--------- Mr. Stebridge Mad >> Mr. Valencia >> pres >> Mr. Langum >> President Madam Chair >> Miss Brazza >> present madam chair >> Miss Rewell
>> present madam chair >> Mr. Bernell >> present, Madam Chair. >> Excellent. I'll turn it back to you, Mr. Stebridge. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. We will move on to the rediscussion
hearing scheduled for 11:30 a.m. Uh, we will first ask if there are any requests from withdrawals or deferrals from this time frame. >> Mr. Secretary, this is Mike Ross, if I may. Uh yes,
>> thank you. Thank you, sir. 567-577 Adams Street, please. >> That request is for case BO879 0972 with the address of 56757
Adam Street. You go ahead and explain and turn off Ros. >> Yeah. Thank you, Sarah. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. Um we are seeking a quick deferral if we could. We've learned of some uh issues around uh community support that we'd
like to uh respond to and we just feel that uh one brief delay will allow us to do so. >> Okay. Uh Stephanie or Caroline >> March March 10th March 24th or April 7th?
>> March 10th would be great please. >> Okay. May I have a motion? Motion to defer till March 10th. >> May I have a second? >> Second. >> Mr. Stembridge. >> Yes.
>> Mr. Valencia. >> Yes. >> Mr. Langum. >> Yes. >> Miss Better Braza? >> Yes. >> Dwell? >> Yes. >> Mr. Bernell? >> Yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. See
you then. >> Thank you. Any further requests for withdrawals or deferrals? Mr. >> Springer, are you seeking a deferral? >> Uh, yes, I am. Thank you. For um 110
West Conquered Street. >> So, this is for case BO8176 0013 with the address of 110 West Conquer Street. Would you go ahead and explain
for us? >> We are in conversation with one of the direct debutters and we would like a a short deferral so we can be in a better position for the next hearing.
>> Okay, Stephanie. >> March 10th, March 24th or April 7th. >> Uh March 10th, please. >> Okay. May I have a motion? Motion to defer to March 10th. >> May I have a second?
>> Second. >> Mr. Stebridge. >> Yes. >> Mr. Valencia? >> Yes. >> Mr. Langum? >> Yes. >> Miss Bzazza? >> Yes. >> Miss Weo? >> Yes.
>> Mr. Bernell? >> Yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. See you then. >> Thank you. And we'll ask again if there are any requests for withdrawals or deferrals from this time frame. Hearing none, we'll move on to the first
case which is case BOA 1790800 0 with the address of 191 Brooks Street. If the applicants andor their representative are present, would they please explain to the board? >> Yes. Uh good morning again, Madam Chair,
members of the board. For the record, Richard Lind, the business address of 245 Summer Street. Here on behalf of Jorge Rodriguez, uh with me is Eric Sacerson, who's the project architect. Um probably jump right to slide eight, Mr. Ambassador, and I can uh give a
quick overview of what we're proposing here. Madam Chair, this matter was before the board uh back in this past December uh where we proposed a larger 4-unit uh residential structure. uh we had an opportunity uh prior to that hearing to review the planning
department's recommendation uh in addition to uh some comments that were provided by uh the surrounding neighborhood. Uh we have gone ahead and revised this project. I know that the list of violations looked lengthy. Uh we I believe have successfully removed or
eliminated uh at least four if not five of those violations and two of them are no longer applicable. Um, so, uh, just a quick overview. Um, this is, uh, this property is located in the EDR3 zoning subdist, which is in the Eagle Hill section of East Boston. Uh, this is on,
uh, the Brook Street, uh, the portion that's closest to the top of the hill at White Street. You can see here from the photo that there is, uh, an incline in grade as you come up Brook Street. Uh, our building being on the right hand side. Uh, this lot was part of the city's Butters Lots program. Uh so it's
remained vacant for the better part of the last 30 to 40 years. There's a deed restriction imposed. When the lot was originally sold off, those deed restrictions from the '9s have been expiring. Uh and we have uh successfully arranged to have that restriction
released, which now makes this site eligible for redevelopment. Uh if we can jump down to slide 12, um that would probably help us talk a little bit about just how the site sets up. Um so one of the significant changes
that we've made with respect to this project is that um you know reducing it from four units to three uh makes that a compliant use uh up to three units or it's actually up to six units that are allowed on a individual site in the EVR3 district but it has a lot to do with the
width of the lot. Um, so the original violation that was cited was for use. Uh, that is no longer applicable since we are proposing this as a three-unit dwelling as opposed to a 4-unit dwelling. Uh, the next item that we were cited for had to do with the minimum uh
area for permeable space on the site. Uh, we were as a larger building, we were a little bit further in the back of the property and therefore it did not meet the 30% permeable requirement. We had the architect go back make some adjustments for the property uh and now
we can achieve 30% permeability even though the site is relatively smaller. Uh we do uh are able to incorporate the permeable features onto the site. Uh the next item that we were cited for had to do with the rear yard setback. As you can see the length the depth of this lot
is 75 ft. uh we are um in a position to be able to um move that building back uh closer to the front of the the property and create a setback of 12.8 ft. Um the minimum setback typically in the EBR3
district for the rear yard is 1/3 of the lot depth which would be 25 ft. However, because this would be considered a shallow lot condition, uh we are eligible to reduce the 12 uh the 25 ft down to 12 1/2 ft total. Uh so this condition would be in compliance with
the uh revised or amended zoning for East Boston. Um with respect to the um off street parking requirement that was originally cited, Madam Chair, because we've reduced this from four units to three units. Uh under the amended East
Boston zoning, there is no parking requirement for one to three units. So that once again addressed uh one of the violations that were cited originally. uh and that was uh certainly something that was raised by uh the community as being a violation that they had some
concern with. Um with respect to the roof structures restriction that was also cited. Um this comes up a lot. Uh we deal with ISD on this particular question regularly. Uh the roof structure restrictions found in article 53 section 25 apply to existing
buildings where the roof line is being altered. It does not apply to um uh new construction. And so a roof deck that is proposed in connection with any new project that's that's being uh constructed uh is not subject to the roof restriction conditional use permit.
Uh the reason being is that uh the specific language of article 20 section 25 article 53 uh talks about any existing roof structure that's in existence at the time. Uh moreover, article 20 article 53 section 25 does permit roof decks provided they meet the
setback requirements uh as set forth in section 25. So that uh while a violation cited uh is not something that we necessarily require rel. If we can jump to slide 13, I believe we have the floor plans and the elevations. Uh and as you
can see here for level one, this is proposed as a slab on grade. Um, Madam Chair, uh, we're not proposing any foundation or or basement, I should say. Uh, and the bottom, uh, two levels, u, levels one and levels two, uh, would be two-bedroom units. Level one would be
accessible for persons with disabilities and designed to meet compliance with, uh, with the ADA requirements. Uh, level two is very similar to level one. If we jump to the next slide, we can see level three and four. What we did was we proposed uh, this to be a BLE unit to provide a little bit more space. So this
is a three plus layout. Uh we have two levels. You would enter the third floor but have additional living space for bedrooms on the upper level. And I'll explain the elevation in a moment because I think it's significant for purpose of where this property is located. As you can see, we do propose the roof deck with the appropriate
setbacks. It is set back uh towards the rear of the building. Uh there is a hatch head house that is uh used to access it from internal in the internal stairwell. uh there is no uh spiral staircase or access from the rear to get up there. Uh again, this is permitted
under section 25 article 53 as uh permissible use. Uh if we go to the next slide, please just our section plan. We can jump down to the next slide. Probably shows the elevation very perfect. So we're looking at here is the right side elevation of
the building. Um we are um showing windows on this side because we do have the appropriate setback on the right side of the building. We are setting our building at a zero lot line on the left side but that is entirely consistent with uh the precedent in the area which
does allow for rowhouse. Rowhouse does not require a sideyard on the common boundary where any uh rowhouse is being proposed. For a rowhouse you have to have at least uh three contiguous buildings. There are a number of buildings along Brook Street uh that all have attached party walls. So this would
be very consistent with the spirit intent of the code for side ground setback. Uh which leads us to the essentially the main two items for relief and that is the height of the building. We are proposing this as a fourstory uh and 42 I believe it's 42
feet or just over 42 feet in total height. If we can jump back to slide eight, Mr. Ambassador, that will help show the context of uh how we come up with the height of this building. Um, so as you can see, uh, Madam Chair, members of the board, our property directly adjacent to us on the left, uh,
is also a triple decker. Uh, but it does have that, uh, condition of the exposed foundation of the elevated foundation, which is very typical, uh, along buildings on this side of Brook Street, especially as you travel up the hill. Uh, because that building would be at a higher elevation than our building. uh
in addition to our building not having the elevated foundation, instead we just have that accessible level. What we're trying to do is design, we try to design this building to be uh consistent, if you will, with the adjoining properties along that side of Brook Street. And we believe that uh the continuity of this
building with its height uh as as compared to the buildings immediately adjacent uh makes this a nice contiguous addition to this area. Um, with that I will pause to see if we have any questions of the board or address any comments uh for this proposal.
