Boston Zoning Board of Appeal hearing from May 5th, 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 the hearing is listed on today's hearing agenda, which is posted on the public notices page of the city's website, boston.gov. Members of the public will enter the virtual hearing as attendees, which means you will not see
yourself 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 panelists, and they will appear alongside the presentation materials when speaking.
Panelists are strongly encouraged to keep video on while presenting to the board. As with our in-person meetings, comments and support will be followed by comments in opposition. The order of comments is as follows: elected officials, representatives of elected officials, and members of the public. The chair may
limit the number of people called upon to offer comment and the time for commenting as time constraints require. For that reason, the board prefers to hear from members of the public who are most impacted by a project. That is those individuals who live closest to the project. If you wish to comment on an appeal,
please click the raise hand button along the bottom of your screen in the Zuma Plat 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 and 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.
Okay, Mr. morning madam chair fellow board members present >> good morning Mr. Valencia >> good morning madam chair present >> good morning Mr. like
>> good morning madam chair present. >> Good morning Miss Weel. >> Good morning madam chair present. >> Good morning Miss Tur. >> Good morning madam chair present. >> Good morning and Mr. Bernell.
>> Good morning madam chair present. >> Good morning. I'll turn it back over to you Mr. Stebridge. >> Thank you Madam Chair. We will begin with the extensions scheduled for 9:30 a.m. today. I'll read
all the in all the extensions in one after the other. If there are any questions afterwards, we can um we can ask Madam Chair and and the representative. We begin case BOA 763
614 with the address of 7 Cleveland Street. Next we have case BOA 1521 916 with the address of 15-17
Brack Street. Next we have case BOA 119 9457 with the address of 29 South Road. Next we have case BOA 1432486
with the address of 4648 Leo Leo M Birmingham Park. Next we have case BOA 1561862 with the address of 353 359 Blue Hill
Avenue. Next we have case BOA1561863 the address 391 to 395 the left. Next we have case BOA 148 6752
with the address of 16R Matthew Street. Next we have case BOA526179 with the address 26 Avenue. Next we have case BOA 1568342. The address 134 to 140 Smith Street.
Next we have case BOA 932 844. The address 192 at Stone Street. Next we have case BOA 1548018
with the address of 2729. Next we have case BOA1255410 with the address of 19 Bennington Street. And finally, we have case BOA 2132476. Sorry, case BO8 213247
with the address of 76 Day Street. All of the extension requests appear to be reasonable and I'll turn it back. Madam Chair, >> thank you. Are there any questions from the board?
Hearing none. May I have a motion to grant the extensions as requested? >> Motion to grant the extensions as read. >> May I have a second? >> Second. >> Mr. Stebridge. >> Yes. >> Mr. Valencio.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Langum. >> Yes. >> Are you on mute, Miss Willow? >> Oh, no. I'm here. Yes. Sorry, I couldn't hear you. >> Miss Turner. >> Yes. >> Mr. Bernell.
>> Yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. >> Now we'll move on to the hearing scheduled for 9:30 a.m. At this time, we'll ask there are any requests for withdrawals or deferrals from the 9:30
a.m. hearings. Hearing none, we'll move on to the first case which is case BOA 1795439 with the address of 133 to 135 North Washington Street. If the applicant and
their representative are present, will they please explain the case of the board? >> I am, Mr. Secretary. Good morning, members of the board. Madam Chair, this is Mike Ross with the law firm of Princeville. I'm here with uh James Christopher for the architect for the
appellant. Um you can go to the next page, Mr. Ambassador. Uh so this is a proposal to build six home ownership condominiums within a midblock oddly shaped parcel
uh at 133 North Washington Street uh within the north end neighborhood zoning district within the north Washington Street um community commercial subdist and what you see on the above actually uh Mr. Sorry. Uh just go one more up for
me if you would. This existing site plan, uh this is a onestory um industrial building. It >> it's an oddly shaped parcel. my name. >> It spans from North Washington Street
and reaches through the through the block to on the upper portion of the um survey to Endicott Court uh which is a small court uh off of Endicott Street.
Uh the current structure meets the rear abudding property and you can see it it it kind of uh diagonally hits that rear abuing property property line creating a zero in that area a zero rear yard
setback and the abuing property also has a zero rear yard setback. This is for the existing condition. uh and so at some point the two buildings uh nearly touch each other and that's the existing condition of this current one-story
structure. If you go to the next slide, this is our proposed site plan, what we're proposed uh what we're proposing to build. And what you can see here is there's now an 8 ft rear yard setback in that same rear yard property line that I
just directed your attention to on the lower five floors. And then it steps back an additional 4 ft to make a 12t rear yard setback on the six floor. 12T is actually what's called for by zoning, but it's not present in virtually uh
well this entire block in virtually anywhere in in this zoning subdist. Um also uh regarding this abuing Endeott Court uh street, it initially it was proposed that we would bring parking up
Endeott Court and into the structure to create groundf flooror parking uh within the building. The neighborhood felt strongly that bringing cars abandon core where neighbor door neighboring doors are they're literally right on the curb
would not be a good condition. And so we we eliminated all parking within the project uh completely. There's no parking. Uh it's one of our reasons why we're here. Uh next slide please. Um next slide please.
Uh this is the basement. It's only storage. Worth mentioning, however, that this project is within the G-cod. Uh we've been working with Christian Simmonelli and the Boston Water and Sewer Commission. We have our letter and um the appropriate analysis there. Next
slide, please. So on the left you see slide, you see floor one um which is a single unit and then floors two through five. Each floor is a single unit reaching the six units. Initially there were 13 units proposed
for this building. The neighborhood again felt strongly that fewer units in home ownership would be more desirable. Uh and so you know creating more permanent residents, less transient residents. So the uh shifted the plan
and we did the six units. And then here you see that 8ft rear yard setback off the rear property line. units are 1419 on the ground floor and 1597 square ft. Each have three bedrooms. And the next
slide here will show you the uh final floor, the sixth floor. And that's the final unit. Um here you see that 12 yard uh I'm sorry, 12t rear yard setback. Uh we dropped it down to two bedroomedroom
units. Uh it's 1412 square ft. And then on the right is a roof deck dedicated and only available to the sixth floor unit. Um, next slide shows the elevations. It's kind of difficult to follow these elevations because again it's a it's an
oddly shaped building and there are other buildings nestled within uh the building to the right uh to the left. So, but uh the upper left uh image is the shows the front uh elevation. The
upper right image shows it from the right side. You can see partially covered by an existing building. The lower left is the from the rear and the lower right is the view the elevation from the left side uh left side. Right.
Next slide please. So, we created this this one slide just to kind of explain the height because it's different. Um, this is our height slide. So, it so there's it's the front portion along um
North Washington Street sits at 60 ft to meet the cornice line of the building to the left of it. And then the building drops in height to 50 feet closest to Endicott Street, closest to the neighborhood to meet the scale of the
neighborhood. Uh, next slide, please. So, this is the existing building today. It's that onestory building you see there. That's what's there today. Um, and then the next slide is showing a
rendering of what we would, you know, what this building looks like. If you go to the next slide, Mr. Ambassador, uh, you know, here what you have is the existing building on the left, that 60 ft cornice line I referenced to you, um, our proposed building immediately to the
right of it. And then at night, what it looks like, the zoning, as I mentioned, we're here for G-COD. I also mentioned we're here for parking. Uh residential use on ground floor creates a conditional use F for this building uh which Boston
planning noted in its memo is not uncommon is 5.1. This is a 3.0 F district. Uh we are citing for height because of that front cornness line issue I referenced. Um we are citing for open space. Not sure exactly why because
we do have the roof deck, the entirety of the roof deck is allowed to be counted towards open space. We also have the rear yard that 8 foot setback there um should have been allowed to be counted for open space. The requirement is 50 uh square ft for each unit. So
that would equal 300. We have 650. Uh we also had balconies on each of the units, but the neighbors asked us to remove the balconies because it would create unwanted noise in the neighborhood. So we removed those balconies. But even still with roof deck, we have 650. But we were cited for the open space
violation on the list. We were of course cited for the rear yard violation as I mentioned. I spent some time talking about the rear yard. Um that's required to be at 12 ft. Um and then we were cited for a sideyard. This is a zero sideyard setback, but there are windows
and vents on one of the buildings. Uh and they they cite us for a sideyard setback. I'll pause there, madam chair, and see if there are any questions for me or um architect Christopher. >> Thank you. Uh can you address the seaf fraud issue? You've mentioned GCOD
several times, but um part of the recommendation talks about uh elevation and habitable space below. >> Yeah, we're we're aware of it. We are um I think I think two feet we need to make up. Uh we we can make that up uh through
design review. we can get the uh lower floor to be above the uh flood level and it will not be uh within the within the confines of the building. It it will not be an issue. It's something we can handle at you guys. Certainly not a
zoning issue. Um and it's something that we'll be able to remedy through uh design. >> Questions from the board? Hearing none. May I have public testimony? >> Hello, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Eva Jones representing the mayor's office and neighborhood
services regarding 133 to 135 North Washington Street. Our office to first of the board's judgment. A community process was conducted, including in a butters meeting held on Wednesday, December 3rd, 2025. That was attended by several North End and West End community members. The feedback from this meeting
was significant concern of the impact and the scale of the proposal on the small private way behind the building and the impact on sunlight of many of the buildings uh and decks that may fall in the shadow of the structure. The applicant continued conversations with neighbors and made significant
concessions including removing access to the private wing, introducing a new rear setback of 8 ft uh for floors 1 through 5 and 12 ft for floor 6 to better accommodate a butters and reducing the unit number from 13 to 6. The proposal
has received 29 letters of support. The proposal was also reviewed by the North End Waterfront Neighborhood Council on January 20th, 2020 or 12th, 2026. After requesting further discussions and concessions to a Butters, Munich voted to unanimously support the project and
has submitted a letter in support to the board. The proposal was also reviewed by the North End Waterfront Residence Association on 21226 and has voted 10 in support and 10 to oppose that. 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. >> And next we have Christian Simonelli. >> Good morning madam chair, members of the board. Christian Simmonelli, Boston groundwater trust. And we have both G-card letters from the applicant. >> Thanks. Next we have uh Minor Perez. >> Uh thank you Mr. Ambassador, Madame
Chair, members of the board. This is Minor Perez representing hundreds of union carpenters living work throughout zero boss and want to go on record in support of this break. >> Thank you. Next we have Gray Panessi. >> Um good morning madam chair and members
of the board. Um I'm here with my wife Sarah Duncan. We're the owner um of 186 Endicott Street directly behind the proposed project. Um after um several meetings with the development team um we have withdrawn our opposition to the
project and now support it. Um the team has um has worked with >> I think you're frozen. >> I think so. Um yes, Mrs. Manessi, >> did you want to finish comment? Messi,
you were frozen. >> Oh, okay. Sorry about that. Uh yes. So we are in support of the project. >> Got up to we got up to you withdrew your opposition. >> Oh, we withdrew our opposition based on um several meetings with the development team in which they um increased the rear
the initial rear yard setback uh to the 8 ft on floors 1 through 5 and then uh 12 ft on the sixth floor. So that um addressed our concerns about the project and we now support it. >> Okay. Thank you,
>> Madame Chair. Comments. >> Okay. Uh, is Mr. Hampton available? Can you address the comments about the um seat fraud issue? >> Uh, yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, members of the board, Jeff Hampton, City of Boston Planning Department. Uh, our
recommendation on projects like these have, uh, historically been to ask for denial without prejudice because we don't want the project to be below the designated flood plane. Uh we had a very similar case like this at 105 North Washington. Um where we recommended
denial without prejudice. Uh this was back in January of 2025. Uh the appellant then came back with a different design and we actually went on the record to recommend approval. Uh I heard what Mr. Ross had said about being willing to uh deal with this during the
design review uh uh process if the board does approve this. I would just ask that that be put as a proviso if the board does uh vote to approve this that they do work with us to make sure that uh the first floor unit is not in the uh flood
zone. >> Thank you. Any other questions from the board? >> May I have a motion? Madame chair, I'll put forward a motion of um approval of the proviso for design review to ensure that um no livable
spaces below the design flood elevation. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Mr. Stry, >> yes. >> Mr. Valio, >> yes. >> Mr. La Hang.
>> Yes. Miss Weo, >> yes. >> Miss Turner, >> yes. >> Mr. Bernell, >> yes. >> Chair votes, yes. The motion carries.
>> Thank you very much. Have a nice day. >> Next, we have two companion cases. The first is case VA 1813329 with the address of 139 West Camp Street. Along with that we have case BOA
181 3317 along with the with the address of one also with the address of 139 Kent Street. If the applicant and or the representative are present, will they please explain the case of the board?
>> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, and good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. For the record, attorney Madle with Fletcher Tilton. On behalf of the applicant, also with me this morning is Joseph Canard from Canard Architects, the project architect. Uh we are seeking
to renovate the existing structure at 139 West Canton Street and erect a roof deck as well as a rear deck. Uh the roof deck is proposed to be accessed by an internal stairs and through a hatch. Uh just to give a little bit of background, the zoning subdist is an MFR. This is a
existing single family and that occupancy will remain. There's no change proposed to the occupancy and the lot is just over 1100 square ft. This property is in a series of row houses along West Canton Street between Warren A and
Tremon Street. Uh the proposal includes as I mentioned renovation predominantly an interior renovation of the existing single family structure as well as erecting that new uh rear deck and roof deck. Uh the project does include some exterior work to fix the facade and
update some of the windows uh to bring the building back to its former condition. Uh we are actively working with the South End Landmarks District Commission on that and we'll need their approval for the exterior work should this board approve our proposal this morning. Um, we are seeking the relief for an
extension into the rear yard as a result of the proposed rear deck. Uh, I I would point out this rear deck has been aligned with uh the direct butters rear deck to promote consistency and will provide uh the homeowner some additional and muchneeded usable outdoor living
space. We're also seeking relief for GCOD as we are in a groundwater conservation overlay district uh due to the cost of the rehabilitation. we submitted uh through water and sewer and uh submitted through the zoning board our no harm letter as well as the Boston
water and sewer letter. Uh finally, the roof deck as proposed does comply with zoning. Uh however, we are seeking uh building code relief uh for a violation which was cited due to the fact that the access to the roof isn't proposed through a head house. It is proposed uh
through that hatch which is very typical as as the board knows. A lot of the roof decks you see now, there is a trend to propose access via hatch to not alter the profile of the building and and the neighborhood. However, that does trigger the need for building code relief through this board. I would note we've
also as we scroll through the plans and get to the top level, we've uh set back the roof deck approximately 7 ft from both the front and the rear to limit any impacts on the streetscape or or the rear. Um, in addition to the South End Landmarks District Commission, we've been in touch with representatives from
Montgomery Park, which directly abuts us in the rear. Uh, they were supportive of the proposal and felt that the construction and plan was keeping a context with the neighborhood. With that, I'll pause and take any questions the board may have.
