good morning the City of Boston Zoning Board of Appeal hearing for April 8th 2025 is now in session this hearing is being conducted in accordance with the applicable provisions of the open meeting law including the updated provisions enacted by the legislature this year the new law allows the board
to continue its practice of holding virtual hearings through June 2027 this hearing of the board is being held remotely via the Zoom webinar event platform and is also being livereamed in order to ensure this hearing of the board is open to the public members of the public may access
this hearing through telephone and video conferencing the information for connecting to this hearing is listed on today's hearing agenda which is posted on the public notices page of the city's website boston.gov members of the public will enter the virtual hearing as attendees which means you will not see
yourself on the screen and you will be muted throughout unless administratively unmuted when asked to comment board members applicants and their attorneys or representatives will participate in the hearing as panelists and they will appear alongside the presentation materials when speaking
panelists are strongly encouraged to keep video on while presenting to the board as with our in-person meetings comments and support will be followed by comments and opposition the order of comments is as follows: elected officials representatives of elected officials and members of the
public the chair may limit the number of people called upon to offer comment and the time for commenting as time constraints require for that reason the board prefers to hear from those 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 hands should go down when the host sees your hand you will receive a request to unmute yourself select yes
and you should be able to talk if you are connected to the hearing by telephone please press star 9 to raise and lower your hand you must press star six to unmute yourself after you receive the request from the host those called upon to comment will be asked to state their name and address first and then
can provide their comment in the interest of time and to ensure that you have enough time to do so please raise your hand as soon as Mr stebridge reads the address into the record do not raise your hand before the relevant address is called or the meeting host will not know to call on
you at the appropriate time mr stebridge good morning Madam Chair present good morning Mr valencia good morning Madam Chair present good morning Mr langum
good morning Madam Chair present miss Willow good morning Madame Chair present good morning Miss Better Braza good morning Madam Chair president good morning the floor is yours Mr stebridge and just a note that we are a six member board today
thank you Madam Chair we will begin with the approval of hearing minutes these are all scheduled for 9:30 all these are from March of March of this year first being March 1st I'm sorry the
first being March 4th next being March 20th and next being March 25th i'll uh render a motion to approval is there a second second second mr
sbridge yes mr valencia yes mr langum yes misswell yes miss Bza yes chair votes yes the motion carries
next we go to the extension scheduled for 9:30 a.m there are 10 cases this morning um the recommendation that the that these are all reasonable and should be approved we begin with case
BOA1359819 with the address of 21 CN Street next we have case BOA 1255410 with the address of 19 Bennington Street then we have case BOA 142
6452 with the address of 68 Terrace Street next we have case BOA 141 943 with the address of 5 NIA Street then we have case
BOA 141 9403 with the address of 127 St andrew Road next we have case BOA 768729 with the address of 79 to 89 West Broadway
then we have case BOA 143 4919 with the address of 122 Saratoga Street next we have case BOA 138
3661 with the address of 329 to 329A Columbus Avenue next we have case BOA 1332592 with the address of 19 Woodville Street and finally we have case BOA
818377 with the address of 111 Terrence Street and those are the extensions for today any questions from the board hearing none may I have a motion to approve the extensions as requested
i make a motion to approve the extensions as requested is there a second second mr stebridge yes mr valencia yes mr langum yes miss
Weell yes miss Ba Brazza yes chair votes yes the motion carries next we move on to board final officer case cases scheduled for 9:30 a.m first we have is case BOA
66711 with the address of 151 Liverpool Street if the applicant and or the representative are present would they please explain to the board yes uh good morning Madam Chair members of the board my name is Tony Leasey i'm
the uh I'm an attorney at Croitus and Bluestein in Boston appearing for the applicant City Point Liverpool we are seeking a modification of two of the previously granted variances for this project uh one for height and one for off- streetet parking
for height we are seeking an overall height increase of 2 feet from 66 feet 4 in to 68'4 in and this increase as a result of increasing the ceiling height of each floor by 4 in to achieve a ceiling
height of 8 ft per floor for off- streetet parking we are seeking a reduction from 33 parking spaces that were originally planned for a basement and first floor parking areas to 14 parking spaces due to the elimination of
the basement and the basement parking area the uh the changing to one level of parking uh allows the project to continue uh to contain 36 units including five
affordable units as the cost of constructing the required foundation for the basement and installing and operating the proposed vehicle elevator uh have become prohibited uh we we uh believe that the uh parking will be
sufficient for the project expecting that fewer owners will own motor vehicles and instead we'll be taking advantage of alternative modes of parking the project is uh well situated for residents to access the local services and uh local uh public
transportation uh the proposed reduction in parking did trigger a notice of small project change and we submitted to the city of Boston planning department and after a thorough and comprehensive review of the revised plans for the project and a
number of virtual public meetings the BPDA board approved uh this uh change on March 13 2025 also with me today is uh the architect for the project Chris
Drew and who is uh who's posted the uh plans the revised plans for the project given given the reduction of parking how how will you determine who gets parking you you know you noted this was home ownership or is it rentals it's home
ownership and uh we uh we think it'll be sufficient for the units and we're we're just sensitive to the overall cost of the project uh keeping our uh monthly fees
under control so uh we will uh the the affordable units are by contract uh not eligible for parking so there will be uh 31 unit 14 spaces for 31 units and there'll be some uh
marketing plan that will allocate those to the uh uh uh probably to the larger units although that's not yet been determined uh you know if we find that uh in marketing these units that the buyers
have more cars than we anticipate uh we have approached the owner of the uh empty parking lot uh adjacent to the project and uh he's amendable to discussing with us a long-term lease so
if we find that that marketing the units becomes problematic without the parking uh we'll uh we'll consider that alternative thank you other questions from the board yes this is for for the architect um in
regards to the ceiling height what did you have originally uh for this residential building did you have it at We had it 7 foot six we're just trying to limit the overall height of it um the assemblies and stuff like that when we got through the CDs and all that stuff
got a little bit thicker than we were originally hoping and planning um so that's where getting the additional 4 in will help um this this project itself has gone through many iterations um back before the board a few times um because we had to rework it for the uh for the
underground vault um then we had to pick the building up because of Ford plane it was just this this project i understand that and on future projects would you still be doing 7 foot six or would you now aim for 8 ft okay no we
always we always aim for much higher this is a little unique to trying to be sensitive got it okay no no problem i I Madam Chair I see that it's it's not violating any other um uh requirements so this seems fine to me thank you thank
you any other questions from the board hearing none is there a motion man I'd like to put for a motion of approval is there a second second mr stebridge yes mr valencia yes mr langum
yes miss Weel yes better Brazo yes chair votes yes the motion carries good luck thank you very much next we have case BOA 127
9801 with the address of 120 Bra Street if the applicant and their representative are present would they please explain the case to the board yes uh good morning uh Madame Chair members of the board attorney Nick Suzula Mcdermi Miller and Hanley uh here on
behalf of Zanzibar Capital uh who is um uh the applicant here today with me is Eric Drosski and Nitson Matti from Zanzibar Capital this is fairly similar to the one you just heard uh Madame Chair members of the board um asking for
approval for revised plans from a previously approved project um that was approved by this board in February of 2022 uh to a different developer uh in Zanzibar since then is uh purchasing the project and they're looking to make a
change uh to the parking program specifically uh along with some other ground floor changes to the existing you know that is consistent with the existing grant of zoning uh relief and approvals from a few years ago um in essence in order to make construction
feasible they're proposing to revise the approved building uh and its previously approved on-site um parking aotment um what was originally approved was 31 parking spaces it included two handicap spots as and a bunch of these spaces
were in kind of a puzzle type parking system uh uh not necessarily stacker but a little bit more involved puzzle type system in order to fit all those spaces um the project is 32 condo uh home ownership units and what was approved
was 31 parking spaces um what they're looking to uh do is to reduce that parking down to 18 uh so still a pretty healthy amount for the 32 units um these are uh similar to the previous project these are uh are proposed as condo units
um so it would be 32 condo units in 18 spaces there would still be some stackers but it'd be more of a normal stacker situation versus the puzzle system um they're also proposing some some basement uh and ground floor reconfiguration and relocations
uh the trash room and things to better uh have a better building flow as well um there's no change in the approved home ownership programming again 32 condo units uh there's no change to the unit or bedroom counts there's no change to the affordable component the building
footprint any of that all this takes place within the existing building that was previously approved uh back in 2022 the project did get zoning relief for off- streetet parking uh insufficient and the design and maneuverability so uh this is a modification of that there's
no new zoning relief needed uh and the reason for this is you know ba this is right next to Boston landing it's not even a 5minute walk uh probably less than that um it's a very transitoriented location there are high costs associated
with this mechanical puzzle system and obviously you know in the past 3 years construction interest rates etc have gone uh through the roof since the original uh permitting of the approved project so this revision would allow them uh to build to build the building
um and then you know last thing I'll note is similar to the previous project this was an article 80 small project review project um this change was approved uh by the BPDA or the planning department uh last month as well at their March board hearing um so happy to
pause there madam chair uh and answer any questions but uh it's it's a fairly straightforward ask of the board thank you thank you uh I'll just ask the same p uh same question about the parking just how will you allocate given the reduction yep so that's a great great
question Madam Chair you know these are similarly uh uh condo units so these spaces would be deed to specific unit owners um I I don't think they've gotten to a specific programming as to who it would be allotted to typically the way it works is the first purchasers of the
units if they would like to have a space they have access to purchase this you know to get a deed space as well um so you know I don't want to say it's first come first serve but that probably will be typically how the situation is um there are there are five affordable
units as well uh two of them are threebedroom uh two onebedroom and a twobedroom uh there is a healthy unit mix here um you know I think we've worked with the DPDA and planning as well to come up with a plan uh that makes sense from a planning perspective uh for the parking
thank you questions from the board yeah I um I mean if if the plan exam not plan examiner but the Boston planning project manager if he was on he or she was online it would be great to hear feedback on the relocation of the bike
storage on the main kind of street in brand in Brandree um you know it it's hard to give up kind of commercial space potential commercial space to bike storage um I don't know what the logic was versus reducing ucing even more
parking and putting the bike storage in the garage but I find the urban kind of design aspects of replacing a potential rentalable store commercial storefront uh to bike storage is is a loss for the
commercial vitality of an area um that you know that's but again this is not a necessarily a zoning issue um it's just more of a future looking um you know for the for the area uh yeah I can answer that i don't I
don't So Tyler Ross was our project manager um member better for us i don't see him I don't see him on in any capacity and we didn't ask him to come on so he may not be on otherwise um so I can't I can't necessarily answer for him
i would just say that as part of the overall project um you know break there was certain things that that were done for for you know the the bike room being brought up i believe the bike room was originally I think you had mentioned in the basement uh or or some of the some
of the building uh operational items were in the basement that were that were brought up uh to the to the ground level um once this change was proposed what was it before uh what was occupying that space it was a lounge it was for It was
a tenant amenity yeah so the commercial is still there um the commercial space is still there at the corner if it's above 450 ft it is you know small uh but there is proposed commercial space still at the at the ground at the corner there
of Blaine and Brainree um so it is still there it's just been kind of rejiggered to allow for the bike room and everything else it it is a pretty it is a pretty tight and narrow site um so I think you know as you can see on the plans they're trying to fit as much as they can in on the ground level um and
this will allow them to build it so the commercial it is still there yeah other questions thank you any other questions from the board yes ma'am mr sula the project was approved three years ago so what are the reasons this project was
never built and what are the opportunities for your team to build this project now if approved yeah yeah so I I I we didn't rep um uh member Valencia we didn't repres I didn't represent the uh the original project so I I don't know you know I
think just like with anything in the city um you know Eric Eric and Nitson are on and maybe you could answer that if you want more details but um you know they they this will allow them they feel that this change will allow them to reduce some of the cost with that puzzle
system which will make it constructible i don't know why the original developer uh uh didn't uh move forward with it um you know I can't speak speak for that um but I think the hope is that you know we've gone to the BPDA we're coming to
you all and we just got a zoning extension I think a few months ago as well for the decision hope is that this is buildable um and that this these changes will allow them to reduce some of the costs associated with going down further into the basement uh you know removing that puzzle system these are
things that they've looked at as new developers uh and sharpening the pencil so to speak uh to make it buildable okay thank you yeah thank you other questions hearing none is there a motion
madam Chair I'll put for a motion of approval is there a second second mr stumbridge yes mr valencia yes mr langum yes
miss we better Brazo yes votes yes motion carries good luck thank you next we have case BOA1566439 with the address of 761 to
793 Street if the applicant and or their representative are present would they please explain to the board good afternoon members of the board uh my name is or good morning rather uh my name is Rebecca Lee i'm with the law firm of Mintz and I am here to represent
the owner of this property um sorry that my screen is not working here uh but uh we're here for a final arbiter decision on a question that ISD has raised um did she disappear
made her a panelist but I might have muted her for a second um can you unmute yourself yep okay there you go okay we can see you now good morning good morning uh let me start again uh Rebecca Lee from Mintz um I represent the owner
of a building known as 761 793 Boilson Street the middle portion of which is 777 Boilson Street that's the building where Kraton Barrel used to be it's been vacant for over 3 years um we received a conditional use permit from the board of
appeal in 2024 to have the upper floors converted to a miniature golf facility um at the time we presented a presentation to the board that clearly showed a DJ booth on the second and third floors of the structure uh of the facility there's a mini golf course on
the second floor mini golf course on the third floor um and um but our client's building permit was for the Coron shell work um when the tenant came in to get a building permit for the tenant fit out work um the ISD plans examiner said
"Well that's entertainment that's not part of use item 38 except that use item 38 clearly uh calls for entertainment uses." So this is not live entertainment ladies and gentlemen this is a DJ playing
recordings and um a usual and ordinary course of operations for miniature golf course facility that's also going to have um seated areas for food and beverage service so we're here for our final arbiter um interpretation that in fact the board of appeal decision did
contemplate this um um ancillary uh uh DJ uh entertainment thank you and and you noted this is intended for DJ not live entertainment however can you just uh can you confirm uh if you receive the license that that
that would be the case and you would have to return if if they wanted a live entertainment license or is that actually included well possibility i mean yeah the license the the um if you if you scroll I'm not sure who's controlling the Yeah if you scroll down
uh and continue on you'll see in the plans Hang on a second yeah on to the second floor you just keep moving on um no okay here you go so you'll see the DJ right under the
swinger sign so the licensing board wanted clarification that the conditional use permit included what's in use item 38 which is what the board gave us um a decision on and then
the licensing board obviously will will dictate hours of operation and things of that nature they haven't gone before the licensing board because we wanted to get this zoning clarification made first
other questions from the board hearing none is there a motion m i make a motion of approval is there a second second mr stanbridge yes mr valencia yes sorry thank you uh M Mr
langum yes miss Weo yes miss badazzo yes votes yes the motion carries good luck thank you very much next we have case BOA31
0507 with the address of 29 Hamilton Street if the applicant and andor their representative are present would they please explain to the board justina raised hand to Sarah is that you or you uh yes that's me good morning
Madam Chair members of the board um my name is Sarah Wegman i'm an attorney with Hecket Fineberg PC in Boston and I'm here on behalf of the applicant today uh I believe we also have present uh Paul Worenton i'm probably gonna mispronounce that Paul
i'm sorry uh in case we have any questions for him but he's the architect of Davis Square Architects uh who's also present um so I'm here today uh to seek a final arbittor decision uh for clarification from the board regarding three flagged
additional nonconformities um the situation here is that V8 Aid which is a nonprofit organization that some of you might be familiar with uh is working on a project to provide 36 units of senior affordable housing in Dorchester um and due to some
requirements of the lenders financing the property we just are here to get a final uh clarification and decision regarding some additional nonconformities that were flagged um the original permit application was filed in
2022 and as you'll see in your packet there was uh the um refusal letter issued uh by Jordy from ISD in 2022 um the decision for the permit was
issued in 2022 we also got an extension to that through June of 2026 due to various delays in uh getting federal funding uh which we are hoping are resolved now and we're looking to move forward with the financing um that's why we are here
getting clarification on these uh there was a duplicate permit application filed for the same project in November of 2024 and a new refusal letter issued by a different um ISD um individual uh and upon noting
that the duplicate application was for a project that was already approved ISD instructed our client to withdraw that second application which they did um the construction uh Delbrook is going through the process
right now and getting the building permit and everything sorted out which is a separate lane uh but we are here to address the three additional items that were raised in the 2025 letter that were which was then withdrawn uh and were not
raised in the 2022 letter um we are on this agenda today with Jord's uh support to just acknowledge that these three things that were raised uh the project has not changed since
2022 there are zero changes um since this is affordable senior housing uh article 65 section 41 for off- streetet parking uh doesn't apply um as there isn't a requirement of parking even though there is some in an underground garage
um there are no proposed off- street loading requirements um this hasn't changed since the beginning of the project the project again remains the same and the insufficient sideyard setback that was noted on the 2025
withdrawn letter relates to a slight um encroachment of some windows that are higher up on the face of the building that encroach slightly into that sideyard setback um and although for purposes of the project approval in the
building permit which is preceding the withdrawal of that second duplicative application rendered the 2020 25 refusal null and void we are here today because we need a little bit more for purposes of the financing especially you know the
federal and state financing um that we don't need anything else the project remains fully approved by the board as reflected in the decision that was already issued recorded and extended um so there's no proposed off- streetet
loading area uh there's no parking required because of the affordable senior housing use of this property and um we also uh the project remains
unchanged as approved in 2022 related to how the side setbacks are so we're looking for today just acknowledgement and affirmation that the project remains approved as set forth in the prior decision and that the additional nonconformities will continue to be a
non-issue any questions from the board hearing none is there a motion motion of approval is there a second second thank you second Mr stebridge yes mr valencia yes mr langum yes miss
Weell yes miss Ba Verazza yes chair votes yes the motion carries good luck thank you we'll now move on to the hearing schedule for 9:30 a.m and along with that two things um we are a six member
board today folks want to take that as consideration and then we will request if there are any um ask if there are any requests for withdrawals or deferrals from uh from
any of the 930 cases uh yes Mr stanbridge uh the first 9:30 matter 9 Oak Square Avenue so that would be case BOA 1691
234 with the address of 9 Oak Square uh would you go ahead and explain attorney Morans yes thank you Mr stebridge good morning Madam Chair members of the board my name is George Morancey i'm an attorney with the business address at 350 West Broadway in South Boston madam chair members like to request a deferral
uh so that we are able to make an adjustment in response to the planning recommendation okay uh questions from the board caroline do we have dates yes um how long are you looking to defer until
uh as quickly as possible the changes are fairly minor we need to have the uh refusal letter updated and corrected and a revision to the site plan so we could certainly short date if available
okay we have May 6 or May 20th or June 3rd uh I think May 6th should work we'll make it work okay with that may I have a motion
motion to defer till May 6 is there a second second mr stbridge yes mr valencio yes mr langum yes miss Weo yes