>> Thank you. Is Mr. Hampton available? >> Could you speak on the >> Yes, Madam Chair. Thank you. Uh, good morning everyone. Uh, Jeff Hampton, City of Boston Planning Department. Um, we received the revised plans and uh
rejection letter from ISD the day after we sent the recommendations over to you. Um we do acknowledge that the appellant had deferred uh this case from December to make
adjustments based on our recommendation and we acknowledge that they have done a substantial job in doing that including changing from the four units to three and eliminating more than half of the zoning violations. So, we acknowledge
that the new proposal is better than what we saw in December. However, I don't have the authority to switch that recommendation from denial to approval. However, I would ask if the board does seem fit to approve that they attach a
provisal for design review. Typical. Um, but we do acknowledge the changes in the effort made by the appellant uh based on our prior recommendation. >> Thank you. I I mean I have a I have a question. Um so uh you know listening to
recent counselor hearings um councelor Kleta had brought up the issue of undergoing a huge community process and um and decisions are kind of going against the new approved
uh east Austin uh zoning changes. So, you know what's um you know, this one is ERB uh which allow three which allows for three stories. And so, what's your
feedback on the height violation that it's it's not going with the new kind of approved East Boston zoning changes? >> Who's that question to? Is that to Mr. Hampton?
>> Yeah. Uh, I mean it's been a critique. So, um, I do agree that it's lesser units, which is commendable, and the rear yard has been increased to allow a little bit more open space, but I just
want to just bring that to the board, right? um that are we being consistent or is is I guess maybe is more for the for the applicant to
be able to speak on that that you know we have this new zoning change which really kind of regulates massing and height and and height um and so now we're going four stories where in this block it's you know three stories
two and a half three stories so I I just want make that comment that it has been brought up at city councelor and you know Kleta and council Kleta discussing this long community process and now we're still giving variances
>> just wanted to bring it out there you know um >> through the through the chair um I I can speak to that and I don't know if Mr. Hampton would add to this, but um I I would point out um while I do appreciate the process and certainly being a practitioner before the board, a lot of
it being in East Boston, I'm I'm very familiar with the process that went to amending the code. Um one of the things I would point out is that within article 53, and I believe it exists throughout other sections or other code sections in
the city, uh we do have the exception to building height. uh especially where you have buildings taller on adjoining lots. Um so there is uh precedent and certainly provisions within the code that allow through designer review to
review projects that may exceed the height limit uh slightly and that I would submit to the board this is a slight increase. However, uh it's not one where we have a condition that the building immediately adjoining us to the left uh is lower than our building. It's
actually it would actually be taller if we uh applied a strict reading of the of the height limit for this this district. >> Yeah, I was going to say that the corner building uh you know it's a corner lot, so I can see there being that kind of condition right next to 191 Brook that
there's that corner building. Do you know what the height is of that? Is it Does it exceed 35 ft? It excuse maybe 40. >> The one to the left of us. >> Yes. >> Yeah. I I think it's closer to 40 because I'm putting I think it's a t a
typical triple decker, but you can see that the exposed foundation and I know the angle's a little different, but it's almost taller than the car that's parked just before the building. Um, so that condition actually adds probably six five to six feet uh to the existing or a
typical triple decker height. Uh, I would also point out the board, I probably should have included it. I I I apologize, but I want to have a clear view. The board has approved uh a residential structure at the lot that you can see. It's the open space lot close to the bottom of the screen. uh
which you know which has uh similar height characteristics because of going up the hill with having um additional uh height towards the lower portion of the lot. So uh we are trying to design these pretty consistent with you know what the trend is on this section of Brook
Street. And I think that the as you go up the up the hill towards White Street, you do have uh a a pretty good elevation change that would take into account a lot of this um design that we we've incorporated. Yeah, I think I I I just
bring it up and I think, you know, um I think what I'm trying to also show is that this is on a case by case basis and I think the corner um it seems like a six flex um bow front does look like it
exceeds 35 ft. So I think that would be your kind of precedent in terms of context that you are um that it should be okay. But I I just want I I want us to just be mindful of
just the latest loaning changes and when does it become a a a case kind of condition that we would provide a variance for the height. Um no further questions. Thank you. >> I can add to the conversation. >> Yeah, ma'am. Sure. >> Yes.
>> If I can add to a conversation, I'm looking at the Google uh studio. It seems that this is not a flat side. seems that there is a slope going down the hill and with that I'm looking at the properties to the left of this project seems that those those
properties especially one in the corner is like three and a half floors. So with that this this uh new project is probably not going to be hired as Mr. Lind mentioned before. Now my question
is about if Mr. Ambassador can go to the previous slide number seven. I no. Yes. So I see that the that building over there there are the has a few windows also some antennas could be
direct TV antennas. So how are you going to manage the interaction with your above to the left and how much space? I don't I haven't seen like a an elevation showing both properties, the project, the new project and the existing building. So, how are you going to
manage um the light for those windows and also the reception for those antennas? >> Sure. I I know we have our architect, Eric Zerson, but I know this question came up as well and two things I would point out. Our client uh who was the owner of the lot that's being proposed at all also owns this building. Uh, and
we have taken into consideration the building code requirements for not having unprotected openings. We do not believe, and I think Eric can confirm it, that that lower window is probably the only one that uh is really uh impactful because of where it's located,
but the others are not significant uh opportunities for light. Uh, so I think we can address those pretty easily. Um, but I'll let Eric address those in his comments as well, because I know we did look at that. Thank you. >> Thank you. Um,
can you hear me? Yeah. So, basically those windows are 3 foot2 in from our building. So, it would not create a fire code separation. Um, because our building is going to be a fourstory building. It'll also have a 1 hour rated wall. So, um, that should create a safe
separation between the two. And as as Rich mentioned, the upper windows are not going to be significantly blocked from light. The two lower windows are probably going to be have have some significant impact of light, but they are over 3 feet from the face of our building.
So 3 ft. Do you think that is going to be enough space for the above next door to manage all of those trash barrels? >> Yes. Yeah. Trash barrels are 22 in or so wide. So that's manageable.
