the first and second floor are about a little over 800 square fet together so the house is is essentially a little over, 1600 ft plus you add about 400 for the finished attic so again uh it's not out of line with the other houses that are in the neighborhood and we do a lot of work in rosale in the surrounding area um also uh we heard Charlene at the beginning um of the testimony here and um if you look at what we proposed before which was compliant um uh that had a compliant Set Side set back against her house 97 next door we've actually doubled that with this this scheme we're now 20 ft 20 ft away from her house we are not creating Shadow on her house except for few hours and in certain Seasons um um I think um we've done a lot to accommodate the neighbor here um and again as you take a look at the site plan the fact that we're 20 ft away from her property um I think is uh you know as Nick mentioned we've done the best way we can here thank you other questions from the board Madam chair I have a question if the basement is unfinished why do you need the EG I thought that was only required for uh bedrooms or habitable space it's uh it's essentially has a function of a bulkhead which is pretty typical of the of the houses that you would find around rosale we have a uh the window well is H soorry I'm referring to the window well oh the window well that's just to get natural light into that area if we go to the basement plan you can see that uh um we don't have any other windows in that area we have a proposed uh porch outside the kitchen upstairs uh we just wanted to get a little more light if you'd like to put a provisor that we eliminate that I don't have any problem with that yeah I is the window well designed to be for egress or just no it's just for natural light it's not for egress we don't need it for egress okay if I can just add too that the planning board recommendation does reference that about potential removal or relocation of the window well in the B erress St um as uh as one of the things they wanted to look at so the planning board did talk about that if that that helps any other questions from the board may I have a motion yeah I have like four I'm sorry I have like three additional raised project are they new raised hands or the or people who have spoken they are um and um but I'll hear from one more person who has not spoken before because we we have lots of comments in the chat this is Harvey Bidwell live at 22 Penfield Street and Overlook uh both the now vacant lot and 99 Albano Street uh I would just reiterate what is in my my uh chat which is that this is a two family masquerading as a one family it has an egress from the basement it has an extra laundry room it has a bathroom so it's clearly a two family still that's masquerading as a one family that's all i' add thank you thank you for any additional raiseed hands um for this project you have to put um whether you're in support our Poe um in the chat and we appreciate all the feedback we've gotten we have you know we have received them by email and in chat and for those who spoke so thank you uh are there any other questions from the board if not may I have a motion I'll make a motion and I I would like to add that you know this doesn't seem like an outrageous request for this neighborhood I think that if you look through the zoning viewer and through that neighborhood the majority of houses are two families it's Transit oriented it's very close to Rosendale square and it seems like a missed opportunity for this neighborhood to add semi-reasonable housing through um a two family as opposed to a single but you know I think the neighborhood spoken on their opinion of a family so I'm in support of the single and I'll I'll motion to approve with bpda design Ral can I add a Prov I'll second I'll add a provisor that they remove the window wells if they are not necessary for egress Mr Collins works for me and so I'll second and I'll also state that I think the footprint overall is pretty modest which is why I'm okay with the f exceedence um I think they're maintaining adequate set especially for this undersized LW and I think the set acts probably improve upon many other existing nonconforming setbacks in the neighborhood thank you uh Mr stbridge yeah Mr Valencia yes Miss weo yes Mr Aken yes I think that the proponent has done a good job of uh working with the corner lot here uh and making adjustments uh to take the lot sizes into consideration and the type and density of the housing uh I realize that there's a lot of uh neighborhood opposition uh but that seems uh misplaced for the scale of this uh this development uh so I will uh vote Yes on that motion Miss panado yes the chair votes yes the motion carries thank you for all your time the next two cases have been deferred so we'll move on to case DOA 137 5717 with the address of 10 gide Avenue if the applicant endure their representative of pres they please expl the cas the board yes Madam chair members of the board John Moran Alpine advisory services with the mailing address of 130 Beach Road Orleans Mass Madam chair and members of the board if I could direct your attention to the upper left hand plan shown on the face page of the plan which gives a profile of the neighborhood uh number 10 is a vacant lot and we are proposing to construct a two family dwelling in a 2f 9000 sub District uh the as we Face 10 to the right is a six family dwelling and the three other dwellings on the even side are three families there are no dwellings on the odd numbered side of the street and in the middle of this face page is a is a a plan showing the front of the proposed building as noted in the description scope the plan was revised if I can address that at a SubCom uh before the Jamaica plan subcommittee meeting uh an architect member of the subcommittee noted that this plan and proposed two family is very similar to a build constructed and approved by the board on McBride Street they commented that the proposed original plan was too flat and requested that the entryways be recessed to create a a more welcoming uh face to the building uh we agreed and modified the plan as shown and and the planning board voted unanimously to approve this proposed two family Direct if we could scroll down please uh to the next page this shows the gr grade or ground floor of being proposed uh with the two garage parking spaces the recessed entryway and a bedroom this is a duplex a bedroom on the ground floor level if we could scroll up to the next floor which is the I'm sorry down down this shows the next level uh which is a combination open floor dining and living room kitchen combination and the next level uh going if we could scroll down the next level shows the proposed bedrooms and the Upper Floor shows an additional bedroom in study the zoning relas sought is very similar to the existing conditions the dimensional conditions of the existing structures on MCB on Glenside Street uh we were cited for screening and buffering and respectfully suggest that it's not applicable since the site does not uh does not [Music] uh does not a but a commercial or industrial subdistrict the lot area is insufficient the code requires 9,000 we are proposing the site is 3,367 square ft uh f is excessive the codes uh sites 0.5 we are proposing two uh the building height uh the code requires 2 and a half stories we are proposing three uh the side yards are insufficient the code uh require is 10 we are proposing three in the rear yard is insufficient the code requires 20 and we are proposing 10 the front yard uh would suggest it is a modal compliant uh front yard uh the usable usable open space the code uh requires 2,250 Square ft we are we are providing 240 Square ft the plan went through a very thorough Community process and as Modified by the subcommittee of the Jamaica plane board uh we have responded to community uh inputs uh we have filed with the board a petition signed by 30 odd residents in the immediate area including residents of 8 and 12 and also I am informed that the board has received three emails in support of the proposed development with that I will be open to questions thank you m Moran any questions from the board hearing none can I have public testimony Madam chair members of the board for the record my name is Jeremy bbery I am the Jamaica plane Community engagement specialist for the office of NE Services the applicant has completed the community process which consisted of an abuts meeting held on July 30th with few bus of attendance uh the concerns voiced were violations and the requested variances concerns were raised uh the proponent then met with the Civic to make a plain neighborhood Council where they were approved unanimously our office has received a support petition signed by over 30 ABS including direct abs and we received one letter of opposition thank you for your time in the May's office of Ni services like to defer to the court for the Judgment at this time thank you I have one hand Madam chair to unmute you thank you hi I'm not sure why my video is not on but my name is Jennifer Neil I'm a resident owner at six Glenside Avenue I've been to the community meetings um noted um regarding 10 Glenside AV and express my concerns there as well as to the committee in writing last week my opposition to the current plan is to the excessive size of the structure with a far of 2.0 and a set and their setback violations that would allow for this 12 bedroom structure with a setback of only 3 ft on three sides so um room for almost no open and permeable space the duplex could house over 12 people so significantly impacting parking on our small very Dead End Street if even if only half of them brought Vehicles there are plans for two off street parking spots um but also to add a new curb cut to our street so negative impact on currently limited parking on Glenside no residents other than the owner at 8 Glenside Avenue which is adjacent 10 Glenside has a driveway or off street parking on our street I understand the JP zoning committee recently approved the revised plans however this does baffle me they did not approve the previous design that had sidey yard setbacks that were twice as large as this one four fewer bedrooms and attempted