>> Thank you. Any questions from the board? >> Hearing none, mayor. Public testimony. >> Hello, Madam Chair. Members of the board, my name is Eb Jones representing the mayor's office of neighborhood services regarding 139 West Canton Street. Our office defers to the board's judgment. A community process was conducted including an abut meeting held
on Thursday, March 12th, 2026 that was well attended by Southoun community members where some concerns were voiced about construction vehicles parking in uh parking spots and rodent mitigation. Additionally, the proposal was also connected to the Ellis Neighborhood Association where they reviewed the
plans and expressed that they did not to meet need to meet with the applicants regarding this proposal. At this time, the mayor's office of neighborhood services defers to the board's judgment on this matter. Thank you, Ever. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thanks, we have Christian Simonelli.
>> Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. Christian Simone, Boston Groundwater Trust. And we have both GC card letters from the >> and we have Ashley from councelor's office. Flynn, >> good morning. My name is Ashley from Councelor Flynn's office. Councelor Flynn would like to go on record and
support. Thank you. >> Thank you, >> madam chair. I don't see any additional hands raised at the moment. >> Okay. Any any other question is from the board? >> Yeah, I have one quick question. I'd like to know how how are they going to
handle the uh parking of the construction vehicles? >> Yeah, it's a it's a great question and uh certainly this is can be a congested street so we will be putting together a construction management plan uh and we'll be working with our abutters for
any uh perceived disruptions. Uh but we will be working handinhand with our neighbors to make sure that we are not disruptive uh outside of what we have to do to access the the property. Uh it's it's a fairly the majority of the the work is interior and obviously the two
decks. Um so there shouldn't be much much disruption outside uh of the property and there should only be one or two trucks, you know, per day max. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> With that, may I have a motion? >> Ma'am, should I make a motion of approval? Is there a second? >> Second. >> Mr. Stumbridge? >> Yes. >> Mr. Valencia? >> Yes.
>> Mr. Langum? >> Yes. >> Miss Dwell? >> Yes. >> Miss Turner? >> Yes. >> Mr. Bernell? >> Yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries.
Thank you very much. >> Next, we have case BOA 1822885 with the address of 149 Newberry Street. If the applicant and or their representative are present, will they
please explain to the board? >> Good morning, Madame Chair, members of the board. Skinfarm is a clinically focused cosmetology or cosmetic dermatology and medical spa that's founded by nurse practitioners and we providing clinic
non-invasive treatments and professional skin care products. Um we're just seeking approval to change the current occupancy of an existing third floor tenants space to accommodate our use. Our services are appointmentbased, low impact, and consistent with similar
professional and healthcare oriented uses. So, we appreciate your consideration and we welcome any questions. >> Thank you, ma'am. Any questions from the board? >> Hearing none, may I have public testimony.
>> Good morning, board members and madam chair. Sigy Johnson with the office of neighborhood services. This applicant completed the community process. Our office hosted a butters meeting on April 2nd at which no concerns were raised. The neighborhood association of the back bay is in non opposition to this application. that background. ONS defers
judgment to the board. Thank you. >> Uh good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Tony on behalf of councelor Sharon Kirkin. She'd just like to go on record in support of this proposal. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I don't see additional comments.
>> Okay, that may have a motion. >> Make a motion quickly. >> Motion to approve. I have >> a second. Second, >> Mr. Stebridge. >> Yes,
>> Mr. Valencia. >> Yes, >> Mr. Langum. >> Yes, >> Miss Weell. >> Yes, >> Miss Turner. >> Yes. >> Mr. Bernell, >> yes.
>> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck, ma'am. >> Thank you so much, everyone. Next we have case BOA1825910 with the address of 154 to 170 Commonwealth avenue. If the applicant and or their representative present would they please
explain the case to the board? >> I am Mr. Secretary good morning uh madam chair members board. This is Mike Ross welcome principal international place. I'm here with Denise uh Dennis Farendenti, the architect. Uh this is a tenant buildout uh only. Uh it's
currently an existing medical office space that spans two floors, garden level and first floor. Uh it's accessible uh by a primary entrance off of Commonwealth Avenue. Um the property uh you can go to the next
slide. There's actually the last page might be the best one, Mr. Ambassador, for people to look at. Yeah, it's just a tenant build out, so there's not there's not a lot there, but you know, you see it in front of you. Um, the property sits on the corner of Dartmouth and Commonwealth. Uh, it's known as the
Benome building. Um, well-known building in the Back Bay. There are a number of commercial uses on the two bottom floors. Uh, today uh in addition to this medical office, uh, as well as around over a 100 condominiums on the floors
above. Uh this proposal is for um uh a private club uh which is a conditional use which in within an H365 which would be dedicated to a fitness use fitness center. Uh it'll contain
several treatment rooms for uh traditional spa type services, two larger rooms for classes such as yoga uh and general fitness equipment which will mostly be placed on the first floor. There will also be a refreshment counter
on the first floor and the locker rooms uh downstairs on the garden level. Uh the appellent has worked very closely with the trustees of the vendome building uh to work out things like hours of operation. The appellent agreed to not operate beyond 10 p.m. you know
noise mitigation and the like. As a result, a letter of support was submitted by the trustees to the board. Uh and um I'll pause there to see if there are any questions. Thank you. >> Thank you. Are there any questions from
from the board? Hearing none, may I call the testimony. >> Good morning, madame chair and board members. Siggy Johnson with the office of neighborhood services. This applicant completed the community process. Our office hosted an abuters meeting on March 23rd with some logistical
questions. No concerns were raised. The neighborhood association of the back bays in non opposition to this application. With that background, ONS defers judgment to the board. Thank you. Uh good morning madam chair, members of the board. Um councelor Durkin would like to go on record of support.
>> Next we have Ed, the person with the name Ed. If you can hear yourself, please. >> Yes. Uh Madam Chair, Ed Dvo, 160 Commonwealth Avenue. Um I've been a member resident of the building for over
10 years. Um the trustees as they said have had many meetings uh alerting the residents and um I am extremely supportive of this project. I think it's going to be a great addition to the neighborhood as well as our building. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Next we have minor Perez. >> Uh thank you Mr. Ambassador. Madame chair, members of the board, this is minor Perez representing the carpenters union. On behalf of thousands of union members living work the city of Boston, we want to go on record in support of
this this proposal. Uh thank you. >> Thank you. Next we have Mick. >> Thank you. Meer Cohen, president of the Backbay Association. We are long-term supporters of the Quinn since day one. the they've been a tremendous benefit to
the neighborhood and we appreciate um this minor change where they're moving the gym to a different location and I very much appreciate that the vendome is also in support of it. That's super important to us. Thank you so much. >> Thank you,
>> Madam Chair. There are no additional comments. >> Thank you. With that, may I have a motion? >> Madam Chair, would like to put a motion of approval? There a second.
>> Mr. Stumbbridge. >> Yeah. >> Mr. Lancia, are you on mute? >> Yes. Yeah, I couldn't hear you. Sorry. >> Thank you. Uh, Mr. Langum. >> Yes. >> Miss Weo.
>> Yes. >> Miss Turner. >> Yes. Mr. Bernell, >> yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. >> Thank you all. Have a great day. >> Thank you.
>> Next, we have case BOA1772580 with the address of 94 West Cedar Street. If the applicant andor their representative are present, will they please explain? >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Stembridge, Madame Chair, members of the board, attorney Ryan Spitz with Adams and Moransy,
address of 168H Street, First Lor South Boston. Uh, joining me today is the project architect, Tim Johnson. This is a proposal to change the use from an existing two-story commercial residential building to a fivetory, six-unit residential building by way of
a three-story addition. The lot size is is approximately 1520 square ft within an H265 subd district on West Cedar Street. The existing building sits on the lot lines with no front, rear, or even sideyards. The
proposed project also falls within the groundwater conservation overlay district. Applicant has provided both letters to the Boston Ground and Water Trust. If I can um turn over to page A101, please. Basement
will consist of just utilities. Uh page A102 first floor will consist of a bike trash room located in the front of the building along with a unit one. Approximately 679 ft studio. A103 please. Second floor will consist of
units two and three, both one-bedroom units. Page A104. Third and fourth floor will consist of units four and five, both duplex units with two bedrooms. A106 is the fifth floor which will consist of a twobedroom. This unit will also have an exclusive roof deck. We
have the following violations. We have a flurry or ratio violation. Maximum F is a 2.0. The proposed addition would bring the F to a four but aligns with the FS of the abuing buildings. We have a sideyard rear yard and projections into the rear yard violation. all our
pre-existing non-conformities and despite no changes to the footprint of the building, we have been cited for such due to the vertical additions. We have open space violation requirement in the subdist 150 square ft per unit despite being an existing non-conformity. The new proposal allows
for small decks on the rear of the property to allow for some open space. Uh lastly, we have a parking insufficiency. The requirement is.7 per unit and the proposal doesn't provide any parking. But this neighborhood is in very close proximity to transit, is highly walkable, making it more aligned
with the mayor's initiative reducing dependency on private vehicles. At this point, Madam Chair, I'm going to turn it over to you and the board for any questions or comments. >> Thank you. Are there questions from the board? >> Hearing none, may I have public testimony?
>> Madame Chair and board members C. Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This applicant completed the community process. Our office held in an abutters meeting on September 22nd, 2025. A concern was raised about the loss of a community amenity of commercial space for more housing, a
concern about what was thought to be a large increase in the floor to area ratio and concerns about the type of masonry and other physical characteristics of the building. The Beacon Hill Civic Association voted to oppose this application. Our office understands they felt that the F was too
substantial an increase for them to support. Our office has received one letter of opposition and five letters of support with two signing an address in a 300t abutters radius and the other letters signing an address in other areas of Beacon Hill. With that background, ONS defers judgment to the
board. Thank you. >> Um good morning madam chair, members of the board here on behalf of councelor Sharon Durkin. So we spoke to the proponent. Um we read the letter from BHCA and then we spoke to the landmarks commission. Um so our office thinks that there is more work to do before going to
the ZVA. Um so at this time um councelor Durkin defers to the judgment of the board. >> Next we have Christine Simonelli. >> Good morning madam chair members of the board Christian Simonelli and we have both GC letters from the applicant. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Next we have Phillips Street. >> Hi my name is Andrew Henson. I'm an abuter to this project and in great support of it. No others that I have spoken to are in opposition to this project and we can't figure out why the Beacon Hill Civic Association has gone the direction they have. We are very
disappointed in the counselor's office. You were in support of that CBS project in a much worse location and that developer gave you money to your coffers. So, we would suggest in this very specific case um that you approve this project. is um this developer has
been nothing u but operating in good faith with the neighbors ensuring that they're all in line with the buildings and they're offering a great building that we can see in dedicated housing on the hill and we'd hope that you would see that the addition of the housing for this particular project is needed in the neighborhood and that the abutters are
in support of this project despite what the um civic association thinks. Thank you. Okay, Madam Chair, there are no additional comments. >> Any other questions from the board?
>> May I have a motion? >> Motion approval. >> Is there a second? >> Back in Mr. Stebridge. >> Yes. >> Yes.
Thank you, Mr. Valencia. Mr. Langum. >> Yes, >> Miss We love. >> Yes. M >> Turner, >> yes. >> Mr. Bernell, >> yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. >> I'm sure just to notice that at least on my end, uh, the sound coming from your computer is breaking up a little bit. >> Okay. Thank you for letting me know. It's probably my Wi-Fi. I like everybody else's.
>> Next, we have KOA183 3689 with the address of 69 to 71 A Street. Uh this is article 80 case and if the applicant can do their representative
the case to the board. >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Steambridge. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is George Morancey. I'm an attorney with the business address of 350 West Broadway in South Boston. I represent the petitioner, the Council on International Educational Exchange or
CIE with respect to this application to convert the second through the fourth floors of the existing building owned by CIE and located at 69-71A Street in South Boston. would convert
the occupancy from vacant office space to 24 residential units while retaining the existing ground floor and basement gym and retail uses, the fifth floor office space and amenity area and adding a new rooftop amenity area. Joining me
today are Mariela Brew and Matthew Okonnell of DBI projects the project manager as well as Jack Morardi the project's permitting consultant. Uh Madam Chair, members, I wish to start with a brief word about the petitioner because the nature of CIE's mission is
central to understanding why this project is before the board in the form that it is. CIE is a nonprofit non-governmental organization founded in 1947, just after World War II, with the mission of promoting international
understanding through educational and cultural exchange. They're widely known as the oldest and largest nonprofit international educational exchange organization in the country. Over more than seven decades, CIE has developed and administered uh study abroad,
internship, and professional exchange programs operating in more than 30 countries and serving tens of thousands of participants annually. They played a significant role in shaping the modern framework of international educational exchange including their longstanding
participation in programs administered by the US Department of State's J1 visa program. CIE as part of this project will be relocating its world headquarters to 69A Street uh in South Boston. The project relates to the fully
constructed five-story building at 69A Street, which sits upon a 17,749 square ft lot that is walking distance from Broadway Station on the Red Line. The second through fourth floors, floors
that have been substantially vacant or entirely vacant since the building was completed, would be converted to 24 residential units. Nothing would change about the building's height, footprint or gross floor area. This is purely an interior change of occupancy with the
addition of some rooftop amenity space. These 24 units will not be rented to the general public. They will be occupied exclusively by participants in CIE East Bridge USA International Exchange Program. These are recent graduates and
young professionals from abroad who will be here in Boston on structured timelimited internship placements. This residential use is thus tied directly to CIE's educational mission. It is supervised supervised housing for
federally authorized exchange program participants. One of these 24 units will be reserved for a live-in building manager employed by CIE, someone who will be on site 24 hours a day overseeing building operations. The existing basement and
ground floor gym and retail uses in the fifth floor office and associated amenity areas will all remain. A rooftop amenity terrace is being added for the use of CIE employees, program participants, and affiliates.