miss Brazza yes chair votes yes the motion carries see you then thank Thank you any further requests for withdrawals or deferrals for 9:30 and with that we'll move on to case BOA 1 169
0509 with the address of 23 to 25 North Beacon Streets this is also an art this is an article 80 case if the applicant and or the representative of president will please explain to the
board thank you and good morning madam chair members of the board my name is Johanna Schneider i'm with the law firm of Himalayan Barnes and I'm here on behalf of the project proponent alpha management here with me and if he has not yet been promoted madam ambassador if you could please do so we have Tim
Loringer of Embark the project architect we're really excited to be with the board today um with a proposal to redevelop an underutilized site in Alustin by replacing an aging three-story multifamily structure with a new six-story 25 unit building that will
fill in a missing tooth on North Beacon Street which as this board knows has under undergone a real transformation over the last several years this is an ideal site for a residential development of this scale and that it is a short walk to the MBTA Green Line several bus routes and the MBTA commuter rail it is
also approximate to Union Square a major neighborhood commercial area the project project leverages this location by providing zero parking while focusing on sidewalk and streetscape improvements along the project's frontage to enhance the pedestrian and cyclist experience
mindful of community feedback that we received while we were out in the community process the site plan has been designed to ensure that loading short-term deliveries and pickups and drop offs can take place within the site rather than creating congestion and
safety issues on North Bacon Street the project will alo also support the city's goals of promoting the development of both attainable and affordable housing bringing 25 new rental units in a mix of one two and three-bedroom units four of the units will be IDP units and one of
the IDP units will be a three-bedroom unit in order to create a family housing opportunity which we know is important to this neighborhood the project also won't break key sustainability goals the building will be all electric and we have deliberately cited the building and developed a robust tree protection
program to ensure the continued viability of existing mature trees on the site we've also developed a planting plan to increase vegetation on the site and to add a new street tree onward Bacon Street with respect to the appeal the relief that we are seeking is
similar to relief this board has granted the other newer multifamily projects in the neighborhood the use scale and scope of the project fully align with the built environment of this portion of North Beacon in addition there are unique site constraints at play here the site is an unusually narrow lot that
slopes significantly from North Beacon toward the rear property line in addition a concrete retaining wall runs the length of the easterly property line and as I mentioned previously there are several mature trees at the rear of the property that the project will preserve these site constraints are a significant
driver of the zoning relief needed to redevelop the existing nearly functionally obsolete building that is currently on the site finally I do want to acknowledge the important role that councelor Braden and her staff have played in this project at her suggestion
we've created an interior trash location to ensure more efficient trash management and to reduce the risk of third-party illegal dumping at the site as well as rodent issues in response to comments that the counselor has raised about trash management across Alpha's
portfolio in Austin Brighton we've taken a very aggressive approach to investigating and clearing outstanding violations alpha has hired a third party consultant who spent 25 years working in code enforcement in the city he's done an audit across the portfolio and is
working with the owner to clear outstanding violations 95% of which are trashreated he's also working with Alpha to develop a series of best practices to be implemented at all of its properties some of these best practices include installing a closed lid on all dumpsters
and monitoring non-resident dumping through surveillance and other similar measures as the audit has revealed that many of the violations in fact involve trash from other properties some of these management issues arise from the fact that many of the units that Alpha owns and operates in the city including the existing building currently on this
site are older housing stock we do think that on this site going forward having a new building will eliminate many of the maintenance challenges inherent in operating older buildings that are approaching obsolescence this project represents a significant investment by this owner and
they look forward to building and operating a new modern building with much needed rental housing in this very suitable location for the use at this point Madam Chair I can turn this over to the project architect to walk the board through the plans in more detail or we're happy to take questions from
the board whatever the board wishes thank you let's pause for questions are there questions from the board yes uh if if the architect can talk about kind of shadow studies uh and potential impact on the residential
units on Ever Street and it seems not so much on Clem Walt Street because it's buffered by um large vegetative trees but it would be good to just understand because of the height what the um solar impact are on Ever Street residential
units thank you that's it thank you uh yeah we did uh early in kind of the massing studies project we did kind of an extensive shadow study of the area um and because we're giving that 30 plus vote buffer for to kind of preserve those existing trees um there's minimal
impact to those units to the rear um of the site uh from shadows from our building uh because of that buffer the the tree impact is significantly greater than anything created by um the building itself that was part of the reason for kind of setting the building forward and closer
to uh North Beacon Street and are there going to be any mature trees uh to be removed because development okay great no we're preserving all the existing trees we also have uh the setback at the top level goes to 50 ft as well so uh that's part of the reason for kind of um
shrinking i think they said it back okay thank you no no further questions madam chair thank you any other questions from the board hearing none may I have public testimony yes madame chair members of the board Connor Newman with the mayor's office of neighborhood services this
time the mayor's office to defer to the judge with this board some background information the community process uh the applicant went through a BPDA small project review uh receiving board approval January 16th prior to that they had done a public meeting September of
2024 uh in addition to that public meeting they also met with the Alustin Civic Association several times and also connected with the Brighton Austin Improvement Association we're unaware of any concerns presently as you heard uh they're taking great steps to address uh concerns regarding trash and making sure
it does not impact uh existing rodent problems in the neighborhood with that we'll defer to the board thank you thank you see no raised hands or do we have anyone from anyone's elected officials office okay m I have no additional racks at the
moment okay uh with that may I have a motion motion to approve there a second second yes mr valencia yes mr langum yes miss
Weell yes miss Bedar Raza yes chair votes yes motion carries thank you very much thank you next we have case BOA 1691
967 with the address of 434 Washington Street this is also an article 80K if the applicant and their representative are present would they please explain to the board thank you Miss Dembbridge thank you Madam Chair members of the board attorney Jeff Drago
at Drago and Tuscano with the business address of 11 Beacon Street here on behalf of the applicant Wesley Long and his company Peninsa Capital Group and I also have Tim Loranger again from Embark uh to answer any questions and go
through the plans once we get into them what you're looking at uh is an article 80 approved project at 434 Washington Street in Brighton you can see that uh this is located right on a corner lot um in an area right near uh some of the
squares and commercial area uh next slide please i don't know where that slide is um looks like it's loading but as that's uh going through uh the loading process uh this particular location falls right
in a corner of Foster and Washington Street it falls within a neighborhood shopping district and there's a mix of housing stock uh both commercial as well as residential within this immediate area uh this particular location falls
right on the corner it's an existing underutilized parcel um the location has been uninhabitable for a number of years and it is zoned as a single family now but has been boarded up uh my client's proposal was to create a mixed use to
fit within this neighborhood character which is a mix of residential as well as commercial use so this proposal that was approved by the BPDA board if we can go I don't know if the presentation's back madame Ambassador can someone click on the link
to the proposal jessica or Jean i don't know who's controlling it no raised here can we go back to the presentation the link Jessica i'm not controlling that i'm not sure who it is looks like some
technical difficulties okay yeah so I I'll keep going Madam Chair i Okay yeah sorry about that in the interest of time um and so the proposal is to demo the existing structure uh and to erect a new fourstory
uh mixeduse building this would include 18 residential condominium units and one groundf flooror commercial space um with 11 off-street parking spaces uh to go with those units by way of a stacker
system the uh gross square footage of this building is 16,200 square ft and our building height is 48 ft 4 in it's a fourstory building i think it's important just to mention um as we went
through this community process both through the article 80 process and meeting with civic associations and and neighbors um that we actually modified this project um and so we started this
was a fivestory residential building we went down to four stories where we currently are now we originally had a height of 60 ft bringing that down to 48 ft uh 4 in and reducing our F from 3.29 to
2.54 and also bringing our unit count down from 24 units to 18 units where it's at now we also have an increase of affordability and IDP on the project as well okay this is great thank you uh
Madam Ambassador so this just shows the uh location of the the lot and you can see around it is commercial and residential you can see our corner location uh right here along Foster and Washington Street it's also a great uh
commuter uh spot there's a bus line directly in front of us we're about a 15-minute walk to the Green Line T station as well uh we have a dedicated bike room also as part of the the proposal and you could just see some of the other
surrounding character buildings from this uh view right here uh on our IDP so this has three affordable units bringing us up to uh 16.7% affordability on the project uh
just a breakdown of the unit count we have six studios ranging at about 480 square ft² nine one-bedroom units ranging at 670 square ft and three twobedroom units ranging at around 800
square ft and three of those are the affordable units those affordable units include one studio and two one-bedroom units and those are at 50% AMI 80% AMI
and 70% AMI respectively um we also uh have a number of community benefits that went along with this project as well we we can pause right on the plans here cuz I'm turn it over to Tim in a minute and those are going to include sidewalk and
streetscape improvements uh along Washington and Foster Street and that includes ADA compliant ramps and also two new street trees along Foster Street uh we're installing fencing for screening and buffering for our
neighbors uh that'll also include landscaping along the s southern edge of the property line uh a one-time bike share contribution and to continue working with um BTD and the planning department on the route 57 bus stop
changes that are going to be taking place uh in the near future and obviously the uh affordability of this project and keeping a commercial component on the ground level with that I'm going to turn it over to Tim Manger
to go over the plan uh thank you and good morning again uh madam chair members of the board uh looking at the site plan here just to walk you through a little bit of the programming um Washington Street is at the bottom of your page is where we've located uh a small retail space approximately 1100 square ft and given a
2 and 1/2 ft setback um to the property line to kind of give a little bit more uh buffer and breathing room to that sidewalk where we have the existing bus stop uh and then we've uh pushed the um residential lobby kind of off of Foster Street the quieter more residential street kind of at the midpoint of the
building here uh which gives direct access to the bike room which is um kind of at your center of your plan and then to the rear of the site we have our um our garage parking where the uh entrance is set back about 15 ft here from the property line we kind of notch out the
building in order to provide some some more um uh visual separation there for cars entering and leaving the garage uh and then at the very rear of the site we have a 10-ft setback from the line um where we're using that space to kind of program for a small gathering area for residents uh with some visual and
physical buffer um buffering to the the neighbor on Bosch Street uh then at the upper floors here we have six units per floor a combination of studio one and two as was noted um and each of the upper floors here are are consistent across um as you climb the building uh we do have a kind of zero
lot line no setback condition um adjacent to the laundromat uh on plan um so page left here so that' be to the east um at the ground level where where we have the garage uh but above that we do step back from kind of 10 to to 3 ft depending on you can see there it kind
of staggers with the diagonal um shape of the property line there and then within that buffer space at the rear we're also adding um some new vegetation and trees as well uh at the roof um no uh occupants in the roof just uh uh mechanical equipment at the center
uh the elevator over run and then access for that as needed and here are just some some views looking up and down Washington Street and then an aerial rendering uh with that I can hand it back to uh attorney Drago i think that concludes our presentation madam chair and we can answer any questions the
board may have thank you are there questions from the board uh sorry did you mention the uh percent IDP units i I missed that i did m but I I'll mention it again so it's uh 16.7% of the project it's three units
one studio and two onebedrooms uh the studios at 50% AMI and then 80 and 70% for the uh one bid thank you questions from the board uh madam chair the applicants aware of um I'm
sorry comments from the uh Boston Transportation uh I mean we we've met extensive article process article 80 with BPDA's uh transportation department so um and in
particular on the uh traffic flow so we hired uh traffic engineer Howard Stein Hudson uh to perform traffic studies based on increase from BPDA and BTD uh we also uh know that there's going to be a lot of work to the bus line that's
going on there so we took all of that into consideration um Mr stford thank you i I only have a a comment because I know that in article 80 review it's still kind of in design development potential uh phase and um I'm not sure
if you have your your project manager on board for BPD uh but this is just a comment oh you do i see a hand up i think Zoe is on yes I'm here okay so Zoe this this is just a a comment the renderings are are great and I really
appreciate that the architect um showed the building at all sides so the perspective on Washington Street looking east materially it works really well and volumetrically it works well with the urban environment because the the there's a building that receds at the
end which is I think it's cladded in gray gray metal but if you look at the other view looking west um if you can just take a look at the material and the volume and the building is also rendered gray it um it it just doesn't kind of
fit completely in its context the way the other view does so it's I know this is more of um you know aesthetics but I just wanted to put make a comment on that for you yeah definitely and I can take that back to our urban design reviewer on the
project as well and we'll work with this project team yeah and it looks like it was trying to accommodate a bedroom on the on that corner end so I understand that type of massing but if you could just look at it urbanistically um you know because I would hope that the plan
is not just an extrusion in an urban environment so just take a look at that thank you no further questions other questions from the board hearing none may I have public testimony yes madam chair members of the board Conor Newman with the mayor's office of
neighborhood services this time the mayor's office would defer to the judge of this board uh as you heard uh this went through a Boston planning uh department review uh community process for small project review uh involving a public meeting uh in August 20th of 2024
and then eventually BPA board approval November 14th 2024 uh there were some concerns from the community regarding uh the proposed density uh which you heard there were some reductions made uh in the unit count uh as well as parking concerns and also concerns regarding its
location uh next to a busy intersection uh Washington Street running into Foster Street at the edge of Brighton Center uh the Brighton Alustin Improvement Association the active civic group for this area was opposed to this proposal uh with that refer to the board thank you thank you zoe are you commenting
yes um yeah just hopping in here i am the project assistant in the development review division planning department side just expressing a planning department supported the project um as Connor mentioned it was approved by the BPDA board on November 14th 2024 um the SP
was filed on July 24th and we had um a public meeting on August 24th and I know the project did additional independent community outreach as well so we're happy to see this project move forward and progress through the design review process of article 80 and um defer to
this board for further action thank you have no additional residence at the moment with that may I have a motion madam Chair I'd like to make a motion of approval is there a second second Mr stanbridge
yes valencio yes mr langham yes miss Weel yes miss Better Barazza yes chair votes yes the motion carries good luck thank you very much next we have case BOA 1677709 with the address of 50 Braden
Street if the applicant is with their representative present would they please explain to the board john Walsh oh see a raised hand here one second okay Jay I sent I'm sending a request to make you a panelist once you become a panelist you can unmute yourself
uh thank you good morning Madam Chair members of the board um Jay Walsh on behalf of the property owner Brian Clinton um for 50 Bine Street uh we're here today for um to for propose a three family dwelling at 50 Bin Street in
place of a unoccupied single family um what we are proposing is um three family consisting of one three-bedroom unit and um and two two-bedroom units on a 3,300 ft² lot in Rosendale uh the site sits
right in the middle of uh Rosendale Village in the Forest Hills MTA station so it is adequately served by public transportation and in close walking proximity to the neighborhood's business district um the site currently is occupied by a single family home that is
current that is unoccupied and the proposed structure uh mirrors the dimensions for the most part with the exception of the height and uh 18 in of our sideyard and then the rear uh where most of the um structure is is the new
proposed structure is being built um our violations are for insufficient parking we're providing three parking spaces in the rear of the property which will be deed to each of the units each unit is is intended to be a forale condominium uh and we have a violation for usable
open space uh most of the open space on the site is inhabited by the structure but we do have a roof deck uh which will be available for for the top floor unit uh as I mentioned our sideyard violation is is existing uh we do have an existing
6'6 sideyard uh where the proposed structure is 5 foot 10 in so we are like I said 18 inches away from from what the existing is and we are maintaining the existing 10-ft sideyard that currently serves as a driveway um as I mentioned you know the
um the site is in close proximity to to Forest Hills um the the height is consistent with the existing structures and um we did have you know uh multiple meetings with our butters both facilitated by the mayor's office and as recently as last night as a follow-up
just to uh run through the the project with the neighborhood uh so with that we'll um take any questions thank you any other questions from the board hearing none of testimony madame Chair and members of the board for the record my name is Jeremy Bevery i am the
Roslandale community engagement specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services the applicant has completed the community process which consisted of an ABUS meeting held on February 10th that was likely attended with approximately seven ABUS of attendance abuas did voice concerns regarding the current zoning uh in
regard to the three family residents in a one and two family zoned area uh Abu is also voiced uh that there will be no affordable units other concerns voiced more than once were parking and congestion as a Buddhist pointed out there is currently very little on street
parking and without offering off streetet parking it will add to the congestion uh the proposal was not required to present to a civic group following outside of a catchment area thank you for your time and the mayor's office of neighborhood services would like to defer to the board for their judgment thank you thank you okay and we
have no raised hands at the moment okay with that is there a motion i make a motion of approval with uh post planning and review there a second second mr stumbr
yes mr valencia yes mr langum yes miss We will yes m barazza yes chair votes yes motion carries good luck thank you next we have case
BOA [Music] 1654474 with the address of 36 to 388 uh W Street if the applicant and their representative are present would they please explain the case to the board yep
this is Ben Boardman i'm the owner my wife is at work so I am representing her and our builders from THI are here as well uh really appreciate the time madam chair and members of the board uh what we are requesting is a variance for the
uh additional construction to our existing home uh these homes were built in 2017 what you're looking at right now is a a lot of four units we are the lower right unit the unit that is unit
38 the unit to the left of that is unit 36 and we have pictures of that if you want to see what they look like from a street view perspective but that Yep and so this is what the units currently look like uh what you'll see is that the top roof line that is what we are looking to get access to that is an unfinished
attic space that we will be turning into a bedroom a closet a bathroom and a storage space this is not adding additional occupancy to the house this is simply moving our main bedroom from the second floor to the third floor and
u turning in a bedroom into an office and turning our current bedroom into a guest bedroom so taking out a bedroom moving it upstairs uh we are not changing the height of the house we are not changing the footprint of the house
uh but those are the variances that they're we are asking to get approved um to do this project again just adding a bedroom bathroom closet and storage space uh in an unfinished attic space
and you can kind of see the bumpouts right there with the additional dormers on either side of the house thank you questions from the board hearing none may I have public testimony madame Chair and members of the board for the record my name is Jeremy Benbury
i am the Jamaica Plane community engagement specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services the applicant has completed the community process which consisted of an abot meeting facilitated on January 9th that was very lightly attended with only two of us in attendance uh both of us were supportive of the proposal next the proposal was
presented to the Jamaica Plane Neighborhood Council zoning committee on February 5th where they voted to approve the proposal thank you for your time in the mayor's office of neighborhood services would like to defer to the board for their judgment thank you thank you councelor Royal's office
yes hi I'm Anastasia from District Board of Councelor Warell's office and I'm speaking on behalf of Council War council Roy would like to express his support for the proposed project um to finish an attic and add a master bedroom full bathroom and utility closet and to frame two new dormers and support for