three off street parking spots so this building the second revision is larger um than the first one regarding the submitted petition by neighbors it does not mention that the duplex could add um additional 12 residents and a curb cut to our tiny Street nor does it say what the violations are the 41 signatures on this petition um and its suggestion of neighborhood support is very misleading eight listed no address on the petition 13 are residents who work at three group homes that are nearby and all have off street parking four of the listed signatures that are mentioned at 8 Glenside Avenue are renters of the of the owner so he is their landlord and half of the remaining 16 signatures live in homes with driveways and off street parking none of which are on Glenside Avenue um so as you consider requirements needed for Relief here I hope you see how this plan is likely to be detrimental to our neighborhood as it will increase population density on our small street by about 25% undoubtedly adds several Vehicles needing street parking and reducing available street parking by adding a curb cut um I'll also point out that this building that you just approved at 103 Birch has a far of 6 and much larger space around it so this is quite a large building um for a similar neighborhood thank you thank you M okay uh would the applicant like to respond briefly yes Madam chair originally the proponent was to construct a three family with three off street parking spaces that was opposed uh and when we appeared before the Jamaica plane subcommittee uh they suggested that we consider proposing a two family with as we did in mod it when they wanted a modification uh I would note that on the petition uh that residents at 12 also signed to support this project and that there is broad-based community support for this housing any other questions from the board may I have a motion M sh I make a motion of approval with a provice so that the plans be submitted to the planning department for review special attention to screening of the parking to reduce uh imper impermeable area is there a second second Mr stbridge yes Mr valencio yes Miss weo yes Mr Aken yes Mr Collins yes Miss pado yes the chair votes yes the motion carries thank you next we have case boa 59774 with the address of 615 Aly Street this is this is an article 880 case and if the applicants endure their representative the case to the board I'm going to make grego panamas thank you hi everybody Greg McCarthy for 65 Aly Street pleas proceed thank you um so the building at 615 Albany Street um is a presently vacant building that was previously used by Boston University Medical um our proposal is uh we have actually applied to participate in the office to residential downtown office to residential conversion program um so we are proposing to convert the existing building um from the vacant office space to uh 24 residential Apartments um the square footage uh of the building is the proposed building is 19,800 uh the previous floor area was 19,200 um part of The Proposal is an additional story uh which would be which would make the building six stories high uh the reason that there is only a small addition in square footage is due to the fact that the Parlor level that was previously used is now uh not able to be used because it's in the sea frod in the coastal flood resiliency District um that space is below the the basically the height limit where it can be usable space uh so there's not a a significant change in the floor area but there is a about of 3500t increase in the gross square footage of the structure um this is just a typical demo sheet uh for the previous layouts of the building uh first few pages will probably um so this is a typical uh floor plan the first floor is a little bit different than the rest but each level has four units on it the main entrance um is access from Aly Street um there's an accessible ramp that uh enters through Albany and swings around uh there is a elevator access and and two staircases for for the building uh bike storage in the basement and some additional tenant storage um the building uh has gone through the uh bpda process it was approved at the the board of appeal at the uh at the PPA meeting um The Proposal would include five affordable units so about 21% four of those would be IDP units um at 60% and one of them a voucher unit um so this is a more typical layout of the other five floors it's a really good mix of uh bedroom counts there's six three bedrooms five two bedrooms um I believe 10 Studios and one one bedroom for outdoor space um there's no decks on the building the building essentially takes up the um majority if not all the lot U there's a little bit of Garden area on uh East Brookline Street but um the building does take up the majority of it so we have our uh we're still short on open space but we have some open space up on top of roof as common outdoor space for the units here's a uh Landscaping plan so we are proposing to add uh three trees one on Albany uh sorry two on Albany and one on East Brook line um as well as some improvements to the uh sidewalk and uh ramp as well here's the elevation photos of the building are questions from the board Madam chair I have a question um How is the trash operations going to function I didn't see anywhere on the floor plans that indicated a trash room or where a trash would be stored yeah so trash goes in the basement and it's actually a roll out system so the management will have somebody roll out the trash um on trash day each day there's not space unfortunately there's limited space not that not enough space that wouldn't be a complete eyesore one or get rid of this very small uh bit of of dirt that we have which is currently landscaped around a tree basically it's like a very small corner is basically the only place we could put it so we're doing roll outs for now um I think for the number of units it's going to work um so they they'll be they'll be brought up through the elevator right out uh onto Aly Street essentially thank you any other questions from the board hearing none may have public testimony Madam chair members of the board Conor Newman with the mayor's office of Neighborhood Services this time the mayor's office defer to the judge from this board this went through a BP Le Community process it's a part of the uh mayor's initiative uh to convert uh office space into residential uh there was a community meeting that was held um in July um in that meeting there was uh a lot of questions from residents and just what type of work would be done to convert the building as well as uh some concerns regarding uh the design of the building itself um the applicant went on to me with the bpda board it was approved uh September 12th 2024 that will defer to the board at this time thank you hello uh Madame chair members of the board Liam from Council for CH office I like go on record and support this proposal thank you thank you Mr selli good morning Madam chair members of the board Christian selli Boston gr trust and we have both gcard letters from the applicant there's no additional raise hands Madam chair okay with that may I have a motion motion to approve second second okay Mr stbridge yeah Mr Valencia yes Miss weo yes Mr Aken yes Mr Collins yes Miss pado yes chair votes yes the motion carries thank you very much everyone next we have case boa 160 5743 with the address 25 West Hall Street if the applicant and or the represent pres they please explain case to the board yes thank you Mr stbridge Madam chair members of the board attorney Ryan Spitz with Adams Mory business address of 1688 Street first floor South Boston uh joining me today are the owners Matt and Danny paisner also joining us is Sam malafronte who was from solle engineering and our transportation consultant Bob Misha The Proposal is located at 5 West H Street doorchester on the south side of the Suk Bay shopping center the pass is approximately 18,2 42 sare ft with an existing Car Wash as many of you know as scrub AO the proponent is seeking to construct a replacement Car Wash and detailing facility on this site for better efficiency and to improve the overall Public Safety and transportation Asos Transportation issues the reconfigured site has an improved layout with additional queuing space for the facility through a proposed easement on to an abing parcel located at 115 Boston street we have the following zoning violations we have a use violation a car wash as a conditional use and due to the de demolishing of the existing structure and construction of a new facility we have been cited for a conditional use permit design and maneuverability due to the design of the circulation requiring an easement for queuing we have been cited for this we have a front yard and sidey yard dimensional violation we believe that the community commercial subd District should have been applied here which would not have warranted a zoning violation but since the review is claim it does the dimensional violations are indeed present and relief is still appropriate uh now I'm going to turn it over to Sam who is going to do a quick run through the drawings we do understand that the drawings submitted are very extensive Sam has a a few selections that he would like to just discuss and give you guys a clear image of what is being proposed Sam I'm going to turn it over to you thank you attorney Spitz um for the record my name is Sam alron civil engineer with solely engineering um our offices are located at 11 Vanderbilt Avenue in Norwood Mass uh 02062 um if we could flip to page seven of this um of this PDF yes it's the overall site plan so the applicant owner proposed to reconstruct the existing scrubed up car wash with a new 6,945 ft car wash and interior Detail Center uh the site proposes four parking spaces to the south of the building the building will feature a two tunnel configuration that will significantly reduce the amount of traffic exiting the site onto Boston Street the proposed site layout allows for car wash customers to both enter and exit the site Via West Hall Street which is located on the west of this drawing um the site's current configuration in existing conditions allows for minimal on-site queuing oftentimes resulting