>> Yeah. And that provides for appropriate uh egress from the existing building. and then our building would have its own egress as well. >> Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. >> Thank you. May May we have public testimony? >> Hello, Madam Chair, members of the
board. My name is Eva Jones representing the mayor's office and neighborhood services regarding 191 Brook Street. Our office defers to the board's judgment. A community process was conducted, including an abuted meeting held on 61825 that was not attended by any East Boston community members. The proposal was also reviewed by the Eagle Hill
Neighborhood Association at their meeting on 61825. Oh, excuse me. Yes. Um, the application voted or the association voted to oppose with a vote of 13 opposed and seven support regarding the proposal. At this time, the mayor's office and neighborhood services defer differs to
the birds board's judgment on this matter. Thank you everyone for your time and consideration. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. There are no additional comments. Oh, no. There is one person I think PJ >> um to the board. Um my name is Peter Panidosce. I am a director of butter to
the south. Um the the lot that's actually being redeveloped also. Uh I know that I've worked hard actually with the owner in in a lot of the improvements that have recently been made and obviously from the point of which this was brought in front of the
Eagle Hill Community Board. this project has dramatically changed um for the good. Um and just, you know, at one point that I'd like to bring out to the chair, you know, to the board in regards to the elevation, uh some of these pictures really don't do the incline
justice. Um, I think the the best determination to really look at it is if you look at the house next door, um, as you're going up Brook Street, you'll see the foundation and the elevation is actually the foundation height is actually the the elevation of the top of
the entrance door at 191. Um, it's a dramatic 6 to 8 foot increase. And, and as you go into the backyard and you look in the backyard of this project, you'll also see that there's a dramatic height. So, this even though it is even though
it is built as a four-story building, um it it's really not as as overwhelming as as it appears to be. Um and it is all within the restraints and and I know that uh I worked very close with George in regards to this to be able to get
this to where it's at. And I think they've made dramatic improvements to what this project has become. And and again speaking to what the community board originally voted on, uh these are two different projects to be honest with you. So um at this point I would just
say as a director Butter I'm all in favor for what's being presented here today. >> Thank you. Any other raised hands? >> Sorry I mute Madame Chair. There are no additional comments. Great. Uh, is there a motion?
>> M. I'm going to put forward a motion of approval with the plan department review. >> There second. >> Barza. Second. >> Mr. Valencia. >> Yes. >> Mr. Stebridge. >> Yes. >> Mr. Langum.
>> Yes. >> Miss Better Braza. >> Yes. >> Miss Weell. >> Yes. >> Mr. Bernell. >> Yes. >> Chair votes yes. Motion carries. Good. >> Thank you very much. >> Next case has been deferred.
That takes us to case BOA1554854 with the address of 69R Parent Street. Is the applicant and or they representative? Would they please explain to the board? >> Uh, good morning me madam chair and members of the board. My name is Tim
Wongden 18top circle in Northboro and I am the owner of the subject property at 69R Parent Street where I'm proposing to erect a three-story 3unit residential building with three outdoor parking spaces. This uh just a brief overview. The site was originally a portion of a
much larger parcel, 67 Parent Street, which I purchased in March of 2023. I subdivided that lot into three separate parcels. 67 Parent Street, where I rehabilitated an existing three family home, 71 Parent Street, where I
built a zoning compliant three family. And this parcel, 69 our parent street, where I'm also seeking to construct a new three family. This is a rather simple and standard three-story three family dwelling on a non-standard lot. The parcel is 640 ft and is in a 3F4000
zoning subdist making the proposed three family dwelling perfectly suitable for the site. The zoning refusal letter was issued owing to four cited violations. First, there's a F violation. I'm actually not certain this violation was correctly
cited. The maximum F under zoning is 0.8 here. Unit one and two are each 1,360 ft and unit 3 is 1,413 ft for a total of 4,133 ft plus approximately 100 additional
square ft of non-unit area. 4,832 ft are allowed by zoning. If the examiner counted the basement space which is proposed for storage, it would likely exceed allowable F, but only to a very small extent. There is a cited front yard setback violation. The
required setback is 20 ft. While the front of this building is approximately 14 ft from the lot line separating this lot from 67 Parent Street. That area of the 67 Parent Street lot is a parking area. So there's no impact on the residents in that building which is
located nearly 45 ft away from its rear lot line. There's a cited rear yard insufficiency. The required setback is 30 ft whereas the provided setback varies from approximately approximately 11 to 12 ft but there is a significant
setback of the building to the rear from its own rear lot line mitigating any potential negative impact from this violation. The violation was caused by the perpendicular geometry of the lot and is unavoidable in order to allow for a reasonable three family development of a lot that meets minimum lot size
requirements. Also, there is a violation arising from the lack of screen and buffering of the building's three-spot parking area. If the board were to see fit to approve this, I'd be happy to work with the planning department on a suitable landscaping plan, as well as to refine the architectural plans in light
of the neighborhood design overlay district. I also wish to point out that the fire lane access from Burton NAV was reviewed and approved by the Boston Fire Department and is stamped on the site plan as complying with 527 CMR. This project was presented to the board
on December 9th of last year and deferred with the board's hope that further effort to engage the residents of BertNav would be made in order to obtain their feedback after they were not heard from at previously scheduled the butters and community meetings. On January 6th, I sent certified mailers to
each address on Burton AB with copies of the plans and a link to a private Zoom hearing I was holding on January 20th. Of the four addresses mailed, two responded and they happened to be director Butters 6 and8 Burton Aav. I met with them on site and after discussion they submitted a letter of
support for the project yesterday. Prior to the meeting with Burton of Butters, I again met with the Roxberry path forward community group and after reviewing the project again they submitted a letter of support as well. I've been working on this project with the community for the better part of two years. It was originally proposed as a
six-unit residence, but during the community process was cut down to the three family residence proposed today uh due to the incorporation of the neighbors feedback. I've been encouraged by the last few meetings with the community groups and abutters and I believe I satisfied the board's request
to obtain feedback from the neighbors on Burton which was thankfully both productive and supportive. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you so much. Are there questions from the board? May I have public testimony? >> Madam Chair and board members, Siggy
Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This applicant has completed the community process as requested by the board at the last hearing. They've been able to meet with the director Butters at 6 and 8 Burton AB and received our office understands their support for this proposal. To date, our office has received nine letters of
support with one from Roxbury Path Forward citing the developer agreement to uh plow the shared road after storms to remove snow as it is a private way. The developers have also included other community benefits as a result of the community process. With that background,
uh the mayor's office of neighborhood services defers judgment to the board. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Next, we have Michael Kosu. >> Hi, my name is Michael Kosu. um project right 320 the letter a blue avenue we've
had several meetings with the developer with the nine streets united >> neighborhood association that's impacted by this and the Alaska parent association um I think the key part was we wanted to make sure that the BNA residents were informed of this it appears that has has
met the case the other conditional um that um residents want to express was to make sure that this doesn't become a cutth through from Copeland through Burton to um uh Harren Street. So, we really do want to encourage the
developer to maintain um a fence that would actually add to the safety of his properties where people don't see this as an opportunity to cut through. >> With that, uh we defer to the judgment of the board. >> Thank the voting.
>> Can we zoom? Can we mute folks who are not speaking? Thank you. >> All right. I I think the person Zoom user also wants to speak on this case. >> Okay. >> Hi. Um this is Lorraine Payne Wheeler
and I am here today on behalf of Roxbury Path Forward Neighborhood Association and we um do support the project. Now, we think that this additional time that the board gave us by deferring the project was very productive and um it
was important to us that the street Burton Avenue be repaid and now that um the developers have agreed to that, we really do support the project. So, thank you. >> Thank you, >> Madam Chair. There are no additional comments. >> Great.
With that, may I have a motion? Madam chair, I would like to put a motion of approval with provisis to submit plans to planning for design review. >> Thank you. May I have a second? >> Second. >> Mr. Stebridge.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Valencia. >> Yes. >> Mr. Langum. >> Yes. >> Miss Better Braza. >> Yes. >> Miss Weo. >> Yes. Mr. Bernau, >> yes.
>> Votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck. >> Thank you, >> Madam Chair. Um, we have a interpretation discussion scheduled for noon time. >> Okay. >> So, I'll read that in. See where we go.
uh interpretation redis case schedu for for noon time. This is case BOA 168 9794 with the address of 62-6
Condor Street. If the applicant andor their representative presents, will they please? >> Yes. Uh once again, madam chair, members of the board, Richard Linds, 245 Summer Street on behalf of the petitioner. Um this is actually being deferred. Again,
this one for interpretation. Um we have been able to reduce the number of violations that was cited by ISD. They've agreed with our interpretation for the most part. We're waiting for an updated refusal letter for one outstanding violation that we may require interpretation for. I'm going to
leave this on the docket until we have that updated refusal. So if we could get just a brief deferral, I expect to fully withdraw this particular interpretation once we see the updated refusal. >> Okay. >> March 10th, the 24th or April 7th.