their efforts and ensuring they have support from the directive letters for the project um thank you for your time and we have no additional raised hands at the moment with that may I have a motion i make a
motion to approve there a second second Barza Barza mr mr stebridge [Music] mr valencia yes mr langum yes miss Wow
yes m Brazza yes chair votes yes motion carries good luck thank you Madam Chair members of the board [Music] excuse next we have case BO8 165
9168 with the address of 312 Talbert Avenue if the applicant andor their representative presence would please bring the case to the board uh thank you uh Mr stebridge uh good
morning madame chair and members of the board uh my name is Nancy O'Neal i along with my colleague Paul Tier of Dembroio LLP represent the property owner of 312 Talbot Avenue Mr joe Defarius of Defarious Investments uh so this
applicant is the owner of 312 Talbot Avenue currently a vacant lot as well as the abuing property at 29 Southern Avenue which is a multifamily residential building uh if we can move to the next slide please uh so the proposal here is to construct a new
residential building on the vacant lot uh with sufficient parking spaces to be provided at 312 Talbot lot and partially on the 29 Southern Avenue lot uh via easement and if we could move to the next slide please uh thank you uh so to
speak about the 312 Talbot property uh this 312 Talbot lot is a long triangular lot located in the Dorchester uh 3F district um the shape of the lot which tapers uh towards the rear of the lot makes it difficult to situate a building and parking on the lot uh without zoning
relief and if we can move uh to the next slide please uh so this new building at 312 Talbot Avenue would be a three-story residential building which would contain four dwellings uh so that would include uh one dwelling on the basement level and then a dwelling on each uh of the
three stories uh so these dwellings would be familysized units of approximately 1,200 square f feet and each would contain uh three bedrooms uh if we could move uh to the next slide please and you can see uh the floor plans here uh so the number of dwellings
proposed here fits with the neighborhood uh which contains several buildings with four or more dwellings um to this end we are requesting uh variances under article 65 uh section seven and eight to provide uh the fourth unit uh at the basement level uh and if we could please
uh go back three slides to the site renders uh thank you madam ambassador um uh one down please thank you very much uh so in terms of size and scale when this building was designed we took a look at the other buildings in the
neighborhood and tried to design something that would fit in terms of size scale uh and aesthetics uh so the dimensions and placement of the building are in line with or smaller than several neighboring structures uh so we are requesting dimensional variances under
article 65 uh section 9 for floor area uh I'm sorry lot area lot width floor area ratio uh building stories uh front yard setback uh and sideyard setback so the proposed building would contain three stories and be within the maximum
height of 35 ft this building would be smaller in height and stories than the buildings on either side and many of the large multifamily uh and apartment buildings in the neighborhood so overall the proposed building is midsize for the neighborhood then in terms of setbacks
we have placed the building to maximize the distance from neighbors the building is situated towards the street line and the abuing property owned by the applicant at 29 southern uh the requested variances are for front yard setback and the sideyard setback at 29
southern the side setback with our neighbor at 310 Talbot and the rear setback with our neighbor at 7 Hope still are compliant uh again this is a midsize building uh that has been situated to account for the triangular nature of the lot uh and to accommodate neighbors in terms of building style and
design the building was specially designed to be the mirror image of the 308 uh Avenue building so if you're looking at the top image here it's uh that beige building which is one door down from our proposed building um so the proposed building will fit in terms
of size scale and existing architecture unlike that 308 Talbot Avenue building we are proposing a driveway along the left side and parking in the rear so the new parking area would abut the neighbors uh paved parking areas at 310 Talbot and 11 hope six spaces are
planned in the rear of the lot with some of those spaces to be provided in the rear of 29 southern via easement so we are requesting variances under article 65 sections 39 and 41 upper offocus parking uh and parking screening so with
the six spaces and four dwellings uh the parking count is compliant every dwelling would have a parking space um and as the parking is sufficient we don't expect uh cars from building residents to be parking on the street so this property is nearby stops for the 22
26 and 45 buses is a short walk uh from the Talbet Avenue uh commuter rail station so there are options for people who wish to have cars and for those who would wish to utilize public transport and for this reason we don't anticipate uh any negative traffic impacts so now
in terms of landscaping uh the front right side and rear yard will have grass laid down and there will be paved walkways to the front door inside of the building so this would be an attractive building with greenery around it uh in terms of the community process for the proposal we met with the Butters on
November 6th 2024 um the project was wellreceived um beginning in October we got in touch with West of Washington to help at North Triangle Neighbors United and Cogman Square Neighborhood Council we attended West of Washington's uh November 20th meeting where we presented
the project and received feedback and suggestions on building improvements and community benefits uh next we attended uh Talbert Morphick Triangle Neighbors United's December 3rd and January 28th meetings and based on the suggestions of these groups we'll incorporate feedback
surrounding book boxes security cameras uh and an Amazon Dropbox uh into the building and we also formulated a community benefit plan and out of the community process we have also received letters of support from state representative Holmes and principal Hughes Odum of the nearby Holmes
Innovation rule um so that concludes our presentation and we are happy to answer quite any questions that the board may have thank you thank you can you can you um speak to the basement which is uh seems to be half below grade and you mentioned sort of a mirror image to a
nearby building are there other buildings uh that are triple decorated with these basement units uh so in terms of uh the basement unit uh I believe that unit is
uh partially below grade uh and then in terms of uh other neighborhood builds basement units uh I believe there are other buildings that are four units um let me just
see i believe there are other uh buildings that do have basement units but that mirror image building at uh 308 uh I am not sure it's the presence of a basement unit in that building okay because this is new construction with
like basement unit below great but I'll I'll point it to someone else on the board if they want to i mean I can I can expand on that a little bit uh do you have your the architect with you um let me see because it might be
helpful to ha to have the architect speak on some of the accessibility issues that were brought up um by the city of Boston uh in regards to um the first floor units not being
accessible and so I just wanted to comment that if you do have your architect on on that would be helpful but if not I can make some comments um I think your basement unit needs a second means of egress the plans don't really
know any kind of uh windows as a refuge or you know but I do think that it is possible to maybe put a second means of egress at the rear okay let me see uh I believe we also have uh attorney teller on my office
yeah I think what we need to speak to an architect unless you can answer the egress issue that I'm pointing out to uh let's see we have uh our applicant here who I believe has some information uh on the building uh if I could turn it over
uh to our applicant Mr defarius hi there my name's uh Joe Defarius the owner of the property and also acting as the uh designer of the project um the building will be fully sprinkled um so I do understand that there would be the
one means of egress but also those windows will also be acting as a means of egress as well for the appropriate square footage of uh those window sizes so each each bedroom will also have a second means of egress in case of a fire
to be able to escape those bedrooms okay and then um it was noted that the ground floor uh by Sarah Tilton who reviews our accessibility should be um accessible in regards to the entrance and to um common
corridors and then the other issue that was brought up to our attention is your parking count so you have four units but you are providing uh let's see how many we're currently providing six units six so you're kind of exceeding the
requirement and that was kind of flagged for us to review and and it's not being necessarily promoting additional cars um if if anything Tabidot AB is is really well suited for transit oriented
development that reduces the the car um and so that was another thing that was brought to our attention if if there's possibility to reduce your parking you know and then one of the questions I have is to Jeff Hampton's he
if he's on um it seems like you were still flagged in terms of violation for parking manability and parking and so I wonder if we were to ask you to reduce your parking if it's going to increase a new violation
um and so if someone from BPD or can comment on that that would be helpful mr hampton are you with us i I can do my best Jeff impression he's not available
today okay well yep um so um we we understand I mean the violation about um about parking is always going to be hit since you can't fit all five spaces on the lot and so sort of the easement consideration of that putting
on southern a is fine um it is true that um given the accessibility of the site relative to transit um on balance the plane department would prefer to see less parking um especially since the site is so small this would be
substantially paving currently an unpaved site and a lot of also the abuing site um so uh sort of given that you're already getting the hit so to speak of minimum parking even though additional spaces are being provided off site um lower would be okay um I think
Oh that's right Will so my that was something that I was a little bit not clear on so the violation currently is for parking or loading insufficient um so basically if we were to move forward the project and request that they work
with BPD on the quantity count it's okay because it was it was already flagged a violation i just wanted clarity on that that's my machine yes great thank you yeah sorry go ahead no I'm done that's it the question is from the board i would just
add on um to member uh better Barza's concerns about parking just the heat island effect as well i think this is in an area of the city that does um have a higher um temperature with paving so anything possible to reduce the paving
um I would be supportive of miss O'Neal are you responding to something or do you is your hand just up from being up earlier uh my hand is up from uh being up earlier like to uh if I could please uh invite the applicant to
uh comment on the reduction of parking sure we're we're absolutely open to the reduction of parking um what why we were trying to provide additional parking is we did have some abunders um express their concern on taking some
parking on street so what we were in hoping to do was providing additional parking to help alleviate some of our butter's concerns but we are absolutely open um if if that is the direction we'd like to do to minimize parking down to
five versus six thank you with that may I have public testimony sorry thank you yes madam chair members of the board for the record my name is Jeremy Benbury i am the Madapan community engagement specialist for the office of neighborhood services the applicant has completed the community
process which consisted of an aboters meeting facilitated on November 6th with only one in attendance uh with only one inquiry regarding time frame uh next the proposal was presented to a few specific organizations west of Washington on November 20th uh Taba North
Triangle Neighborhood Association as well on October 17th uh TA North Triangle Neighborhood Association had voted to oppose the project due to no affordable units uh at this time thank you for your time in the mayor's office of neighborhood services would like to defer to the board for their judgment
thank you council is Jessica on I see them council hi yes uh good morning madam chair members of the board oh can you hear me my Okay my screen just
blocked out sorry about that uh my name is Anastasia and I'm speaking on behalf of councelor Wal who wanted to express his support for this proposed project at 312 Tala Avenue as a res residential building featuring four units all with three bedrooms and dedicates parking spots this project helps meet a common
need in our district for more familysiz multi-bedroom housing to better support constituents and their families we appreciate and hope to see more sustained efforts of collaboration between developers civic groups and community members moving forward thank you for your time
and Paul are you looking to give testimony here yes I am okay go ahead i just wanted to clarify a point that Mr benry said on uh Friday of this past week um Calv Norolk actually submitted a second letter in
which they um have decided not to oppose the project but we're actually taking a neutral stance and that was submitted to the um ZBA on Friday so I just wanted to to clarify that one point that the letter that they submitted of last week
was that they were actually taking a neutral stance and not opposing or supporting the project thank you have no additional reason to answer any other questions from the board may I have a motion madam Chair
I'd like to put for a motion of approval with uh three provisals one is that the site the project be reviewed by BPD paying closely attention to site planning so as to reduce the parking uh
significantly to allow for open space the second being that the basement be designed with um appropriate egress uh to allow for a live livable unit uh in the basement and then third is to review
um accessibility to address some of the concerns uh by the city's accessibility expert okay is there a second second mr sebridge
yes mr valencia yes mr lam yes miss Wo yes miss Ba Brazo yes chair votes yes the motion carries [Music]
next excuse me next we have three companion cases submitted by the mayor's office of housing the first is case BO8 169019 with the address of Levy Caiten
Street then we have case BOA 1 169 0082 with the address of 270 Northfor Street and along with those two we have case BOA
169011 with the address of 262 North Street if the applicant andor their representative present would they please explain these to the board madam Chair I need to recuse myself thank you so we will be a five member board for
this case good uh good morning Madam Chair and members of the board my name is Ross Peny i am an attorney with Klein Hornig um though uh the member correctly said the applicant is uh Mo that was for technical purposes since right now is
still the owner of all these parcels i am representing Norfor Capen LLC which is a affiliate of Codman Square Neighborhood Development Corporation a well-known CDC uh in the Codman Square neighbor uh Codman Square District of
Dorchester um these uh three parcels 11 Capin Street 262 Norfor Street and 270 Northfor Street are being developed together um at the recommendation and advice of the city um as Leon Governor
we submitted three separate applications uh to get three separate refusal letters but across these three parcels they will be developed into 15 affordable home ownership units acry one three-story building with three
units and a third three-story building with six units there'll be a combination of two and threebedroom units the two bedrooms are average about 870 square ft and the three bedrooms average about
1,030 ft and all of the units will be restricted um either at 80% AMI or 100% AMI and uh this project is being developed and financed as part of the second phase of the city's welcome home
uh initiative so um otherwise would be subject to article 80 small project review but because it's a welcome home project has not gone through small project review um the right now there are three vacant
rather narrow city-owned lots and um you know uh the plan of course is to develop these three buildings it also includes some on-site improvements put some new vegetation some uh some other
uh patio and other green space related improvements and also have seven parking spaces one of which is accessible um once you know once construction is underway and there's sufficient uh structure to declare a condo these three
units will be sorry these three parcels will be submitted to the condo statute um and of course there'll be a condo association with our ultimate 15 affordable homeowners uh the parking spaces um will be uh allotted by lottery
um pursuant uh to pursuant to the condo documents to our affordable homeowners um on an annual basis um you know we separately of course have applied for a number of variances
um buildings uh A and C um uh a uh use variance because they're multif family residential uh building B is three units um though of course is part of a larger multif family 15 unit project um and of
course um variances related to minimum lot area floor area ratio um not maximum building height in terms of feet but maximum building height in terms of number of stories uh front yard sideyard and rear yard setback and though of
course um as an allaf affordable project um you the provisions of the zoning code amendment related to off- streetet parking apply we have also out of an abundance of caution included off- streetet parking uh since we have seven
total spaces for 15 units um you know overall this site um you know these three parcels are adjacent to each other they sort of form an L around a neighboring parcel at 7 Capen Street that Coven Square has owned and operated
as affordable housing for a number of years very successfully uh you know the scale um and design of the project and I'm joined by Anna Lockach and Jonathan Garland of JGE architects the project architect um is designed to blend well
with the neighboring buildings most of which are three families or small apartment buildings uh and you know the site um is very clo a close walk to the uh Morton Street Fairmont station for
the commuter rail and is uh right off Norfor Street several bus lines um that's I'll turn it over to the AR to uh to Anna or Jonathan anything further on the plans and of course we're we're happy to uh uh field questions from the
board yes we can pause here and ask if there are questions from the board hearing none may I have public testimony yes madame chair members of the board conor Newman with the mayor's office of neighborhood services this time the mayor's office is referred to the judge for this board uh some background
information the community process uh it was overseen by Mo uh regarding um outreach to Butters um prior to the start of the project uh taking interest in what residents would like to see located at at these properties um there
was some concerns press expressed by residents regarding just off streetet parking um at the density uh the applicant met several times with uh reclaiming our community ROC uh throughout 2024 and also connecting with them again recently uh we're unaware of
any further concerns and with that we'll defer to the board thank you thank you and Madam Chair we have no raised hands at the moment with that may I have a motion we we just had a raised hand i'm not sure if Council's office yeah go ahead
councelor Roy's office sorry about that for the late hand yes this is Anastasia um from Pencil World's office speaking on behalf of Pencil World who would like to express his support for the proposed projects at 11 Caven Street 262 Norfolk and 270 Norfolk as part of phase 2 of
Welcome Home Boston's initiative excuse me um as a city council for district 4 council world especially supports projects that center affordable home ownership as a priority and we appreciate this project adding 15 new units of 100% affordable housing to our community we look forward to seeing how
the proponents will continue to work with the transportation department to address outstanding parking parking and traffic safety concerns um thank you for your time thanks we have no additional raise hands thank you so with that may I have a motion
motion to approve may I have a second second mr stebridge yes mr valencia yes mr langum yes
miss Weell yes chair votes yes the motion carries thank you very much good luck yes uh Madam Chair since we've uh come to the 11:00 hour you'll ask if there are any requests for withdrawals or
deferrals from the 11:00 hour raised hand okay lower your hand see no additional raised hands thank you Madam Bethany uh with that we'll return to the 930 cases and we
will go to two companion cases case Boa 1631598 with the address of 32 Dwey Street along with that we have case BO8 1631
161 with the address of 34 Dwey Street if the applicant and or their representative are present would they please explain the cases to the board madam Chair I need to recuse myself thank you so we are again a five member
board thank you Madam Chair members of the board my name is Verna Woodward and uh my firm is Urban Determination LLC my client Mr barbosa
owns two adjacent nonconforming lots uh he and his large family intend to inhabit the three family proposed for 32 Dewey Street as well as the two
family uh at the adjacent 34 Dwey Street uh the properties are long and narrow resulting in narrow buildings uh with way can rotate that sorry
you can keep going but I I think Jean's working on rotating I hope correct yes so I'll start with 32 Dewey that's the three family with two parking spaces at the rear each of the three dwelling
units has three bedrooms and uh two means of egress with uh decks at the front uh the front yard is aligned
with the other properties on the on the street uh immediately behind the property is Winthrop Park and there's also a corner lot owned by the city of Boston
uh which is currently vacant so although this does not meet the minimum parking requirements uh there's general agreement that on street parking has not been a historic issue at this property okay so we can
see 32 Dwey on the left the larger of the two lots and the three family with parking spaces in the rear uh if you I could continue with talking about 34 which is just a two family and
therefore one story lower in height and 34 has no off- streetet parking uh so that's a deficit of three parking spaces which as I mentioned earlier the
traditional historic parking on the street would not uh mean uh a hardship for the neighborhood but because of the non-conforming nature of the lot there's numerous violations
including in addition to off- streetet parking lot area width frontage F usable open space and yard setbacks and those are consistent between both
properties so uh Mr barbosa is a lifelong resident of the city of Boston uh he's on the call but his English is limited uh and we're happy to take any questions from the board understood uh questions
from the board hearing none we'll take public testimony madame Chair and members of the board for the record my name is Jeremy Benbury i am the Roxbury community engagement specialist with the Office of Neighborhood Services the applicant has completed the community process which consisted of an aboters meeting facilitated on September 4th where
abuters voiced concerns where no aboters voiced any comments or concerns uh next the proposal was a presented to Blue Hill Avenue Quincy Street Howard Avenue and Magnolia Street Neighborhood Association and Project Wright as well as Dudley Street Neighborhood Association where concerns regarding
off- streetet parking were the main concern uh the neighborhood association did vote neutral and the project was approved to move forward uh to date we have received two letters of support from state officials Liz Miranda and Chris Burrell uh thank you for your time and the mayor's office of neighborhood services would like to defer to the
board for their judgment thank you thank you okay you do not see any raised hands at the moment i want to give it a second thank you okay with that may I have a motion make a motion of approval with review
from the planning department especially special attention to improve improving parking configuration and increasing usable open space is there a second second okay m Steambridge
mr valencia yes mr lang yes mwell yes chair votes yes the motion carries good luck thank you very much next we have case BOA
1644 751 with the address of 5 L Street if the applicant and the representable are present to the board yes good morning madam chair members of the board attorney Matt Eckle with
Fletcher Tilton on behalf of the applicant also joining me this morning is Mr tim Burke from Timothy Burke Architecture Inc uh we're here this morning seeking to raise the existing structure at Five Lark Street and erect a new building with three residential