in impacts to West Hall Street the intersection of West Hall Street and Boston Street and sometimes the signalized intersection of Boston Street on Boston Street excuse me the owners of scrubed up have agreed uh upon an easement with the adjoining residential development um 115 121 Boston Street to reconfigure the car wash vehicle queuing onto a portion of that property this easan area is shown on this plan shaded in Gray and this allows the scrubed up car wash to utilize a U-turn queuing Lane to achieve an on-site queuing capacity of 22 vehicles um just for reference in existing conditions the scrub it up has um a queing capacity of about four vehicles on as part of the project the sidewalk is proposed along the southern side of Jean carski Way with several ramp and Crossing Ada improvements proposed the sidewalk Improvement provides streamlined pedestrian connectivity from West H Street to Boston Street U if we could flip to page nine of this PDF in existing conditions the site does not contain any storm water quality measures or any form of storm water management project proposes two water quality units that will effectively clean all of the storm water runoff associated with the site additionally a subsurface storm water basin is proposed to the north of the building that will retain storm water runoff and recharge the runoff back into the ground the Redevelopment will result in increased water quality from the site and decreased storm water Peak flows and volume if we could flip to page nine of this PDF uh excuse me page 12 sorry we could scroll down just a little bit more thank you currently 100% of the property is improved with impervious surfaces the Redevelopment proposes a 5,250 square foot increase in perious surfaces that are proposed to be improved with lawn area or landscaped Islands I've have shown on this plan the Redevelopment Pros all new LED dark sky compliant light poles and wall packs to illuminate the queing land and Associate building entrances and um as attorney Spitz mentioned this is a a very comprehensive plan set and Architectural drawings as well um that concludes my portion of the presentation but if there are other questions I'd be happy to answer them great thanks thanks Sam um Madam chair just one thing before I turn over to you I just like to mention that this vehicular traffic plan went through an extensive review with the uh Department of Transportation as well as mass do because some of the road surrounding here are subject to mass do so uh with that being said Madam chair I'm going to turn over to for any questions or comments thank you questions from the board if I can ask from Boston Transportation Mr Deo uh made a comment Mr Deo you are you here I would like to hear more about your comment on the parking yes I'm here um did I hear correctly that there was a you know a parking request for uh 45 spaces no four I think is what he said okay four um I like I'd like to suggest a reduction uh to three spaces to be parked on a 45 Dee angle uh this will make it for a safe and uh uh efficient maneuverability thank you madam chair just if I could just just respond again this is um this has went through an extensive review already with the transportation department uh prior to actually fing this plan to get something that's acceptable um I do appreciate Mr deo's concerns however that would create an additional violation if it was removed um so again you know that's I'd just like to add that to the record please thank you attorney other questions from the board may have public testimony good morning Madam chair and members of the board my name is Eva Jones representing the mayor's office and Neighborhood Services regarding 25 West H Street our office will defer to the board's judgment on this matter a community process was conducted including an a Butter's meeting on 61724 which was attended by three constituents the primary feedback back from this meeting was support for the proposal and CH and support for the change of where the exit uh for cars are leaving due to the high number of illegal left turns taken by customers when leaving the property as well as support for the lines being able to hold more cars and reduce the amount of cars waiting in line on West how Street Additionally the proposal was reviewed by the John W mccomic civic association which convened on 91724 the association has expressed support regarding the proposal and has voted 22 in favor one oppose to the proposal at this time the mayor's office of Neighborhood Services defers to the board's decision thank you for your time and consideration everyone thank you hello um Madam chair members of the board Liam from coun for Char office also would like to go on record and support of this proposal thank you thank you I see no additional raise hands Madam chair thank you with that may I have a motion MO there second second Mr stbridge yes Mr Valencia yes Miss weo yes Mr Aken yes Mr Collins yes Miss panado yes chair votes yes the motion carries great thank you thank you thank you next we have case Bo 1 63 6269 with the address of 933 East Broadway if the applicant hand with their representative president they please be pointed to the board morning Madam chair members of the board my name is Tiffany marzuk I an attorney with the law firm of all coock and Marcus we're located at 10 fores Road in brain train I am Council for the applicant haar management company owner of the property at 9:33 East Broadway here with me today is Charles haar of herar management um and also the project architect uh Derek ruof I will um introduce and and make the presentation to the board and then we'll open for questions and if there are any um more specific technical questions or questions on the plans uh Derek ruof is here to answer those so our proposal is to create an additional dwelling unit in the basement of an already existing Triple Decker on the property uh the property is located in the city Point neighborhood of South Boston it is a 4,000 ft lot in the South Boston zoning district and the MFR zoning subd District we are requesting zoning relief in three areas um the first being relief from the dimensional requirements set forth in uh article 68 Section 8 um with the additional um unit we do um the zoning required would require an additional square footage um here would be an additional th square feet so we're asking for relief from that um from that requirement the second is T Tiffany sorry um I just want to clarify for the board it's dark Ruben off 82 Spring Street um well it's an additional unit it's not an Adu um sorry to interrupt no that's okay um so the second uh area for uh zoning relief being s this morning is um for the use restriction that's set forth in article 68 section G7 um as basement units are not permitted in the um in the zoning district and the last um area for zoning relief is with respect to the parking requirement set forth in article 68 section 33 um and that there's insufficient parking at this time for the additional unit I would like to note uh for the board there is no uh building code relief uh required uh the uh structure is fully sprinklered it will have sufficient uh ceiling height and there is sufficient e so there should not be any concerns uh with respect to building code um a little bit about the Outreach history um we did have an abutters held an abutters meeting um this past August uh subsequently did have a meeting uh with the city Point neighborhood association um and then attorney Shan ran in my office also did speak individually to several of the abuts um who were generally accepting um of the project uh we do believe that the relief requested is Justified due to the unique features of both the lot and the property itself um and and also uh certain components of the proposal um the lot itself if we could just go maybe to two pages up from here um for control yeah perfect that's great the satellite view there um the lot is narrower and and skinnier than um the surrounding Lots on the Block um it is also almost twice the square footage of similar Lots with triple Deckers um in this neighborhood um and then if we could just do two pages from here would be great perfect right there thank you um the structure itself the as you'll see the the current first floor is about a full story uh higher from the street level um and it is set back about 20 ft uh from the street um The Proposal itself the creation of this additional unit uh will not expand the existing footprint uh nor will it alter any of the built structure uh there will be no changes to the second and third floor and the only change to the first floor will be to allow for access from this uh new proposed basement unit to the first floor um by use of the um existing stairway uh the creation of this unit which will be a smaller two-bedroom unit um which will be marketed at uh lower than than a a market rate here will be slightly more affordable than um other two bedrooms in um in this area um which is in line with the city's initiatives um in creating new Lal spaces and and providing buried housing options off for residents these points were also echoed in the planning department um approval recommendation as well um and just a little bit about the property owner um haar management company it is a family-owned property management company um there are numerous they own numerous properties around the city take great pride in um caring for those properties um and will continue um you know we'll make this a positive contribution to this area um as well again Charles um haar is here if there are any specific questions for him um but we'll happy to answer questions and then also Derek is here for any specific questions on the plan which is also in our presentation thank you are there questions from the board mam chair I do have one question thank you uh could you just explain uh the nature of adding the additional uh unit I'm just trying to understand the uh the purpose of the of the request to three it's three family um and you're coming just to add a fourth unit is there something else that's you specific to the to the building or the property of the location so the the basement right now is unfinished um so in finishing the basement and the um the owner