>> Uh March 10th is fine. >> Okay. May I have a motion? >> Motion to defer to March 10th. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Mr. Stumbridge? >> Yes. >> Mr. Valencio?
>> Yes. Mr. Langum, >> yes. >> Miss Bter Brazza, >> yes. >> Miss Weo, >> yes. >> Mr. Bernell, >> yes. >> Votes yes. The motion carries. >> Thank you. Have a great day.
>> Thank you. >> We're turning to the 11:30 cases. We have two companion cases which are case BOA178 3686
with the address of 180 to 182 Sam Hill Avenue. Along with that we have case BOA 1783689 also with the address of 180 to 182 Samill Avenue. If the applicants andor
their representative representing will they please explain the cases to the board. >> Thank you Mr. Secretary. Good morning madam chair afternoon madam chair members of the board. My name is James Christopher of 686 architects with the business address of 10 Forbes Road in Brainree Mass. Uh I'm here today on
behalf of Christopher Thomasini uh the owner of 180 to 182 Savin Hill Avenue. the the proposal before you is to construct uh a thirdstory shed dormer on the Caspian way side of the building. Um no change to occupancy or building
footprint. Uh next slide please. Uh this is our proposed site plan. Again, there's no change. Uh we had originally um Next slide please. Incorporated um some rear decks. Um oh that was the use
of premise. Sorry. Um the uh the rear decks have been removed. Uh and the proposal now is to construct uh just the shed dorm as we had this project was scheduled to be before the board last month. We deferred at the request of a rear butter who was unaware of the
project. We spent the last month meeting with that butter to try to revise the design to keep the rear decks. Uh since then they've been removed. Um so that this proposal is to construct again that shed door on the third floor. no change to occupancy. Um and the um the tandem
style um uh parking for EVs uh to the right side. So that would be a new curb cut on that side of the building uh to accommodate um parking for the building and that's illustrated there. That easement exists and is already recorded.
Next slide please. And that's so that's that's the use of premise application and then we can go back to the plans for the uh building permit. >> Next slide. Please go down to the plans. Uh, >> it looks like you only have the use of premise plans. There should be another
application that shows the building footprint plans. >> Give us one second. We're working on getting it up. Hold up. There we go. Uh in conjunction with the uh shed do these existing plans. Keep going.
Keep going. So there's no work on the first, second, and third. There's the existing. Go to the A drawings, please. There you go. You can stop there. So, you can see on the left side, we're proposing to construct a shed doing the length of that uh bump out on the house, including photovoltaic
um uh array on the roof. Next slide, please. Again, no work in the basement set first or second floors. Uh next slide. So, within the shed dorma, we would create uh there's already two bedrooms
on this level. We would reorganize the bedrooms and the living levels uh in the uh living area so that the the space is laid out a little more optimally. We incorporate a new front deck uh and a new entryway to the building. Next slide, please.
So, that front porch there would be rebuilt so that the stairs currently address the corner of the building. They wrap around toward the side facing Casby way and now they will address Sam and Alath and those are the decks in question. Uh as per the agreement with our rera butter those decks will be removed and
there will be no change to the end wall location of the building. And with that I'll turn it over to any questions. >> Thank you. Are there any questions from the board? I mean th this question is for Jeff Hampton. Um I saw your BPD
recommendations and you're requesting for design review for dormer and I you know this is I don't see this necessary. Um uh it seems like the planning board members um should probably spend their time better
with much more complex projects. It seems like pretty straightforward. So I just like would like to know the reasoning behind that. It's in the neighborhood design overlay district. >> So that's the reason. Okay. Yes, ma'am. >> Yeah, it's it does not state that. Um, so it requires design review because
it's in Savin Hill. Got it. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions from the board? May we have public testimony? >> Hello, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Eva Jones representing the mayor's office of neighborhood services regarding 180 to 182 7 Hill A.
Our office defers to the board's judgment. A community process was conducted including an abut butters meeting held on eight or 31825 that was not attended by any community members. Following the meeting, my office received an email from an abut butter expressing concerns about the project,
the placement of the decks in relation to his child's room and concerns about the firing for the proposal for him and other neighbors. Following the deferral of this proposal, the applicant worked collaboratively with the butter and agreed to remove the decks uh to the proposal. The proposal was also reviewed by the Columbia 7 Hill Civic Association
at their meeting on 8:19. 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. >> Next, we have Brenda. >> Good afternoon, members of the board. My name is Brennan Cook of Berlin McGuff
and Cutin here in Boston, 44 school street. I represent the director of Butters uh to the rear at 5 Caspian uh way. uh the applicant's correct that we you know we appreciate that they were collaborating with us to revise the plans and reach an agreement. Uh so I
just speak to to clarify for the board that uh the abutters have uh no objection with the project moving forward uh so long as that uh agreement with respect to the the proposed rear decks uh is reflected in in the board's uh decision today. Thank you. >> Thank you. Madame
>> chair. There are no additional comments. >> With that, may I have a motion? Yes. So, um given that the project is under a zoning overlay of um neighborhood design overlay district, uh it seems like it's also on a zoning overlay of the harbor park, Dorchester
Bay, Neponsa River waterfront. And it also is noted under the MHC historic inventory areas. I'm going to put forward a motion of approval with a provisor that it undergoes BPD design review. >> There second. Second.
>> Mr. Stage, >> are you okay? >> Mr. Valencia. >> Yes. >> Mr. Lang. >> Yes. >> M. Better Brazo? >> Yes. >> Miss Weel?
>> Yes. >> Mr. Bernell, >> you're also on mute. >> Yes. Thank you. Uh chair votes yes. The motion carries. >> Thank you. >> I think is that
>> we do it, Madam Chair. >> Okay. Well, thank you everyone and have a great rest of your day. >> Thank you. >> Bye. Thanks. >> Recording stopped. >> Thank you. Part: 2
Good morning. The City of Boston Zoning Board of Appeal hearing for February 3rd, 2026 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. Four members applicants and their attorneys or representatives will participate in the hearing as panelists and they will appear alongside the presentation materials when speaking. Panelists are strongly encouraged to keep video on
while presenting to the board. As with our in-person meetings, comments and support will be followed by comments in opposition. The order of comments is as follows. Elected officials, representatives of elected officials, and members of the public. The chair may limit the number of people called upon
to offer a comment and the time for commenting as time constraints require. For that reason, the board prefers to hear from members of the public who are most impacted by a project. That is those individuals who live closest to the project. If you wish to comment on an appeal,
please click the raise hand button along the bottom of your screen in the Zoom webinar platform. Click it again and your hand should go down. When the host sees your hand, you will receive a request to unmute yourself. Select yes and you should be able to talk. If you are connected to the hearing by telephone, please press star 9 to raise
and lower your hand. You must press star six to unmute yourself after you receive the request from the host. Those called upon to comment will be asked to state their name and address first and then 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. We ask that you keep your comments brief and all public testimony will be limited to 90
seconds per speaker. Mr. Mr. Stebridge, you're on mute, Mr. Stebridge. >> Okay, let's try this again. Good morning, Madam Chair. Present. >> Good morning, Mr. Valencia. >> Good morning, madam chair. Present.
>> Good morning, Mr. Lang Lang. Is Mr. Langum with us? Okay, I don't see Mr. Langum, so I'll keep going. Uh, Miss Better Brazza. >> Good morning, Madam Chair. Present. >> Good morning, Miss Weell.
>> Good morning, Madam Chair. Present. >> Good morning, Mr. Brunell. >> Good morning, Madam Chair. Present. >> Good morning. So, last call for Mr. Langum. Okay. So, if someone could perhaps reach
out to him to see if he's joining us, that would be fantastic. In the meantime, uh we are a six member board and I will turn it over to Mr. Sebridge. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh we'll begin today's hearings with the uh call for
approval of the hearing minutes scheduled for 9:30 a.m. These hearing minutes are from January se 22nd and January 27th of this year. I'll make a motion of approval.