units and three parking spaces our original proposal was for four units and no parking however after meeting with the Butters and the community we modified the project to remove that ground level unit and incorporate parking into the project uh the lot
itself is located in a multifamily residential zoning subdist and is surrounded by residential buildings uh which include two family three family and multifamily structures uh you can see right here this is the uh proposed survey overlaid with the existing
structure so uh kind of the the dash line there to the front left of the plan is the existing single family structure you can see it's right on the lot line to the left and does have an existing curb cut off Lark Street on the right side and then you can see the proposed
uh building there uh within the site uh because we're proposing to keep the curb cut uh at the ground level we do have a zero lot line set back on the right however we're proposing to pull the building back as you go up to the second third and fourth floor to 3 ft to comply
with the sideyard setback on those upper floors lark Street itself uh connects West 8th Street and West 9inth Street and as mentioned the lot currently has a curb cut which will continue to allow vehicular access to the site uh we did investigate uh closing that curb cut
however there's already no parking on that side of Lark Street so there really would be no benefit to closing the curb cut and the abutters in the community really wanted to see some parking incorporated into this project uh the site's less than half a mile from the Redline station at Andrew at Andrew
Station excuse me uh and a tenth of a mile to several bus stops along Dorchester Street going through the floor plans here briefly as we uh scroll down to the next page the basement which you can see on the far right of the plans contains a very small common
mechanical area towards the front left of the site uh moving up to the first floor we have the main entrance and lobby as well as that vehicular entrance and three parking spaces and then there's one unit per floor on the second third and fourth floor all three units
are proposed to be two bedrooms ranging between 982 square ft and 1,058 square ft all with one bath uh each unit also has a small rear balcony which you can see kind of to the top left of the screen there which will
provide a little bit of private open space as well as uh common open space in the rear of the site with both permeable paper and proposed uh grass uh this project did go through a community process uh with two AB butter meetings we also had outreach with the cityside
neighborhood association as previously mentioned following our first Abut butter meeting uh where we heard the concerns about uh lack of parking and the roof deck we did change the plans uh we went back to the abuters and showed this three-unit scheme uh with the three
parking spaces we also at the request of the neighborhood did remove that roof deck and that is no longer proposed uh so with that I'll pause and uh happily answer any questions from the board thank you are there questions from the board
there is a comment from BPD suggesting that the um the entrance should be 10 ft to allow vehicular access is your is it 10 ft wide i see that your garage door is 8 ft but um what's the curb dimension
uh I would um defer to Mr burke if you can jump in i know the the entrance did shrink a little bit i believe the existing curb cut is closer to 10 than 8 ft and then the the entryway shrunk a little bit uh which we did see that comment and took
that into consideration but uh Jam if you're available and and then there's also a comment to reduce the number of spaces from 3 to two and that parking should be at 45° angle for safe maneuring morazz we did see that comment and uh we
don't we don't entirely disagree we're certainly amendable to reviewing that as part of our design review uh whether that's the internal staircase being slightly altered or or reconfiguring so we are certainly happy to look at that our goal was to get to one to one parking because of the community input we heard but we understand there's
certain site constraints and are happy to continue to work through that with the planning department yep great we have a 10-ft curb cut so we could look to widen that door yeah to widen a door i know you know 7 foot six is typical but I think it'll be good to widen that
door especially vehiculars are coming larger now um and then just kind of a comment i know that you pushed in the building volume to allow potentially because you were building right to the lot line uh to allow windows access to
let air in per code but you do have this strange kind of overhang um because you're trying to accommodate that garage entry uh so I just thought that um it would be good if the project gets approved to just kind of review that
with BPD in terms of the massing yes certainly we could do that yes great any other questions from the board i think um Sarah Tilta also for accessibility commented on the project that the entrances
um to the building are currently not accessible from the sidewalk and from the garage have a step up that is correct and we are um submitting a a variance to the act architectural access the MAB okay excellent okay great um and then noted
that the unit on the second floor would be considered the ground floor unit and therefore it should be a group one accessible unit meaning that you need accessible route to it either lift or an elevator are you also going to ask for variance on that yes we are yes okay all right so that kind of uh fulfills her uh
her concerns um Madam Chair I don't have any further questions thank you thank you are there any other questions from the board hearing none man public testimony madam Chair and board members Sigy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services this petitioner completed the
ONS community process our office hosted two letters meetings the first on September 18th and the second on December 3rd of 2024 in response to feedback from uh the first of Butter's meeting changes were made to the design and to the amount of parking on the proposal uh the second meeting one of
Butter was still concerned about the proposed setback um proponents connected with the Cityside Neighborhood Association which is an active civic group in this area and they are in non opposition to the proposal with that background we defer to the judgment of the board thank you
yes thank you Madam Chair members of the board my name is Sydney i'm from Counselor Flynn's office councelor Flynn would like to go on record and support based on a positive community process and engagement with the neighbors and cityside neighborhood association including good faith compromises such as
addressing a 1:1 parking ratio and removing the roof deck councelor Flynn respectfully requests that the proponent continue to work closely with the neighbors during the construction phase on any quality of life issues thank you thank
you any other race hands um I I'm a neighbor they unmuted me but I think I'm speaking too early i'm not sure are you here to speak on uh Five Lock Street yes I am i'm at Seven Lock Street that's my home this is the
appropriate time sir please okay uh good morning Madam Chair and members of the board uh I'm next door uh I just wanted to put my official concerns on on record not that I I it's going to make too much of a difference but um you know they're
recommending their recommendation saying go ahead sydney just said that they're saying go ahead cuz they worked with us on parking but 4 seconds ago we just went from three down to two because uh it won't fit otherwise so um you know it's just one of these things where I
think we're going through the motions of talking to the neighbors and and doing stuff but if it goes from you know it went from four down to three down to two it's not really addressing our concerns anymore um they they're planning a structure that I think is just too big
for the lot uh I think that's why the lot sat there for as long it's wedged between my house and another building on the other side of them uh that's on West 8th Street um I'm on the Ninth Street uh corner um and it just that there's all these variances that they're asking for
permission for things you brought up and it just seems that those variances are are you know because that the structure they're trying to build is too big um we just don't see how three units can fit there um and I think you brought up a lot of great points and then when they
go back to fix it then it they're not really addressing what we we had agreed upon during those those other meetings thank you for your time so just to clarify you're saying as a voters you you wanted the three parking the two yeah there's not enough parking on the
street to begin with so we wanted the extra parking and you know my biggest concern to tell you the tell you the truth and so are the neighbors i I mean a lot of them had to work so I I'm at work i just zoomed in um is that what you know it's going to really prevent us
as the directive we might lose our ability to park ourselves and come and go from our house as they build this monster and then across the street from them people can't get in and out as it is you know so yeah other raised hands you have no
additional uh with that may I have a motion madam chair uh I'd like to put forward a motion of approval with a provisal that the project under goes BPD review to
review the parking amount uh and take into consideration the direct butter that they would prefer more parking but I think if the BPD can just take a look at that with the architect and also address um the massing issue above the
parking structure to see if that can work better within its context uh that would be great thank you is there a second second Mr stebridge yes Mr valencia yes
Mr langum yes Miss We miss better yes votes yes the motion carries good luck thank you thank you very much next we have it's POA 168563 with the address of 15 Cfield
Street if the applicant and the representative are present would they please explain thank you Mr emmer thank you Madam Chair members of the board attorney Jeff Drago with Drago and Tuscano with a business address of 11 Beacon Street pretty straightforward uh
proposal it's to erect a three-story addition in the rear of an existing three-unit building and you're looking at the front of that building it's 15 Cfield Street uh I'm here on behalf of the applicant Josh Bloomberg uh and the
architect if we could stay right in this slide please um the architect is Beth McDougall who's also here to answer any questions um the proposal is to add a laundry room space and storage area to each of the three existing units that
would be it um the building would remain as a three-unit building the only uh area of the violations would be increasing would be rare setback in one space um and so if you see in the back of the building there is actually three
deck areas we're proposing to infill that deck space and then go out another 5t 6 in only where the deck area is so total this would be 12 ftx 14 ft 7 in um
addition including the area that would include where the decks are if you look at the topography in the back of the lot it's slanted so yes we are increasing the rear setback it would have 4 feet at its lowest point but as you start to go
down to the rest of the building goes all the way everything else would be maintained so 17 and a half at its highest point then 12 um so it's only in that area in the deck on each floor that we would be increasing or decreasing the rare setback just to include that area
the occupancy of each unit would remain as three bedrooms it would just be to give that laundry space uh to each unit and if you look at the aerial view as you start to go down the street there are a lot of um additions like that that come out farther uh than our building uh
if we can go to the next slide please this kind of just shows the area that would include that laundry room with stackable washer and dryer uh and it shows where that addition would go on uh on each floor and where the decks would be removed and you can also see on
the right uh survey where that addition uh would increase but how all of the other area would remain as open space uh in the back of the lot um with that I I can pause uh and answer any questions
that that the board may have thank you thank you can you just clarify the um the the whole area the enclosure of the deck plus the additional Yeah um 5 ft plus is that all the laundry space or is there So it's all laundry and storage
area so it's 140 square ft total per floor um including the area that would be just enclosing the deck and then the area that we would be going out the 5' 6 in um but all of the other area in the back so the addition would not extend to
the rest of the building only that section on the left hand side thank other questions from the board yeah so it does not make sense to me why a laundry room is as big as your kitchen and almost bigger than your bedrooms
um what is um why wouldn't you be able to do a reasonable size laundry room working within the kind of non-conforming setbacks of the existing structures so we were just adding storage space to
that uh this bedazza area because it is three bedroomedroom units so storage laundry room and area to you know ironing area that just to give a little bit uh uh more storage and you know laundry room space to that to that
section and it only felt that small area of the building okay i don't have any further questions thank you other questions from the board hearing none may I have public testimony madam chair and members of the board for the record my name is Jeremy Benbury i
am the Mid Doorchester community engagement specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services the applicant has completed the community process which consisted of an aboters meeting facilitated on February 11th with no aboters in attendance the proposal was not required to present any civic and we have not received any concerns letters
of opposition or support from the community at this time thank you for your time in the Mayor's Office of Input Services would like to defer to the board for their judgment millie thank you i just wanted to go on record and say I'm on a butter at 15 Elder Street and I'm in support of this project okay
your name millie Rosen oh thank you uh we have no additional raise hands at the moment thank you with that may I have a motion madam Chair I'm going to put forward a motion
um of I'm blinking out deny what I deny without prejudice um the reason why is because I don't I'm not hearing the applicant's hardship uh
in regards to um to the use of the laundry room uh I think that the applicant can make good use of it um with and staying within the existing kind of non-conforming setbacks that's
presented within the existing building is there a second could I could I I'm sorry Miss Better would it be possible if we deferred uh and try to rework the plan to because
the laundry room fac and I apologize for jumping in but the laundry room facility just as we updated the the units is is a need because right now was in the basement there was a like a coin operator you understand and you typically do review the Boston planning
uh decisions prior to the hearing so you were aware that that BPD also uh brought some concerns in regards to um going beyond the non-conforming setbacks
it did but and again we got it could have been withdrawn prior to the hearing well we got it on Friday so that was when the this last Friday but we did look at it i was a bit confused because we had I I was under the impression they thought the addition was bigger than what it was meaning that it's because it
was the setback of every other area of the lot is maintained except that one section but by deferring you are going to make changes it's very similar to a denial without prejudice that you would have to come in front of us with the change i would have to go through the community process again though as well
um okay i if you know and just in in in the interest of time um and not having to refile no and thanks for that thanks for that clarity but I'm going to stay with my with my motion okay and some who seconded second
Mr stbridge uh no i think a deferral would um I' I'd rather see it go into deferral that's all mr valencia yes mr langum yes
miss Weo i'm going to vote no um I would be okay with a deferral but I also in looking at the lot line in the rear and it you know is it kind of cuts back all those properties to the rear it does
create this very um close setbacks for all the properties on Cawfield so I I do think it's sort of an existing sort of condition of that slanted rear lot line
um that I don't think this would necessarily exacerbate that looking at 17 it looks like they have a very similar condition however I I do share member Better Barza's concerns about the size of the laundry room so
perhaps you know I could also see a motion for approval with design review unfortunately it would be on something very minor but understood thank you Miss Better Braza yes the chair votes no the motion does not
carry is there a second is there another motion we've heard a few options as we You want me to give it a try i will yeah sorry I muted myself by accident i will go with a motion for approval with designer view
to increase that rear setback and make that laundry room smaller is there a second yes mr stebridge yes mr valencia
yes mr ino yeah yes miss We will yes miss Better Braza yes i already said yes i think that was the second oh okay yes to the
chair the chair votes i know there's a lot of yeses and nos the chair votes yes the motion carries good luck thank you next we have case BOA169 2919 with the address of 36 to 42 West
Broadway if the applicant and their representative are present would they please explain to the board uh yes Mr stebridge good morning Madam Chair members of the board attorney Nick Soula McDermac Quy Miller and Hanley um here
on behalf of 32 to 42 West Broadway Realy Trust uh Jennifer Engelhart the property manager is with us and then our architect Derek Rubenoff is on the meeting as well um this is a fairly straightforward occupancy change Madame Chair it's an existing mixeduse
commercial building it's right across from Broadway TA station in South Boston uh we were actually here in April of last year for a different occupancy issue at this building and property uh we've been working with the ISD to confirm occupancy uh for a few years now
the different uses and changes to get everything um consistent and accurate and um we're still working with them on this building to get the other floors and uses up to date we were here in April of last year for the martial arts studio um now that we are requesting
that the board allow us to confirm uh legal occupancy of a light manufacturing use that's been there for many many years on the second floor and then change the legal use and occupancy of the third floor from a yoga studio to a office use uh for a landscape architect
um so there will be just some minor construction work on that third floor uh to change the use uh kitchenet toilet room things like that will remain there will be no changes to the exterior no building expansion is proposed um we need zoning relief because both the
light manufacturing uh use in the second floor that's been there for many years needs to be confirmed as a forbidden use and the office use uh on the third floor is actually also a forbidden use uh under the zoning code uh in the multifamily residential uh local
services subdist um so just occupancy changes including one that's just a confirmation of an occupancy and one that's a change um no no real change to the building itself uh we did fire the neighborhood uh we did uh have communication with the West Broadway
Neighborhood Association uh there was no objection uh during that process uh and we also uh did did receive a planning recommendation of approval for these occupancy changes so happy to pause i know it's been a long morning keep it quick um any questions happy to answer
thank you great any questions from the board hearing none may I have public testimony madam Chair and board members Sigy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services uh this petitioner completed the ONS community process anformational flyer was distributed to a Butters and
this flying solicited no feedback to our office the West Broadway Neighborhood Association is in non opposition with that background we defer to the judgment of the board thank you yes thank you Madam Chair and members of the board my name is Sydney i'm from Councelor Flynn's office councelor Flynn would like to go on record and support
based on a good community process we respectfully request that proponent continue to work closely with the neighbors in the community on any quality of life issues thank you thank you okay and um second of just heard from Sydney okay we're all set we have no additional raised hands with that may
I have a motion motion to approve i have a second second Mr sunbridge yes mr valencia yes mr langum yes miss
Wo yes miss Better Brazo yes j votes yes the motion carries good luck thank you before we proceed with 9:30 cases we'll ask if there are any requests for withdrawals or deferrals from the 11:30
time frame yes good morning i am requesting a deferral for 7779 Bailey Street uh bear with [Music] me so those would be the two cases would
be case BOA 163 0352 with the address of 77 BOA street and al along with that would be for case BOA
1632750 with the address of 79 B Street would you go ahead and explain please yes good morning Madam Chair and the board my name is Stephanie Seraniano i'm actually here today as an attorney on behalf of uh Shadam Mash Army of Zahir Law Group with an address of 40 Salem
Street in Lynfield Mass they do represent 77 and 79 Bailey Street at this time we are requesting a deferral as a matter of background we had a ZBA hearing scheduled for February 25th of this year that uh date had to be
deferred as we were waiting for a revised refusal letter based on design changes in response to feedback from the above meeting and neighborhood association meeting uh we submitted the revised plans on March 7th and as of today we have not received the stamped
revised plans from the plan examiner therefore we are requesting a new date how far out are you Thank you expiring thank you i believe one month would be sufficient caroline okay we could do May 6 or May 20th
uh May 20th okay with that may I have a motion motion to defer to uh May 20th is there a second second mr sambridge yes mr valencia yes
miss Mr langum yes miss Weel yes miss Babraza yes chair votes yes the motion carries see you then thank you any other request for withdrawals of def 11:30 time i see
yes please yes yes thank you richard for 296 summit so that would be for case VA 1564330 with the address of 296 Summit Avenue would you please explain yes
thank you and good morning madam chair members of the board richard Linds 245 Sumar Street East Boston on behalf of the petitioner um I believe you're a six member board madam Chair I'm sorry I came on late this morning but yes we are yeah just deferring administrative leave for a full board okay Caroline
we could do May 6 May 20th or June 3rd um let's go with May 20th with that may I have a motion motion to defer till May 20th may I have a second second mr stebridge
yes mr valencia yes mr langum yes miss Weo yes miss Better Brazo yes chair votes yes the motion carries see you then thank you very much
there are no further requests for withdrawal uh Mr secretary 81 Lexington Street second to last case so that would be for case VA 157584 with the address of 81 Washington
Street would you go ahead and explain to the board please thank you Mr secretary good morning Madam Chair members of the board my name is James Christopher 686 Architects with the business address of 10 Forbes Road in Brainree Mass uh seeking a deferral at the request of uh
of um the ZBA it's Stephanie Haynes since we the plans have been reviewed and refiled uh for several months now we had a meeting with ISD senior leadership a few weeks back and finally received the updated refusal letter uh this morning at uh the quarter of 9 uh and
the direction to request this deferral uh date is May 20th okay so with that may I have a motion motion to defer to May 20th is there a second second mr stebridge
mr valencia yes mr lang yes miss Weel yes miss Bzazza yes chair votes yes the motion carries see you then thank you
is there anyone else that's seeking a deferral okay turn it back to you raise hand sorry about that let me just make sure um who else said Chip and Nate oh no i believe they're on you guys are on testimony at some point amy and Chip are you guys looking for a deferral
no my My name is Chip Kanty uh William Kanty i live at 75 Bailey Street directly next to the proposed case defer that case has been deferred it's been deferred okay all right all set thank you Madam Chair with their hands
so with that we'll return to 9:30 for case VA169 4094 with the address of 457 to 469A West Broadway if the applicants
andor their representative are present would they please to the board good morning Madame Chair members of the board my name is Charlie Tabman i'm an attorney at 15 Broad Street Boston i'm appearing on
behalf of the applicant Shawn George and Gina Vanetsia from Anna Anna's Takaria uh who are both appearing on the this hearing and are available to answer any questions anna's Takaria is an authentic Mexican restaurant which for over 25