Um, I would be remiss if I didn't provide some context on how we got here. As Mr. Stebridge mentioned, this is an article 80 project, but it is a notice of project change under article 80. This property does have a history with the planning department and with the board
of appeal. The site was originally approved in 2016 for redevelopment into a commercial office building. CIE acquired the property in 2018 with the intention of establishing its headquarters here. They obtained approval for a revised project and
constructed the building envelope which was uh completed in 2021. Then of course the co pandemic hit. uh the intended office occupancy was materially disrupted uh with the disruption to the operations of CIE and
their business model and the building has remained largely vacant above the ground floor in 2021. Some members may remember that CIE explored converting the building into a life science R&D use. That proposal went through a notice
of project change but was ultimately denied by the ZBA. The present application is the next chapter. Rather than a new building program or expansion of the structure, CIE is proposing to activate the upper floors for a residential use that is directly
connected to its core institutional mission with absolutely no changes in the building's height of footprint or expansion of gross floor area. The variances being sought to arise from the change in occupancy, not from any new construction. converting office space to
residential use triggers uh per dwelling unit dimensional and parking violations under article 68 that did not apply to the previously approved commercial program. Specifically, we're seeking board approval on three items. One, lot area per uh dwelling unit. The
deficiency arises entirely from introducing residential units into a building whose lot size and footprint are fixed. Full compliance would require eliminating a substantial number of the proposed units. This would undermine the viability of the project and defeat the
reasonable use of the property. This is a hardship that is not self-created but is inherent in the fact that this is an existing building that was approved originally for a non-residential use. Second violation is insufficient usable open space. And while the project might
not meet the strict numerical standard of 200 square feet per dwelling unit, uh it might and what I mean by that is it will depend on a final design of the rooftop amenity space which creates meaningful uh rooftop terrace space and many amenity areas providing functional
uh and necessary outdoor space for the residents. And finally, there's an off street parking violation. The building currently maintains an 18 uh space surface parking lot. One of these spaces is going to be converted into an enclosed, secured, and screened trash
and recycling area. Uh basically standard residential programming. Uh this will leave 17 spaces, parking spaces for the use of the building. No additional parking can be added to the site, but this building is, as I mentioned at the top, located steps from
Broadway station on the red line. And perhaps more significant, the residents here will all be exchange program participants who uh by the nature of the the Bridge USA program will not be bringing private vehicles to Boston from
overseas uh and are highly unlikely to be buying or even renting a motor vehicle during the periods of their internships which range on an or have an average length of of approximately 11 months. Additionally, the project will include a dedicated bike room with a
minimum of 24 long-term coveted secured bicycle parking spaces. Uh the parking relief therefore is appropriate and is consistent with transitoriented development principles the city has been advancing for years. Uh the building as
noted is within a a multif family residential local services zoning subdist which is uh expressly contemplates multif family residential development. The use is thus consistent with and allowed by underlying zoning. The surrounding neighborhood is characterized by a mix of multif family
residential, commercial, and mixeduse buildings. Before I conclude, uh it is important that I address the inclusionary zoning requirements and how they apply to this proposed change of occupancy and future use. Owing to the nature of that use, the building will
not include on-site income restricted I units. That's a departure from the standard framework. And I want to explain why. Uh these 24 units are reserved exclusively for Bridge USA program participants and the on-site CIE
building manager. The income eligibility and tenency requirements for conventional IC units are simply incompatible with this program structure. This is not an effort to avoid an obligation. Rather, it is uh a direct and understandable consequence of
the missiondriven nature of this particular residential use. In lie of on-site affordable units and in full compliance with the requirements of article 79 and as approved by the mayor's office of housing, CIE has committed to a onetime cash contribution
of just under $1 million to the city's inclusionary development fund to be used for the construction and preservation of affordable housing units across Boston. Finally, the project has undergone comprehensive article 80 review by the Boston Planning Department, including
public notice and community input. And on March 19th of this year, the BR BPDA board of directors voted to approve this third notice of project change for this project and to recommend approval of the required zoning relief. With that, Madam Chair, I'll pause and take any questions
that members may have. >> Thank you. >> Go ahead. Did you have a question? >> I do. I have two questions. Um, so you said there are 17 parking spots. How many how many staff members will work here?
>> Uh, there will be uh so very good uh question. Um, uh, Mr. D, the uh there will be one unit of this building for a dedicated CIE building manager. In terms of the office use on the fifth floor, uh, that is a good point of distinction.
There will not be people in office cubicles working for CIE in the fifth floor. Most work is conducted remotely around the world. Actually, the primary intended use for the fifth floor office area is for periodic meetings of the
board of directors of CIE that happen a few times per year, but there will not be a 5-day a week um corporate presence there in terms of people, for example, working in cubicles. it will only be periodically occupied and for as I said
things like corporate meetings and board of directors meetings that are held periodically throughout the year. >> Thank you. And then my second question is what's the average length that someone will live here? >> It's approximately 11 months and it's it
ranges from several months to sometimes a couple years. Uh there are currently CIE program participants living all over Boston. So this is not a new this is not newly being introduced to the city. It's just that these are people who who are essentially private housing units u uh
distributed around the city. So this provides an opportunity to have a dedicated residential use for the Boston program participants. And again the average length and that is across Boston and and across the nation for that matter is approximately 11 months uh for these business interns.
>> Thank you very much. >> You're welcome. >> Thank you. Any 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. At this time, the
mayor's office deferred to the judge from this board some background information the community process. As you're aware, this went through a Boston planning led community process um with the notice of change for the project starting their process uh in February of this year. Uh I'm including a public
meeting that was held on February 24th um as well as the solition uh soliciting public comments uh from residents. Um these conversations were very positive. We ended up receiving two letters of support uh that were uh glowing about um
how this applicant and the representation has worked really closely with the community to explain what changes are being proposed and as well as engaging with directors to make sure they're comfortable with this project. Uh we received those support letters from the West Broadway neighborhood assoc association as some members of the board
of trustees uh for port 45 which is a neighboring building. We're presently unaware of any concerns and with that deferred to the board. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Next we have Ashley from councelor Flynn's office. >> Good morning. My name is Ashley from councelor Flynn's office. Councelor
Flynn would like to go on record and support based on a good community process. The team has worked closely in recent months with nearby civic groups in abutters to be responsive to any concerns and quality of life issues. They have also worked in good faith to also provide a full-time
living building manager on site as well. Councelor Flynn respectfully requests that the proponent continue to work closely with neighbors on any quality of life issues. Thank you. >> Thanks. We we have a minor players. minor.
>> Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Ambassador. Madame Chair, members of the board, Carpenters Union would like to go in regular support. >> Madam Chair, there are no additional comments. >> Thank you. Any other questions from the board?
>> May I have a motion? >> Chair, I'll make a motion of approval. There a second. >> Second. >> Mr. Stebridge. >> Yes. >> Mr. Valencia. >> Yes. >> Mr. Langum.
>> Yes. >> Miss Weell. >> Yes. >> Miss Turner. >> Yes. >> Mr. Bernell. >> Yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. >> Thank you.
Next we have case BOA 183 05 excuse me 65 with the address of 87 Keith Street if the applicant and or the representative present would they please explain to the board?
>> Yes. Thank you Mr. Stebridge. Good morning madam chair members of the board. For the record my name is Richard Linds. I'm attorney with the business address of 245 Summer Street in East Boston. on behalf of petitioner Carlos Arius. With me is Nick Landry from DRT
who's our project architect. Mr. Ambassador, we can jump right down to slide three. Um, Madam Chair, members of the board, this proposal involves the redivision of uh several lots and the creation of a new approximately 6,100 square ft lot uh which is located here
in Mission Hill that uh traditionally is held a mix of industrial, commercial, and residential uses. I'm not sure if we can get down to slide three, Mr. Ambassador. Next slide, please. Perfect. Um, so in connect for the
creation of this new lot, uh, the proponent is proposing to construct a new 14 unit multif family residential building. This will include, uh, two inclusionary zoning units as required by article 79 of the code. Uh the project also proposes to include a total of seven off- streetet parking spaces
located at grade. The units for this project will range in size or anywhere from 760 ft² up to about 1,800 square ft. If we can jump down to slide 4 just to give the board an idea of the context, the surrounding neighborhood. As you can see here, heat street does
have a commercial industrial building located immediately adjacent to our site. Uh in addition, there's a relatively newer uh multif family residential building located at the corner. Uh if we can jump out of slide seven uh maybe further down. Yeah, just so
it's a good place to stop right here. So this is a street view uh illustrating the uh vacant condition on the lot. Uh our client is the owner of the vacant area as well as the building completely adjacent. Uh, and as I indicated, this involves a redivision of the lots to
create a new lot for the proposed structure. If you can jump down to slide 10, I can review the zoning relief that's necessary. Slide 10, please. Perfect. Um, so madam chair, members of the board, this property actually straddles
two zoning subdists. We have the 3F2000 district for Mission Hill as well as a local industrial subdist. Uh because we are within two zoning districts, article 6 uh relief is necessary. So a conditional use permit is being requested uh with respect to having the
property in two zoning districts. Uh regardless uh ISD applied the more restrictive zoning to this this uh area based upon how uh transitional zoning is applied under the Boston zoning code. Uh so we are operating under the controls for the 3F2000 district. Um so we do
require relief from several provisions of article 59. Uh and beginning with off streetet parking our proposal to include seven spaces which is less than the one space per unit as required in article 59. Uh I will note that uh in the recommendation uh which was for approval
by the planning department uh they do site that this uh location is in close proximity to rapid transit and bus lines including the Jackson Square um transit stop which is in relatively close proximity. Uh planning department believes this would be appropriate for a
reduction in the minimum required parking and certainly they felt that the seven parking spaces being proposed was appropriate for this development. I would add that we do include uh a bike storage room at great as well which is located just outside the garage uh
within the 3F2000 and MFR multif family use anything more than three units is a forbidden use. However, once again the planning department recognizes the character of this section of heat street includes uh a mix of the multif family uh type uses. There is commercial
industrial as well and they uh believe that this would be an appropriate uh use for this location. Uh with respect to the height in the F uh in both instances this project would exceed the maximum allowed under article 59. Uh we are proposing an overall height all the way
to the top of the elevator over on the 59 ft. Uh total of 40 ft is allowed uh with respect to the F 2.0 is the max. We have a 2.98. Uh once again, planning department uh's recommendation views these as acceptable uh for this area
because it is consistent with the planning goals for the city, especially with respect to future planning and modifications along this corridor of Mission Hill for Heat Street. Uh lastly, with respect to the rear yard open space and the buffering requirements, the planning department also recommended
relief for this based upon the location and size of the project. uh they did note that the 10-ft setback in the rear although was less than the minimum required uh was appropriate based upon the spacing for light and air. In addition, they did uh note that the uh
open space uh which can be achieved through balconies, roof decks, etc. uh should be looked at in connection with the uh design review that would be proposed as part of any approval. Uh if we could jump to slide 11, please. I'm going to ask Nick Landry to very
quickly just go over the materials and design uh so we can talk a little bit about what this building would look like uh from uh from your perspective. Nick, if you could just jump in quickly on that, that would be helpful. >> Great. Thank you, Richard. Um good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. Nick Landry from DRT. Um uh so on
the lefth hand side here, we're looking at the front elevation. We're going to have a um full face uh black or dark brick kind of from the bay windows down. Um that's where you'll see the residential entry on the left, the the garage door in the center, and then the um there's a bike entrance kind of
hidden behind a tree on the right. The both of the bays will the the plan is that the um either some sort of um cement board material uh as material or possibly aluminum. And the windows will all be black uh two over two in the in
the center. And we intend to work with design review on on both of those details. The rear elevation, you can see we have um uh a lot of glass in the center with decks on either side. All of the units have some sort of access to out outdoor space, whether it's a deck or um the units in the front have um
Juliet balconies on the sides. Perfect. Thanks. Um quickly, I'll just run through the plans if we can go to slide 13, Mr. Ambassador. Uh so this is our proposed uh site plan showing uh the redivision of the lots uh
with respect to the location of the building. Uh as you can see we do meet the sideyard setbacks in both instances. A minimum be 5 ft. We're a little above 5t for both. Uh we do propose a modal alignment for the front of the building. So although uh the front setback may
vary based upon uh where the location would be uh we do intend to align this building consistent with the modal setbacks for that section of heat street. Next slide please. Jump next slide please. Uh one more.
Just our architectural site plan uh showing the orientation of the building as it relates to heat with the entrance off to the right. Uh we have that garage entrance off to the right with the total of seven parking spaces located beneath the building at grade. We do identify
areas uh around the building that would be available for permeable space as well as some buffering. Again, I know that was a specific concern of the planning department. Uh and we're certainly happy to work with them through design review to address any buffering concerns or questions they might have. Next slide,
please. We just have the floor plans illustrated. If there's any specific questions on that, we can always come back to that. If we jump down to slide 22 just to incorporate the elevations into the presentation
slide 22, Mr. Ambassador, perfect. As you can see here, the elevations we do show that the garage space is located towards the rear. As you can see, there is somewhat of a great separation between Heat Street and the back of the property. Uh we do have that as an open condition under the back
of the building. However, that is um identified as the parking area just so that the board can see where that's located. And again, as I mentioned, the height uh although we are in excess of the 40 ft that is allowed, uh planning believes that is an acceptable height based upon future planning objectives
for this section of the street. Um I believe that's said. I can pause there, madam chair, if there's any specific questions. We do have reference to other plans if there's any specific question. >> Thank you so much. >> Thank you. Are there any questions from the board?
>> Yes, madam chair. Mr. Lens, regarding article 79, the IDP, could you clarify again what is the status of the conversations about the IDP units that uh the project will make a contribution for? >> Yes, thank you uh Mr. Liy. So the
requirements under article 79 is that 17% or at least 17% of the floor space would need to be uh dedicated to uh IC units. Uh that comes out to 2.38. Uh we will uh because it's less than 2.5 we
will commit to the two units as required in article 79 and the balance of the 38 uh would be paid into the affordable housing fund as required by article 79. >> Thank you. And for what income levels could be those units? >> Um, so if this were a rental building,
the average AMI would have to be 60%. I believe we are proposing home ownership at this time. Uh, so it's a range between, I believe, 80 to 100% AMI. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. Any other questions from the board?