>> May I have a second? >> Second. >> Mr. Stebridge? >> Yeah. >> Mr. Valencia? Yes, >> Miss Better Braza. >> Yes, >> Miss Weell. >> Yes, >> Mr. Bernell.
>> Yes, >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. >> Next go to the extension scheduled for 9:30 a.m. Madame Chair, um the first case we have
one of our board members will recuse himself. I'll read the case in. They can recuse themselves at that point. Um, we'll vote on that one and by itself and then we'll go through the rest of them.
So, first we first we have case BOA 1536698 with the address of 12 of 1208 C BFW Parkway. >> Yeah, ma'am. I have to recuse myself from this case. >> Okay. Thank you. So here I
>> I'm sorry, >> Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I think I should recuse myself from this one, too. >> Okay. Well, since Okay. Well, if you're both recusing yourself, Caroline, we don't have a quorum for that one. So, let's move on. Does that make sense,
Caroline? And see if Mr. Langum joins us later. >> Yes, it does. >> Okay. Okay, Stephanie. Thank you. Sorry. >> Okay. So, we will uh we will defer that one for now and read the rest of the
extensions. >> So, with that, we'll move on to case BO8 9007493 with the address of 5 Boardman Street. Next we have case BOA 1171660 with the address of 970 Saratoga Street.
Next we have case BOA509717 with the address of 970 Saratoga Street. Next we have case BOA14091 03 with the address of 9 Keith Street. And
finally, we have case BOA1539718 with the address of 1270 Commonwealth Avenue. Madam Chair, those are the rest of the extensions. >> Okay. Any questions from the board? May I have a motion?
>> Motion to grant the extensions as requested. >> Is there a second? >> I had a comment on one of these. Mr. Stebridge. >> Yes. >> No. Mr. Valencia. >> Yes.
>> Mr. Langham. I mean, sorry, Miss Better Brazo. >> Yes. Yes. >> Thank you, Miss Weell. >> Yes. >> Mr. Bernell. Yes, >> chair votes yes. The motion carries.
>> So at this point, madam, you'll continue on and back to the to that one extension. >> Uh well, I don't think Mr. Langum has joined us, so that would make
us a four member board, which means we cannot vote on it. Uh, so I think we will keep going and see if he joins us. Uh, other than that, we'd have to defer that one, which we still can't have a vote for. So, let's keep going for now.
>> Sounds good, Madam Chair. Uh, next we move on to board final operator case scheduled for 9:30 a.m. This is case BO8 134 56 55
the address of 11 Spring Garden Street. If the applicant and their representative present, will they please explain the case to the board? >> Great. Uh, good morning madam chair, members of the board. My name is Kevin Cludier uh with an address of 1990
Center Street in West Roxberry. I'm an attorney. I represent the property owner and applicant uh Mr. Chow Nuin. I am joined by the project manager Gavin Driscoll from Lighthouse Architecture. Uh what we're asking this board to do today in its capacity as final arbiter
is to approve uh a day minimus 10-in height adjustment to the project. The project uh originally approved called for the demolition of an existing single family home and the erection of a fourstory two family dwelling and those
stories in include a the first story is a garage. Uh the total height of that approved project was 37 ft. Uh we're asking to go to 37t 10 in. Uh this adjustment arose as we transitioned into
the uh construction documents and then the planning department to review and was recommended by the structural engineer in order to properly accommodate the floor assembly systems uh beginning in the garage uh floor. Uh this issue was raised during uh with the
planning department during the design review phase and the planning department indicated it would approve the plan subject of course to this board's approval. uh and we'd suggest to the board that the request does not alter the project's use uh the project's
footprint or the neighborhood impact uh and remains consistent with the board's uh original approval. So I I would just ask the board to allow this uh day minimous increase and of course if the board has questions I'd be happy to answer them or defer over to Mr.
Driscoll if it's design related. >> Thank you. Are there any questions from the board? >> Hearing none, is there a motion? >> Madam Chair, I'd like to put for a motion of approval. >> There's a second. >> Second.
>> Mr. Stebridge. >> Yes. >> Mr. Mr. Valencia. >> Yes. >> Miss Better Braza. >> Yes. >> Miss Weell. >> Yes. >> Mr. Bernell. >> Yes.
>> Hair votes yes. The motion carries. >> Thank you. >> Next, we'll move on to the hearing schedule for 9:30 a.m. At this time, we'll ask if there are any requests for
withdrawals or from 9:30. >> Hearing none. >> I don't know Mr. Springer has his hand up. >> Yeah, I think there Marcus, this is the opportunity to >> Yes. Hello, Madam Chair. Marcus Springer, Springer Architects, 46
Waltham Street, Boston. Um, we would like to defer our case. Uh, BO A1760013. >> Mr. Mr. Stembridge will read it into the record. Can you just say what address it is? Um, uh, 110 West Conquered Street.
>> Thank you. >> Uh, that I believe is an 11:30 case. >> Yeah, I don't see that. >> Okay. So, you cannot ask us for that extension until we call for 11:30s. So, please >> Okay. >> Stay with us. >> Thank you.
If there are no other requests or no requests for the N which also defers the 930 then we'll go to the first case which is case BOA1807132 with the address of 137 C Street. If the
applicant andor their representative are present, will they please explain the case to the board? >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Stebridge. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. Uh Richard Linds, the business address of 245 Summer Street on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Nick Delro
who's with us. Uh we also have Chris Drew from 686 Architects for this project. I'll start uh just quickly, Madam Chair, to get the housekeeping matters out of the way. This is subject to article 32 uh GCOD. We do have uh the no harm letter as well as the Boston
water and soil letter on file. So I believe that in this particular case a conditional use permit is appropriate for GPOT. Um with respect to the proposal um this involves the change of use and occupancy of an existing three-unit residential dwelling uh is
located in the Jeffre Point section of East Boston. Our proposal would change the occupancy from the three units to the four to four units uh with a vertical addition. Um, as the ambassador is showing some of the context slides, you can see that the building uh is part
of a series of buildings uh along uh Cottage Street and again the Jeffre Point section of East Boston. Maybe jump down to slide 12, Mr. Ambassador. So, we can talk a little about the dimensional relief. Um there are a few items that we do require even though this is a pre-existing building, uh we do require
relief uh for a few items and I'll just run through those briefly for the board. Uh this property is located in the uh relatively newer established EBR4 zoning subdist. Multif family use is permitted as a matter of right. Uh and therefore our proposed use is compliant with
article 53. Uh I would also point out that the vertical addition that is proposed uh is consistent in both height and stories for uh the amended uh zoning for this section of East Boston. Um the relief we do require starts uh with the
uh dimensional requirements for rear yard setback. Uh as this board is likely well aware at this point uh the minimum setback in the rear yard uh in the EVR4 district is 1/3 of the lot depth. Uh because this is an 80 foot deep lot. Uh
we are eligible for the sha lot exception and therefore the actual setback would be uh 16.4t 4 ft with the calculation to reduce uh the the minimum rear setback uh to be compliant with the shallow exception. As you can see on the
plan here, maybe a little difficult, but we're about 17.2 ft uh for with our building to the rear property line. There is a shed that does uh encroach onto our property. We've authorized that shed to remain. Um if it is ever removed in the future, uh it won't be put back
in that location, but that is a pre-existing condition. Madam Chair, uh, one of the changes that we do propose, and we'll see this in the elevation plans in a moment, we do have a rear stairwell um that we are reorienting for the back of the property. While that isn't an extension of the physical
building itself, it does come within the setback uh that is already a non-conforming condition. Uh, we believe that the uh variance that we're requesting is the minimal variance to allow for that uh change. uh and we believe it would be appropriate in light
of the scale and uh surrounding context of other properties. Um with respect to the uh additional violation that was cited, uh we were cited for off- streetet parking. Uh again, as this board is aware, uh pre-existing building such as a three-unit building as this uh
that does have doesn't have any parking is not required to meet any of the parking requirements except for any proposed new residential dwelling units. In this case, because we are proposing one additional residential dwelling unit, uh we are requesting relief for
the one space that would be required. Uh as this board can see, the uh inability to add off- streetet parking uh is obvious. Uh we have no uh location on the site to add off streetet parking or access the rear of the property from any
driveway. Uh moreover, uh I'm sure again as this board's well aware, uh BTD's policy on creating curb cuts for one single off street parking space is not necessarily favored. Uh and therefore we're requesting relief for that particular item. If you can jump to
slide 13, please. Um two of the other violations and these are more technical violations that we were cited for based upon the existing conditions of the property. Uh under amended zoning for East Boston, uh there's a maximum building lot coverage
of 60%. Uh because this building is pre-existing and already occupies more than 60% of the lot, uh any modification of the building would trigger a compliance requirement with the maximum uh coverage and in this case uh we are seeking relief for the pre-existing
condition uh that is intended to continue. Uh likewise we would also be subject to the minimum permeable area uh requirements which is 30% in this particular uh district. Uh we do sketch here the uh location of the area that
would be able to uh be permeable. Uh, one of the things I will point out is that even though uh, the pre-existing condition is not at 30% permeability, the renovations to this building could certainly increase the current permeability uh, to get us closer to 30%
uh, which would be an improved condition overall, which I think is the intent of the code in this instance. Uh, if we can jump down to slide 16. So, we're really not proposing any work on the lower floors. This uh madam chair, members of the board shows the
extent of the addition that is proposed for the fourth level. Uh as you can see, we do access our roof deck. The roof deck is pushed towards the rear of the building uh and therefore barely visible from the street and we do access it from that rear deck. Uh as you can see in the proposed plan here. Uh if we hit the
next slide please. Uh we have some renderings just to give the context of what this uh addition would look like. Uh certainly uh based upon past experience, we believe this this would be subject to design review. >> Can you please Thank you.