did make a decision to instead of making a larger first unit and making finishing the basement making that part of that first unit and having about six bedrooms there um they want made the decision to actually have an additional dwelling unit to provide an additional housing um Housing Opportunity in the area thank you any other questions can have public testimony please Madam chair members of the board sigy Johnson with the office of Neighborhood Services this applicant completed the on community process our office hosted in a Butter's meeting on August 20th at which questions were raised regarding life safety measures such as egress and access to Natural Light uh due to the proposed basement location of the unit uh no other concerns were raised the city Point neighborhood association uh had this proponent in for a presentation and voted to oppose the application we received no other comments in support or opposition with that background we defer to the Judgment of the board thank you thank you good morning Madam chairs and members of the war LA are here from council's office at this time Council fln would like to go on record in opposition due to feedback from the CD Point neighborhood association concerns about setting president in our parking crisis thank you I have one raised hand Madam chair yes ma'am good morning can you hear me yes ma'am okay lanne OK Conor president of the city Point neighborhood association the proponent did come in and present before the neighborhood the vote came back to oppose the Project based on no parking as well as and this is very concerning the overall um concern for this project was setting Precedent versus looking at each project individually um blanketing uh it across our neighbor neighborhood so that's um something that I hope the board will take into consideration uh for today's project as well as other projects um setting president is not a good thing and um that's where we're at so that's why we um opposed it thank you ma'am can you clarify when you say setting precedent you mean adding a a fourth unit or adding a basement unit adding a basement unit in all of our other triple Deckers so the fear is that if this one is approved then the board will just continue to approve them within our neighborhood versus looking at each individual building to see if it's a good fit or if it's not a good fit so based on that fear the association voted to oppose it thank you yeah any other questions from the board Madam chair have Kevin on the line I'm sorry go ahead hello hello and good morning Madam chair members of the board this is Kevin o solivan from Council Aaron Murphy's office thank you very much Madam Ambassador for allowing me to speak councelor Aaron Murphy just wanted to go on the record in opposition Council Murphy recognizes the efforts and communication made and applauds that but for the reasons stated before in regards to uh the vote at the city Point uh neighborhood association and that precedential effect Council Murphy is in opposition thank you very much for your time and consideration thank you thank you any other questions from the board I have one more question M chair yes what what is the basement currently used for at this time and then what space will the residents have for other storage or bicycle storage or other uh use once it's converted if converted to housing the basement is it's currently unfinished it's being utilized for utilities if I could uh add to that as well um we have a the utility space that we're proposing the basement where uh there would be some add uh room in that for for bicycles the proposed um it was mentioned earlier uh uh that uh we should look at these buildings individually um out of the triple Deckers that we've worked on we've worked on a lot of triple Deckers this is this is a very good candidate for a basement unit we're up high from the street we're able to put window wells in uh on the side facing uh an existing uh driveway that's got trees in between it uh we're providing uh Apple natural light for the state sanitary code and uh U and very comfortable rooms in here so um I recognize the comment about precedent I I would ask the board to consider that we're uh right on a a bus line right there and uh we're not making changes to the exterior of the building it's a really a lovely building uh hasar is a is a wonderful client of ours and does a great job managing your properties so uh please take that uh into consideration that this is a a very good building for for the proposed work and shair I have another question um what's the mean what's the means of eress from the build from the basement so the the means of regress would be from the front because we would be sprinkling with an nfba 13r system that's a system connected to the street and the B meses building code allows for one means of egress um if we provide the the window wells from the bedrooms which we are providing here um we're also lowering the floor a little bit in here to to get more than uh 8T four ceiling height in the basement thank you thank you with that may I have a motion make a motion to approve is there a second Mr strige uh yes sorry did you vote uh yeah chair sorry I did I just didn't hear it the first time okay Mr Valencia yes Miss weo yes Mr Aken uh yes I think the circumstances of this location are suitable for this so yes Mr Collins yes Miss pado yes the chair votes yes the motion carries thank you so much thank you very much B chair at this point um since it's 11:33 um I'll ask if there are any um request for withdrawals or deferrals from the 11:30 time frame yes please proceed Mr PR uh yes uh 86 hisor Street uh we may please let Mr strige read it into the record first I'm sorry sorry that's all right boa 153 8686 with the address of 86 ptor Street uh go ahead and yeah thank you uh good morning everyone uh 86 would please we are requesting a referral because we made uh substantial changes to the pl those Chang were made in an effort to first of all reduce some of the violations uh one of the most important violations is uh the two me of agress were too close we made a revision that allow us to enter the basement apartment from the common and diminish the uh the rear exit but also we submit these changes to the report also to the uh uh ISD plan exams we have not receive their response hopefully that response will be an approval so until we get that response we would like to come back and and uh present the revised plans which we think substantially improves the layout and also address some of the issues that was first surfaced by the board will be made out initial presentation how much time do you need hopefully we'll have they're okay I feel okay next month I would think sometime come back sometime in December I think that should be enough time Caroline how what are your next available dates we could do December 3rd or December 10th might work better want to make sure we get uh everything back from my I know they are extremely busy there uh Madam chair if I could add on to that because there Bing case with that um along with that is case boa 153 8740 also has an address of 86 St okay uh with that thank you go ahead make a motion to defer until December 10th is there a second second second Mr stbridge yeah Mr Valencia yes Miss weo yes Mr Akin yes Mr Collins M pado yes chair votes yes the motion carries see you then thank you bye is there any further request for withdrawal to the ref from this time FR uh Mr stbridge uh 81 Lexington Street please so that would be for K bo8 157 5584 with the address of 81 Lexing Street would you go ahead and explain please thank you sir good morning Madam chair members of the board my name is James Christopher uh of 686 Architects with the business address of 10 fores Road and brain Tre um requesting uh the briefest of deferrals as possible uh the plans have been refiled with ISD we have not received updated refusal that to uh uh update the uh revisions that we've made to the project we expect to have it any day and would like to return on the board as soon as possible thank you okay uh so the 10th and the 3D of December were mentioned are those still available Caroline yes they are okay may I have a motion they have a second second okay Mr strige yeah Mr Valencia yes Miss weo yes Mr inin yes Mr Collins yes M pado yes chair votes yes motion carries see you then thank you very much there no more request for withdraw in the ferals we'll return to case for cases for red discussions at 11:30 a.m. we have case boa 160 8586 with the address of 353 Cambridge Street if the applicant end the representative of pres will they please explain to the board I'm going to elevate conduct the a panelist um Madam chair forgive me uh we left off at the we left off at the 9:30 time frame and not to uh move aside get understood no worries no worries I am here for 353 Cambridge Street Great uh if you would hold on please um as we return to 9:30 the next case to be heard is BOA 141 [Music] 5286 with the address of 131 a street if the applicant and the and the representative is available for this case if they will please point to the board good morning Madame chair members of the board my name is Arthur Chu I'm the architect for the project with the business address at one Billings Road quinsey Mass joining me is Michael Ganon the owner of the property please proceed this project is um a vacant lot currently vacant lot at 131 aen Street it's 20x 40 and 800 sare ft um next slide there several zoning V violated and our proposals to do a garage underneath and three stories above next page as you can see it's a um in the bottom left it's a vacon lot someone is illegally parking there um it's kind of deril blck next page um so in the middle of the screen is the parking space garage on the right is the second floor which is the living room and and Kitchen Next slide on the third floor are two bedrooms in the middle is the fourth floor with the master suite and there is a uh with a balcony in front and there is a roof deck which we change to be a hatch to get onto the uh the roof next slide this as you can see that there's a parking garage on the first floor um a hearty planks sided building above it of three stories with the deck in front um two sides are