>> May I have public testimony? >> Madame Chair and board members, Sig Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This applicant completed the community process. Our office hosted an abutters meeting on September 18th, 2025 at which a number of attendees expressed opposition to the proposal for reasons
that included not enough parking being provided, which units would have the parking assigned to them, that a new curb cut would eliminate currently existing public parking on Heath Street, concerns about rodents on the parcel, and desire for more affordability. The applicants met with the community alliance of Mission Hill, which is
supporting this application. With that background, ONS defers judgment to the board. Thank you. >> Thank you. Next, we have Tony Bias from Councelor Durkan. >> Good morning, Madam Chair. Um, councelor Durken would like to go in support of
this proposal. Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Madame Chair. Okay, we have minor Perez. >> Thank Thank you, Mr. Ambassador, Madame Chair, members of the board. mine operates with a carpenter senior would like to go on record in support of the project.
>> Thank you, >> Madam Chair. There are no additional comments at the moment. Okay. >> Any other questions from the board? >> May I motion? I'll make a motion. >> That's right.
I'll make a motion of approval with a proviso um that plans be submitted to the planning department for design review uh with respect to the usable open space buffering and the proposed year rear yard depth as well as um the
housing agreement to be executed by the mayor's office of housing. >> Is there a second? >> Second. Mr. Stebridge. >> Yes.
>> Mr. Valencia. >> Yes. >> Mr. Langham. >> Yes. >> Miss Weell, >> yes. >> Miss Turner, >> yes. >> Mr. Bernell, >> yes. >> Sher votes, yes. The motion carries.
Good luck. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Next we have Next we have case BOA 181 0466 with the address of 94 to 96 St. Marks
Road. If the applicant andor their representative are present, would they please explain to the board? >> Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is James Christopher of 686 Architects with the business address of
uh 10 Forbes Road in Brainree. I'm here today on behalf of Ray Butler and 94 to 96 St. Marks Road in Dorchester. Um the proposal before you is to uh construct a to extend an existing curb cut uh to allow for two off streetet parking
spaces for 94 to 96 St. Marks Road and then to legalize an existing thirdf flooror unit. Um so uh you can just uh scroll through the plans uh Mr. Ambassador. Um there is no construction to take place on the project other than
uh a new uh these are existing floor plans. So the the first floor is a unit. The basement is currently storage that will remain storage. Next slide please. Um again second and third floors. The third floor unit exists that way uh and it has existed that way uh since prior
to Mr. Butler purchasing it. He's always operated it as a twounit building. Um but we we are here to legalize it today as a three-unit building. This is our existing building section and roof plan and then uh the existing elevations. Uh next slide please. So here's our
proposed site use plan again extending the existing curb cut. Our abuter is a corner lot. Uh so there's no parking from that curb cut to the corner. So, at that extent, we are able to get two parking spaces to the rear of the property. We are aware of the BPDA's recommendation for approval with design
of view uh with attention to the parking layout. We're happy to work with the BPD on that. Um, next slide, please. So, again, that's our architectural site use plan there. Next slide. Uh, the building itself remains exactly the same. There's no interior
construction to take place. uh the first and second and uh first floor and basement will remain. To go to the next slide, please. On the roof of the second floor, which is this plan right here uh for the porch, we're going to add a small balcony for unit 2 just to create
a little bit of outdoor space towards the front of the property. Um but that's the only change to the exterior of the building. We will be adding a full fire alarm and fire sprinkler system. And that just shows the front elevation and side elevation there. show the
addition of the small balcony and that's it with that. Uh we held an abundance meeting with the project received support and uh the same civic association provided support as well. >> Thank you. Are there questions from the board?
>> Hearing none. May I have public testimony? >> Hello madam chair, members of the board. My name is Eva Jones representing the mayor's office in neighbor services regarding 94 to96 St. Marks Road. Our office defers to the board's judgment. A community process was conducted including an abut butter meeting held on
Monday, March 2nd, 2026 that was attended by two Dorchester community members where the feedback they gave was supportive and they mentioned some struggles with parking in the neighborhood, but we're happy to see a plan that helps alleviate these issues and by someone who has been a good neighbor to them. The proposal was
connected with the St. Marks Area Civic Association where they expressed that a vote was taken resulting nine in support and zero in opposition. All of Butters present including non-members were also in support. Additionally, six letters of support were submitted by director Butters who are unable to attend the
civic association meeting. As a result, the civic association is in support of this proposal and provided a formal email uh submitted to the board. 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. Hello uh madam chair members of board
leis from the council princ's office to let go on record and support this proposal. Thank you. >> Right. Thank you >> madam chair. There are no additional comments. >> Okay. With that may I have a motion motion. >> Are you adding the provisals from the
planning department? Yes, ma'am. I'm sorry about that. Yes. >> Okay. So, to review uh uh uh with attention to redesigning parking layout and to preserve existing trees. Is there a second? >> Yes, ma'am. I'm sorry. Second.
>> That's Thank you, Mr. Stebridge. >> Yeah. Madam Chair. Yes. >> Mr. Valencia. >> Yes. >> Mr. Langum. >> Yes.
>> Miss Weell. >> Yes. >> Miss Turner. >> Yes. >> Miss Bernell. Mr. Bernell. >> Yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries.
>> Thank you for your time. Next we have case BOA1703937 with the address of 2 to8 Dire Street. If the applicants andor their representative are present, will they please explain? I think uh this is Joseph Luner. Do we
have you now? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Very good. >> Okay. Mr. Ambassador, Madam Chair, members of the board, my name is Joseph Muna. I'm the principal Luna Design Group Architects. Um here represent our developer M Group Realy for the proposed
project at 28 Dyer Street. Um can we go to the next slide please? Um this project actually was a single um this par was originally a single parcel approximately 6,926 ft um on the corner of Kappen and Dyer
Street. 12 Kappen which is the building to the left has since been renovated and the subdivision um and that project has been sold. We are now talking about the new parcel to the right which is approximately 3,416 square ft where we plan on constructing
a 4unit townhouse of approximate total area of around 9,500 square ft on a 2,300 ft footprint. Um we are providing um ground floor parking which with twocar garages in a
tandem configuration across across that. Uh we were flagged for parking on the zoning violation which one well five is required. We actually these garages are able to accommodate two. So I don't know specifically why we were flagged on that but you can see that the you those are
standardiz cars that can fit inside there. Next slide please. Um we will then have three stories um on top of that which will include four bedrooms, two and a half baths with rooftop decks. Um this is family style
housing and again we're trying we're trying to maximize the number of bedrooms inside this to for this project to um basically accommodate family um families in the area. Um next slide, please keep going. We're going to go to the
elevations. Okay. Um you can see the parking on the lower level. Um it's a contemporary style building with a combination of horizontal and vertical siding with a lot of windows along along the dire street facade. Because of the proximity to the sideyards, the amount of windows
is is very much limited. Um but we feel it's an attract an attractive building for building to the neighborhood. Um, it provides much needed family housing inside the city of Boston. And I'll be happy to answer any questions the board may have. >> Thank you. Are there questions from the
board? >> Hearing none, may I have public testimony? >> Good morning, ma'am. Madam Chair, members of the board. For the record, my name is Jeremy Benbury. I am the Doorchester community engagement specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process which consisted of an aboters meeting held on
June 24th during which no aboters were in attendance. Next, the proposal was presented to the redefining our community organization on September 18th completing the community process. Following this, the organization requested that the return for a second presentation. The proponent feeling they have satisfied the civic aspect of the
community process declined after which the civic association issued a position in opposition to the proposal. Thank you for your time. in the mayor's office of neighborhood services would like to defer to the board for the >> Thank you. >> Madam Chair, we don't have additional hands raised at the moment.
>> Okay. Is there a motion? >> I actually do have a question. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Um, so there's a note from the planning department that this should be in line with the um the neighboring buildings. Can you just show on the site plans once
again what the what that looks like? >> Can we go back to the slide? >> Thank you. >> Okay, the first second slide in >> Yeah, we don't have >> Yeah, we don't have a modal set. Um there's a rendering um separate slide.
I'm wondering if it can be pulled up. >> Um no, it's a it's a separate file. I don't know if it's in in the presentation here when we submitted it to to zoning, >> but they're not they're not in line with the neighboring buildings. >> So, no, they're not. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Do you I do you know what the the distance is from the property line to the building? from the property line to the building. Um we are right now about 2 and 1/2 ft. >> This is on capen or on dire
>> on dire >> on dire >> on dire >> and the 2 and 1/2 ft is to actually can you go to the next slide slide number three. >> So just I should point out that's the canal lever condition. Let's go to the
next slide. Over the 2 and 1/2 ft is actually at the upper floor. You can see how it can lever over on the angle. >> Okay. So, so you have a a larger set back on the >> larger set back along along the front. >> Okay.
>> So, if you go back to the first slide, you'll see how it's offset for the parking. That's approximately 6 ft. Okay. Other questions on this or anything else? >> Are we ready for a motion? Yeah, Madam Chair, I'd like to put a
motion of approval with a provisor uh that no relief be granted for the front yard so that uh front yard that so we there is at least a front yard of 5 ft >> on Dire Street. >> We have no objection. >> Okay. May I have a second?
>> Sec. >> Mr. Mr. >> Yes. >> Mr. Valencia. >> Yes. >> Mr. Langum. >> Yes. >> Miss We will. >> Yes.
>> Miss Turner. >> Yes. >> Mr. Renell. >> Yes. >> Chair votes. Yes. The motion carries. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Byebye. are you you're on mute, Mr. Stumbridge.
>> Okay, let me try this again. Thank Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh this is case BOA 1 180 064 with the address of 4 Adam Street.
This is a mayor office housing housing project and if the applicant andor their representative are present will they please explain to the board? >> Yes. Thank you Mr. Stebridge. Madam Chair, members of the board, attorney Ryan Spitz with Adams and Morancey,
address of 168 Street, First Floor, South Boston. Uh, joining me today is the applicant, Reggie Woods, as well as the project architect, Jacob Lavine. This was a mayor's office of housing property where an RFP was issued, and Mr. Woods was awarded the parcel. The proposal is to raise the existing
structure and erect a new three-story 3-unit residential building on a 6,100 ft² lot located within a 2F5000 subd district. This triggers the need for insufficient lot size as this proposal is considered an other use which
requires an 8,000 ft lot rather than the 5,000 uh square foot typical requirement. It has also resulted in a use violation, but the relief being sought is very similar to the lot sizes and density patterns in this area. Further, the site is located adjacent to
Clary Square and Commuter Rail, which makes it well suited to accommodate additional housing. Unit one will be located on the first floor consisting of approximately 1391 ft two-bedroom unit. Unit two will be located on the second floor consisting of approximately,414
ft, another two-bedroom unit. Unit 3 will be located on the third floor consisting of approximately 1,414 square ft which will be a three-bedroom unit. Each unit will also have a small deck located in the front in the rear of the building that is set within the building
itself. We have the following additional violations. We have a floor ratio violation. The maximum is a.5 and the proposal calls for approximately a 7 which is aligned with many of the other neighboring buildings. We have a height violation both in feet and stories. The
requirement is 2 and 1/2 stories and 35 ft. The proposal calls for three stories, 39 ft. A three-story building is consistent in this area with many of the other triple deckers. We have a sideyard and rear yard violation. 40ft rear yard and a 10-ft sideyard is the
minimum. The proposal calls for 36 ft in the rear and 15.5 ft on the side. And on the other side, it is 5 ft. But consistent with other neighboring properties such as 6 Adam Street, 16 Adam Street, and as well as 1426 River Street, just to name a few, we have open
space violation. 1750 ft per dwelling is required. And this proposal calls for 785 ft per dwelling with the lot size of 6,100 ft. Meeting such a high requirement would be infeasible and is consistent with many of the other neighboring buildings. Further, the
parcel is very close to reservation road park and as well as the Smith playground. Parking via insufficiency. Two parking spaces required per unit and the proposal provides one parking space per unit again which aligns with the mayor's initiative of reducing dependency on private vehicles in a
neighborhood that is very close to transit. At this point, Madam Chair, I'm going to pause for any questions or comments from the board. >> Thank you. Are there questions from the board? Yes, I do have a question, Mr. Spitz. I
believe there was a question uh a letter submitted by uh the accessibility commission in regards to accessibility of the first floor unit. Uh is there any plans to to make sure that the first floor unit is accessible? >> I am not aware of the letter as such.
Um, I haven't been told of any such, but I'm sure um, you know, if if it, you know, I mean, if you want to make a couple of statements and hopefully I can just try to help address it. >> Yeah, I um I'm sorry. I don't I I don't have it available to me right right now.
I think I did notice that, but you know, t typically a building this size would require the first floor unit to be accessible. >> Mhm. I mean, we're happy to work together with that accessibility leather. uh we do have the project architect here as well. So again, you know, further in the process itself,
again, we're we're happy to work together in addressing the accessibility. >> Uh what what uh what Andre is referring to, excuse me, is that the disabilities commission says the building entrance, the building entrance is not accessible.
Since it is a three-unit building, the common entrance and the ground floor unit must be accessible. and then it cites the um the um what what where that comes from. >> Great. No, we're h we're happy to
comply, you know, with the request. Um we do have Jacob Lavine here if if he would like some input on um the possibility of how he could make it um more accessible as well. He would just have to be elevated as a
panelist. I believe he's under SL house. >> I'm here. Thank you, Ryan. My name is Jacob Lavine. My address is 27 Congress Street. Um, and I'm the owner architect on the project for Essos Group. We were working with Carl Hecm from the mayor's
office of housing. He's one of the city architects on the project, and he was asking essentially to have the first floor be accessible with a a long walk or a ramp. Um, so he was looking at either a 1 to 20 ramp or a 1 to 12 ramp.
So he wanted us to lower the first floor entry to 18 to 24 in. I had it originally about 3 ft above grade. And we never actually discussed though the first floor unit itself being a uh ADA qualified unit or a handicap ready
in the future unit. Uh we just discussed that the main entry itself into the building be accessible uh by a ramp instead of steps. And that would actually set the building back further, which was something else that we were kind of talking about. Um, just one other thing to note working with with
Carl was also the uh height of the building. He he actually proposed the gable being a little bit uh taller. So that's how we ended up on the 39 ft over the 35 ft. So the entryway being at at a slope ramp up was coming from the city.