>> Sorry. By the Boston planning department. Um so we fully anticipate that there would be some tweaks or adjustments to the design, but we wanted to at least illustrate uh not only for the neighborhood uh but for the board the extent of the addition. You can jump to the next slide, please.
Again, just a additional view here. And we do set that uh that upper addition back a little bit from the existing uh corners line that is pretty much consistent along that uh side of cottage street. I will pause there madam chair to see if there are any questions of the
board or address any comments. >> Thank you. Questions from the board. I I don't have any questions, just more of observations for uh my colleagues, which is within that block, um it seems like this would be the first kind of
roof deck proposal and also um rear edition kind of vertical stairwell uh with a special kind of access to the roof. Just kind of observations. Thanks. Any other questions from the board?
hearing. None. May I have public testimony? >> No, Madam Chair, members of board, my name is Eva Jones representing the mayor's office of neighborhood services regarding 137 Cottage Street. Our office defers to the board's judgment. The community process was conducted, including in a letters meeting held on 101425
that was lightly attended by the East Boston community. There were uh no major concerns expressed. The proposal was also reviewed by the GO street neighborhood association at their meeting on 102725 where they expressed support with a vote of four yes to two no. At this time the mayor's office of neighborhood services
defers as board's judgment on on this matter. Thank you everyone for your time and consideration. >> Thank you Simmonelli. >> Good morning madam chair members of the board. Christian Simmonelli Boston trust and we have both G-cod letters from the applicant. >> Thank you. >> Thank you
madam chair. An additional comments. >> Okay. Uh anything the applicant like to add? >> Um just that I did review the uh recommendation from planning and I believe it was pro approval with proviso for design review. Uh and I certainly
understand better's comments. Uh but I believe that the reszoning of this particular neighborhood into EVR4 contemplated vertical additions on existing housing stock for that area, especially with the 50oot height limit that's being proposed or that's allowed
for that district. We're certainly below that, but just to give some context to the board as well about the new zoning for that area. >> Thank you. Uh with that, may I have a motion? M >> madam chair, I'd like to put for a motion. Um uh I do agree with uh Richard
in regards to increased density. Uh the motion is going to be approval with a proviso that BPD reviews um the fourth floor addition relative to um visibility from the public sidewalk and paying
special attention to the materiality of that fourth floor edition. and to also um review just uh the rear uh access. Is there a second? >> Second.
>> Mr. Stembridge. >> Yes. >> Mr. Valencia? >> Yes. >> Mr. Langum? >> Yes. >> Okay. Ma Barza. >> Yes. >> Yes.
>> Mr. Bernell. >> Yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. >> Thank you very much. >> And we just uh confirm we are now a seven member board. >> Next we have Next we have case BOA
1807597 with the address of 295 to 297 Franklin Street. This is also an article 80 case. If the applicant and or their representative are present, will they please explain the case to the board?
>> Yes. Thank you again, Mr. Stembridge, and good morning again, madam chair, members of the board. For the record, Richard Linds with the business address of 245 Summer Street, East Boston, on behalf of the petitioner Franklin Hoving Group LLC. With me is John Williams of DMS, who is the project architect. Uh
Mr. Ambassador, we can jump to slide five. Um just real quick overview for the U board. Uh this is a proposal for an office to residential conversion of an existing five-story building located 295 and 297 Franklin Street, downtown
Boston. Uh this proposed conversion consists of the reuse of the pre-existing five-story building. Um this is presently occupy this commercial space with offices on the upper levels. Um we are proposing to change the occupancy to ground floor retail about
750 ft. Uh 18 residential units. uh that would be on floors 1 through five and that would include a mix of studio and one-bedroom units. Three of those units would be restricted under article 79, inclusionary development policy for the city of Boston. Uh and they would all be
um uh at a AMI of 60% consistent with article 79. We do require relief in the form of a conditional use permit. Uh that is necessary because we do propose to have two residential uses on the ground level while the retail use will be forward facing onto Franklin Street.
Uh the zoning code requires a conditional use permit for any ground level residential. If you can jump down to slide eight, please get head on view here. So uh just by way of very brief background for this building, madam chair, members of the board, the 29 295 297 Franklin uh is a
historically significant structure. It's now known as the Baler building. Uh the this is located within the National Register Customhouse District. Uh it was originally constructed around 1870. Uh it's a 4 and a half was originally a 4 and a half story Queen Anne uh with a
four-based structure. Uh the intention is to preserve the existing structure as you can see in the plans that have been submitted to the board. Uh there will be generally just work that is done interior. Uh very little work on the exterior of this building. Um it has been substantially rehabilitated already
since the probably early 1980s. uh including the addition of that fifth fifth level in the rear to make this a full five-story building. If we can jump to slide nine, please. Um as Mr. Stembridge indicated, this is article subject to article 80 based upon the
size of the project as well as uh going through the office to residential conversion program. Um it has been approved by the Boston planning department. I do believe our project manager is available to speak on that matter. um and it has already uh entered into the payment in L of taxes agreement with the city of Boston uh and is
certainly uh ready to begin construction once a permit is ready to issue. If you can jump to slide 11 please. Uh just showing our site plan for reference. Uh as you can see here um this is a roughly 2400 square foot lot uh with the existing gross floor of
about 14,580 ft. Uh we are if you go to the next slide please uh we are proposing to use the existing basement uh that will uh house the bike storage for the building as well as other building amenities uh in services. If we go to the next slide
please uh we can see here the ground level uh showing the again forward facing retail at the front of the building with the two uh proposed residential units uh located behind the retail. Uh we do make a very slight modification to the
exterior for accessibility uh and that is proposed to be consistent with the requirements to allow for uh persons with disabilities to access the building based upon the change of use. If we can jump to the next slide please. As we move up the building uh we show approximately four units per level as
you get up from floors two through five. Uh pretty much the floor plans repeat as we go through. Probably jump forward. Mr. ambassador. Uh and then we can get to the elevations which I believe is the next page as well. Uh so again uh we don't propose a
lot of exterior changes to the building. Uh we will be uh in large part preserving just the exterior uh as it as it sits today. Uh the modifications do include uh the access through the front door as well as a few window openings uh
that will be uh incorporated into the elevations. All of this has been reviewed uh in in conjunction with the Boston planning department in connection with our approval uh by the BPDA board. Um I will pause there and answer any questions of the board. But once again,
the relief that is being sought is limited to just the conditional use permit for the ground level residential that is proposed in this district. >> Thank you. Questions from the board. May I have public testimony? >> Hello, Madam Chair, members of the
board. My name is Abbott Jones representing the mayor's office and neighborhood services regarding 295 to 297 Franklin Street. Our office differs to the board's judgment. A community process was conducted uh with the Boston planning department for this proposal be beginning on 4725 with the meeting on
52125 where no major concerns were expressed. At this time the mayor's office of neighborhood services defers as board judgement on this proposal. Thank you for your time and consideration. >> Thank you. >> Next we have Gabriella. Kam
we cannot hear you if not next we have so >> good morning this is Zoe Dval I'm a project manager in the development review division of the planning department just here to express plan planning department supported the project um this project did filed their
small project review application with us as an article ad small project under the office to residential conversion program on April 7 2025 the planning department department hosted a virtual public meeting for the project on May 21st and the project team conducted independent
community outreach as well. The project was approved by the BPA board on June 12th, 2025 and we're happy to see the project move forward and progress to the design review phase of article 80 and defer to this board for further action. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I think there
are additional comments. >> Okay, with that, may I have a motion? Madam Chair, I make a motion of approval to continue planning a review. >> Thank you. May I have a second? >> Second. >> Mr. Spebridge.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Valencia? >> Yes. >> Mr. Langham? >> Yes. >> Miss Benza? >> Yes. >> Miss Weell? >> Yes. >> Mr. Bernell? >> Yes.
>> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Thank Thank you very much. >> Next we have three companion cases. The first is case BOA 1786074
with the address of 24 Williams Avenue. Next we have case BOA 1786086 with the address of 26 Williams Avenue. And the third case is case BOA
1786077 with the address of 28 Williams Avenue. It's the applicant and with their representative present. Would they please explain the cases through report? >> Um thank you Mr. Stimbridge. Uh, good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. Uh, my name is Gary Webster. I am
the president of Tar Development Company LLC with a business address of 49 Mather Street, Unit 2 in Dorchester. I'm here representing the homeowners Wel Marshall and Samuel Duchaine, who own the property and currently reside at 26
Williams A. Um the intent of this project is to subdivide the existing lot which is a generously large lot um in Hyde Park approximately 19,000 foot lot. Uh and they're going to subdivide the existing lot and create two new two family homes on the frontage of Williams
A which will be 24 and 28 Williams A. Um I'm joined by uh the team from HI who will go over the design elements as they relate to the zoning violations. Um and we'll be happy to answer any questions at the conclusion of the presentation.
Um if you can go back to the to the beginning. Thank you. >> Thank you. Hi everyone. My name is Jonah Manig. I'm the architect working on this project with Gary and the um the homeowners. Uh I think uh Gary did a
great job explaining the basic tenants of the project. As as stated it is a very large lot of 19,000 ft² and what we are proposing right now subdividing it into potentially three different lots. uh the existing building which is 26 William Street will remain and as you
can see in this rendering is the is the building that appears smaller and the in the uh in the image in the back and we are proposing to subdivide adding two separate lots one that will be on the left that would be that would become 24
William Street uh uh and then on the right of it another lot uh for 28 William Street. So essentially what we're proposing are twin two uh family buildings uh that will be basically the same uh floor plans but of course on the
exterior we will we'll bring some elements that will help uh make them look a little uh separate from each other and then um and and and we are proposing to uh uh parking spaces u uh
provide parking and green space on the lot. If you can if you can just scroll up a little bit uh you can see the so this is this this sheet here is showing the uh existing lot on the left hand side where you have the existing two family and then on the right you can see
the proposed subdivision with the with the two proposed new uh subdivided lots. If you scroll up a little bit more, this bit more again if you don't mind. And this is basically the the zoning the zoning sheet that that where where we list all the violations where we asking
for some relief on. Uh basically we are uh we are asking for uh relief on most of the zoning uh requirements except maybe for 28 million street where we feel like the F ratio will not be needed. If you go uh scroll up again um
and this is kind of a larger view of the sub of the actual site plan that shows all three buildings. You can see the 26 street you see in the background and the two new proposed buildings 20 24 and 28 in the foreground. If you can go scroll
up a little bit more you can this is kind of the zoomed in version of 24 William Street. You can see how the building sits on the side. We are providing spaces for two tendon parking uh two tendon parking spaces uh and a green space in the back. Uh and um and
and if you scroll up you uh the next you can see a similar situation for 28 William Street. We all but we also providing two parking spaces. Of course, there will be a shared driveway on this end that will be that that will go along with to provide an uh access to the 26
William Street parking uh to the existing parking area for 26th William Street. The next pages I think we talk about the floor plan and again this is your typical two family that we all used to in the city of Boston. We are provide we are we are providing an open space in
the ground floor um uh with with uh three bedrooms and kitchen, living and dining area and that will be repeated on the second floor as well. There will be a basement and then and and you'll see here maybe potential uh access for uh solar panels on the roof. I'm not sure
that will be done at the time of construction, but at least they'll be uh uh ready for that. Um and basically that's I think that's that's you can see the elevations um for for 28. I think this these elevation will be kind of
similar on both buildings again but after we go through the the the the BPDA review we'll we'll we'll we'll find some elements that can distinguish the two buildings one from from another. Uh and I think that's that's all we have for for our presentation and if you have any
question we are ready to answer them. Thank you very much. Thank you. Are there questions from the board? >> Yes. Uh, could you please go back to page number seven? >> Yes, that one. So, this is 28 Williams and I'm looking at the parking and the
driveway and because we're wondering if there is a better way to improve the configuration of the parking to increase open space. I mean I think more than half of the like probably 70% of the open space you have is covered in uh
pavement in so just a suggestion if there is anything that your architect or your designer can do to improve the open space configuration. Have you thought about this? >> Yeah, there there are potential ways we may be able to reduce the amount of
pavement on the side. Maybe having the parking be a little bit more be tender instead of having them side by side as we do have on 24 William Street. That will probably reduce the number of p number of paving on the site. Uh the the actual driveway itself is is a little
bit generous drive aisle. So we can probably reduce that a little bit. But uh um uh again uh maybe potentially making the building slightly smaller. But there are there are plenty of ways. Of course, this will be permeable uh uh surfaces uh for the
driveway themselves and so so take there are you correct there are potential ways that we can actually uh provide more green space on these sites and and that will be part of the design review process. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Will that may have public testimony
>> madam chair and board members with the office of neighborhood services. This applicant has completed the process. Our office hosted an utters meeting on November 3rd where Anabutter raised concerns about increased density about a loss of green space and a loss of a pine
tree. Butters were also concerned about any potential on parking on the street which they said was tight currently and an increase in density. Our office received two letters of support that have been forwarded to the board. With that background, further judgment is deferred to the board. Thank you.
Thank you, >> ma'am. Chair, there are no additional comments. >> Is there someone named Sue who's wanting to raise your hand? Can you raise your hand if you want to speak on this matter?