years has been serving highquality freshlymade food at its numerous locations throughout Boston and the surrounding neighborhoods the proposed restaurant at 461 West Broadway will be Anna's 10th location adding to its locations
uh at Northeastern Credential Center Longwood Medical Area Beacon Hill Mass General Hospital Cambridge Newton and Wuburn the building at 457469 West Broadway is a five-story building which was newly constructed in 2022
it consists of three commercial groundf flooror retail spaces with residential units above and is located in a multif family local services subdist on a 10,800 ft lot the applicant proposes to completely fit out the interior of
retail space 3 which will include um fixed seats for dining and will accommodate up to 42 patrons there will be 20 full-time employees at this location and five part-time employees the expected hours of operation are between 8:00 a.m and 11:00 p.m the
proponent has completed the neighborhood process and the abutter process with strong support we have submitted a number of letters of support from immediate abutters and looking at the surrounding context we feel this project is appropriate at this location in
closing the proponents including Gina Vanetsia from Honors are available on this hearing to answer any community process operations or design related questions thank you thank you are there questions from the
board hearing none may I have public testimony madam Chair and board members Sigy Johnson at the office of neighborhood services this petitioner completed the community process our office hosted an abuters meeting on January 29th at which two abutters spoke in opposition and one in support the
concern raised related to anticipated traffic from third party delivery couriers uh the cityside neighborhood association is the active civic group in this area and they are in non opposition we received one letter of opposition which has been forwarded to the board and four form letters of support which have been forwarded to the board with
that background we defer to the board's judgment thank you thank you yes thank you Madam Chair members of the board my name is Sydney and I'm from Councelor Flynn's office councelor Flynn would like to go on record in support based on a good community process and engagement with neighbors in the cityside
neighborhood association which included a 10 p.m closing hour and no alcohol to be served however he respectfully requests planning department design review and BTD to work closely with the proponent as it relates to the citywide issue of third party delivery orders pickup drop off and pedestrian safety
thank you thank you thanks and madam chair I see no raised hands at the moment thanks with that may I have a motion motion of approval is there a second second mr stebridge
yes mr valencio yes mr lang yes miss we Yes miss Better Braza yes chair votes yes the motion carries thank you Madam Chair members of the
boards next we have case BOA 168 9340 with the address of 230 Marbor Street if they're if the applicant and their representative are present will
they please explain to the board yes uh good morning madame uh chair and and members of the board i'm Ken Lions for the petitioner Ryan and Rachel Blander and I have with me Nicole Garfield of Meer and Meyer Architects uh the
petitioners Ryan and Rachel Bander are longtime residents of the Back Bay they are seeking to convert the roof of their existing one-story garden L into a roof deck for their three young children by installing 10-in curbs on the east and
west sides uh with 3T 6-in railings and on the south side facing the alley it's uh 2 ft of masonry and a 1 ft railing uh the design has uh been done in conjunction with cooperation with the
neighbors uh and to to maximize uh light uh to the abuters the garden level structure is a pre-existing non-conforming structure the building dates back to 1881 the garden level structure violates the rear setback uh
by about 8'6 in there will be no increase uh in the nonconformity uh the nature of the construction is really just to provide a railing system um so that they can use that that roof as a roof deck for their uh children
um I I think that the project also promotes the goals of the Backbay in promoting housing that's suitable for families we respectfully request variance from the board thank you are there questions from the
board hearing none may I have public testimony madam Chair and board members Sigy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services this petitioner completed the NS community process our office hosted an abutters meeting on February 19th at which no concerns were raised and the neighborhood association of the Backbay
is in support of this proposal we've also received one letter of support from a butter which was forwarded to the board with that background we defer to the board's judgment thank you thank you good member good morning chair and members of the board my name is Lily um I'm here on behalf of the district 8
city councelor Sharon Durkin and at this time she'd like to go on record of support of this application thank you i'm in poor and Deborah testimony here hello can you hear me all right yes
ma'am hi everybody i don't I I noted a voice in opposition but without full information here i do want to to just note my concern is about having masonry walls on the roof because I've seen um other similar structures in other parts
of the street and they are pretty ugly i'm a little bit concerned about the possibility that once somebody starts doing that then others start building uh brick walls on the roof and so I would have preferred something that first of all was not visible from the street and
secondly did not include uh brick i have not had an opportunity to be part of any meeting so this is my first time to comment thank you any other raising hands i'm in court
you looking to give testimony here you're unmuted yes so okay um I'm June Maddie um I'm sorry member of the 232 Marbor Street um condominium trust can you hear me now we can yes thank you okay yes i'm
June Maddie a member of a trustee at the 232 Marbor Street Condominium Trust were a butters to the the 230 um property we um certainly participated in um the uh
work with the Backbay Architectural Commission in coming to a design that was acceptable to the neighbors um we did have a question though we were mostly concerned that at the time the design was to relocate
um two exhaust uh pipes that are currently on the roof um in the original design they were blowing into our space in the back of our house they were to be relocated in the drawings that um were
filed with this particular um hearing I do not see where the boiler exhaust and the drier exhaust had been relocated i do see where the intake has been moved um but they were not they were
supposed to blow over into their parking area and I just don't see where those have been relocated thank you i can address that if the board would like uh let's see if there are any other raised hands and then we can take all the uh we have no additional raised hands madam
chair okay so if we can adj if you can f uh address the concerns around the masonry walls as well as the exa exhaust pipe that would be great okay so taking the masonry walls first um I'll note that they hired Meer and Meyer which is u an architectural firm that has won
many awards for their historic preservation work and it has been done in an aesthetically pleasing manner as possible and has been approved by the Backbay Architectural Commission i would note that in in deference and in
cooperation with the neighbors the side walls the the masonry is really it's just a curb it's 10 in and railings so it's it's very very open and on the south side it is also uh you know very very small minimalistic uh with with
railings on top so that is how I would address uh the first question and if Nicole Garfield wants to chime in as well uh regarding the second question it is my understanding that all intakes and exhaust have been which which were prior
uh vented out to a neighbors in the neighbor's direction have been now moved and are venting out to the owner's uh own parking area on the southerntherly side facing the alley but I'll ask um Nicole Garfield to speak and and just further address those two items please
hi yes this is Nicole from Meer and Meyer Architects um so we did submit revised plans to ISD showing the um laundry and boiler sauce located on the south wall so those are venting out towards um our property and then um just
to echo what what um Ken said about the materials we worked closely with the BBAC and the neighborhood um architectural association to make sure that the materials were in line with what they require for the area
thank you any questions from the board no and I just want to say that I'm upon review of the drawings it is true that um the exhaust has been relocated um so it's all shown in the plan thank you
with that may I have a motion madam Chair I'd like to put forward a motion of approval um I don't need to add the provisal that it be reviewed through historic because it seems like it's already been reviewed by the Backbay Historic Commission thank you thank you is there a second second
second mr steppbridge yes mr valencia yes mr langum yes miss Weo yes miss Ba Brazza yes chair votes yes motion carries good luck thank you
very much thank you next we have case BOA1556711 with the address of 138 Arlington Street if the applicant andor their representative are present will you please explain the case to the board yes um Madame Chair members of the board
uh for the record Lawrence Estara 175 Federal Street i'm here with Steve and Josh Cohen uh father and son the owners of this parcel and uh Anthony Pazani uh and his team who are the
architects who uh been retained to design this jewel box of a home uh Mr richard Dennis of Happy Memory chaired this board for many years and would often say that a single family home is
the most complicated cases that appear in front of them we hope this one is a simple one not withstanding the extensive zoning relief necessary um the owners of an
underutilized unused parcel abandoned long ago by a local store seek to replace it with a very small single family home on a very small property and we believe the design is complimentary
to the area uh the owners and the architects attended an abutters meeting May 21st 2024 met with the Bay Village Neighborhood Association on June the 3 and just this morning we received a
letter of nonopposition from the Bay Village Neighborhood Association addressed to Sarah Sharp from the Office of Neighborhood Services and uh an active resident of that community said that he
likes to see eyes on the street which of course is a a theory of of good neighborhood activity uh there's a delay involved because of getting approvals from water and sewer that has all now occurred all those
documents are in the hands of the board and we're available for questions i'd like to have Mr bazani and his team review the plans thank you Larry anthony Pazani architect
um if you could uh go to drawing EX4.1 it's down further yes there yep no this this one yes the the site is the end of Melrose
at the corner of Melrose and Arlington Street the site was formed in uh 1931 through 1956 when All Street was widened uh and
basically and in order to widen Wington Street they did two things they locked off two town houses on Melrose and they locked off the front of the building on the left which was
formerly a church under many different denominations the last denomination was a Ukrainian church um the building on the left was utilized re last utilization was a rock
climbing school and gym uh and a uh recording studio we actually renovated that building and uh 2000 uh the year 2000
the lot as you can see has a small onestory uh building on it if you can now go back to the beginning of the slides we'll go through the units the site is a very
small site it's actually 348 square ft uh has dimensions the dimension along Melrose Street which is to the right is
14.67 square ft the length along uh Allan Street is 43 45 ft and the apex of the triangle is two two square ft what we're proposing
to do is to build a once family residence with three three bedroomedroom one family residence the entrance to the building is on the left at the o where
there's open space you enter and then you go up and down the you enter on what's known as the first floor which is up slightly uh and that would be the living room area down would be
the kitchen and the circular stair will take you up to the bedroom areas you go to the elevations now uh here hold here's a section the
starts to give you the uh sectional layout of the building and the on the right you can see more plant uh it's a highly unusual uh building in terms of its shape and
terms of taking a 348 square ft site with the existing conditions the existing building and its basement bring it up to a 528 ft F uh
excuse me site occupancy our building brings it up to a 4.0 F allowed is a F of two the height of our building is if you can now go back to the
perspective the drawings yeah uh okay you you could stay there um our the height of our building we're allowed 30 ft we're 35 ft we're 40 and the reason that we're 40 we're in
absolute alignment with the rowouses uh if you go back to the three-dimensional drawings you can see how that works go up yes yeah
okay so what we've done is we've captured the end of the building uh and as you come up Isabella Street this is right on line with Isabella Street uh in order to again amplify the notion of uh
streets on the buildings we've created overhangs that allow more uh visibility and more window area the basic building is brick on the bottom and on the
uh Melrose Street side with the bumpouts being a change in material uh in this case metal uh the pitch of the roof and we're aligned with the gable the picture
of the roof would be uh slate and we're reminiscent by utilizing the glass in the center as basically that lines up with the circulation uh of the building itself uh if you could go up one more
for 3D view yeah uh again here you can see it's sitting on the corner its neighbor next door at 136 is now utilized as residential plus uh off
office office space in the bottom you can see as we're wrapping around on Melrose Street again keeping trying to keep the full continuity of the uh brick and the uh townhouse row houses so
if we could pause here and just see if folks have questions sure are there questions from the ward okay hearing none I'm going to move into public testimony christian Simmonelli good morning Madam Chair members of the
board christian Simmonelli Boston Groundwater Trust and we have both GCOD letters from the applicant thank you thank you Sydney yes thank you Madam Chair members of the board my name is Sydney from Councelor Flynn's office councelor Flynn would
like to go on record in support and he respectfully requests that the proponent continue to work closely with neighbors on any quality of life issues during the construction phase thank you good morning Madam Chair members of the board my name is Eva Jones representing the mayor's office of neighborhood services regarding 138 Arlington Street
our office will defer to the board's judgment on this matter a community process was conducted including an abutters meeting on 52124 which was attended by three constituents the primary feedback from this meeting was that there was some concerns about construction and where materials were going to be stored uh the
applicant assuaged these concerns by explaining that vehicles and supplies are to be stored at an off-site location and workers and materials will be brought to site as needed uh despite those concerns constituents thought it was a good use of space additionally the proposal was reviewed with the Bay Village Neighborhood Association which
expressed non-opposition regarding the proposal and has also provided a letter of non-oposition to the board at this time the mayor's office of neighborhood services differs to the board's judgment on this matter thank you for your time and consideration thank you Maya uh good morning Madame
Chair members of the board this members of the board this is Mina Perez representing the Carpenters Union would like to go on record in support of this project thank you any other raised hands jessica we have no additional
ra any other questions from the board do you have any concerns for flooding on in the basement level no uh we uh we've dealt with
uh the civil engineers who have done the uh groundwater and no we do not have any concerns about flooding okay and my understanding is that you are already undergoing landmarks review with
um with Bay Village correct we we've had conversation with Bay Village yes but they haven't you haven't received their approval letter yet it's still ongoing uh I believe that Larry is that what you received
no I received a letter from the Bay Village uh Neighbor Association it was not from the architectural district okay okay great thanks i I don't have any further questions thank you thank you with that may I have a motion madam
Chair I'd like to put for a motion of approval with a provisal that the project under goes Boston Landmarks review um and also uh Boston planning actually I'm going to remove the Boston planning review because
Landmarks has jurisdiction over that uh and it seems like there's no concerns with flooding and there's no kind of habitable bedrooms on the ground floor so I'm okay with that okay is there a second second
mr stebridge yes mr valencia yes mr langum yes m we miss Barazza yes
yes the motion carries thank you very much thank you next we have case BOA 1674746 with the address of 33-41 West Street if the applicant and
their representative are present would they please explain to the board good morning Madam Chair and members of the board kevin Butler from Mcdermic Quilty Miller and Hanley representing the appellent ETR 33 West LLC doing business as Escape the Room and their
appeal for a variance to legalize their long- existing escape room use on the second and third floors of the long- existing commercial building at 33 to 41 West Street they've operated this escape room without issue for approximately 8 years everyone has escaped and they are
just asking to legalize the use officially with ISD at their request the planning department has issued a recommendation of approval and we conducted the requested outreach by the mayor's office of neighborhood services to the neighborhood and have no issues as a result thank you for hearing us
today and we are happy to answer any questions that you may have thank you are there questions from the board hearing none can I have public testimony good morning Madam Chair members of the board my name is Eva Jones representing the mayor's office of neighborhood services regarding 33 to 41
West Street our office will defer to the board's judgment on this matter a community process was conducted including a distribution of a subcommittee flyer on January 10th 25 we received no feedback from any constituents regarding this flyer additionally the proposal was discussed with the local civic association the
downtown Boston Alliance which has expressed no concerns regarding this proposal either at this time the mayor's office of neighborhood neighborhood services defers to the board's judgment on this matter thank you everyone for your time and consideration thank you yes thank you Madam Chair members of the board at this time councelor Flynn would
like to go on record and support thank you thank you no rams at the moment may I have a motion motion to approve may I have a second second
mr stebridge yes mr valencia yes mr lingham yes miss Weo yes miss Barazza yes chair votes yes the motion carries
thank you next we have case BOA1656048 with the address of 255 Webster Street if the applicant and the representative are present would they please explain the case to the board good afternoon Madam Hello yes we can
hear you okay good afternoon Madam Chair and members of the board my name is Steven Leaf i am the homeowner and occupant of this property along with my wife and our one-month-old uh we are seeking approval to modify a portion of
the roof as shown on the plan submitted um in order to proceed we must respectfully request relief of the minimum sideyard setback uh I will note that this is an existing condition of the property dating back to its original construction in
1900 the donor work will all take place uh well within the existing footprint of the building it does not increase the nonconformity of the sideyard setback um and it is also comfortably below the overall height of the uh the roof ridge
of the property um this is all finished space as it stands today where the ceilings down to a little knee wall um and simply just allows us to get some better use of the space to you know arrange some furniture along the outside
walls which would be helpful for us as we uh search for additional space um it does not increase the bedroom count either that's it from my end thank you thanks thank you any questions from the board
hearing none we have public testimony uh good again or good morning again Madam Chair members of the board my name is Eva Jones representing the mayor's office of neighborhood services regarding 255 Webster Street our office will defer to the board's judgment on this matter a community process was conducted including the distribution of
a subcommittee flyer on November 17th 24 we received no feedback from any constituents regarding this flyer additionally the proposal was discussed with the Jeffre Point Neighborhood Association which expressed support regarding the proposal and ultimately the Civic Association voted 20 in favor and no opposed to the proposal at this
time the mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services defers to the board's judgment on this matter thank you everyone for your time and consideration once again thank you good afternoon madam chair members of the board sebastian power from councelor Kaspata's office at this time the councelor would like to go in support of
this project thank you thank you we have no uh we have no additional raise yeah we have no additional raise with that may I have a motion motion to approve is there a second
second mr stbridge yes mr valencia yes Mr langum yes Miss Weell yes Miss Better Braza yes Chair votes yes the motion carries uh with
that let's take a 15minute break see you back at 12:25 thank you very much thank you good luck president Madam Chair Mr valencia present present Miss Wwell present Miss Better
Braza here is yours Mr thank you Madam Chair starting with the hearing is scheduled for 11:00 a.m we have case BOA 1
164 0127 with the address of 517 to 519 Metropolitan Avenue if the excuse if the applicant and or their representative present would they please
explain to the board good afternoon Madam Chair members of the board my name is John Lions i'm an attorney with an office at 80 Copeland Street in Quinsey i have with me Walter Hillyard the principal of the
owner 311 LLC and Jennifer Ha the architect with Hugh Architecture this proposal is to construct six townhouse units on a in a
1F6000 zone on a parcel of 12,978 square feet uh brief history the proponent came before this board in October of 2022 with a 9-unit proposal which had
been approved by the community but the uh board uh made its independent judgment that it was too many units and the design was also different in that it had a flat roof it looked more like a like a box so during the intervening
time um new plans have been prepared which you see before you which now reflect more of a uh attached townhouse with gables uh a better uh view facing the street and more to reflect some of
the residential properties in the surrounding area the this location is I think the most important consideration here although we are in a 1F6000 zone we're at a point in High Park where Metropolan Avenue and
High Park Avenue are converging so that this lot and all the lots adjacent to it are budding lots which have frontage on H High Park Avenue the character of that um location is really more um multif
family and businessoriented the director of butter is an NS1 district and it is the America's food basket um supermarket and the rear of the market is adjacent to this property where the loading areas
uh are located in the truck traffic there is also a uh private way which connects um Metropolan A to High Park A with a double yellow line that runs through that property immediately adjacent to
the interior side of of these properties where the decks will face within 500 ft of this location there is an a local industrial district on the other side of hide park a and a local commercial district on hide park a cut cutting
through to metropolan a nav so I think the context here really is more multif family and and businessoriented [Music] um the lot is much deeper than uh it is wide
which is what dictates the design the layout and the rear yard narrows from left to right as you're facing the house as the uh two avenues are converging which um
may actually um increase the the amount of the rear yard uh violation but it is what it is that's the hardship that's what dictated the design and I think as um Jennifer takes you through the plan you'll see
that this property uh this proposal I should say um maximizes the use of the property without overburdening it without being a significant change from the residential properties across the street and adjacent we did go through
the uh community process there are multiple letters um not letters but signatures in support including the director butter and at this point I'll u ask if anyone may have any specific questions if not we'll defer it to