>> And that is all they're mentioning as far as I can tell. So, >> okay, great. But again, you know, just assure you, we'll continue to work on the accessibility issues. >> Fair enough. Fair enough. >> Thank you. >> Other questions from the board?
>> May I testimony? >> Yes, madame chair, members of the board, Connor with the mayor's office of neighborhood services. This time, the mayor's office would like to go on record in support of this proposal. some background information. The community process uh ONS conducted a Butters
meeting on January 7th. Uh there were some of Butters who raised concerns regarding uh the proposed parking ratio and also worried about the proposed density uh might be a burden on the electrical grid. Uh there was also a neighbor on that meeting who voiced support for the proposal. Uh prior to
the Abutters meeting, Mo had solicited feedback from Abutters in the fall of 2024 and also had put out an RFP for this parcel. Uh we understand that the HPNA voted in opposition to the proposal citing concerns regarding the electrical capacity as well. However, we feel these type of income restricted units are
going to be positive uh addition for the High Park neighborhood and to ensure that families are going to have uh an opportunity to own these properties uh and contribute to the community. Um we also feel that improvements continue to be made uh throughout the city uh
boosting the electrical grid. Um and we do not worry that capacity will be a long-term issue. Um, at this time, Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services like to reiterate their support. Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Madame Chair. I don't see any issue comments.
>> Okay. Any other questions from the board? >> May I have a motion? Madame chair, I'd like to put a motion of approval with provisiso that the proponent works with uh planning to um
accommodate all the accessibility requirements. >> Is there a second? >> Second, >> Mr. Stebridge. >> Yes, >> Mr. Valencia. >> Yes. >> Mr. Langum?
>> Yes. >> Miss Weo? >> Yes. Miss Turner. >> Yes. >> Mr. Bernell. >> Yes. >> I see you. I just didn't hear a yes. >> Yes, >> Mr. B. Thank you. Chair votes yes. The
motion carries. Good luck. >> Thank you. >> Next, we have two companion cases. The first is case BOA1807767 with the address of 1904 River Street. Along with that, we have case BOA
1807763 with the address of 1900 River Street. If the applicant and andor their representative are present, would they please explain the case of student board? >> Thank you, Mr. Stembridge. Um good morning madam chair, members of the b
board, attorney John Paulini here on behalf of this proposal at 1900 1904 River Street in High Park. With me this morning is Luchio Tribuko who is the project architect. We want to thank him for the opportunity to present this proposal. Um I'll go over a brief uh
overview and then turn it over to Luchio. Uh the existing lot at 1900-904 River Street holds two one and a half story multif family residential buildings with each containing eight units. Uh they are one bed, one bath and with 14 off off uh street parking
spaces. The proposal before you is to change the occupancy of each of these buildings from 8 to 12 units. This will be accomplished by adding onestory addition upon uh the two buildings with four units to be located in the new floor. The building itself presents as a one and a half story building. It's a
ble building. Those old buildings when you walk in, you can either walk down or walk up. All the new units uh contemplating this project will also be one bed, one bed, one bath. And the footprints of these buildings will remain as they currently are today. Uh, additionally, with this proposal, we'll
uh create 10 additional off- streetet parking spaces. So, that will allow 1:1 uh parking ratios. The proposal allows for increase of muchneeded housing and the develop is able to accomplish this with no prolonged displacement. The rent at these two buildings are actually
lower than IDP units as the owner strategy is to avoid vacancies by uh providing lower than market rate rents. The plan is to renovate each building separately. So the building residents will be allowed to remain while the other one building uh is being worked on. Luckily, between the owner having
other properties in this area as well as other colleagues of his, we can temporarily relocate the tenants and then bring them back when the work is completed. He's owned this building for 26 years. Uh some it has all the units have to be refreshed. So, this proposal will allow
for the rehabilitation of the existing units. Uh as well, just want to go over we have uh provided this board with the uh the only three we're on a corner of Ernest Street and River Street. The only three of Butters have all signed letters to support of this proposal. Um, as well
as the Boston Planning Department has recommended approval with a housing agreement and design review. At this point, I'll just turn it over to Luchio Trabuko um just to go through the plans and we're happy to answer any questions that you have. Thanks again. I don't know if he's a panelist. Jesus,
is he do you see him on? >> What is the name again? Let me check. >> Luchio Trabuko. >> Yes, Luchio, you are allowed to speak now. You can unmute yourself. >> Thank you very much.
>> What? >> I know. Can you guys hear me? >> Yes, we can. Yes, sir. >> I'm sorry. No, I'm just I can't I can't see me on the screen. That's why I was a little bit concerned. I apologize. Um, good morning. Um yes the project says the existing uh condition right now is
basically two one and a half stories two and one and a half stories structures containing 16 units. Uh the units are onebedroom units one bath. Uh and there are roughly 550 square foot each. Um the it's a brick linear building which
standard you know sliding windows. Uh the site uh needs a lot of upgrade as well as the the existing units a lot of upgrade. So part of the project is to upgrade all the units uh landscape provide new landscape as well as adding
two uh one floor in each structure consisting of four units 500 the same configuration same footprint of the existing uh units uh for each building and also introduce a proof which is basically the same a proof that uh exists there right now on
the the the existing buildings. Uh the new the new structure will be around uh 34 32 feet from the peak of the roof to the grade. Um and it'll be two and a half it will consist of two and a half uh uh floors of uh residential
structures. Um the the elevations I mean if you can go to the rendering I mean the I can you know just show basically that what we're proposing that'll be the the one of the last slides please.
going. I think he wants you to keep going. >> Keep going. Yeah, keep I'm sorry. That's it's near the near the end. You just did the rendering so you can visualize our proposal. >> Yes. Yeah, that's fine. That's fine. No, the other one. Yeah, that one. Uh so basically again
this existing brick veneer with that will remain. Uh we'll introduce a stone band to cap you know to to end the brick veneer and then above that will be board and patent wall system um just to cap the building and uh just distinguish you
know differentiate between the base building as well as the top building. Again the roof will be a hip roof asphalt shingles. Uh be all new windows. Uh all the the existing will be replaced on the existing as well and new windows on the new. Uh so it be a total upgrade
of all the units in addition to that uh top floor edition. Any questions on >> I do have a question. Do are you is there any uh landscape work or that is kind that is being done or is the
existing uh asphalt paving staying as it is? >> The there is asphalt paving but also if you see along the river street in between the units uh there will be additional landscaping. Um so they'll you know they'll be all landscaping on
you know in in between the units the courtyard as well as along u river street. Uh there also the other thing we're doing proposing a screen there electric meters which is basically it's kind of a uh trying to find a nice word for it but
we provide a screen so that that will be you know uh away from the view of the air street that will be part of the you know part of the construction as well. >> Any other questions from the board? >> Yes. Um, in some of the letters of
opposition, they cited issues with trash. Can you walk us through how how you manage trash for this complex? >> Thank you for that question. So, that came up at the uh the abutters meeting. And one thing I will say, you know, working with the neighbors, we have all the abutters who would be impacted by
any sort of tra or rodents um supporting this project. This project's located I don't know if you guys know the area. It's located on the corner of Ernest and River Street almost on the high park data line. Directly across the street is a strip mall u which has a um a commercial strip mall which has a
restaurant in it. So there was some dispute of where any of this is originating. But what we've done is we have uh pushed the trash to uh one side where it will be contained inside a a smaller tight dumpster that will be secure so that there will not be any possibility that anything is associated
with this proposal. Thank you. >> Oh, you're welcome. >> Yeah. Thank you. One uh additional comment from the neighbors. There is concern about exist existing tenants losing their housing during the
renovations. You mentioned that there is a commitment to keep the tenants in place or move them to a temporal space and bring them back. >> Yes. >> That's a real commitment. Are you not going to create any displacement? >> No. No. So that's our plan. It's a very good question. we have, and I think I
put that in my initial um presentation, these tents have been with him a long time. They're below market rates, rents. Um and so what he wants to do is upgrade them, move them out temporarily. That's why we have a plan to do one building first where those tenants can remain. Then when the other one ends, they can
move over to the new building and then the other people can move back in. So yes, we are working with them. There'll be five a minimum of five month notice to them. They're all tenant at will, but they're all invited back and he will assist them in finding housing as I stated between other properties that he
own in the area and as well as other of his colleagues that own property. >> Thank you. And you also will be uh making a contribution of at least one affordable unit to the office of housing. >> Correct. So it'll be an affordable unit as well as a significant contribution to
the IDP fund. Correct. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. With that, may we have full testimony? >> Madame chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Benbury. I am the hide park community engagement specialist for the office of neighborhood services. The applicant has
completed the community process which consisted of an abut meeting held on February 19th where a few concerns were raised. Abutters express dissatisfaction with the current condition of the property citing issues with maintenance including overflowing dumpsters and trash extending onto neighboring properties. Concerns were also raised regarding ongoing rodent activity
attributed to improper waste management. Abu has noticed that the incurred repeated cost for extermination services with limited success due to the continued presence of food sources on the property from the dumpster. A rural reported damage to a fence caused by individuals associated with the property and expressed concern that future
repairs may not prevent recurrence. Additional concerns focused on parking with the brothers indicating that the area is already impacted by ongoing construction. They stated that construction related to the pro proposal may further limit parking availability and that the proposed 1:1 parking ratio may contribute to continued congestion
after the project completion. Next presented to Hide Park neighborhood association on March 5th where they voted to oppose the proposal. To date, our office has received two letters of support and one letter of opposition from High Park Neighborhood Association. The association maintained the embod's oppositions with an additional concern
regarding tenant displacement noting noting that the residents of one building would be required to vacate without a guaranteed right to return. The association recommended improved waste management practices and urged the proponent to work with the office of housing stability providing advanced notice to tenants to maintain
communication during construction and offer a right to return. Thank you for your time and the mayor's office of neighborhood services would like to defer to the board for the judgment. Next we have minor Perez. Uh >> thank you Mr. Ras the madam chair members of the board. This is minor
Perez representing carpentry union would like to go on record in support of the project. >> Madame chair we don't have additional comments. >> Any other questions from the board? >> Oh I'm sorry. I think there is one more
person that just raised the hand. Willie I apologize about that. I uh thought my hand was raised and just noticed it wasn't. I um currently own our 55 Sanford Street, which sits uh right behind uh the proposed project. Um
so, as stated, my main two I got two concerns. One of them being uh the rats and rodents and uh the current lawyer stated that they might be uh coming from those strips. But um I just had I've been having an exterminator come to my
property uh since about November, December and uh he just came last week and we found about four new burrows. burrows that are leading to that dumpster because the dump dumpster is always overflowing with trash. And um
not only the dumpster, but every time I've walked my dog around that property, there's trash in the front of the of the building, the one that's currently on uh River Street. And then um they're
proposing 10 parking spots behind uh the one closest to me. And I'm I'm looking at it right now and there's no way they could put 10 parking spots there unless they're taking land away from the property that's in between
those two buildings and my house, which um if I'm not mistaken, um the owner that's wants to do this project also owns that property. So, um,
right now they have, what is it? 12 tenants. Those 12 tenants, there's one that always parks on the sidewalk, which is illegal. So, I'm pretty sure one bedroom right now, nowadays, a lot of h
households usually have two vehicles. That's not going to be enough parking. So, um, usually I've had, uh, tenants from there park on my on my street, which is a private way, which is inconvenience for me now because I had
to find parking elsewhere. But, um, my biggest issue, >> you wrap up your Can you wrap up your concerns? >> Go ahead. I'm done. >> Can I just address that just quickly, Madam Chair? >> Sure. I just want to focus on >> Are there any other raised hands? Okay, go.
>> Oh, sorry. Um with respect to the road issue, the um that was brought up initially at the Butters meeting by another resident and the person who lives directly behind us with above the fence that is um she has submitted a letter of support for this proposal. We
have a uh road remediation plan in place and we'll continue with that and continue to work with the abutters as well as the city. >> Okay. And the parking issues you mentioned >> parking is onetoone parking right. I mean it's it is you know it's in total alignment with the city's goals of
reducing um uh auto dependency and 1:1 parking if this were an article 80 process project that would not even allow anybody to probably get to 1:1 never mind exceeding it. It's just that high park has a 2:1 parking ratio under their current zoning.
>> Thank you. Any other questions from the board? >> May I have a motion? I'd like to >> put forward a motion of approval >> any
>> Miss Turner could um So are we talking about with the provisos as well or just approval? >> I I'm asking if we >> Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, probably with with provisos um with that the housing agreement be
issued prior to issuing permits and plans be submitted to the planning department for design review um of the parking design. >> Do you want to add Mr. Bernell anything about about the uh green space you concerns about screening buffering?
No, >> I think what Miss Turner said is it's official. >> Okay, then may I have a second? Mr. Stanbridge. >> Yes. >> Mr. Valencia. >> Yes. >> Mr. Langum.
>> Yes. >> M. >> We will. >> Yes. >> Mr. Turner. >> Yes. >> Mr. Bernell. >> Yes. >> Chair votes. Yes. The motion carries. >> Thank you everybody. >> Thank you.
Next we have case BOA 1812434 with the address of 384 to 390 or grain street. If the applicants andor their representative will they please explain to the board.
>> Hi good morning madame chair and in the board. My name is Patric Patricia Palino and we are hoping that today you will allow a change of occupancy
to include body out in a body art in our hair salon which will allow us to offer permanent makeup services only not tattooing.
Any questions from the board? May I have public testimony? >> Madame chair and board members. Sigy Johnson with the office of neighborhood services. This applicant has completed the community process. Our office oversaw distribution of anformational flyer to all of Butters which solicited
no comments to our office. The West Roxbury Neighborhood Council is supporting this application. That background ons defers judgment to the board. Thank you, >> Madame Chair. There are no additional comments. >> May I have a motion?
>> Madam Chair, I'll put forward a motion of approval. >> May I have a second? >> Start. >> Mr. Stebridge. >> Yes. >> Mr. Valencia. >> Yes.
>> Miss Joinum. >> Yes. >> Miss Weel. >> Yes. >> Miss Turner. >> Yes. Mr. Bernell, >> yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck, ma'am.