basically blank a for recessed windows on the U side elevation and the rear has um nine windows and if there are any questions we glad to answer them thank you questions from the board yeah can can you talk about the violations um yes it's required two parking spaces and we only have one um potentially we could put our can in space but we decided not to uh the dimensional regulations being a tight lot we have the rear yard we have um lot size and uh the f is over the height the open space um the front yard and the side yard and the buff ring so can you put a finder point on it what's what's allowed and where are you at um the street parking is supposed to be two where one the rear yard is 20 ft and with three the uh block size is 5,000 P um 800 the f is 1.5 we 2.89 the height is 35 ft and we're at 40 ft front yard is 5 ft and at zero the side yard is 3 ft one foot on and the screening Bing we have no screening or the parking other than the garage door thank you madam chair um there were some uh maybe it'll be answered later but uh people have concerns regarding uh the access to utilities and emergency uh um [Music] responders yeah I think I think your Butters some of Butters had concerns about the one foot uh the one foot setback and and access as uh Mr stbr noted can someone address that on our property does one foot U setback and I believe this repeat on the adjacent U 115 Tob Street property you go back slides go for one yeah so we have a foot on the bottom on the left side uh there's a one foot on our side I believe there's 3 ft on the ex existing 115 B Street side is anyone department on Mr Hampton are you on doesn't sound that way Mr Collins do you have questions oh I just wanted to see hear their reasoning I mean they obviously their recommendation is here and they want to lose the parking increase side setbacks and reduce the overhang on the building so just just looking for their um reasoning for that but we're good we can move on okay thank you other questions from the board yeah I mean it just feels like it's a very dense development for this site um that it's even hard for your your neighbors to even get access to their uh meters on the side of their building can you just explain why um such a dense development um well it's actually only a sing single family house the building itself is only 16' 10 wide and um the neighbors meters on the left um seem to be on the property line cuz the uh we have one ft off the land and their property line is right on the or their building is right on the property l and and how far is your building from the property line um on the 160 West Broadway 135 ason street side one foot yeah so so can someone even get to that utility meter those utilities are actually on our property what a MTH yeah it seems like it's a problem here I don't feel like this is terribly well thought out before coming and being presented one actually works on a lot that obviously has some unique conditions to it exactly I don't know how we could approve this okay let's take public testimony and circle back Madam chair members of the board sigy Johnson with the office of neighborhood services are office hosted in abutters meeting in 2023 regarding this proposal for direct abutters opposed the proposal abutters believe the lot is too small to be built on and raise concerns around blocked egress for 150 West Broadway and 111b Street possible impact to fire escapes no access to gas meter and telephone lines for the above mentioned address windows and balconies face the interior of the lot resulting in no natural light and concerns relating to quality of workmanship by this petition on other projects the St Vincent's lower-end neighborhood association is the active Civic group in this area to and they took a position of non opposition to The Proposal with that background we defer to the Judgment of the board thank you I have hands Madam chair go ahead Erica thank you madam chairwoman and the board um we appreciate your time today um I'm here to make a statement on behalf of the 161 West Broadway Condominiums which is at 135 Athens um we are in opposition to this appeal based on the proposed one foot sidey yard um from the plans you'll see that there is one foot only one foot between 135 Athens which is the 160 West Broadway Condominiums and this proposed single family home our building is three stories high that building being proposed is four stories plus a roof deck plus a head house um which is at five stories there is no way um never in the future that our building would ever be able to do repairs or construction on that side of our building um we recently completed major construction and repairs for the entire exterior down to the framing including roof replacement which is currently under warranty um this one foot request for sidey yard would void this warranty and this would also mean that not only our building but whoever purchased this single family home also never be able to do repairs or construction for that side of the building either in the future and and to us um this is unacceptable so I would just like stated on the record on behalf of our board Jasmine Bramble and Sam G and the other owners at 160 West Broadway um that we are in opposition to the current proposal um nine of us signed the letter I also sent in an individual separate letter um and from that separate letter we're also I'm also in opposition um in increasing the number of stories in southe um southe standard is typically three stories um there were a lot of concerns expressed on the abutters meeting call on December 7th 2022 um in setting a new precedent um I think this building is the single family home is too high um and and any everyone on the call here could understand that one foot between two buildings is is a crazy proposal um no one would want to buy into some building that they can never repair or improve on in the future um so if if the uh developer and the architect would like to change that back to the three-foot sidey yard I think we would be amenable to that but as it stands with one foot for a sidey yard we're in opposition thank you very much thank you also friend to office you can unmute um hi um sorry I forgot to like speak when it was my turn but I just wanted to go um and make C statement he would like to go a record and support based on a community processing feedback from the neighbors he respectfully requests that the development team continues to work closely with the community on any on any quality of life issues that occur during the construction phase thank you Laura are you referring to 131 Athens I just want to be yes I am referring to 131 a thank thank you for confirming okay thank you yes sent to request to unmute you state your name and address for the record hi this is Amy AR swag I live at 115 B Street um in addition to the concerns that have already been raised I wanted to point out that Mr Ganon was the builder at 115b Street and also 111b street 115b street would not have ample access to the utility to do window washing for lighting um and in addition 111b Street's direct emergency ESS is through this lot if you looked at the pictures earlier you can see their rear door egress um would bring them through this property to Athens Street and that also has not been raised um I our building has had multiple people right in in opposition I'm surprised that at Flynn's office is B of this because this is something that has um shown strong opposition from the direct of Butters and um surrounding neighbors that's all I had to say thank you thank you with the applicant like to address these concerns no thank you okay any other questions from the board hearing none may I have a motion um I I think this is too dense and and like to make a motion of denial without prejudice is there a second I'll second that that the setbacks just need to be adjusted they can't you can't have a foot between the buildings like that Mr stbridge yes Mr Valencia yes Miss we will yes and I'll just add that you know this is a really small law and any development that the board considers should be proportional to the size of the law Mr aen sorry uh yes Mr Collins yes M pado yes chair votes yes the motion carries thank you next we have case boa 158 6051 with the address of 86 Pembrook Street if the applicant Andor their representative are present will they please explain to the board I'm going to elevate the hall in companies hold on Joe owner of Halland construction we reside at 519 of Aly Street Boston Mass and we're here to present a project for a single family on at 86 Penbrook Street it's a full gut model of a single family um if you could just pull up there's three items that we're looking for Relief on um the first one is gcod we have all the paperwork in for that we have the no harm letter and approval from Boston Water and um sore in addition to that there is roof structure um roof um restricted roof structure District which requires the relief um as I'm I'm sure you're all aware of in the South End they don't allow head houses so um it requires relief in order to get a roof down um we have approval from landmarks it's in administrative review um and then the third thing which is a little um perplexing to me but floor area ratio if you could go to page three please on that PDF thank you we are removing a u two bump boats at at the uh street level and Par level of this building that accounts for new 41 41 Square ft and we are at if we could scroll to what page I believe it's page five we are adding a on story addition um at the rear of the building and that accounts for 75 75 Square ft um in her zoning article 64- 9 you're allowed up to 50 square ft um with we have with the removal of the two bump boats that's 41 Square ft we should be allowed 91 squ ft and the total addition is 75 Square ft which would give us uh which yeah so we're increasing uh the the increase is 34 sare ft but we're still under the allowable um 50 s ft the rest of it is a sing family it's going to be fully sprinkled um and meet meet all building code I don't have anything else to add we do have the architect from Embark um here to answer any questions if need be as well thank you questions from the board hearing none may have public testimony Madam chair