>> Hi. Yes. Um, I'm with my mother, Judy Burke, the property owner. So, I'll let her speak. >> Okay. If you can just identify yourself and your address and please let us know if you're in support or opposition. >> Okay. Um, my name is Judy Burke. I'm at 22 Williams Avenue in High Park. I do
want to address something that they keep referring to William Street. There is no Williams Street in High Park. It is Williams Avenue. Okay. And I strongly oppose the proposed
construction and subdivision concerning 24 Williams A, 26, and 28 Williams A. The amount of relief sought speaks to how significantly this will change the dynamics of the neighborhood. This project will drastically reduce the
amount of parking on the street. I and many of the neighbors do not have driveways and rely on street parking to access our residences. The curb cut will take away at least one vital parking spot in additional to spots used by any
resident of the proposed dwellings that park on the street. Adding two two family dwellings will result in overcrowding. The dwellings are too large for the space. Additionally, there isn't a sufficient sideyard setback
which directly affects my property. The project also eliminates green space in the neighborhood and reduces the amount of sunlight on neighboring properties. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Are there any other raised hands? >> Mhm. Madame Chair, we don't have
additional hands raised at the moment. >> Okay. Would the applicant like to briefly address those concerns? >> Yes, Madam Chair. Ch. Thank you very much for the opportunity. I think um one of the things we try to be very careful of is understanding the need for
parking that is often raised in uh in a lot of the committee meetings that we we've attended. Uh we are proposing one curb cut uh and and taking advantage of an existing curve card. So, so uh so so there may be u an effect uh or one curve
cut on the on uh on the neighborhood but we're also providing parking parking uh spaces for uh for the post buildings. So in terms uh so we we feel that we addressing that in in in the best way that we can as far as as far as the
green space uh uh concern uh uh you know this is we're talking about a very large lot over 19,000 square ft uh and if you're looking in in the uh in the neighborhood uh currently most of the lots are much smaller than that in the neighborhood of between 4 and 5,000 ft
and we are proposing to survive subdivide uh the lot into similar size lots and and the buildings that we are proposing really in in terms of size and scale are comparable to all the buildings that you'll see up and down the street. Uh and and and this is a
really uh uh I will feel an elegant way of addressing the the the need for uh additional housing that is in dire need all over the city. We are not proposing to uh to uh multiple family buildings or like
apartment buildings. We are proposing smaller to family that are really in and um in keeping with the character of the feel of the neighborhood. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> May I have a motion?
>> Oh, can we have a just a clarification? >> Sure. Questions? >> Yeah. I I noticed Oh, I see what um Mr. Valencia was kind of noting to where the
access to the middle uh property at the rear is actually through 28. So, right because it needs to go all the way to the garage >> at the rear. >> That's correct. Yes. So, >> yeah. So, that you're right, Mr.
Valencia. That's that's a lot of uh pavement um surface pavement to provide that access. Okay. I just wanted to to uh understand that because on your survey plot plan it doesn't show
uh really clearly that kind of what is green space versus um >> and I think we may be showing that on the architectural site plan but of course this will not be asphalt will be permeable surfaces. >> Yeah. And so then the other um it on
your survey plot plan although you said only one proposed curb cut is is being proposed I see two proposed curb cut one for 28 and the other one is for 24 although we're we're basically Madam Chair are we putting a motion for both
cases or just for 28? >> Well Mr. Stembridge read all three companion cases into >> so we're doing all three at once. >> Correct. >> Okay. Um so if it's if it's okay with my
colleagues and feel free if if you want to add another kind of proviso but I would suggest uh a motion of approval with a proviso. WPD reviews the site plan, the site plan
of vehicle access to all three properties with an intention of increasing open space and avoiding front yard parking. >> Is there a second?
>> Second. Second, >> Mr. Stebridge. >> Yes. >> Mr. Valencia. >> Yes. Mr. Langum, >> yes. >> Miss Better Barazzo, >> yes.
>> Miss Weell, >> yes. >> Mr. Bernell, >> yes. >> Chair votes yes, the motion carries. Good luck. >> Thank you very much. >> So, since we are a seven member board, I need four.
>> Oh, sorry. Go ahead. >> That means he got it. Well, >> okay. So before the redisussion, can we go back and vote on that uh extension now that we have sufficient board members?
>> We certainly can, Madam Chair. >> Great. So, we're returning to the extension schedule for 9:30 a.m. The first case is case BOA53 6698
with the address of 1208 C VSW Parkway. >> So, those who are going to ask >> I'm recusing myself. >> Recuse. >> Uh, I need to recuse myself, too. >> Okay, great. So now we're a five member board. Uh
is there a motion? >> Make a motion. Motion of approval. Madam Chair, >> second. >> Thank you. Mr. Stebridge. >> Yes. >> Mr. Langum. >> Yes. >> Miss Bavarza. >> Yes.
>> Miss Weell. >> Yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. >> So with that, we will go forward to the red discussion case scheduled for 9:30 a.m.
I'll ask if there'll be any request for withdrawals and deferrals. Hearing none, we move on with case BOA 173 3319 with the address of 22 Pratt Street.
This is also an article 80 case. So if the applicant andor the representative present, will they please explain the case to the board? >> Good morning. Uh for the record, Chris Raineer from Goulston and Stores with an address of one post office square in
Boston. I'm here on behalf of the developer this morning and I have with me Matt McCollum from the developer as well as James Gray and Mark Whiteside, architects at Stantech with any qu if there's any questions. Um with that, I will run through the presentation uh and
and and happy to take questions. Uh we're here this morning to reaffirm and supplement previously issued zoning relief for a multif family project at 22 to 24 Pratt Street in the Alston neighborhood. This shows a project uh next slide please.
The project consists of approximately 318 units of multif family housing with significant affordability uh about 54 units uh significant open space uh as well as other benefits uh outlined on this slide including all electric uh
building systems and a modern uh energy efficient building design. Next slide please. The project site is outlined in yellow here. Uh, it's in a regularly shaped lot with older, underutilized industrial buildings. The project site is a split
zoning lot. I'll come back to that. The site only has narrow access to Pratt Street and slopes down from Prat Street and is primarily bordered by train tracks to the north, the Alustin Green Multif Family Project to the west and south, uh, and other properties. Uh,
next slide, please. Uh, this is these are some pictures showing, uh, what is on the site currently. Next slide, please. Uh prior to the original appeal, the project's design was modified in response to comments received uh during the review process, including those from
its ab the Austin Green project, which on this slide is to the left and to the south or to the bottom. Uh the project was approved by BCDC and the BPDA after completing large project review and the project zoning relief is consistent with other projects in the neighborhood and its relief is less than that granted for
the abuing green project. At its hearing on October 28th, after a detailed presentation on the project, the board voted to grant zoning relief for the project. At that hearing, uh the applicant submitted a letter of support from its largest, uh the LBC, which is
the owner and proponent of the Alustin Green project together with a letter of non-oposition from Alustin Village main streets. The mayor's office of neighborhood services and the Austin Civic Association spoke in support of the project. Uh and there was no opposition voiced.
Subsequent to the hearing or before finalizing the decision, the applicant at ISD realized the project needs one additional item of zoning relief, a variance to allow the access drive to and from Pratt Street to be utilized for multif family use. Uh, as I mentioned,
the the uh zoning lot, the lot is in a split zoning district. So, the driveway is in the 2F5000 uh subdist. The previously issued variance for the project for multif family use was for the uh the remainder of the site which is in the LI1 subdist
where the building is located. The applicant has submitted the supplemental appeal to request the board reaffirm the previously issued zoning relief for the project and approve a variance for the multif family dwelling use in the 2F 5000 subdist in respect of the project's access which is outlined in red on this
slide. No changes have been made to the project and this request does not seek to modify the previously issued zoning roof. Uh thank you. With that, um that's the remainder of our presentation. Happy to answer any questions. >> Right. Thank you. Any questions from the
board? Hearing none. Is there public testimony? >> Madam Chair, members, Sigy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This application underwent a Boston planning department-led community process with public meetings in fall of 2023 and 2024. There was also an impact
advisory group meeting held in 2024. The Austin Civic Association is aware of this application. They've met with the vehicle represents an administrative cleanup of previously approved relief. That background our office defers further judgment to the board. Thank you,
>> Madam Chair. There are no additional comments. Okay, with that ma'am motion >> motion to approve. >> There a second. >> Second >> Mr. Stebridge. >> Yes,
>> Mr. Valencia. >> Yes, >> Mr. Langum. >> Yes, >> Miss Bzazza. >> Yes, >> Miss We >> Mr. Bernell. >> Yes.
votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck. >> Thank you very much. >> Okay, with that, I'll see everyone back at 11:30. Recording stopped.