>> Thank you very much. >> Okay, with that, uh, we will take a break until 11:30. rest. >> Mr. Stembridge >> present madam chair >> Mr. Valencia
>> present madam chair >> Mr. Langum >> present madam chair >> miss weo >> present madam chair >> misser >> oh >> sorry present >> thank you Mr. Bernell
>> present >> thank you back to you Mr. Thank you, Madam Chair. We'll now go to the red discussion scheduled for 11:30 a.m. Uh we'll ask at this time if there's any
request for withdrawals or deferrals from this time frame, Mr. Burn. >> Uh yes, we'll be seeking a deferral for 183 St. Pat Street. >> How much time would you Oh, go ahead. Read it into the record. Sorry. Yeah.
Okay. Um, so this request will be for case BOA 1741777 with the address of 183 St. Patal Street. Yes. Would you go ahead and explain, please? >> Uh, yes. Uh, good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Justin
Burns. I'm an attorney with Pini and Norton Business Address, 10 10 Forbes Road, Brainree, Mass. uh we'll be seeking a deferral for this project as we are in an ongoing discussion with landmarks as to some design components of the project as we have been for the past few months. We believe that we are
currently moving in the right direction might have um settled the issue soon but we just need another month or two um to iron out final details of that process. >> Okay, Caroline, a month or two? Um, so
Justin, are you looking more for June, July, or August? >> Um, just to give ourselves a bit of a runway, can can we do July? >> Yeah, we have July 14th or July 28th. >> We'll do July 28th. >> Okay. Okay. With that, may I have a
motion? >> Motion to July 28th. >> May I have a second? >> Second, >> Mr. Stambridge. Yes, >> Mr. Valencia. >> Yes, >> Mr. Langum.
>> Yes, >> Miss Weell. >> Yes, >> Miss Taran. >> Yes, >> Mr. Bernell. >> Yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. See you then. >> Thank you all.
So with that we will if there are no further requests for withdrawals of deferrals from 11:30 then we will go to case BOA179 0078 with the address of 58 Bullet Street. If
the applicant andor their representative are present, would they please explain the case? is the applicant for poet treat on >> I think I see the applicant um is general error
you're you can unmute yourself Okay. I think they are still in the attendee section. >> I believe I think yes I believe my architect is uh is joining now. >> I think he's also as a panelist now. Yeah. if you can.
>> Hello. >> Can you guys hear me? >> Yes, we can. Please. >> Oh, thank you. I think the camera is a little dark here. I'm going to turn around and get a little bit better light. So, sorry about that. Sorry. Hello everyone. Thank you
for uh having us today. Um I want to say thank you to chairman of the board. Um, so this project is a it's a five unit building and we're proposing uh where we'll have a a one unit on the ground floor which is elevated a little bit so we can provide
parking in the back of the building and the other two floors will have uh um four units two units on each floor. This project the units are basically identical two bedrooms, two baths
about 1,000 square ft. Um uh we try to keep the building thing in terms of height comparable to the to many of the buildings that we see on the streets. Uh there there are a lot lot of large three families uh that are approximately the
same the same height and and scale. uh we we we we are dealing with a with a slope where uh where we we I think when we when we get to uh final um permitting that we may need to make some adjustments to but I think what what
we're doing here is uh okay thank you so as I Mr. cycling showing the unit on the ground floor and the parking being provided uh uh in the in the back side of the building by by by using the current curb cut and and and and going
to the back for parking. And here are the units on the on the ground floor, two bedrooms, two bath, and the upper floors with floors two and three. Identical again, two bedroom, two bath. And these are the elevations um elevation on Ben Street and elevation
on B Street. have these basic detail that you guys will not be necessarily with right now. So we have we sorry there was there was a note here. Um
so if you can go in the last in the very last page. Okay the these pages show some rendering that we did kind of show the scale of the building how it fits into the neighborhood. There are a lot of fat roof buildings. As a matter of fact, there's a building right next door to us kind of in the back of a building
which is a much larger uh apartment building, but that's but in terms of uh but in terms of height, our building would probably be slightly smaller while at the same time maybe being in the same scale as the building across the street that you can
see those wood frame uh three families across the street uh that are that are prevalent throughout the neighborhood and uh And the final flag is just a uh you know front elevation of the building on on Bordens
that will be on Bullet Street. Thank you. >> With that we open to any questions that you may ask. >> Questions from the board hearing? None. We'll take public testimony. >> Madam chair and members of the board for
the record my name is Jeremy Benbury. I am the dojusta community engagement specialist for the office of neighborhood services. The applicant has completed the community process which consisted of an abuters meeting held on December 4th as well as a civic meeting with the Mont Bowden Veteran Civic Association. The civic and the neighbors
opposed due to poor relationships between proponent and the neighborhood. Not satisfied with answers the proponent gives. For example, unclear about location of trash and trash management as well as no green space. Lastly, uh voters did specify that they were concerned about the character of the
building being in line uh with the alignment with other buildings uh on the street. Uh to date, our office has received one letter of opposition from the Mount B Mount Bowden Betterment Civic Association maintaining the previously mentioned opposition. Thank you for your time in the mayor's office of neighborhood services. I'd like to
defer to the board for the agenda. >> Thank you, >> Madame Chair. We don't have additional comments. >> Any any other comments or questions from the board? Is there a motion? Um before a motion, Madam Chair, um can
the uh applicants um the representative respond to the comments that were just made? >> Yeah, I would I would like to to respond to that if I may. Um we did have uh a few meetings uh with the neighborhood and uh and one of the comments that we
we heard was regarding um maybe the building back a little bit uh to have some little bit of more green space in the front. also the location of the of of the uh the trash how it would be picked up. Uh we have since uh uh uh
figured out that there there are multiple ways we can do it. Uh I know there were there was some conversation about some folks not not wanting large uh dumpster where where where you'll have a truck come in and making noise and picking up the trash. Some people would prefer uh to have individual just
really it's a fairly small building with four units. people have individual bins where they can actually come down and and and use for their own purposes. So these are all items I mean from from from the comments that we receive from the neighborhood they were pretty pleased with the building as it as as it looked. There were some issues about
maybe providing a little bit more green space and also regarding the trash location area and and and I think one of the one of issues that one of the things we promised the neighborhood is while while if we are sent to work with BPDA these are the items that we will be glad
to to work out with work with the BBDA design officials and trying to modify the the design to to satisfy those concerns. We don't think these are hard this is the tall task. we can easily accommodate some of the concerns that that we heard from the neighborhood meetings. Uh again, we thought they were
wellreceived. There were a couple minor comments regarding those the items that I mentioned, but we don't think we don't think those are issues that we'll have any problem addressing. I think we I think the the size, the number of units and the fact that we're providing five parking spaces for five units, I
think those were wellreceived. So, we felt like the major hurdles we were able to accomplish and satisfy. So these minor items I think through the BBDA review process we should be able to to get to to a satisfactory uh conclusion. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> Thank any other questions from the board. May I have a motion? >> Madam Chair, I'll make a motion of approval with providers from the plane department.
um that the front yard's depth be increased at least 4 ft on the front on the lot frontages facing Bullet Street and Bowden Street and that the plans be submitted to the planning department for design review with special attention to
the site plan and parking design. >> Thank you. Is there a second? >> Mr. Stumbridge? >> Yes. >> Mr. Valencia? >> Yes. Mr. Langum. >> Yes.
>> Yes. >> M. Turner. >> Yes. >> Mr. Bernell. >> Yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck. Welcome. >> Yep. Next we have case BOA 1 180 0610
with the address of 1740 High Park Avenue. Um >> yes, I need to recuse myself in this case. >> I will be recusing myself from this case too. >> Okay, we will be a five member board. I
think Mr. Mr. Were you done reading it into the record? >> Uh yes, Madam Chair. Um and >> okay, >> there is a note that it does have a um something from the from the planning department. So I would say this is
article 80 case. And with that um if the if the applicant andor their representative are present with their >> Thank you, Mr. December. Uh good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the board. Attorney John Pulgier in behalf
of this proposal 1740 High Park Avenue. With me today is uh John Garland, the team architect, and we appreciate this opportunity to uh present this proposal. Um and yes, it is in article 80. Um 1740 High Park A. The zoning is local industrial. This lot size is 11,251
square ft. The proposal before you was to develop the currently underutilized construction yard at 1740 High Park A and construct a new five store new five-story 42 unit residential building with on-site parking. The unit mix of the new building will be 18 one beds, 22
two beds, and two threebedrooms. Seven of these units will be affordable under the city's inclusionary development pol zoning policy, excuse me. Uh residents will have access to outdoor patios and roof decks, amenity space. Additionally, there'll be 19 garage spaces um along
with onetoone residential park bike parking. This project is a result of an intensive fi uh pre-file process with input from both the BPDA as well as the MBTA and it was approved by the Boston Planning Department board on September 18th, 2025. The proposal will enliven
the stretch of High Park Avenue, which is located at a quarter defined by aging industrial uses with new residential opportunities that will provide a great boost to the city's housing stock while having minimal negative effect on the surrounding neighborhoods. Additionally, proposals located adjacent to the
Reedville commuter rail station, an area that has been identified as a residential grove corridor by the city's planning study. I will now pass it over to John Garland uh to go through the plans and I'm happy to answer any questions um at the conclusion of his presentation. Thank you.
>> Thank you, John. Uh good morning, Madame Chair, members of the board. I'm Jonathan Garland with JGE Architecture and Design. We're the architects for the project. Um I'll walk you through a brief slide presentation. So here you see to the middle right hand side of the slide the site location. We're bounded
by the MBTA commuter rail yard to the right as well as High Park Avenue, the main thoroughfare here. Uh and then the Reedville residential district uh to the left of the plan. Uh this is a series of photographs just looking at the uh
curvature of the of the hill along High Park Avenue. Our site is just u south of that in this drawing. Uh this is an image from uh down at the lower edge of the site directly adjacent to the rail tracks. Uh we're experiencing what is
currently a 17 foot grade change between the lower aspect of the site and what's up at the street level uh high park AB just over this stone wall. Uh these in in this image these three images in the bottom show what has recently been approved in the area and what's
currently going through the city's process. In fact, the building to the far right is uh pretty nearly complete in terms of construction. Um, and then again just for context, our project is in this uh beige color in the in the lower middle here just to give
you a sense of what's planned for the area and then uh comparatively the size and scale of our project. This is a site survey that just shows a lot of the meats and bounds and uh site logistics of the current day condition.
We also wanted to show the elevation uh the straight-on look of the building in the context of uh our neighbors to the left. The two projects to the left, 1702 and 1690, are going through the city's permitting process. And again, comparatively, we're a much smaller
building to the far right on this image. As far as open space and streetscape improvements, we've worked really diligently with the Boston planning department, the landscape urban design uh team there to provide uh street trees uh realignment of the street network to
incorporate a bike lane as well as uh visitor bike parking on the street. Uh and that's been a collaboration with our budding properties as well. Uh and then we're showing what is ample ve vegetation and uh a furnishing zone right in front of the entrance of the
new building. This is a streetscape section that shows again vehicles on High Park Avenue, the bike lane, uh street trees, walkable sidewalks, and then a planting zone right right in front of the building. Some of the pallet uh exterior material
pallet that we're considering. Uh this is the the site section looking through the site. So again, High Park Avenue is higher. Um then there's a grade drop of of about 161 17 ft to the MBTA access road. The building itself
above grade will be approximately 58 ft. Uh the lowest level of the plan is the parking level which is down adjacent to the MBTA rail yard. Um flush with that condition and we're showing uh parking that lines the perimeter. Bike access is
also down at this floor and elevator and stair access comes down to this lower level. Up at street level, High Park Avenue, we're showing the main entry uh common living room space as far as amenities and then a balance of 1, two, and threebedroom units around the
perimeter. Up at the very top, uh we are showing a roof deck that looks out uh back toward the city skyline. And then a couple of exterior images. So, our building is right here in the foreground. Uh, then you can see SE uh
1702 just off uh in the distance there. We're also working creatively to restore and retain the WPA wall uh that's on the site and part of a historical element uh within the neighborhood. A shot looking back the opposite direction toward Reedville uh where our
building is is further back in this uh cream color and and warm tone metal accent. As far as the material palette, we're looking at an artisan fiber cement siding, composite metal panel in this brown warm color, uh gray uh a warm gray
uh full depth brick at the base of the building, storefront glazing where the entry is, and then punch windows uh at the residential floors. That concludes our presentation. I'll turn it back to uh John and to members of the board for any questions. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Are there questions from the board? >> Yeah, I have I have one small question. >> I might have missed something. Will it Will there will there be any handicap units in this building?
>> I there will be. Go ahead, John. >> I didn't hear you. >> Yes, there will be. >> Okay. How many units? >> Uh there will be um uh five. Sorry, I'm going to do the math
right right now. 5%. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Sure. Yep. About two units. >> Other questions from the board. >> May I have public testimony? >> Yes, madame chair, members of the board, Connor Newman with the mayor's office of
neighborhood services. At this time, the mayor's office like to defer to the judge from this board. So back information says uh this went through a Boston planning like community process over the summer of 2025 ultimately receiving board approval in
the fall of 2025 September I believe. Um they did meet with the Greenville Watch uh civic in this area uh which was opposed. Um I understand their primary concern uh was the parking ratio. They would have liked to have seen more onsite parking. Uh with that information
we'll defer to the board. Thank you. Thank you, >> Madame Chair. We don't have additional comments. >> Okay. >> Any other questions from the board? >> Do you want to speak to the parking comment, Mr. Poini?
>> Sure, Madam Chair. So, as I stated in my presentation, this proposal is literally on the community rail station. Our backyard is the community rail station. So, we went through a planning study with the BPDAS associated with the article A process and they thought the
ratios of parking were um uh adequate and working with them that's how we came up with the these parking ratios. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> That may I have a motion? >> Motion make a motion of approval with uh
planning department review. >> Is there a second? >> A second. Mr. Stambridge, >> yes. >> Mr. Valencia, >> yes. >> Mr. Langum, >> yes. >> Miss Weo,
>> yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. >> Thank you everybody. Enjoy your day. >> Thank you. >> Okay. And with that, it looks like uh we'll take a break again until 12 until the 12:00 p.m. interpretation.
Okay. Mr. Stumbridge >> present mad >> Mr. Valencia >> present >> Mr. Langum >> present. Madam Chia, >> Miss Weell
>> present. Madam Chair, >> Miss Turner >> present. >> Mr. Bernell, >> present, madam chair. >> Thank you. Mr. Stbridge. >> Yes, madam chair. Um, we are here for
the interpretation case schedule for noon time and this is for case BOA 1834 4448 with the address of 87 West 7th Street.