and members of the board for the record my name is Jeremy bbery I'm the Roxbury Community engagement specialist for the office of neighborhood Services the applicant has completed the community process which consisted of an abers meeting held on May 16th facilitated by myself although very few abers were in attendance the Civic did attend in the abers meeting uh did not take a stance uh for the abers meeting itself no one voiced opposition although some concerns were raised regarding Gard uh and theability of the piles uh the proponent then went before the Civic group pilot block where they were approved with the vote of neutal I thank you for your time in the mayor's office of Neighborhood Services would like to work for their judgment at this time thank you Mr selli good morning Madam chair members of the board Christian sell Boston ground trust we have both gcard letters from the applicant I will add to the neighbors concerns about the issue with the foundation the no harm letter stipulates that no Foundation deterioration was observed uh during their work thank you thank you I see one additional raise hands Madam chair Tom yes uh thank you um I want to know more about the roof deck proposal is that just a standard roof deck or is there going to be a structure on top of it it's just a standard roof deck it it's inset behind the chimneys um consistent with landmarks Association but just a standard roof deck with a hatch um that's all sir okay thank you thank you Mark hi markar is on the architect if there's any questions I just want to to be available thank you any question any other questions from the board hearing none may I have a motion um I'll submit a motion for approval with a proval that the plans be submitted to Boston landmarks commission for review second Mr stbridge yes Mr valencio yes Miss weo Miss weo Mr Aken yes Mr Collins yes Miss canado yes is Miss weell with us okay uh chair votes yes the motion carries thank you madam chair thank you board next we have case boa 16410 33 with the address of 18 to 34 Main Street if the applicant and their representative are present they please explain to the board hello my name is Tim Shan I'm at 9 Wall Street in Charlestown I'm the architect for the project uh what this is is there's an existing there's been an existing roof deck on this condominium for since like late 80s early 90s um we think it may have been unpermitted or we could not find any evidence that have been permitted we assume it was but uh regardless uh it's rotted out needs to be rebuilt so that's what we're here for um because we're going back through the process we're on a restricted roof district and and this building is 45 ft now with the deck sit so we need relief for those two reasons um and just a small thing currently it's accessed by a 42in diameter spiral staircase I don't know how they got away with that but um we're going to put a bigger spiral staircase in 5 ft diameter meat code and we're going to rebuild the deck exactly how it sits size today although it won't be pressure tree it will have a you know uh metal railing like the bpda uh prefers and that's it um that's that's any questions I'm here thank you sir any questions from the board heing none may have public testimony Madam chair members of the board C Johnson with the office of Neighborhood Services this petitioner completed the on community process we hosted an abutters meeting on Tuesday September 24th at which no concerns or comments were raised uh we defer to the Judgment of the board on this proposal thank you thank you I see no additional raise hands Madam chair thank you may I have a motion M I make a motion of approval okay thank you Mr stbridge yeah yes Mr Valencia yes Miss we well okay I don't know if Caroline you want to reach out to her CU I see her on there but she's obviously not here uh Miss Mr Aken uh yes Mr Collins yes Miss panado yes chair votes yes the motion carries thank you everybody next we have case boa 16220 57 the address is 969 to 985 Bennington Street the and who are the representative present they please explain the case to the board yes uh good afternoon Madam chair members of the board uh I hope I swear this one will be quicker than the last one I hope uh attorney Nick suula mcder quy Miller in Hanley uh here as zoning and perating attorneys on behalf of Big Ben realy trust uh if you go to the next slide Madam Ambassador uh this the team slide would be great one up I apologize uh um thank you um Mark Resnik and Patrick guli uh and our architect uh o solivan Architects David O solivan and Arian Nia are both on as well um from our team uh next slide please so 969 985 Bennington in East Boston you can see it here it's near the intersection of Bennington and Saratoga Street it is in the uh orian Heights neighborhood of East Boston uh you can see here it's across from Constitution beach park and also very near less than a quarter mile walk to the Orient Heights MBTA station on the blue L uh next slide please uh just a closer uh in point uh view of the building of the existing building and then you can see also uh that it abuts the mvta train tracks actually to the rear as well uh next slide again another vantage point you can see um the Constitution Beach Park uh to the rear um and you know the benington street um in front of the building uh next slide um this is just some context it is an existing two-story commercial building it has commercial on the ground floor and in the basement and office space on the second floor uh the site itself is about 10,235 Square ft and the building footprint is about 9,68 ft uh with about 13 ,500 ft uh currently uh of square footage for the size of the building uh next slide please again another view of the rear of the building uh the building left side and the right side uh showing uh the twostory commercial brick building uh next slide uh again this is just to show from the rear we are abing the NBTA tracks uh at the rear uh we are in touch with the NBTA uh we do have a project manager there uh they are not opposed to the project and we are undergoing the MBTA to kind of license your process uh to convert this building to a uh mixed use with residential and some windows uh at the rear of the building for those residential units so we just wanted to point out that we are abing the tracks and we are in touch with them uh next slide please um this is just a existing conditions again the lot's about 10,237 Square ft uh the building does take about 9,68 of that footprint um so it does cover about 90% of the lot as it is and just wanted to highlight this because uh we do need zoning relief for insufficient uh open space and a street parking which you'll see in a minute uh and there's you know frankly nowhere for us to add parking to the site uh or open space uh at grade so just wanted to highlight that with this slide uh next slide please um this uh is just the existing conditions again ground floor uh existing tenants and uh commercial space uh next slide please uh this is the existing conditions on the second floor uh wanted to show this because you can see that actually a large portion of this is open to the ground floor and what this project is proposing is to kind of infill a complete second level and change it to a residential use so you can see here that some of there is a second floor uh the L shape on the left uh is for the dance studio and recovery on the Harbor but a lot of it is open to below and the plan is which you'll see in a minute to fill that in inside the building and convert it to residential units uh next slide please uh these are existing conditions in building elevations next slide and now we get into I believe this is the proposed uh ground floor um you can see that the proposals to change the use and occupancy uh in move some of those uh second floor um commercial and businesses down to the ground floor um and you can see the relocated dance studio and some of the other space that will remain for those existing uh tents next slide please so here's the the Crux of the project um we are seeking to infill that Second Story uh move some of those commercial uses to the and octopus uses to the ground floor and then in fill that inside with a new second level uh for eight total units including a one one twoed 2 and 1/2 bath three two bed two baths three one bed one bath and den and one one bed uh one bed and one bath so basically four two beds and four one beds and um this is again inside the building not being added to the building the building's not getting taller or wider um the this is just an infill development uh new unit actually inside the existing two-story structure uh next slide please uh this is the existing elevation the I'm sorry the proposed elevation you can see uh substantially similar at the front uh but uh we are proposing to add a few new Street trees after discussion with the uh neighborhood group uh we also are uh proposing to add windows at the rear uh which is in the bottom elevation and again that's because we're fitting out that space for residential to allow the you know adequate light and air uh and those windows again above above the rear the the building and above those train tracks for the MBTA uh next slide uh zoning um so we need zoning relief for floor area ratio uh it's an existing non-conformity at 1.32 we're proposing to increase it to 1.73 again that's uh only because of the internal additional floor area the building is not being uh expanded all from it existing conditions now uh we need open space because we are adding the eight new residential units 50 ft required uh we're not able to meet that uh both because of the existing footprint of the building also uh having a roof deck uh AB budding the MBTA train tracks was uh not something that we were looking at uh both due to safety reasons noise Etc um so uh we do need open space relief and then finally off street parking obviously uh there's no on a street parking now at the site there's nowhere for it to be and adding the eight additional units um causes deficiencies uh in our parking program but again it's an existing non-conformity it's a Transit oriented very walkable area for the these units as I had mentioned it's across from open space of the Constitution Beach