Jennifer Ha to uh explain the uh the plan in detail hello madam chair and board my name is Jennifer Ha um can you please go to the first page of the presentation um my name is Jennifer H i'm the design director of HU architecture my office is
located at Dorchester um I'll be presenting the plans for the project 519 metropolitan um on the first page here can we zoom in on this locus map please thank you the proposed project is a six-unit townhouse development uh the
site is May I have control of the mouse you cannot control it so just please let Okay okay can you uh please zoom in closer to the Lucas map please and scroll scroll down to towards the Lucas map thank you i appreciate
that um so the site uh you can see the sixunit townhouse in white um and then the red dot dash line is the property line um directly behind the lot there are two six-unit buildings um that's actually on High Park AB and directly to
the left of the lot adjacent to the lot to the north you will see a single family uh building and across the street there are two three family town houses um and to you can see that the the lot
is uh zoned in the one family 6000 zone but it is directly adjacent to the commercial zone um neighborhood shopping um one and you see that we're actually adjacent to the back driveway of America's Food Basket shopping center um
across from the driveway is a 21 approved 21 unit development um that is also adjacent to our lot the site is a 3minut walk to MBTA number 32 towards Forest Hills um can we please go to page number
two thank you and we can zoom out there um we have you can see that the building is it's a long and linear lot um the building lot is 12,928 square ft and the lot measures 74 ft by 166 ft um so we have preserved the
existing uh curb cut in the front uh and so the driveway is taking you along the side of the building and you can see that they have individual access for each of the six units um the six units um three of them is two bedrooms and the
other three is two bedrooms um is sorry three bedrooms three of them are three bedrooms the other three is two bedrooms um and on the first floor is the garage and the second floor is living space and the third floor is bedroom space so the to the back here well the the side where
the decks are that is adjacent to the driveway towards the America's food basket side and that would be um where the uh trees and landscaping would be for for privacy buffer and on the back as well that there will be also privacy
buffer with landscaping on the side where there is um out parking on grade there's proposed uh five on grade parking spaces along the side of the property abudding the the neighbor um the neighbor has um approved and given
support for the parking on this side um there's also six parking spaces inside the garage unit so total 11 parking spaces is provided for this development um can we please go to the next page we cannot skip this page
um so here is the there will be a small basement for each of the townhouse um underneath the the garage will be no basement but underneath the the where there's stairs there will be a mechanical one sprinkler room and then
storage the first floor will be the the garage parking as well as a small mudroom and gym as well as access to the deck you can go to the next um slide thank you for the units that are just
two bedrooms they would have the open kitchen dining in the on the second floor um for the units that has a threebedroom they would have an extra bedroom on the on that second floor on the third floor is where there will be two bedrooms and two bathrooms um and
then you can see on the next page that we are proposing a threetory building uh we have designed it with gables um to make it mimic like a two and a half story so it would fit a lot of the context of the one family
buildings along the lot along the street the um the rear of the building you can see on the next page so this is the side which would face America's food basket um and have the decks this is more resembling of a three-story building um but there is
going to be a uh front door for the first unit that uh is coming off of Metropolitan A you can go to the next slide please thank you um so this is the view of how you would see the the building from Metropolitan A um so there
is one front door for the first unit and then the rest of the units will have their individual um entrances from the driveway itself uh where the garage is the average three-bedroom unit sizes is 2100 ft² and the average two-bedroom sizes are roughly 1,600 ft² um that is
the end of the presentation thank you are there questions from the board question for the architect did you have any conversations with the planning department about improving the parking configuration because I see that the uh
surface parking is covering most of the usable open space at this moment so did you have conversations with the planning department about only providing six parking spaces in creating more open space not at this moment but we're open
for their comments on the BPDA design review okay thank you other questions from the board may I have public testimony jessica is anyone on don't see any raisins at the moment
waiting to hear i'm sorry go ahead was that Was that not coming through i apologize just hearing you now i apologize i must It may have been muted my apologies madam Chair and members of the board for the record my name is Jeremy Benry i'm the Hide Park community engagement specialist for the Office of
Neighborhood Services the applicant has completed the community process which consisted of an aboters meeting facilitated on January 16th no guests in attendance the proposal was presented to Hide Park Neighborhood Association on February 6th where they voted at where the vote was neutral and the proposal
was approved to move forward our office has received one letter of confirmation regarding parking from an uh and no other letters at this time uh thank you for your time in the mayor's office and the services would like to defer to the board for their judgment thanks we have no additional raised hands at the moment
okay any other questions from the board may I have a motion i make a motion of approval with planning department review special attention to improving parking configuration reducing the number of
parking the uh surf surface parking spaces and increasing open space is there a second second mr spebridge yes
mr valencia yes mr langum yes yes miss Better Barza yes chair votes yes the motion carries good thank you very much next next we have case
BOA 1685237 with the address of 25 Denton Terrace if the applicant andor their representative are present would they please explain to the board uh good morning uh good afternoon I
should say to Madam Chair and to the board my name is Derek Rubenoff um I'm the architect for the house and with me is um Alex Domini um uh who is rapidly senting himself and uh his wife Julia Maritz they're the homeowners um the
project involves a uh a single family uh house that they've been in for about I think roughly 4 years uh in Rosundale and uh the project's actually very simple um their family is expanding they're uh they're pregnant with their second
child right now and uh they need a little more space in the house and so what they wanted to do was take the existing finished attic uh which had a very steep stair up to it and uh two small rooms with not great head height and uh make that into a master suite with a proper stair code compliant stair
and uh and to do that uh to get to to the space they need up there we're proposing to uh add a dormer to the right side of the house as you see there in the top uh illustration top left illustration so uh the project uh really
only involves adding um 121 square ft of area to the house uh to make that that uh add it usable more usable for them um it also involves uh stretching the existing dormer on the right a little
further along the side of the house to get uh more space okay so if we go to the next slide here make more space to get uh um better access on the second floor as well um yeah it's it's very straightforward
uh the only um uh they're they're already at the the limit of the F um so they need very minor variance for F the existing F is 0.51 allowed in a single family 6,000 zone there in Roslandville is.5 are already just a hair over and we
would be proposing to increase it to 0.54 so again a small increase um we also need a variance for the sideyard relief on the right side where the dormer is going to be there's uh a uh 2.7 ft um existing setback on that right
side of the lot um it's a narrow lot so I believe we were required 7.5 uh with the narrow lot definition the uh second floor dormer that we would uh make a little bit longer is at I believe 2.7 ft as well but the proposed uh dormer in
the attic there would actually be recessed a little bit further from the sideyard on the right sideyard lot one on the right and uh it would be 5 ft back from the sideyard on the right um we uh conform with everything else in
the zone including height we uh simply skip let's let's go to the next page here yeah and we'll go to the next page beyond that and the next one beyond that just going to try to get to the plan oh
uh on the previous page you can see the reason why we're doing the door on the right side is because on the left side they're existing solar panels and that was determined uh to be the better side of the existing gable to put those panels on for them to be uh
more productive let's go to the next page and uh the next one after that and the next one after that and the next one after that and uh one more just to show you the floor plan so there are existing
there's an exist there are existing uh two rooms up there in the attic and so we would be making those larger by having the dormer on the right side and then uh remodeling that to be a master suite as you see here including as I mentioned earlier putting in a proper
stair to get up there if we go to the previous plan just shows a minor modification to the second floor on the far right plan there uh where we are extending the the existing uh second floor dormer so that it supports uh the
uh proposed dormer on the third floor let's go to the last page where we can see the renderings there we are and so um on the left are the existing views two views at the top and the bottom on the left in the center are the demo views and on the
right you can see the proposed views uh we are keeping the proposed dormer rooms uh 3 ft back from the front which I believe is the the PPD's uh planning recommendation for for dormers and with
that um turn it over back to the board thank you are there questions from the board okay hearing none may we have public testimony madam Chair and members of the board for the record my name is Jeremy Benbury i am the Rosendale community
engagement specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services the application excuse me the applicant has completed the community process which consisted of an abot meeting facilitated on February 19th with only two of attendance both the voters did voice support for the proposal next the proposal was presented
to West Village and Neighborhood Association where the proposal was approved to move forward our office has received two letters of support following the same theme that the project will add value and space to the property with little to no impact to the character of the neighborhood uh with that we want thank you uh thank you for
your time and then mayor's office and services would like to defer to the board for their judgment thank you thank you Madam Chairman nobody stands at the moment may I have a motion madam chair I put a motion of approval there a second second
mr stebridge yes mr valencia yes mr langum yes miss Weell yes miss Better Brazo yes chair votes yes the
motion carries good luck thank you next we have two companion cases first being case BOA 1674858 with the address of 9 Parent Street along with that we have case
BOA 1674857 with the address of 93 Mand Street if the applicant and or their representative are present could they please explain to the board yes uh hey Madam Chair members of the board my name is Andrew Lichfield uh 93
Morland Street at 9 Perin Street i'm the owner of the property and I can just take you through um this project so 9 Perin Street is a uh carriage house an existing carriage house on the same
lot as 93 Morland Street which is an existing three family we did get that refusal letter updated it is an existing three family currently the main building and what we're proposing is to add a extra unit a fourth unit in the 93
Morland Street and to convert the carriage house into two additional units we have six uh parking spaces as you can see right there for the six units if you just go down for me uh we've been working closely with the neighborhood
association um keeping the character of the neighborhood we're going to be working within the existing footprint of the property on u both buildings and uh converting these uh units into into condominiums you can just go go down one
more so here's the uh current site plan of the property again we are not adding um any square footage or outside of the existing footprint we have the uh existing carriage house on the the back right with the main house um in the
front parking remains where it is and then we have uh side front and uh well both sides and a and a front area for extra green space which was uh very important to the neighborhood go down please
uh so this is the layouts of the uh the carriage house they'll be set up as essentially two townhouse style units uh with living areas on the first floor and then bedrooms on the second floor um one unit will be roughly 800 ft² two-bedroom
two bathroom the other unit will be 1350 ft again two-bedroom two bathroom just a little bit uh larger in size you can uh continue down and um here's the exterior of the property we're going to be restoring the
uh existing siding um and we're going to be adding a couple of balconies but we're going to uh definitely be working with the character uh the historical character of this property which is very important to the neighborhood association and to us um the um windows
and and doors remain the same and we're uh keeping the existing um garage door that was uh you know previously put on um if you can go to the uh 93 Morland Street um permit set that will show us
the other property this looks like it's the same one so this look like it's nine parent as well i can just take everyone well we can't see it right now but um the 93 Mullen Street will consist of
four units uh there'll be three two-bedroom two-b units okay hold on jean are we experiencing a technical problem i think she's looking for the other perman set for 93 okay
yep it's the next case gene if that helps you at all i don't know if you want to keep talking i can I can definitely keep talking i kind of have it in my head already can we ask questions while the take off yeah exactly we should just keep going yeah
no so it's stated that you want to uh split the lot into two lots but your survey plot plan doesn't show those two lots demarcation i believe it is um it's on one the permit sets i don't know if the
actual um survey was updated to show that as well that was uh asked of by ISD when we had submitted the plans and created the the new address of 9 Parent Street for the carriage house yeah and so the
carriage house I have a feeling I've seen this project before did you come in front of the board no this has actually been um the first time for this property it's uh was in the same family for about 80 years okay and so the carriage house
was it an existing two family carriage house no the carriage house is literally set up like a carriage house with uh horse stalls in it right so you want to you're proposing to turn it into two family that's correct
is Jeff Hampton here or someone from BPD i think that Will Cohen is on is that correct are you still on Will or not doesn't look like uh anyone from the BPD don't see anyone but
I mean if we're still waiting for technology maybe I can just open it up for just one of my colleagues or conversation regarding the project please go ahead well um so maybe my
colleagues here can provide me with some clarity um but like the carriage house would be a a really you know straightforward let's say prototype to turn it into a unit based on the ADU
um that BPD is advocating for but this is a very um unique situation where now properties that have carriage house potentially can now have a precedent to split lots and turn it into
a two-unit or three unit and so it would have been great to get some feedback from BPD in regarding to you know into what it aspires in terms of increasing housing stock and does it you know and the BPD
recommendation talks about ADU pilot but this is definitely not an ADU kind of situation it it goes into almost new zoning and kind of situation so these are like great conversations to have with the Boston planning department
yeah I think ADU would be it would need to be on the same lot cuz it's accessory technically and I think the way the zoning treats that in some zones is to allow a second single family home i don't think it's quite caught up with
the accessory part of it so yeah in the case that this would be a subdivision it gives us a lot to consider but I agree yeah I I I I'm almost thinking that we should defer this project to have Boston planning um
to be able to answer certain questions or to I think to I don't think this is too out of the ordinary you know I think a lot of rare lots come from this type of
configuration with a carriage house that is large enough to house a dwelling or two so you know this isn't the first time I've seen something like this so right but the the situation is that if we then see it as a two lot and this is where I'm
asking for that survey plot plan of the division is that you're all of a sudden now what is the front and you're all of a sudden putting you know all your parking almost front yard in some sense it it now turns into looking at that and those kind of zoning requirements gene
or Stephanie are you able to locate the PL to assist us in this conversation i think Miss Ber Brazza you you are bringing up bigger policy issues that are probably not this is probably not the appropriate place for them well no
it it is because it deals with zoning it looks it looks at a lot and it looks at the front yard and your rear yard and it deals with the lot boundaries of of that particular lot so it is a zoning issue it's not necessarily a policy the problem was I was commenting on the
recommendations as it deals with ADU but didn't necessarily provide us feedback that uh do we look at it through the ADU or do we look at it as a just as a separate lot with structure on that lot there page you can uh guide us to would
be helpful if you want to look to A02 which is kind of the third one down I can maybe walk you through to it without the division yeah this one if you zoom in on that site plan it's kind of at the top of the page
now so the advantage of this site is that it's on Morland and the cars and garage access off of Perin Street which is kind of why we chose to go with this as opposed to a a residence behind a
residence so the dividing line which is not super obvious here kind of follows down the middle of the driveway across the back of the existing home and then jogs around uh nine pairing that's the proposal that's the what variances we
were saying before you're right so it go the the line goes it it goes parallel to the the rear of the building but then it jogs down to cover nine parent street okay
so it's not a sing not a straight cross okay correct which is which is confusing but you know we we did want to preserve both the existing um carriage house and the existing home an existing carriage house is you know in our design is two
uh two two-bedroom units one of which is 1300 square f feet so this is a very large carriage house on two levels and that's part of the reason that we're proposing those two as opposed to thinking of it as an ADU and then on top of that the 93 Morland is proposed as a
three family this is unlike a conventional edu project it's more of adding converting this property into five residential units the subdivision is because the city we believe that ISD generally wants to have you give a
separate address to the to the separate building so that that was the rationale anything else Mr lfield or Mr jackson wants to walk us through well I'm happy to walk through the the floor plans in the uh 93 Golden Street if you'd like great so if you just uh scroll down for
me please this is a site plan for both but if you can just scroll down I can go through the uh so this is the basement plan which will be by level with the first floor roughly around 20 2190 2190 ft uh the basement will be a big
living living area with one bedroom and then go to the next slide for the first floor so the first floor uh the front portion of the property is kind of like a U-shape uh where you come into the uh entrance and you have the common area unit one which I mentioned does have the
by level with the basement and then the back area which you know was an addition at some point um in the past that will be um se a separate unit because the ceilings are lower it's it's a much different feel than the front part of
the house which we're trying to restore as much as we the character of the house that we can uh the second unit in the back will be about 1100 ft² and consists of two bedrooms two bathrooms and that will be by level with the second floor you can go down the next slide for
me so this is the second level you'll walk up the stairs and there will be an entrance to unit three which is the front portion that's a another U-shaped um uh unit that'll be two-bedroom two
bathroom as well and then that bath area which was an addition at one point will have the additional the uh primary suite um with the unit below next slide please and then the uh top floor will be
a separate unit uh that'll be unit number four roughly 133 1325 ft² with some outdoor space again that is a two-bedroom two-b unit and that pretty much sums up my um side of things again we worked really
closely with the association very happy about uh you know keeping the integrity of the neighborhood um and and restoring this restoring this property that's been in a family for a very long time thank you let's um open it up to public
testimony madame chair and members of the board for the record my name is Jeremy Benbury i am the Roxbury community engagement specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services the applicant has completed the community process which consisted of an Abuas meeting facilitated on January 22nd with 11
Abutters in attendance although Abuas voiced concerns the proposal was fairly wellreceived aba's concerns were regarding occupancy if the owner would live on site if there would be any affordable units and the main concern voiced multiple times were of trees on the property as one aba pointed out the maple tree was planted as a sapling and
they would like the trees to remain a concern to keep the property uh uh of a three family was also voiced uh to keep the property a three family property the proposal was then presented to the civic groups Blue Hill Avenue Quincy Street Howard Avenue and Magnolia
Street Neighborhood Association and Project Wright and Roxbury Path Forward on February 11th where they voted to support the project to date our office has received one letter of support from the Roxberry Path Forward Neighborhood Association thank you for your time and the mayor's office of neighborhood services would like to defer to the
board for their judgment thank you thank you i see a number of chats uh comments in the chat do any of those folks wish to speak hi um my name is Lorraine Payne
Wheeler and I live at 85 Mand Street so I'm in a butter to this uh uh project as well as I organize Roxbury Path Forward Neighborhood Association and I would say that we are very much in support of this
project that this building built in 1890 has not changed it has the carriage house and the original house still remain and um so uh having being able to preserve the property the front yard and
the sidey yards um it's just so important to this neighborhood because we've had people who took things like a carriage house and bulldozed them without ever talking to the city and um the only and so as uh Jeremy mentioned some of the issues that people brought
up were removal of trees and they said that they would keep the trees in the front yard um the preservation of the putting stone wall because all of the houses my house and all of the houses on this section of Mland Street still have
a pudding stone wall and um the other issue was parking because there is no parking available on Parent Street and there's no parking available on Morland Street and um as it is right now people have try to get home early so that they
can stake out a parking space so it is really important that we are able to keep those six parking spaces that the developers have um indicated on the map and I also will say that the assessing
department chose this property as having six parking spaces so they've really done a great job of preserving the park the um property as it is and um this property is in the Morland Street Historic District and I this is my last
comment to say that we the developers talked to us about they said they found the shutters in the carriage house and they would like to um perhaps reuse them they said the building itself is covered in a siding that is no longer used