If the applicant andor their representative, I am someone from inspectional services present. Would they please explain? >> Okay, I'm going to James. I'm going to elevate
you as as a panelist. You are ready to mute yourself. You're available to mute yourself now. should be Joe Hanley and Nick Suza. >> Maybe they're on um Tim Zoom.
>> Yeah, Joe is supposed to be present. That's true. I don't know if they having trouble with their audio. Are are those folks able to get back in or what happened? >> They already
>> Okay, so >> James is on the panel section. I'm not sure. >> Hey, Madam Chair. This is attorney Nick Suzula. Sorry, Joe Hanley and I were having trouble. I don't know why. Maybe we joined a little too late. Um, I believe Jesus, attorney Hanley's on as
an attendee. If you could move him up and apologies to the board on our behalf for the technical issues. Um, Jesus, he should be on. There we go. And I believe attorney Hanley should be now on with myself
uh shortly. I think he's on now as a panelist. >> Okay. See, leaving the best for last, so don't disappoint. >> Understood. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Sorry about that. Members of the board um with you now. I assume this has
already been called into the record and I maybe have an opportunity to present. >> Yes, please. >> Yes, ma'am. Okay. Um, so, uh, again, for the record, attorney Joe Hanley, McDerman, Quilty, Miller, and Hanley. I'm here with my partner Nick Soul, as
well as attorney Mike Ford, uh, and our client who is the owner and, uh, applicant here, Jim O'Donn. Um, so this is a a a pretty simple uh interpretation
matter. Um we uh previously we had submitted what you're going through now which is basically a 92 uh page submission but really it's encompassed in the three page three to four pages of uh our letter and outline and the
exhibit shows some really helpful information. So existing property site at 87 uh West 7th Street in South Boston. It is a long blighted and distressed three-story residential
building um that has been on uh the record with inspectional services in the housing court as a derelch property. Um, my client uh acquired uh the property um recently, just recently, totally
unrelated from the previous owner uh and uh went to the assessing department in the city uh at that point um to have an inspection uh done by them because there was some sort of a
confusion as to the records with assessing uh as to whether uh it's assess as a single family or a three family. Um the facts of the matter are clearly shown in the attached as well as
in all the city records. Um that this is a precode uh three family. Uh it is we believe that it's it's remained as a three family since probably 1954. Uh, and there are uh, records to support
this. And there's also uh, a March 2026 um, inspection report by James Sullivan uh, noting that the three family building is uninhabitable and needs quite a bit of work. Um, we petition ISD
through its occupancy committee. Uh and this request is uh to ask for reconsideration of their determination in compliance with the commissioner's bulletin. Um we were told that it should
instead be a two family. uh that is not supported by either the facts in the field nor any uh filings with the city and most importantly it would be uh contrary to established land use practices in the city of Boston and this
board. So very quickly um this threestory building there are existing units on each floor. Uh they all each of which have their own doors, their own kitchen, their own bath, their own um
they each have their own uh separate gas and electric service connections. If you go into the basement of the building, uh there are three former gas main hookups in the basement and an old fuse box with
three separate sockets again uh for the three units. Uh the condition of the property had our architect in addition to uh the assessor and Mr. Sullivan and there was another recent inspection uh
by ISD yesterday clearly shows that uh there has been no work done to this building uh for several decades. There's no question uh that it that it was never uh made into a single family and that it
has been a uh a three family. What's at issue here is in 1981 uh it appears as if um there was a uh filing to change occupancy to a three family by the prior owner uh and to
install a stove in the basement. That work was never done. There was never a uh permit issued. There was never any inspections and there was never a CO issued. Um, subsequently in 2003 to
2013, it was taxed uh uh reverted to a three family for taxation. And there was a property card in those records that noted that the owner then needed to uh convert uh to a three family for approximately 200,000 in order to take
advantage of a single family taxation. Again, that work was never done. There's no records in the city. There's no inspections. And so the point being here, Madam Chair, members of the board, is it's my understanding that, for example, if I have a piece of land and I
come to you and I ask for approvals for a new six-story building and 100 units, um, I don't get that occupancy unless and until, uh, I do the work. Uh, I have it inspected and I have it certified. So
uh this this building is a three family. It has been it's been recognized as such on uh in 1954 1964 1981 in the ISD building jacket which is part
of the exhibit. Um the commissioner's bulletin does not um the assessing categorization while it looks like maybe the prior owner at one point was able to take advantage of a lower tax basis without doing any work that does not
change the occupancy and it's also not provided for in the commissioner's bulletin. And so our final conclusion is is that uh you know this is a property where the public and the city has a strong interest in seeing its derelic
condition um removed and restored. All my client is looking to do is take advantage of uh the ASIS conditions and the pre-code use uh and to improve this building so that it is productive uh for
three family housing. uh if it was uh deemed to be a single or a two that would cost significant uh resources and take structural modifications to reto it restore it to something that we don't believe uh ever existed and and with
that I'll I'll I'll rest and let this speak for itself. But thank you. Can I ask when when uh it was last occupied uh and how was it occupied?
>> Yeah. So, so, um, the family that, so my client, uh, uh, closed on it in November of, uh, 25. And prior to that, there was, my
understanding is the gentleman who lived there passed away. And so, this was um through through some sort of an estate. And due to its condition and some of these aspects, it was a, you know, and it stayed on the market for a while
because not every buyer could get their hands around it. Um, I will say that before my client closed on the transaction because we noticed this issue with it with assessing. uh he went down and visited the assessing department and that's when
they did uh an inspection and that's when we went through this process of seeking occupancy committee review through the commissioner's bullets and I and I I do think you know we had several discussions with ISD uh council
for ISD in particular uh noting the numerous housing court actions and apparently this building prior to my client's ownership of it was stores of a lot of uh nuisance and headache uh for the city and the neighborhood.
>> On either side of the building are threestory buildings. Is this a three family three family district or do you know >> it's it's actually I'm sorry Mr. Stenberg if I understand you correctly.
Uh yeah threetory building. Uh each floor has a unit that seems to have been there unchanged and certainly unimproved for several decades. Um and the underlying zoning. >> So three families are common in the neighborhood.
>> I'm sorry. >> So like like 85 is 85 a three bedroom three family or a two family? >> It's it's a butter 85. What is that? Sorry, I'm not I'm not I'm losing the the volume the uh
>> it's it's a butter 85. Are they a also are they a three family? >> I have no idea what they are. Maybe Mr. Donahghue does >> not. Madam Chair, Mr. Stembridge. Yes. It's a condo building next door and we are in a
multifamily residential subdist and so the use isn't a lot of use as a three family. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Other questions from the board? >> I have a question, Madam Chair. Um, so my understanding is
nonconforming uses are abandoned after 2 years if they're not sort of maintained. So if this wasn't a three family for the last 2 years, how can we sort of deem it a
three family to maintain that sort of non conforming use or structure that it, you know, there's no doubt it was at some point, but it seems like the use has been a mix over time, but can you speak to the kind of twoyear?
>> Yeah, I respectfully it hasn't been a mix over time. It's it's never been anything but a three family. So the prior owner was trying to take advantage of lower taxes without doing any work and without getting a new occupancy. So it's not a
question of abandonment. It it would be arbitrary and totally illogical to establish any other occupancy cuz there's no there is no certainly no record of a single family that hasn't
been abandoned. Again, if you look at the exhibits, this use oxy occupancy goes back to 1954. It's recognized again uh in the '60s and again in 1981 which is when I assume they tried to take
advantage of the less taxes and then um you know was again categorized as a three because this is about revenue to the city right and uh you have you have records in there where uh the owner um
was directed and apparently suggested that it was going to change the occupancy But that work was never done and again you can't so so it it can really only revert to one thing and that would be
you know it's established existing use. There is no um recent history for a single family or anything else. And then if you look at the field conditions, um it's pretty clear, you know, you have three separate demising units with no
recent work done in several decades. I mean, I think it speaks for itself. And you also have a report from the inspector that confirms that as well as a visit from the assessing department. So I don't think it's an issue of abandonment. I think it's uh again to
what would be the legal basis to call it anything else but which it has been as a precode structure under the zoning code. >> Well, can I ask a question? Did what when was the last time somebody lived
there? Because did you say the owner lived there and passed away? That indicates one person living there. Yeah. >> So maybe my related question is when was the last time there were three different
occupants in the since you're saying it was a three family. When was the last time all three units were occupied by different families? >> I do not I do not know how many people lived with him, but certainly you can you can live in a three family and live
on one unit. If you look at that 1981 uh notation in the assessing card, it said that he was staying in the first floor. I'm sorry, 2018. >> He was um he died in late 24 and there
was people in the house until then. >> Yeah. So they >> So I think the question is prior to this owner when because you're saying it was a it's it was a three family. When was the last it was occupied as a three family. So not this current person
who obviously is in one unit >> right up until the point it was you know till he passed. Go ahead Jim. Jim O'Donnell. So, >> yes. So, the gentleman passed in late 24.
So, and I bought it. The gentleman passed away in late 2024 and then it went into the probate and then I purchased it in November of 25. So, it was on the market from like August until November.
Well, and it appears to be have been on the market as a single family because I I' I've looked it up on several different places, Red Fin, Zillow, whatever they're calling it a single family. >> That that is a fair statement because the broker looked it up on the tax record and called it a single because
that's what the tax record, but as Joe explained, there's some underlying conditions there that make that >> Yeah. And it was purchased as is. And you know there was citation by the with all due respect by the commissioner of
um the MLS marketing sheet which uh also is not um is not um part of the commissioner's bulletin and it's it's really not determinative at all whatsoever. So this this was purchased as is. And I mean, you know, you had a
three family where the owner was living in one of the units and certainly never did the work to um convert it. I think there would be a huge injustice if you were to just arbitrarily suggest that this is some other use that there's no
record um certainly after adoption of the code to support that. We know what pre-code structures and how they're governed after the adoptment of the uh uh zoning code in 1967. And I um just to clarify myself
purchasing the property, I did not proceed to PNS until the assessor visited the property in person and confirmed it was a tree family because there was some confusion as to the occupancy by the tax people. So I went and talked to the assessor. They came
out and looked at it and said, "No, this is a tree family." And they readjusted the assessing for the 1st of January 2026 to reflect that fact that it's a tree family. >> I understand that. I just I don't think assessing can determine zoning. I think
it's very common for people to have units that aren't legalized and then they're taxed or in the assessor's database as such. But but how could you change? >> I'm sorry. I guess the question is how
could you change this to a single if no work was ever done and the pre-code occupancy is unchanged and you're seeing these conditions with no work that was ever done.
What else? I guess what else could it go back to my original question because no one's answered my question about prior occupancy. So, you keep talking about the most recent owner, but I I'm just asking when are you aware if there was a
time when there were in fact three separate uh occupants in the units? >> Is do you have any evidence of that? >> Well, you can see from the >> you you can see from the conditions that
everything is there and there was like remnants of people's lives. like, you know, piece of furniture, the stove, a lot of stuff has been removed, but like there was pictures on the walls, that type of stuff. >> Yeah. And the other thing I might say is
we don't have any evidence, nor does the city, to suggest that it wasn't. And and what's important about abandonment under the code is that it's not automatic. It's a determination that's made by the building commissioner. So, you know,
Commissioner Joseph never made that determination unless he's making it now as part of our occupancy committee, but nobody ever came in to say, well, the the three family is abandoned. Uh, and there are other circumstances that extend that, how you're marketing it,
whether you're using it, right? Um, so I I I don't think that has changed. >> So, with that, uh, is Mr. Joseph on to speak to ISD's um perspective. >> Yes, he's on the attend section, but
he's able to unmute himself. >> Okay. Could he >> Commissioner Joseph? >> Hi, Commissioner Joseph. Uh if you can unmute yourself. You are you have the ability to im yourself now
there. yourself. Commissioner Joseph, >> I see another person with the number 106. >> Yes, you you can if it's you, you can. >> Commissioner Joseph, >> we're not taking public testimony. Is
that Is that Commissioner Joseph? Yeah, he's numbing right now >> to make the world. on the screen. >> Yes, you are. >> Good morning everyone. Good morning board members. Good morning, Madame Chairs. Good morning, Joe. Good morning,
James Duo. Uh, SM Joseph, building commissioner ISD. I am the one that been working on this for the last past few months. Uh, and I have done my due diligence to be
always fair. And my determination was fair to this. uh my determination was based on documents and data that was in front of me without having the permits of 1981.
The permit of 1981 came yesterday and if I know that there was a permit for one family, uh the occupancy committee would have wouldn't have done anything about this one here. But since I do not have that
permits and when Mr. O'Donnado applied for this, he said no record of occupancy and it was my duty and others to ask to give an occupancy to this. What we did
madame chair, we sent from the assessing department. We sent inspectors there and we checked the records. This is what accessing department tell us. From 1919, from uh 2019
to 2025, it was one family assessing department. From 2018 to 2002 to 2018,
he was three family. from 1985 to 2001 it was a two family. So my decision to allow it to be a two
family when I combined the two family for 16 years and I combined the one family for one year and I thought it was very fair to give it a two family. But what we learned we learned that Mr. Jim
this house was advertised as one family. He was purchased also as one family. Mr. Dun who came here. This is information I got yesterday before he applied for the permit and the
document room advised them told him that it's a one family and there is one mailbox and my team went there a couple times. They couldn't locate gas location. They couldn't locate uh electrical
um mirrors. Of course, there are some pedals there, but those mirrors are not there. And he said three kitchens. We cannot see three kitchens there. I was able to see two kitchens based on the all the plot
plans, all the photos that they provided was two kitchens and means of eress become a problem. They have a a fire escape that goes to some of the units, but did not go to all of them. So this is something that needs to be totally
rebuilt and this department is not comfortable to allow it as a twe family since it was not a TW family from 2019 to 2025. It was when it was purchased.
