--------- Uh, Mr. Steambridge >> present. >> Mr. Valencia >> present. >> Miss Turner >> present. >> Mr. Langum >> present. >> Miss Better Braza >> present. >> Misswell
>> present. >> Thank you. closure as Mr. Stembridge I heard uh our interpretation is here now. >> Uh yes. So I will read it into the record and we will go from there. Madam
Chair, um for the interpretation redis for 12:00 p.m. it this is case BO8168 9794
with the address of 62-6 Condor Street and I believe attorney Lind is um has some information for us. >> Yes, thank you Mr. Stebridge and I apologize madam chair and three of the
members of the board. Um the record Richard Lynn's business address of 245 Summer Street East Boston on behalf of the petitioner. Um there were a number of violations originally cited for this project uh madam chair and we uh have been successful in getting a number of
them removed uh in reviewing this further. There was a new violation uh that was cited and we uh will be requesting interpretation on that as well. Um, so at this time I I think it's just appropriate to defer this matter while I review uh the one remaining
violation that hopefully we can get ISD to agree with us on. If not, I'll resubmit for a different uh interpretation question. So brief deferral on this if that's possible. >> Okay, Caroline. >> Um, how much time do you need, Richard?
>> Um, two weeks ne next by by the next hearing I should have that wrapped up. We can do it February 3rd. >> That works. >> Okay. With that, may I have a motion? >> Motion to defer to February 3rd.
>> Have a second. >> Second. >> Yes. >> Valencia. >> Yes. >> Miss Turner. >> Yes. >> Mr. Langham. >> Yes. >> Miss Better Braza. >> Yes.
>> Miss Vwell. >> Yes. Chair votes yes. Motion carries. See you then. >> Thank you very much. Appreciate it. >> We're returning to the cases for the red discussion for 11:30. Um we have case BOA
1765915 with the address of 3430 to 3436 Washington Street. Along with that we have case BOA1767062 with the address of 3440 to 3446 Washington Street. These are both
article 8 cases. If the applicant and the representative are present, would they please explain? >> Yes. Good afternoon, madam chair, members of the board. Mark Lcast Lcast law 75 Arlington Street in Boston
attorney for the project proponent Boston real estate capital through its principal Joe Hassel. Also with us today is the project architect Mark Sullivan from Chu and Associates. And thank you so much. This is an
exciting new project along Washington Street in Jamaica Plane that is being uh has been advanced over a two-year process under article 80 pursuant to plan JP Rocks which calls for conversion of autorelated industrial uses to multif
family residential housing along the stretch of Washington Street and as noted in the BPDA memo of approval. Um, there have been many similar projects along Washington Street that have been approved. Some have been constructed,
some are in construction, some are about to be constructed. Um, but this particular site at these two parcels, 3430 and 3440, um, biseected by Rockville Circle, uh, you can leave it on that first slide
because that's a a good image. um represents a total of 230 units of new housing um along this corridor. The article 80 process was very engaged with
all of the various community groups of which there were were several different ones and as noted at the BPDA board vote approving this project in July of 2025 um all were in agreement especially the the applicant that the impact advisory
group was just a terrific roll up your sleeves kind of working group that led to many changes over the course of the process. process uh resulting in nearly unanimous approval um by the time we got to the article 80 vote process and um
and and I think that was substantial and significant. Um the BPDA board voted on July of 2025 to approve it under article 80 and each of the projects at 3430 and 3440 are as follows. at 3440.
It's a new six-story building with 130 units, two ground floor retail spaces totaling 4,450 ft and garage parking at 3440 Washington Street. It's construction of a new five-story
building for 100 units, two ground floor retail spaces of 6,340 ft, and garage parking. Um although this project was proposed and advanced uh pursuant to IDP
before it became inclusionary zoning under article 79, the project does meet um or or to some extent exceed the IDP requirements of article 79 achieving 20%
uh IDP units. So that's 46 of 230 units are subject to inclusionary zoning. And also a different metric measurement, 23% of the gross floor area of the two buildings constitutes the inclusionary
development units. So for those of you who are familiar with the stretch of Washington Street, this is the Hat Off's gas station on the project on the right of the image and uh an auto body shop on the left hand side
of the image. So precisely the types of uses contemplated by CH plan JP Rocks to be converted from industrial use to residential use. um breakdown of the specifics. The 3430 Washington Street building uh will
contain 130 units and 54 parking spaces. 3440 is 100 units with 42 parking spaces. Uh the specific breakdown is in total there are 70 studio units, 104 one-bedroom units, and 56 two-bedroom
units, which represents, you know, responsive to the community's desire for some some larger units. And there are some very interesting townhouse units along one side of the property where it steps down as it approaches the residential neighborhood. uh we lowered the building there and made those very
interesting townhouse style units with you know sort of street level access. Um again the article 80 process includes IDP units as follows. 20% in total IDP units that is 13% of
the total units will be income restricted at up to 70% of AMI and an additional 7% of the units are to be made available to households with housing vouchers qualifying at or below 110% of AMI.