Park uh and it's within a quar mile walk of the uh NBT station on the blue line for or Heights and again we're on uh we're on um Bennington and this whole area has a bunch of restaurants and amenities nearby um which helps mitigate the the PO buildings uh next slide it's just our refusal letter I just went over all of these uh the three variances that we need for f open space and parking um so we can go to the next slide we can wrap up and just say Madam chair that we did you know meet with the Orient Heights neighborhood association I'm sure the mayor's office will speak to that they did vote in support we did include some responsive measures to address that feedback including uh sidewalk improvements uh New Street trees which you can see here and we did add on-site uh bike storage and we did work with all the tenants that wanted to remain at the building to make sure that they had improved facilities uh if they wanted to do so um and I will finally just wrap up and say we did get a planning uh Department positive recommendation uh that this is supported by the planning goals for Orient height square and that you know this is uh in line with what was established recently by plane East Boston that was adopted in J so happy to stop here Madam chair and answer any questions you might help thank you thank you are there questions from the board hearing none may have public testimony good afternoon Madam chair and members of the board my name is Eva Jones representing the mayor's office and Neighborhood Services regarding 969 to 985 Bennington Street our office will defer to the board's judgment on this matter a community process was conducted including an a Butters meeting held on 73124 which was attended by about three constituents the primary feedback from this meeting was the landlord needed to work more closely with the tenants in the building which currently include recovery on the Harbor as well as the dance studio from my understanding the applicant did work with the tenants and all were able to come to an agreement as attorney zozula said uh additionally the proposal was reviewed with the Orient Heights neighborhood association which convened on 10 2124 uh the association has expressed support rep regarding the proposal and has voted eight in favor three against and one exstension to the proposal at this time the mayor's office and Neighborhood Services defers to the board's decision thank you for your time and consideration everyone thank you I see no additional raised hands Madam chair with that may I have a motion motion of approval with um review from the Department of pars Recreation there second second Mr stbridge yes Mr Valencia yes M we will yes Mr Aken yes this is an excellent proposal of this location and good use of the building Mr Collins yes Miss pado yes chair votes yes motion carried thank you again thank you you're welcome with that uh we'll take a 15minute break e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e we here this we present Mr Aken present Mr Collins present Miss pado present Flor is yours Mr stbridge okay so we'll begin with the red disccussion schedu for 11:30 at this we asked to withdraw the grow before so we will go on to case boa 160 8586 with the address of 353 Cambridge Street if the applicants and their representative are here they pleas compl I'm here representing myself for 353 Cambridge Street Douglas Bacon great please proceed uh this is a request to remove a Proviso on takeout that was granted for this address for the previous uh tent of the building Regina Pizzeria I am the new occupant of the building and I want to remove the Proviso that the take out was granted to that petitioner only great thank you uh any questions from the board can I have public testimony Madame chair members of the board Siggy Johnson with the office of Neighborhood Services this uh request is consistent with the long-standing use of this location as a restaurant uh petitioner additionally presented to the active Civic group in the area the olon civic association they forwarded a letter of support to our office with that background we defer to the Judgment of the board thank you thank you thank you any other raised hands I see no additional raise hands Madam chair with that may I have a motion make a motion to approve may I have a second second Mr stbridge yeah Mr Valencia yes Miss weo yes Mr Aken yes Mr Collins yes Miss pado yes shair votes yes the motion carries good luck thank you next two cases have been referred so we'll move on to case boa 161 5346 with the address of 374 East 8 street if the appli if the applicant didn't the representative pres would they please for the board yes thank you Mr stbridge Madam chair members of the board attorney Ryan Spitz with Adams samarany business address of 168 8 Street first floor South Boston uh joining me today are the owners Maria Morales and Braden Adams Reed also joining us is the project architect Eric zerson this is a proposal to add a third story Edition with a roof deck to an existing single family along with the construction of a onecar garage at the rear of the property we are in a multif family resident residential local Service subd District we have the following violations uh we have a roof structure restriction as we are altering the profile the roof line by adding Dormers uh to both the left and the right hand side to the three-story proposed rare Edition uh we do have a floor area ratio code in this subd District requires a 1.5 and the proposal calls for a 1.94 which is consistent with the massing in the scale in this neighborhood uh we do have a height violation code requires 35 ft and The Proposal calls for 38 ft 10 in but again consistent with the neighborhood we have a front yard insufficiency code requires a 5ot setback but the existing building is pre-existing non-conforming with a setback of 4.3 ft uh we do have an insufficient side yard code requires 3 ft and the site has a pre-existing non-conforming side of zero which are being extended but not being worsened in this condition uh and then lastly we do have an insufficient rear yard setback property is measuring at 84 ft which is considered under the shallow lot exception which require us a 15t setback but this proposal is at 11t and is dimensionally similar to other RAR yards in the surrounding uh neighborhood uh at this point in time I'm going to pass it over to the board for any questions or comments thank you any questions from the board hearing none they have public testimony oh nice are you speaking on this I see no my apologies my apologies uh Madam chair members of the board sigy johnso at the office of Neighborhood Services uh this petitioner has completed the on community process our office hosted an a Butters meeting on July 15th at which no concerns were raised proponents additionally presented to the Dorchester Heights neighborhood association which relay to our office a position of non opposition with that background we defer to the Judgment of the board thank you thank you I see no additional raise hands Madam chair thank you may I have a motion make a motion to approve is there a second Mr St yeah Mr Valencia yes Miss weell yes Mr Ain yes Mr Collins yes Miss pado yes chair votes yes the motion carries great thank you next we have case boa 160 5291 with the address of 457 to 469a West Broadway if the applicant and though the representative are present would they please explain to the board thank you Mr stbridge Madam chair uh members of the board attorney Ryan Spence with Adams and Mory business address of 168 8 Street first floor South Boston I'm here on behalf of my client tend Dental uh the proposal is located at 457 through 469a West Broadway which is a five-story mixed use development surrounded by other mix use buildings with ground floor retail and restaurants this proposed project is a ground floor interior fit out for a dental office with only eight dental chairs consisting of approximately 2,272 Square ft which would occupy one of the two ground floor commercial spaces we are again in an MFR LS subdistrict and have the following two violations uh we do have a use violation as a dental office is considered a professional office which requires a conditional use permit within this sub district and given the property is surrounded by other service uses we believe this is an appropriate location for such use uh and lastly we do have an insufficiency for parking lack of the off street parking is a pre-existing condition that cannot be changed and is also a very similar issue to many of the other ground floor commercial spaces on the street with that being said I'm going to turn it over to the board for any questions or comments thank you Mr Fitz any questions from the board hearing none may have public testimony Madam chair members of the board sigy Johnson with the office of Neighborhood Services this petitioner has completed the on community process our office hosted on a Butter's meeting on June 17th at which no concerns were raised proponent additionally presented to the Cityside neighborhood association which has relayed a position of non opposition with that background we defer to the Judgment of the board thank you thank you I see no additional raise hands Madam chair thank you with that may I have a motion have a second second Mr stbridge yeah Mr Valencia yes Miss weo yes Mr Akin yes Mr Collins yes Miss pado yes chair votes yes the motion carries thank you next we have case boa 162 2071 with the address of 302 Chelsea Street if the applicant Andor representative of present would they please explain the case to the board yes uh thank you Mr St Bri and good afternoon Madam chair through the members of the board Richard Lind with a business address of 245 Sumer Street in sponson be have the petitioner uh we probably jump down to slide five Madam Ambassador um just give the board some brief background here we go um so just by way of very brief background Madam chair this matter was before the board in 2023 uh with a similar proposal uh with the only difference being that we were proposing a vertical addition of a for story at that time uh the board felt that the uh proposed fourth level was out of character with the uh predominant I guess height for this