The no order run to assessing department because he was coming here to apply for a three and then he told assessing department is a three family but assessing department at that time get it as a one family. So that's the true
matter of the problem of the tank here. I believe I was extremely generous for giving this to family and if I've known before yesterday there was a permit permit number 1981
issued 1981 permit number 1182 that allow it to be only one family. That's part of the record here to legalize occupancy as a one family dwelling in one person was living there for the time at the time Mr. Donov
bought the place advertised as one. When I asked him for the for the papers that he bought it, he didn't want to provide that to me. I had to do my own research to get this informations. So when they claimed that I did made a mistake there,
there was no mistake made. I was extremely thorough and generous and allow this to be a two family. And based on what I see here, I might have to revoke the two family and keep the permit that was issued in 1981 as a
one family because and then he can go through the process of applying for to change from one to three as the building commissioner. I can do that. >> Thank you. Madam >> questions questions from the board. >> I'm sorry.
>> Can I just see if there are questions? >> Yes. >> Yes, madam chair. So now we're here, we hear from the commissioner that, you know, due to information received yesterday, the 1981 permit was closed out as a single family. Is that correct?
>> Yes. Yes. >> Okay. I guess I would just defer to the law department as to whether you know do we defer this to let the commissioner revoke that determination he made as a two or how should we
proceed here? >> Oh, we we would like to object based on the the um 1981 permit which we enclo which we actually provided to the board. There was no CO this morning. Joe, I provided that this morning to the board, not you. I know.
>> So, so we'll take a continuence or something. You can't I if I'm here representing my client, I need to have the opportunity to see the government's uh supposed document. We I have a 1981 filing that was never closed out and
there was never a CO issued. So, >> well, the the 1985 they had a CO either. >> Okay. So you're saying in in your comments that all you have is assessing records, not occupancy records establishing a single
>> uh can I >> work was never done. >> Madam chair, >> let me respond to that. >> Yeah. >> Often when there is no record, we go to the assessing department to help us to make a determination on on the true occupancy. Usually we go back 25 years
from 1985 to 2000 2020 that give us 25 years. If someone has been paying taxes on an occ on on a number of dwellings for 25 years, we think it's fair to give that person that occupancy.
But this one here has been zigzagging. Three family, two family, one family playing games. So we don't and then you purchase the gym as one. It was advertised as one. We have record
now that just came to light. It was one 2019 they come and legalize it as one. We have one mailbox in front of the buildings. So all these things as building officials I have to make
decisions. These are the reasons those decisions were made. One mailbox. Where are the three mailbox? Since the last time three people live there. Yes. Answer that question. >> Yes. Yes. So, so Mr. Commissioner, you're talking about 25 years ago. Um,
and then you're also saying that you are reliant on the assessing records. So, the assessing records, you'll see this in our exhibit from 2003 to 2018. You don't have to go 25 years back. shows it
as a three family and then in 2018 their property card notes that it needs to be converted uh the work needs to be converted to a single in order to take advantage of
that. So it follows that from 1981 while there was a permit issued the work was never done because clearly we know that 2003 is later and up to 2018 madame chair and members of the board it's
still a three family it's never been converted. So and then to answer just quickly because I think this is important if we can go back to uh the presentation exhibit A um Mr. Uh the commissioner talked about one mailbox. Um
it's an interesting fact. It's clearly not if you look at the preponderance of the ex of the conditions, it's very clear that a single mailbox doesn't establish uh a single unit. This is the photos that are very clear. Um, and one
of the things that wasn't included in in the commissioner's occupancy committee was his own inspector's report which found this to be and Mr. uh O'Donn was there when that inspection was happening. If you can go back um uh and
we can provide an affidavit where the his own inspector suggested this is a long existing tree. So >> you let the ambassador know where you need them to go. >> Yeah. Mr. O'Donn, why don't you take us through the photos here? Okay. the next page. >> Yeah. >> Yep. Next page. There you go. What are
we seeing here, Jim? >> So, if you uh enter the building and you start in the basement, there's three meter there's three gas lines. And so, let me just back up. The buildings have been vandalized several times over the last year for scrap. And people have
removed everything of value from the building, including a lot of the piping, the appliances, the uh electrical wiring, the copper pipe, and the pull stuff out. The neighbors have stopped them from entering the building several times, and
we've stopped people going in and out several times trying to steal more more pieces. So if we start in the building in the basement, we have three gas meter bars and some of them are vandalized, but you can see three connections there. Then on
the next one, if you move on, you should see three fuse boxes. So there's the meter bars. You can see them. >> One, two, three. >> One, two, three. And actually, there's one missing now. Somebody broke in last week and they were stealing again and um
we stopped them. They were taking more pipe out. We stopped them from taking more out of the building. And if you roll on, please. So, these are again the three fuse boxes. The gray box on the bottom is a fuse box that goes to each apartment. And then there's electric meters, but
one has been stolen. And that that again happened when we were there before we got to take the pictures and that. >> Yeah. So the other photos which clearly show a single unit with demising walls with
kitchen and bath on each floor. Now if you have one mailbox I think what you need to do is weigh that uh based on your own inspector's report and and our live account of that as testation that is this is clearly uh an uninhabitable
three family. And I I just think if if you're going to rely on a 1981 permit that was never uh certified and the work was never done and you have records in front of you in 2018 that show that um
that's a a clear dereliction of of of the duty of the city here. >> Can I raise my hand? >> Yep. >> Sorry again, Madam Chair. The 1981 permit number 1182. It was to legalize occupancy as one
family dwelling. It was not to do work. It was to just to legalize it from what it was before to a one family. So the one person can stay there and live there. So that's the thing. And so you
cannot go back in time to get occupancy even though if you spend and after 2 years you lose your occupancy if you do not use it. So >> right so that single family was abandoned and then in 2003 to 18 Joe
>> you let the commissioner finish. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Allow me it was not abandoned. Joe the man died. They sold the property and then they sold it as a single family. It was purchased as such a single family. Uh the no owner came here to tent
massive went to our document room. They gave them the occupancy of the building as a single family. Went to the assessing department. He made them changed it as a three family in 2026
after he purchased it in November 2025. Few weeks later he realized that what he wanted to do you went to the assessing and told him oh can you change it to three for me I I want to start paying three that's >> so that so that we can pay more taxes
but >> it was one family >> commissioner commissioner you you are right you can't go back to establish occupancy but you can go forward and what you're doing is you're jumping from 81 to 2025 and you're jumping over and this is
right in my letter hold on let Let me answer your question please. >> 2003 to 2018 it is taxed as a three family. >> No so I want to correct that Joe. Please allow me to allow me to correct what you just said. >> What happens then?
>> I received this permit yesterday. I just told you that if I knew there was a permit to legalize one the process of the occupancy would have never occurred. That's when I went to the assessing department. Assessing department told me
in 2019 to 2001 he was two family from 2002 to 2018 is three family and 2019 to 2025
is one family that give you a span of time of about 30 years within 30 years and I take the two family for 16 years. The one family for six years that give you 17 years that's a little bit more
than the three family. >> So the single family would have been abandoned. >> That's how I I allowed the two family to be when you >> I think you got to read our documentation. >> To give a talk to >> I think you got to look at the 2018
assessing records and the permit and if you had read that >> I did I did. All right. So, can I say something? >> Well, can I see if there are other board members with questions? >> Yes. I am wondering if if it seems that
there is a big confu confusion here about what documents are available to review. I wanted to ask maybe Caroline if there an option for us to defer this conversation so the two parties can
review uh any additional documents do documentation that they have not not seen and come back more prepared because I just feel that we are going in around in circles and I'm not getting any new information that can help me make a decision at this moment so if there is
any recommendation from uh legal for overboard members. I would like to know what are our options at this moment. >> Caroline. >> Yeah. Um so that is an option. Um as you were saying if you want to defer to see if there's more discussion that can
happen. Um as always like I defer to you and the other board members their judgments. >> And I have a question. Um maybe it's a point of clarification for the process, but um I guess I would like to know what
the homeowner is planning to do with this property and then what's the process like depending on what they're trying to do with it. What would be the process after that? >> Yeah, thank you for that. So, um Mr. Rodon plans to renovate it as is um to
clean it up. It's a terrible derelch building that you know inside and so we want to take the three family and make it into a renovated three family and to force us to go to the board of appeal would uh subject him to unfair um you
know an unfair process. It's really just unjustified for that. So really the the the public wants to see this and and has a strong interest in seeing the existing conditions here improved and that's all we're looking to do. It's not a two,
it's not a one. You can look at the photos. It's it's very clear. Um occupancy has never been established. You know, someone tried to evade taxes in the 80s that had nothing to do with us. and um my client, you know, opened
it all up and is willing to pay more taxes now and just wants to clean it up as is. >> Can I can I say something? >> Uh, sure. >> So, the there is no subdiv.
I'm not sure what Mr. Joseph is saying. I've known Mark for 25 30 years. I've been going over there and um I bought the building as a tree family with the tax office. If you go through the complete ISD jacket 100, there is no
mention of any occupancy. The last permit was 1981 and it was never closed out. I'm not sure what Mark is talking about. I have never been over in ISD in the plan room. My only call to ISD cuz everything is online record. My only
call was to Bridget last about two weeks ago and I asked her about the occupancy process and we had a conversation. That's my one and only ever call or visit to ISD. I'm I'm confused as to his statement. I
I run a very honorable business and I I keep everything above board. Like I said, there's no subuge. I looked up the record. There was no occupancy whatsoever. I said, "Why is this a single family?" I went to the tax assessor office. They said they came and looked at it. They said it was a tree
family. I did that because there was no record of occupancy ever. >> Okay. Mr. >> I think Mr. Valencia is correct. >> You said you three family. I have the
MLS number here. 73423877. >> Yes. None of that public. The fact that there was no >> Thank you guys. Thank you. >> We submitted the purchase and sale agreement which said as is. I I just want to give one second. Give me one
second please. Madam chair, he said that he wants to rebuild it as a three family. If you get rid of as a three family, >> he does not have to put sprinkler system on it. That's exactly what all this evision is about. So if you have
sprinklers are we'll put sprinklers in. >> Okay. From 2 to three you have to make code. You have to do everything that needs to be done there and then we have the record that says that's in one family as the commissioner here in
charge of this department. So I issued a permit and error thinking that there was no record and there is a record for it. My I am leaning on revoking the permits for the two family and keep the one you
have from 1981 as a single family. Then you can go through the process to change the occupancy from one to three as you always wanted and that's the way you got it. That's the way it was in the assessing department. So that's the way I would like to keep this at this point
>> and I respect my right to do that. Okay. that we have my right to do that under the >> No, you disagreed. So, >> may I may I just keep say something? I I I don't want to because of my client's rights. >> I'm repeating things. So, wrap it up. Wrap it up. >> The ramifications of this. So, it this
could go the other way. Correct. Where someone in Austin says, "Gee, that basement unit, uh, there was there was a permit that was applied for, but there was no CO, so therefore I get a two family versus a single." Okay. So if it
is the position of this board, I don't think it's that difficult um that um there's no established occupancy for a pre-code structure when there's been no change and no closed out CO then bring
forward all sorts of other stuff. It can go in the other direction and no one's going to like it. But I do reserve the right. Um I I question that 81 permit. We have it. We disclosed it. that it was never closed out and it was also uh time
passed with further changes to a three family and it's always remained as a three family. >> All right. Thank you. We have not heard anything else new. So uh any comments from the board before we make a motion? >> I mean I have a just a question for
procedures. I'm hearing the commissioner wants to change his determination to a a single family. So, how what's in front of us is to um determine whether they were right in deeming it as a two or if it's a three.
But we don't have the question in front of us if it's a one. So, how do we proceed? >> Yeah. So, right now, um it's up to the board to determine um if the board sees it as a three family versus a two
family. Um and that's That's the board's authority on this. >> However, yeah, Miss Misswell is mentioning that the commissioner is now suggesting something different than their >> Yes, Madam Chair, based on the new
information I got yesterday. >> I know, understand. So, our question to Caroline is >> Yeah. >> How does that affect any potential uh vote? >> So, if the board determines that it's a two family, it's a two family. If the board determines that it's a three
family, it's a three family. The board has the right to challenge the building commissioners determination, which is why we're here. >> Yep. That's what we're asking for. So, we'd love a vote. Um, we do think that
land court is the next avenue and and that's it's not to go back and forth and continue to have a discussion uh when the thing speaks for itself. Caroline, if we deferred this to could the commissioner
submit a new determination as a single? Yes, I can do that. I want to do that because I want to base on the 1981 permit. They asked and it was used as one and we got that yesterday that has no informations. First it was said no
record of occupancy. Now we know there was a record. So we can use that if I know that from the beginning. of this could have never gone to occupancy committee. We can't use that as a single family and we >> dispute the accuracy. >> Do that as a motion.
>> We dispute the accuracy of the commissioner's uh you know reliance and and we reiterate our request for interpretation that this be considered as a three family based on >> understand what your request is. Any
other comments from the board andor is there a motion? >> Madame chair if there's no other comments I can make a motion. Any other comments? Okay, let's make a motion. >> Uh, Madame Chair, I'm going to put forward a motion of deferral. Um, I give
a lot of deference to the commissioner here. He's in this work every single day. Um, and anytime we are being asked to overturn the commissioner's decision, at least for me, it's a really high standard of review. Um it sounds like there's some new information where the
commissioner wants to um change the determination and I think we should have that in front of us. And then I also think to the attorney's point, each case is so different. We've been asked to make this determination a couple of times now and every single time there's
just a different set of facts and evidence that we need to consider and be very careful about considering. So, I'll just say that I don't think this will set a precedent, but that's sort of where I'm um landing right now. I want to hear more about where the
commissioner's new determination will be. So, >> Okay, we have a motion to defer. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Mr. Stebridge? >> Yes. >> Mr. Valencia?
>> Yes. >> Mr. Lam, >> yes. >> Miss Weall, >> yes. >> Miss Turner, >> yes. >> Mr. Bernell, >> yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. We
will Caroline to discuss dates. >> Oh, we have to Yeah, for the record, um, so for dates, uh, Joe, what date are you thinking? Still in May, June, or July? >> Um, yeah, the sooner the better. At the pleasure of the board, of course,
>> we would just appreciate the slides discuss this further before. >> No, I think it's pretty simple. We're >> Thank you. >> We got most of this information. >> Uh, we could do May 19th, June 2nd or June 16th.
>> Mr. uh, Odonahu James, any >> May 19th's good. I I think commissioner if if you could be so kind as we could have a conference between ourselves and present the facts in a civilized manner I think we can um
>> absolutely just reach out to my show and K and schedule to have a conference with you May 19th would be great thank you madam chair thank you thank you everyone
have a good See you next time. >> Have a good day, folks. >> Have a good day.