anymore and often times when you remove siding like that the the um the shingles underneath are well preserved and so um we really think um it would be a benefit to everyone if the developers were to uh
talk to the landmarks commission because they really do have a lot of good ideas about how to preserve a fabulous property like this so thank you very much i found four hello hello hi yes my name
is My name is Naen Riggs and I currently live at 43 Wintham Street which is one street over from Morland Street but at one point I did live at 94 Morland Street directly across from the property we're discussing and um for about 5
years and I knew Paul very well um and I'm the person who was talking about the maple sapling because Paul at one point shared that story with me i'm um talking because I'm in support of the project and I have to say it's nice to work with a developer who is honoring the original
footprint of the house and that was very important to the neighborhood association i'm also pleased with the parking situation because as Lori stated the um parent street and Morland Street there is no existing parking and on
street cleaning day it is the survival of the fittest in terms of folks trying to find places to move their cars so um thank you for your honoring the footprint saving the trees um putting in six parking spaces i think in Fairyland
we all would like additional parking spaces but again you are honoring the footprint of the property which we really appreciate and um I also know I also had a chance to meet Paul's remaining family and Paul is the last owner and actually our last original
neighbor on Morland Street and talking with his family and it was very important to them as well that the house be honored um and preserved so um that is my comment and again to the developers it is nice to work with developer who is honoring the footprint
of the property thank you no additional efforts to any other questions from the board so I had the opportunity to look more deeply and I do agree the lot is very
large so it can take on um nine parentry as a as a a structure on its own i just have a clarification question for the lawyer um if parent street is the front yard it seems like you weren't cited for front yard parking can do you have any
insights on that i'm sorry are you asking um myself we don't have um a zoning attorney on this so okay all right i just wanted to that's the only thing that it's um that I would need clarification on but I don't have any any further questions and
I and I think Madam Chair what threw me off was BPD's um comment on the ADU when I'm I'm really just seeing this that a lot is just very large and it's just being subdivided into two and the zoning can take on the two family on Parent
Street um and I I do um want the BPD to also know that the community and the abutters uh like the amount of parking and again the amount of parking is adequate because the lot is so large um
and you know in the comments it talked about reviewing of that parking amount and layout and hopefully the BPD listens to this uh recording um to kind of go with the what the community is supporting for the project i don't have any further questions thank you thank
you there is an additional raise hand here you want me to go to it or we all set up sure sure okay i'll call iPhone 4 oh thank you yes thank you that's Louis no my name is Louisis Lisa and I'm president of the Garrison Trout and
Neighbor Association i'm not an immediate butter but I'm a part of the Ros United Neighbors and we've done a number of projects in the Garrison Trout area and I was wanted to raise some issues i think I put in the chat that the idea of subdividing a parcel of land that has
adequate um space utilizing carriage houses is something we've already um been engaged with over the past that's historically something that's done we have a number of parcels in Roxbury which have been subdivided so that they have property that doesn't have clearly as much space in between the units which
have been approved and accepted more importantly u we are very much in favor of them keeping the traditional footprint and the historic uh nature of the site that's got to be one of the clear benefits and the fact that they are now you know providing housing which everyone says we need and that we are
providing with the access to parking so not to complicate and further exacerbate the parking situation they could it's something we're in support of and hopeful that when people look at it if there are any questions they will go to the architects i think the carriage houses are extremely uh useful in terms
of creating space for people i know that the interior is done well architecturally and designwise uh and they can also maintain the exterior that the historic nature of the site would be very much complicated by what they're doing so we're here in favor of the project in support of neighborhood
associations that support the project thank thank you that may I have a motion m because the project is in the neighborhood design overlay district is required for BPD design review so with that I'd like to put forward a motion of
approval with a provisor that BPD uh does a design review is there a second second mr stumbridge yes mr valencia yes mr langum yes
miss We will yes miss Better Braza yes chair votes yes the motion carries good luck thank you so much with that excuse me we'll move on to the red discussion scheduled before 11:30
a.m and the first case has been deferred so that will take us to case BOA168 [Music] 5352 with the address of 4471 Washington Street if the applicant and or their
representative are present would they please explain to the board thank you madam chair members of the board attorney Jeff Drago at Drago and Tuscano at the business address of 11 Beacon Street here on behalf of the owner developer John Wardwell and we also have
Nick Landry from DRT who's the architect to answer any questions that the board may have uh the proposal before you uh is a project at 4471 Washington Street in Roslandale and the first uh picture
rendering is a rendering of the proposed building uh the proposal is to erect it's a vacant parcel now it's a corner parcel along Cornell Street and Washington Street and it's to erect a new residential condominium building
with eight units and four parking spaces uh this overview map shows you of the context and makeup of the buildings uh in and around this area they're very similar uh you can see a lot of multifamily residential uh right at the
corner on the on the other side uh we at 4459 Washington just for reference this board approved uh a similar project eight units with four parking spaces back in 12052023 uh this parcel uh actually is a
little bit larger and um is actually open space there's no building on it now uh along Cornell Street there's a right of way you can see it's sort of a hot top with an existing curb cut and that allows for parking access in the rear uh for our building and the building next
to ours um and so we're proposing uh eight units four uh rear parking spaces uh along the back u the unit if we go to the next slide please this just uh shows you the front side
along Washington Street and and across the street uh along Washington as well uh next slide please and now we can get into the the plans um so uh the the basement would have or the lower level would have two units one unit one and
two with patios in the back um level one two and three are all very similar units three and four they would all have rare decks uh five and six would have front balconies or little terraces as well as rare decks and then uh units 7 and 8
would also have front uh balconies and rare decks as well uh the unit sizes are mixed so uh units 1 and 2 are 840 square ft onebedrooms and then all of the other units units 3 through 8
are,234 square ft 2bedroom uh with that rare deck it's about 175 square ft um the uh project falls within the Rosundale Square uh squares and streets reszoning which is part of the reason
the BPDA recommended uh for an approval we have a great uh commuter uh uh for those folks commuting into the city we've got great tea access we're walking distance to Rosundale commuter station as well as the bus lines that run uh
right around this area as well um we did work uh with the neighbors and the West Village Civic Association they did have some asks of us that we did agree to i just want to put those on the record it was to have a green roof uh on the
building by way of solar panel um it was to have permeable pavers throughout um the back and the parking area and then to have certain native plantings uh along the green space trim around the front and uh sides of the building um
the uh variances that that are requested is uh for the use although as you can see up and down this area they're multifamily residential but it is uh a 2F zone so we would need use variance uh lot area 8,000 would be required we're
at 6,44 uh building height uh in stories although we we purposely matched the buildings around us uh we are at uh 35 ft in height which is allowable um but it is a 2 1/2 story district so uh the
three stories we're proposing would uh need a variance uh as well uh usable open space we're at 274 square ft per dwelling unit and um the rare setback will be required as 40 but we line up
with all of the other buildings uh with a 20ft uh setback and that includes where our deck space is uh on the back as well we are providing four parking spaces two per dwelling unit are required but because you know this does
have great access to um the tea and and bus routes as well i did mention this is a condo project and with that I I can pause for any questions thank you thank you Mr po any questions from the
board how many affordable units do you have so uh uh Miss Bas this was filed uh prior uh to the change so this did not have an unaffordable component this was filed in August of 2024
2025 okay thanks for clarifying that because you're probably reading the BPD recommendation it quoted after January 2025 so thanks for clarifying that and just so you know and I wish Jeff was here i did speak to him on the topic and he agreed okay great thank you thank you
other questions from the board hearing none may I have public testimony madame chair and members of the board for the record my name is Jeremy Benbury i am the Roslandale community engagement specialist for the office of neighborhood services the applicant has completed the community process which consisted of an abut
meeting held on December 17th that was lightly attended where inquiries were addressed during the meeting regarding parking and construction time frame next the proposal presented to Westland Village and Neighborhood Association on January 16th and was approved to move forward to date we have received one
letter of opposition to the project as a whole from one of uh again the the opposition wasn't to the entire project uh to the project's entirety uh thank you for your time and the mayor's office of midpoint services would like to defer to the board with the agenda thank you
uh thank you madame secretary madame chair members of the board minor for us with the carpenter senior would like to go under support of this project thank you okay and we have no additional reasons we have more have a motion
madam Chair I'd like to put for a motion of approval with BPD design review paying special attention to the exterior color so not to have every building be gray that would be really appreciated thank you fair fair is there a second
second mr stebridge yes mr valencio yes mr langum yes miss Weel yes miss Better Braza yes chair votes yes the motion carries good luck
thank you very much next we have case BOA 1631614 with the address of 679 Common Highway if the applicant and their representative present they please explain to the board
good afternoon madam chair members of the board my name is Mike Chavez architect and representative for the owner Mr joseph Valdez who's also on the call um this is a uh proposed three family uh on a corner lot located at 6
what will be uh 679 Cumins Highway um go to the next slide uh the uh project goals here is there's going to be three family oriented units put on this uh corner lot uh it's going to have uh on-site storage in for each unit in the basement and also have general site
improvements um next slide the it's currently a single parcel that is going to be subdivided uh there's an existing 2 and a half story woodframe home on the lot uh and he the owner wants to subdivide it and then put the new three family on that vacant portion
of the lot that you see there on the corner uh next slide the uh zoning variances once you put something like this you know oriented sized building on a lot like this you're going to have all you know this the sideyard setbacks front yard
setbacks rear yard setbacks will be triggered uh we have uh you know a lot of uh building on the space so we're exceeding our um lot coverage perable areas um we are also uh for this particular proposal here putting uh two
parking spaces which is one short but also on Cumins Highway which is uh what the address is on this particular uh building um as we were you know working on the design of this we were kind of more focused on the building's alignment with adjacent buildings and its frontage
uh with you know the kind of the front face along Cummins Highway and maintaining that uh that line across the front uh and then then with what kind of space we have left over uh and then taking into consideration the requirements by Austin uh the um uh
Boston parking and uh the DPW uh you know where we can actually put a driveway in here to be able to have some off street parking uh this is a legacy project for the owner he wants to pass this on to his son eventually his son will be living here as well in one of these three units uh and so this is a goal for for him for him personally u
next slide uh so as we were just for some context here the majority of the area where this neighborhood is is all residential uh along Cummins Highway there are several commercial buildings gas stations uh we have bus stops right on the corners and up you know both in both directions and
in front of the uh the building as well um so you know we are kind of looking at Cummins Highways as our main mode of transportation in this in this uh in this project um next slide and we also looked you know knowingly that their you know front parking is is
is discouraged but you know you know based on what site we're working on here we looked at uh other homes along the site and you know are are seeing that you know Cumins Highway due to the both kind of geography of it as well in this particular area as well as the way that the buildings were set up originally
that there are a lot of examples of you know garages facing the front with front yard parking uh driveways in the front of the buildings off kind of off to the corner to the side away from the front door and things like that so we were trying to also uh follow because we are
proposing front yard parking to try and look at it you know precedents that are in the area and trying to you know see if we can find something that has a solution for both the owner as well as alignment with the neighborhood um next slide uh these are just general
elevations again it's three units uh three you know one per floor uh it's got a flat roof we are looking to have it solar ready and so it's kind of been angled in a way that we can provide some solar at the roof um you know the building will be sprinklered um we we do
also have uh you know front and rear means a bgress with some outdoor um kind of deck space uh in the rear next slide and uh you know we're ensuring that we're 521 CMR compliant want to have that first floor unit especially be
for intergenerational living opportunities uh or folks who have any kind of ability to be able to live there especially on that first floor um so it's got three three bedrooms two full bathrooms kitchen comfort comfortable kitchen and living areas uh again storage in the basement along with
utilities spaces um and then so yeah the first floor and the other two units are very similar to that uh as well up this next slide um it's very similar to that just slightly smaller um dimensions for uh accessibility compliance um that the
first floor needed uh next slide and then these are just a few renderings of the building on site um showing its existence on that corner lot um and you can kind of I think the next three are just images that folks can see this is
off of Cumins Highway here um and then the next slide in terms of you know scale we are just because we have a flat roof we are just lower from a roof line perspective from our adjacent buildings as
well and I think that might be the last slide so happy to take any questions from folks now as we Right sure thank you are there questions from the board i have a question madam chair so going
back to the site plan a lot of the site is e like PA patio um I guess all around why like what drove that decision instead of breaking it up between green space and patio space
yeah no it's a good question um you know we're we're I think sitewise we're still working through some of those design details now we have some vegetation along the sidewalk directly on um Rugby Road uh some veget you know trees in the front we're thinking about opportunities for people to be outside sitting
somewhere and so whether that's some grass which is kind of tucked away in a corner or more permeable paper space but we're open to ideas thank you other questions from the board um yes oh go ahead go ahead no you go ahead thank you the planning department
in terms of protection department usually don't allow front yard parking and this is one of the violations that you have here so did you have any conversations with planning about the front yard front yard parking that for me is like the biggest issue at the
moment we have not yet um if we were to get a proviso on this one to talk more about site design potential parking the current lot does have a curb cut at the back of the lot you know we we could do some you know site adjustments to pull the building a little bit more forward uh but we we're looking at Cummins
Highway and kind of front facade alignment so again we're open to it and and and coming up with solutions that can work for everybody is that on Rugby Road where you That's on Rugby Road correct existing curve but you're not showing it on the site plan right the curb cut would stay there but we would
not be using it for cars at the current time unless we again we can make some adjustments and potentially have a rear driveway think we were trying to again have you if we were going to have a single parking area it would be up at the in the one location versus having a you know hard paper everywhere yeah it
looks like in the Google in the Google image is really right up against the property line which kind of works works for you i mean BPD likes for you to reuse existing curb cuts versus um versus putting it on a main road on common highway and it's more of a safety
issue so um you know I I I think more housing is great i do think that you can avoid the front yard parking and use existing curb to provide the parking maybe they need to be tandem um and then you know you
have to push up the building to the front is probably going to be more desirable sure we can do that great thank you other questions from the board may we have public testimony yes madame chair members of the board Coloner Newman with the mayor's office
of neighborhood services at this time the mayor's office like to defer to the judgement of this board some background information the community process uh ONS had hosted a Butters meeting on August 14th of 2024 um a Butters in attendance expressed concerns with this proposal uh
setting opposition based off of the proposed density uh the loss of uh parking on the existing site as well as concerns that uh with the proposed density there'd be more competition for on street parking uh there also had been some mention of uh issues with uh past
tenants of the neighboring property that the uh proponent owns uh the proponent explained that those tenants are no longer uh living at that location uh the applicant then went on to meet with the Cummings Highway Neighborhood Association which was opposed as well as
the Greater Madapan Neighborhood Council which was opposed as well uh we received three letters in opposition with that we'll defer to the board thank you thank you looks like we have no raise hands at the moment okay any other comments from the
applicant in response no and actually I hadn't seen those opposed letters from the uh the two civic associations so I I didn't know I wasn't aware of those but um yeah I think we were you know essentially again trying to uh ensure that again there's housing here that we're we're we're open to working with
the BPDA on on the things that were brought up today and um and flexible with ideas thank you with that May I have a motion can I'm sorry can Connor just mention why the two civic association went in opposition did they state any reasoning
i believe it was in line with with the concerns were raised by by neighbors uh you know the proposed density uh the loss of parking uh etc okay great thank you um Madam Chair I with that clarification I can put forward a motion
please um I think the project is reasonable in terms of its density it's definitely a long common highway for these reasons I'm going to um put forth a motion of approval with a provisal that the project undergoes BPD design review to reallocate the front yard
parking to the rear and work with the existing curb cut and if necessary um work with the applicant on the massing to make it work and be contextual thank you may I have a second oops
second Mr stumbr uh yes mr valencio yes mangle yes be well um I'm going to stick with the planning department recommendation
um and vote no i think it's just too out of scale with plan Matipan as uh referenced in our uh materials and um you know it far exceeds the building lot coverage and what is um required for
permeable area thank you thank you m Brazza yes chair votes yes the motion carries good luck thank you very much next we go to two companion cases oh sorry uh those
business um which takes us to case BOA 165 8178 with the address of SE 674 to 676 East Broadway if the applicant andor
their representative are present will they please explain to the board good afternoon Mr secretary Madame Chair members of the board Attorney Joe Hanley McDermott Colt Miller and Hanley uh in Boston here with Joy Lee who is the
property owner restaurant operator uh at this site um and I'm also here with Alita Alba from Shuin Company who is the project architect i'll take you very quickly through the presentation and then uh hand it back to you for question
and answers so in this first page you will see on the left the existing building is a mixeduse building at the intersection of East Broadway and K Street in the uh South Boston's East Broadway uh commercial area uh the
underlying zoning is an MFR LS local services it exists today with uh Miss Lee's uh Japanese inspired cuisine uh restaurant called Moco on the ground floor and Miss Lee uh occupies and is a
resident of the single family uh unit above which you'll see in the photo to the left what is being proposed is to an adaptive reuse uh to uh retain her restaurant and change from one unit to
three units with a one and a half story addition consistent with the context and uh to provide uh better uh activation for this corner lot along East Broadway next slide please i'll take you a little bit quickly through the site in the
context which supports the relief granted you'll see in the upper left in um the red bubble uh that's the existing site again it is a corner lot location it shares a party wall uh with the
building to the west to the left um and you will see uh in closer bird's eyee photographs uh how that comes together and then in the bottom uh some of the context in the area the lighter building you'll see is 654 West Broadway which is
a fourstory building of um comparable height to what we're seeking that was approved by this board and you can see directly across the street uh on East Broadway which is 7 673 East Broadway another fourstory long existing building
which has retail on the ground floor and residential above next slide please brings you closer in on the upper left you'll see uh the Moco the existing building uh with its gabled roof and again the shared party wall to the left
that's the intersection of K and East Broadway uh as we go further down you can see um at the bottom the context of again the Playwright building at 654 fourstory building and then directly across the street uh from Moco as I
mentioned and the view up uh K Street next slide please so the site also has some unique aspects that support the relief uh that we are requesting um as you will see it's a narrow lot uh the existing
structure uh is an existing non-conforming structure with respect to all of the dimensions uh that we're seeking relief from and uh towards the rear uh you'll see which would be to the north uh there is an existing parking
space which is being retained and that is used by Ms lee again is the owner restaurant occupy uh operator and owner occupant of the building that will remain the case uh all we are seeking to
do is to add on to the existing footprint so there's no expansion of building footprint it's just a uh addition to match context and allow for an improved residential uh circumstance next slide please