side of Chelsea Street uh and voted to deny the project without prejudice uh suggesting that we should consider uh other alternatives to the building for the expansion of any living space that we're looking at we've gone back to the drawing board we've eliminated the vertical addition uh and instead proposed a rear Edition that we believe is much more in alignment with the amended zoning that has recently been adopted these spost um if we can jump down to slide eight um one of the things that I will point out is that this project not unlike a number of projects that were recently filed uh for East Boston was filed prior to the enactment of uh the Amendments article 53 and therefore the violations that are set in the public notice um have either been eliminated based upon the amendment or somewhat modified based upon what the new zoning allows I would point out that we do have um a couple of violations including insufficient lot area for additional dwelling unit excessive Flo air ratio and minimal usable open space all three of those regulations have been amended uh so that they are no longer applicable under article 53 uh and therefore would not be violations currently uh if this matter was filed after the enactment of the Amendments um with respect to the side yard uh the new zoning District the EV3 requires a three-foot setback on the sidey guard as you can see from our site plan tough to see uh we do uh maintain a two- foot setback which is the current setback on the left side of the building uh the amendments to article 53 also permit uh for non-conforming conditions they allow both vertical and horizontal extensions provided that we are within the rear yard setback and within the height limit uh both of those would be true for this addition uh we have a 10 just over 10t set back on the rear yard because this is a shallow lot uh the shallow lot exception is still exist under article 53 provided that our rear setback is no less than 10 ft which is the condition that we are proposing uh in addition we do have a parking violation because this is a pre-existing 3unit dwelling we are proposing to change the use to four units uh we are cited for insufficient op parking but this board is well aware uh the creation or the introduction of a curb cut to create only one parking space goes against City policy as well as the BS and transportation Department's recommendation uh when it comes to parking uh last but not least uh we were also cited for uh use uh the use that we are proposing is four units which is considered a multif family residential use interestingly in the uh new EV3 District up to six units is permitted on one lot provided it meets certain dimensional requirements uh so although that would technically be cited uh it is something that is actually permitted in the EV3 District uh so I do want to point that out last I should say also we are we're recited for gcod this is in the groundwater conservation overlay District uh and we do have both the no harm and the Boss Water S letter if we could jump down to I believe it's slide um uh maybe Slide N eight or nine look the floor plan uh next slide try the next slide um perhaps one more slide one more after that here we go perfect um so as you can see here um the proposed renovation actually result the entire renovation building with upgrades to Life Safety we do propose a roof deck that roof deck is allowed and permitted under article 53 and the Amendments our proposal would take the lowest level uh and create uh the additional living space that we are proposing for the additional unit it would be a two-bedroom unit uh we would point out that this does meet not only the uh height requirements florid ceiling height for that lowest level but this is a full walkout condition uh so although this is in the lowest level it does have full windows as well as full walk out on the back so it does uh present itself as a good candidate for a lower lower level expanded space space we jump to the next slide please we can show the actual elevations uh so we do have the 3D elevations here that do show the differential between the grade at sidewalk towards the rear of the building as you can see we do have that full walkout condition as well as the ability to introduce uh the windows to the back portion of the addition next slide please and just the onedimensional elevations again to illustrate the amount of space that we do have as the building goes towards the rear uh it is actually a full story towards the back of the building itself you can see the proposed um stairwells and erress the deck and the access to the roof deck uh this time I'm sorry I was just going to ask as you speak about that basement condition can you speak to uh sea frog since that was also cited yeah so um sea frog at the time this was filed mam chair c frod uh article 25A was applicable but only to projects that were subject to um a small project review a large project review under article 80 uh in this case because of the date in which this was filed uh the C fraud uh requirements are not applicable um they would not be applicable until U after May 1st I believe when the new zoning went to effect to include all properties within the C FR other questions from the board yes Madam chair uh turn L can you address the other comments from the uh planning department letter particularly around the distal dwelling unit and the lot width um yes so with respect to the dwelling unit that's being proposed again this this being filed prior to uh the enactment of article amend article 53 the lot with requirement indicates that anytime you have a lot with that's greater than 55 ft uh up to six units would be allowed on the parcel but that is under the new Amendment uh but I would point out for the board that the intent of the code is to allow for multif family uh in certain parts of EV3 District uh this section of Chelsea Street does have a number of multi family units already uh both both sides of the set of Chelsea Street actually uh and this is located within close proximity to a good amount of open space at the Brean Street Park as well as public transportation Madame CH one more question is there what's the particular driving or unique factor of this building of this location to have the the that requires you know requesting the the the lower level uh unit here yeah so the plan here Mr aen has been for a complete renovation of this building cut renovation upgrade to Life Safety including sprinklers um so part of that included a uh look at what the total cost would be and whether or not it would be a worthwhile investment to to go ahead and make those Renovations and proceed uh and to add additional unit would certainly offset those costs thank you any other questions from the board hearing none may have public testimony good afternoon Madam chair and members of the board my name is Eva Jones representing the mayor's office and Neighborhood Services regarding 302 Chelsea Street our office will defer to the board's judgment on this matter a community process was conducted including an ab's meeting on held on May 9th 201 24 which was lightly attended the primary feedback from this meeting was overall parking concerns in the community and the add of the addition Adu um Additionally the proposal was reviewed with Maverick Central neighborhood association uh which has expressed support regarding the proposal at this time the mayor's office and Neighborhood Services defers to the board's judgment uh thank you everyone for your time and consideration thank you good afternoon Madam chair members of the board Christian Boston BR a trust and we have both gcod letters from the applic thank you I see no additional raiseed hands Madam chair any other questions from the board may I have a motion Adam chair I will put forward a motion of denial without prejudice um and further reasons uh the site doesn't have the adequate Frontage as updated in the zoning to support four units as well as concerns around sea level rise as stated in the memo is there a second second and I I think we do want to be consistent that we have been sort of um consistently trying to align with the plan East Boston in our approvals Mr stbridge yeah Mr Valencia yes Miss weell yes Mr Aken uh yes I agree with that I don't see the other unique characteristics of the uh of the building or the site that that require the approvals Mr Collins sorry yeah Miss pado yes chair votes yes the motion carries thank you have a good day now we'll move on to the interpretation case scheduled for 1 p.m. or will we done 1:00 oh sorry do we need to take a eight minute break I I can save the drama Madam chair if I may this is going to be okay yeah we're going to request a deferral on this okay is that okay Caroline can we do it before one Madam chair can we wait eight minutes just in case anyone needs to comment on this okay Mr Lind sorry we have to wait problem we'll see you in minutes e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e present Madam chair Mr Valencia present Miss weell present Mr Aken present Mr Collins Pres pres Miss pado present okay the floor is yours Mr stbridge thank you madam chair this will go on to the interpretation case schedule for 1 p.m. that being case boa 160 2742 with the address of 123 to 125 Broad Street if the applicant Endo their representative of pres will they you explain the case to before yes thank you Mrs tdge and good afternoon again Madam chair members of the board Richard Lind 245 Su Street on behalf of the petitioner um mam chair requesting a deferral uh I believe we have this issue just about worked out with ISD uh just probably a little bit more time for the plans reviewer to review what we've submitted um and hopefully we'll be able to dismiss this uh request uh at the next hearing okay thank you uh Caroline are we in December yeah we could do December 3rd or December 10th uh either is fine whichever works for the board okay uh with that may I have a motion motion toer until December 3rd may have a second Mr stbridge yes Mr Valencia yes Miss weell yes Mr Aken yes Mr Collins yes Miss pado yes chair votes yes motion carry see you then thank you very much and thank you for your patience good afternoon everyone thank you byebye day Folk e