so just take you through these existing conditions really quickly the upper is the basement uh and then the first floor uh this is the existing Moco restaurant it's a very popular well-run neighborhood restaurant uh gets a lot of folks by foot it's been operating uh
since 2010 when uh Miss Lee bought uh the building and opened her restaurant uh it will continue the first and the basement level will be unchanged by this development um as we go to the next slide um floors two and three as they
exist today is um a there's a onebedroom one bath on the first floor it's a duplex and then on the top level there's additional living space uh and and a bedroom area uh so next slide shows you
just a little bit of uh the existing conditions with respect to uh that gabled roof and the building also what's important to note is there's a a a grade change as you go uh down K Street away from East Broadway so we have very
deliberately looked at this design in order to enhance and uh play into the prominence of the corner and then utilize uh the grade to mitigate what is a very minor uh request for a height deviation next slide please u as we go
up these are proposed conditions for the new building again we're talking about uh the second third and fourth stories two bedroomedroom two baths each floor through units more uh familysized or you
know goodsized bedroom counts very efficiently laid out they're approximately 730 ft each uh Miss Lee will be living on the top level and again uh will stay and operate her restaurant and have an improved uh
residential circumstance and also continue to have one parking space uh that remains today um the next slide takes you up to the uh fourth floor and most kind of pertinent here is the uh
rooftop plan when we started the outreach process on this we had proposed a roof deck with a head house and um we were cited for roof deck restrictions for that indifference to the community and to councelor Flynn we agreed to
remove not just the roof deck but the head house as well so the only access to uh the roof would be uh through a hatch next slide please so just to show you the elevations um ghosted into uh this
uh rendering is the existing building line and and this is important you'll see the gray change to the right this is uh the side view um at the corner of East Broadway going down um K Street to the right is that existing parking space
with the existing curve cut that's unchanged uh in the foreground is the new proposed building and uh ghosted in there is the existing structure so that shows you the height uh in this zone 40
is allow is allowed um I'm sorry 35 feet uh the existing is 38t 9 in and what is being proposed is 43 feet 6 in what is allowed is 40 so it's only 3 and 1/2 ft
higher and again mitigated uh by that uh change in grade and um where most of the height is at the prominent corner next slide please so this is a a section view uh from the
shared party wall uh to uh the west of us to the left and um what I would note on this as well as um the rear is that it's part of the outreach process and you received over 30 letters of support
all from South Boston residents and property owners uh that includes both uh direct abutters the direct abuter to our west with a shared property uh wall who's a the property owner submitted a letter of support as did the abuing
property owner uh on K Street to the rear next slide so just to uh quickly go through the zoning as I mentioned it's a multifamily uh neighborhood uh shopping uh subd district the conditions that
exist today are very uh typical of this immediate neighborhood groundf flooror retail cafe use upper level uh residential uh what we are seeking to do is to have a uh to improve uh those conditions through this adaptive reuse
and provide an improved uh residential opportunity while allowing this longexisting neighborhood resident and restaurant oper operator to uh remain in the neighborhood enhance this building in a way that is consistent with the context of the area so all of the areas
of relief I would note relate to the existing nonconformities of the building uh the lot area insufficient um it's an undersized lot again we're not changing the footprint um the additional lot area insufficiency is the same thing uh the
floor area ratio is also today non-conforming what's allowed is 1.5 what exists is 1.8 83 and what's proposed is 2.97 which if you read the BPD's recommendation
uh of approval uh it reflects the fact that we have a narrow lot again that we're working within an existing structure and uh that F relief is consistent and appropriate for the immediate area um I spoke a little bit about the height um about 39 ft existing
436 proposed again corner lock condition consistent with the area mitigated by the change in grade um we also have uh usable open space we again started this process with a roof deck which would have given us uh additional usable open
space but in deference to uh the leadership and community input we have removed that also the decks that remain on the existing conditions are being removed um but considering this existing nonconformity in the footprint there's no opportunity for any additional open
space so we've worked through that in the uh manner that exists uh the rear yard is insufficient again also an existing nonconformity not being changed and I talked about the roof structure roof structure restrictions a little bit uh we did remove the head house in its
entirety and the roof deck uh but we need relief due to uh the exceeding of the current um existing building height on the lot and finally uh parking uh we have one parking space that we're able
to retain again an adaptive reuse for an owner occupant um we're able to keep that one space these units while they're a good bedroom size they're also uh fairly efficient at 730 square ft we see that we're going to get a lot of folks
who are uh living and working in the neighborhood uh in those other two units and of course uh Miss Lee lives works parks at this site and so uh with that we would suggest that um this is a an
entirely appropriate uh consistent and beneficial uh change for this prominent corner in the business district for a local owner of an operator so thank you Madam Chair okay any questions from the board hearing none I'm going to ask for public
testimony madam Chair and board members Cig Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services this petitioner completed the community process her office hosted an abuters meeting on October 22nd of 2024 at which comments were made in opposition to the roof deck the head house and the height the
proponents removed this deck and although there were still concerns about the height Butters felt that the proposed height of 43 feet 43 1/2 ft was excessive for the area uh there were three supporters of the proposal three of Butter supporting um there was a civic association meeting held on
February 12th during which time questions were raised over the uh requests were made to the proponent to explore reducing the ceiling height to reduce the height of the project the gate of heaven neighborhood association is opposed to the proposal and our office is also aware of opposition from
a neighboring civic group our office has received two letters of support which have been forwarded to the board our office is aware of other form letters of support that have been forwarded to the board and our office has also received one letter of opposition which has been forwarded to the board with that background we defer to the board's
judgment thank you thank you okay councelor Aaron from Sigman's office i'm sorry Council Finn's office yes thank you Madam Chair and members of the board my name is Sydney i'm from Councelor Flynn's office councelor Flynn would like to go on record and support based on a good community process and work
with neighbors and civic groups on key quality of life issues such as removal of the roof deck and head house he respectfully requests the planning department design review and that the proponent continue to work closely with the neighbors on any quality of life issues during the construction phase however he is also calling on the city
and planning department to conduct a public process and finally address long-standing concerns in the community on what the neighbors in South Boston want to see in terms of height and density and zoning on Broadway thank you thank you hello and good afternoon Madam Chair
Madam Ambassador and members of the board my name is Kevin O sullivan i'm from Councelor Erin Murphy's office council Murphy has received I believe 61 letters of support uh from people in the community including uh two letters of support from the direct utters as
attorney Hanley mentioned um in addition Council Murphy is aware of the modifications that have been made to the plan in light of uh community feedback and the community process so for all these reasons and for its work with the community Council Murphy is in support
thank you very much for your time and for your consideration i hope everyone has a great day thank you thank you Lanna and Amanda hi Lanna O' Conor president of the Cityoint Neighborhood Association i'd
like to go on record that the gate of heaven neighborhood association along with CPNA held a joint meeting at the time in school regarding the project we did in fact ask for the roof deck to be removed as we don't have roof decks on
our business district uh and the proponent agreed to that the question regarding the hood house was also removed and I believe it was replaced with a roof hatch specifically for maintenance is what um their attorney
stated so with that we did ask for the reduction of ceiling height 44 almost 44 feet is a bit high and to reiterate what council Flynn's office has said we do need to have BPDA review in so far as
height and density um within um our business district so we still would request BPDA sign review we would request that the ceiling height come down to 10 ft per unit uh other than the restaurant because it's clearly understood they need higher ceilings
there but to bring them down to um eight feet which would then reduce the height of the building so with that being said um we will stand in non opposition both in heaven and city point and um we'd like to thank councelor Murphy for
picking and choosing which um projects in South Boston to weigh in on thank you any other hands amanda you all set um hi I'm Amanda i live on Story Street been in the neighborhood for a bit and I'm a regular patron of East Broadway and
including Mo and I just want to say I'm in full support of the petition um Joy is an awesome restaurant owner and neighbor to all of us and it's going to be a great project and I'm in full support and that's all I have to say thank you thank you thanks so we have no
additional response can the applicant uh comment on the height concern before we proceed yeah thank you Madam Chair and I want to thank um Lanna O' Connor and Kevin Lai and Rich Evans uh you know the two neighborhood groups for uh working
with us and we were happy to uh be able to uh compromise in this we did take a look at um and and respectfully of course uh a at the the ceiling heights as Lann indicated um the existing uh
restaurant on the main floor that is not being changed but um based on the artic architect's review and also that these are floor through units that are um good bedroom sizes but efficiently sized at
730 um that changing the height would actually drop the uh ceiling height in the residential to uh 76 which is the minimum and and would really enclose those units and more importantly we we
spent some time studying this and if you look at uh the change in grade that again does is unique to this property site and the fact that that is a corner condition And if you look directly
across the street at 673 um East Broadway which is also at this intersection of K Street um and East Broadway you have uh the same if not a little greater height as well as in the area so we think we've we've created the
right balance here for an adaptive reuse uh and also without you know really negatively impacting the quality of the new residential which we need so much in the neighborhood thank you any other questions from the
board hearing none is there a motion motion of approval with planning department review is there a second second mr stumbridge
yes mr valencia yes mr langum yes miss Weo yes miss Van Brazza yes chair votes yes the motion carries thank you very much
that the next case is deferred that will take us to case BOA157 8094 with the address of 218 Breman Street if the applicant and or their
representative are present would they please explain the case to the board race oh yeah I do see the hand raised second make your panelist Muhammad and just press accept and then you can unmute yourself is the applicant available to speak can you
unmute yourself sir it doesn't give me the option to unmute him um can you hear us it looks like he's reconnecting okay well he's not connected so I'm not Yeah is there another way to communicate to
him to get him on i don't know if O andS knows who he is hi board um I have been in communication with the applicant but he does sometimes have some issues with it problems i don't know if you have a phone number
for him to call or it just says he's connecting but not connected i might have his phone number give me one moment sorry everyone no thank you thank you M jones all
right hi everyone i do have his phone number uh let me try and call him and see if I can help thanks yeah I we we've done this rarely but we have uh ONS has been kind enough to let the applicant speak through your phone so if that's what we
need to do that's what we'll do okay thank you for everyone's patience i apologize everyone he's not picking up okay well he's not picking up and he's not connected um okay mr ak are you on now yes I'm
sorry yeah I'm here um can you see the screen can we see the screen yes it's through our through the staff can you see the screen i want to do a a screen sharing so I You are not able You are not able to screen share you need to use the
screen that uh Okay i'm sorry okay this is whatever you submitted so please step i'm sorry okay so do I have Please proceed please proceed okay did you hear what I said previously or no heard nothing you are
not connected at all so please okay this is a pre-existing three family we proposed addition of a fourth floor units on top of the pre-existing three units to make it a four a four unit uh four family um dwelling um want to go
down to the next slide if I can this is a an existing plot plan of the existing house right now you can see there is a deck in the back of the house right here right now um we taking off this deck out and we proposing the
addition on top of that to replace this old deck here plus replacing all the old um porches that exist right now on each floor of each the units can I see the next slide please
if okay no the next one please this is the plot plan okay right here next one the yellow one please it's easier if you don't mind okay what you see in yellow is what we proposing what we proposing is to take off the old deck and the old porches and do an extension in the back
this yellow extension is what we proposing for each of the floor first second and third and this whole unit the new units on the fourth floor is all colored in the in the shade yellow right here um where we
uh my architect proposed this extension because we get a lot of requests for a a three family uh I'm sorry three bedroomedroom units because a lot of the family they have kids in East Boston this dwelling is immediately across from the YMCA of East Boston and the park so
I have tennis for all almost 20 years old all old family tennis and they always move out because the space the space is so small in the units as it exists right now and you can see this is the fourth floor unit on the far left
with a small balcony we did a setback as all the other units on the on the same uh street doing that setback about 8 ft set back which we did the same thing this is a back view of the new porches that would be erected to the addition
and this is a side view right here of the building next slide please if you don't mind this is also a side view showing the height the um the maximum height of this with the new addition to the new roof will be about 42 feet with the new
addition on the top right now it's about 30 ft and um it's going to have a a a brand new foundation down here with a where the extension is going to um to uh um to to erect the new construction on
top of it next slide if you don't mind please and that should be it really and uh I've been a resident of East Boston for almost 30 years my three kids were born three of my kids I have four kids three of my kids were born in East Boston and my oldest daughter is getting
married this end of this year she would like to move hopefully respectfully after you guys hopefully approve this project she would like to move to the first the fourth floor unit once we uh finish constructing that unit hopefully
by the end of this year thank you so much if you have any question I would like to uh I would be pleased to to answer your question or concerns please yeah thank you um can you confirm um how many bedrooms do the units have now and how many are you proposing two bedrooms
I have right now each floor has two bedrooms and they exist but one of the bedroom the bedrooms is very very small so what I'm doing I'm doing an extension in the back to add two more bedrooms so it make that will make it for each floor
three bedrooms each to each one will go from two bedrooms to three bedrooms correct except for the fourth floor addition will be two bedrooms with one and a half bath okay and is there any basement uh living
there is a basement exist right now yeah there is a basement right now we not we not changing that basement a basement unit or a basement for storage no it's a basement for storage it's mechanic room all the boilers all the stuff in there
and also um there is a fire there is a a back staircase which is enclosed in the old structure as it exists right now we're not touching that either that's a second mean of egress for all the units including the new two units that going to be constructed also it will have
access to the pre-existing back staircase and are you sorry are you just enclosing the porches to create the extra bedroom or the No we taken off those old porches because they very old they've been over 20 years and we making
a small extension to to the existing structure and we going to keep the same distance that exists right now this the distance from the porch um from the back porch let me see if Oh I can't share the screen um the right now on the first
floor only there's a big deck as you see on the on the uh on the surveyor plot plan there's a big deck on the first floor only which is um set back almost 7 and 1/2 ft so the new structure will be set back 8 ft from the see that right
there where they are right here there is a deck right now existing here on the first floor only which is about 20 by 20 ft 25 ft in long um it's set back from the neighbor about 7 1/2 ft the new structure will be
set back from the back fence about 8 ft which would increase it by almost half a feet from the from my back neighbor on the on street okay and it it doesn't appear to me that there are any other four stories along Breamman but I will
open it up i have I have um on my slide but I cannot show you my slide that's a problem on my slide I have addresses 130 Breeman Street erected in brand new fourth edition 268 Breeman Street also
erected a fourth floor 282 Breeman is a fivetory building 340 Breeman Street is also a five-story building 398 Breeman Street is a brand new structure that happened last year also it's a fourth story building madam Chair it it almost
doesn't matter because the new zoning is ERB4 so it's this complies mostly mostly what we get asking for relief of section 8 which pre-existed conditions of insufficient rail insufficient side insufficient front and square foot
forage to off you know open space insufficient and mostly section 8 section 8 relief for police questions from the board sure yeah i I have a question just for clarity on your site plan um with your
proposed with your existing building what is the existing rear yard setback the first floor setback is seven and a half from the back fence no no that's propose i'm asking what's your Oh the proposed is 8 ft from the back no what's
your existing building where you are set back existing building including the deck that is erected on the first floor is 7 and 1/2 ft there is an existing deck right now that's been there for almost 20 years can you can you some distance from the
Yeah go ahead okay let's clarify this right here let me let me just clarify this sure sure um right now in your survey plot plan yes it's showing that the proposed fourstory addition is 7
foot five from the rear yard set back yeah you're telling me that the existing house with the rear deck is still the same 7 foot five yes well in your in the
on the Google images it shows more than 7 foot five it shows it so let's go to the next page yep right here okay right here this is perfect so where it says existing condition of the basement which is
grayed out mhm then it says common area yes which is not grayed out yes the common area that's not grayed out in the basement is that proposed or is that this is the proposed new proposed okay so it seems to me dimensionally that
what the gray box is is your existing house and if we go to the plot plan if we go to the page three if we go up to the survey plot plan it almost feels like it's the same footprint that is um it doesn't it
doesn't show a proposed site it doesn't there is you see the distance there in the back the 7 and 1/2 ft yes this is this exists today because the deck extend all the way there the first floor deck or you going to have a uh Okay I think what I'm missing is an existing
survey problem exactly you're missing a picture of that i I am missing that because what's Let me just finish what's noted on the BPD is that you're complying with height you're complying with story but they are commenting that
it's not complying with the required ERB for rear yard setback which should be one/ird depth of your footprint so what I'm trying to make is a case that if your building to the existing if your
existing building's rear deck is only 7 foot5 it would be a non-conforming kind of structure that already has a pre-existing rear yard setback of 7 foot5 which the feedback from the Boston planning's recommendation doesn't necessarily apply
but I don't have that actual docu I don't have that document Right right whether you're correct or not can we do a show share we cannot do share share screen is there a button so So I I I think I'm I think I'm pretty
much done with any any questions and my colleagues can put forward a motion but I would almost recommend defer to the next hearing to allow you to provide an existing floor floor plan okay an existing survey plan okay okay i don't
have any further questions uh Madam Chair thank you other questions from the board let's take public testimony uh good afternoon Madam Chair and members of the board my name is Eva Jones representing the mayor's office of neighborhood services regarding 218 Bman Street our office will defer to the
board's judgment on this matter a community process was conducted including an abutters meeting held on 41624 which was attended by two constituents the primary feedback from this meeting was opposition to the proposal citing the character of the neighborhood the construction noise and uh construction trash while the other
attendee did not express opposition or support regarding the proposal i have also received a pet petition against the proposal signed by uh 10 uh constituents and abutters they were citing the loss of green space the precedent being set the density and the lack of parking uh
the Maverick Central Neighborhood Association w has met with the applicant and they convene or they convened on 61924 and they have voted to oppose the proposal at this time the mayor's office of neighborhood services defers to the board's judgment on this matter thank you everyone for your time and consideration
thank you Mr simmonelli good afternoon madam chair members of the board christian Simmonelli Boston and Growwater Trust and we have both GCOD letters from the applicant thank you i'm sure we have no additional raised hands with that do we have a motion
madam Chair I would put forward a motion of deferral to the next hearing so the applicant can provide an existing survey plot plan uh if if what he's mentioning is true if if he feel if he realizes that it's it's is not correct what his
assumptions were I would really look at the Boston planning's recommendation that notes um that the building should ensure a rear yard 1/3 depth and a lot coverage of 60% uh you know but there is
no issue with the height um and stories thank you is there a second second mr stebridge yes mr valencia yes mr lang yes miss
Weel yes miss Better Barza yes chair votes yes the motion carries i'll ask the applicant to check in with ISD uh to make sure that you provide the information and are available for the next hearing and the next date would be
May 6 may 6th may 6th you said or yeah yes may 6th may 6th please submit the plot plan as Oh I will definitely I will by next week i have time thank you may 6 thank you so much i wish you have a good day bye now
thank you bye thank you have a good day folks have a good day thank you have a good night good day thank you all thank you everyone