And of the 46 IDP units, uh, five are studios, 18 are two bedrooms, and 23 are onebedrooms. And that aligns with the basic proportion of the market rate units in the two buildings.
There was also a community benefits package which is detailed in the board memo that includes contributions to English high school, Franklin Park Coalition, uh 826 Boston which is a nonprofit after school writing and tutoring program and
a grant to Habitat for Humanity to contribute to an affordable housing project in the vicinity. The project also meets article 37 requirements and transportation contributions for the
city's bike sharing program, bike storage, and other transportation design uh contributions. Um, with that I would like to turn it over to Mark Sullivan from Chewin Associates
to talk about sort of the architectural philosophy behind the buildings, the outdoor spaces and comment briefly also on the substantial changes that were made throughout the process which actually ultimately resulted in BCDC approval of
the design um, as part of that process. So, I'll turn it over to Mark Sullivan. Thank you, Mark. Uh, good morning, Madam Chair and members of the board. Uh, my name is Mark Sullivan, uh, with Chewin Company, uh, architects for the project. Uh, the design looks to achieve a smooth
transition, uh, from the commercial nature of Washington Street to the residential neighborhoods to the south, uh, by creating a strong street wall along that Washington Street corridor and stepping back the massing along the abuing residential typology. Enhancements to the public realm occur
on all sides of the development. Um public entry plazas along Washington Street help promote pedestrian engagement uh while introducing new landscape areas to the urban setting and signifying the building entries. Uh the continuation of widened sidewalks and
street tree plantings um continue down Rockville Circle and Kenton Road, the two smaller residential roads um that help delineate the two sites um and they help transition to that residential fabric uh mentioned at the rear of the sites to the south. Uh in terms of
materiality, the heavy masonry material helps kind of ground the Washington Street facade um to its contextual surroundings and emphasize the corners of the massing along Washington Street. Um a transition to more residential uh materiality occurs as the massing makes its way to the south towards those
residential neighborhoods. Um this includes horizontal and vertical metal paneling emulating the uh kind of more traditional um fiberment lap siding found in the uh residential design. >> And that concludes our presentation. Be
happy to answer any questions from the board. >> Thank you. Are there any questions from the board? Yeah, ma'am. Sheriff, just I wanted to ask her to de la Cass about this project was filed in 2024. If I
uh read correctly, last year we had uh this board preview a project to expand the gas station, the head of gas station and at the moment I asked why the proponent was filing two different projects at the same time. So you're
going to confirm with confirm that this is a different project from the one that we saw last year to expand the gas station and if that is correct I absolutely believe that housing is better than a gas station but I I want to hear from you. >> Yes. So Mr. Valencia, the proposal to
expand the gas station was sort of an interim measure pending this process of approval and design and financing and construction which already has you know taken two years and and may take a while longer before construction actually occurs. Um and also this hadn't
concluded the review process of approval. So the the current owner of the ash station sought to expand but that project obviously was denied by the board and this project is what is going to uh replace Hat off's gas. So housing
not gas station is is the proposal. The other one is is dead. Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. Any other questions from the board? ma'am for the testimony. >> Uh I'm not sure is somebody from ONX is speaking on behalf of this.
>> I'm sorry. Was I was I muted? >> Yes. >> Yes, we cannot hear you. >> Madam Chair, members of the board. For the record, my name is Jeremy Benbury. I'm the Jamaica Plane community engagement specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. This is an article 80 project that had public meetings uh hosted by the planning
department on October 29th of 2024, May 19th of 2025. In addition to the IIG meetings, >> we're going to be speaking >> please proceed sir. In addition uh to the IG meetings on October 21st, 2024,
March 24th, 2025, and June 23rd of 2025. This was approved by the BPDA board on July 17th of 2025. This project met with the director voters and the Stony Brook Neighborhood Association more than once and on October 6th, 2025, the Stony Brook Neighborhood Association voted to
not oppose the proposal. Uh the JP Neighborhood Council voted to approve this project on October 15th. To date, our office has not received any letters of opposition. Uh, thank you for your time and the mayor's office of neighborhood services would like to defer to the board for their judgment. Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Thanks. Next. Now we have the person Kaliga. You can now yourself. >> Okay. Thank you guys. Um, this is Ka. This project takes place in my neighborhood. I am on the steering committee of the Stony Brook Neighborhood Association as well as on
the JPNC, the JP Neighborhood Council. Um I can say that um one reason we approved this project was that the developer has been very much uh responsive to community concerns and
input and that is very refreshing. Um, and I want to so we we definitely back this project, but I also want to make a comment to the ZBA in general. Um, there
is a big concern that people are less and less listening to neighborhood concerns, neighborhood associations and councils. um even when like 90% of the feedback is against things it sails through all the
alphabet ZBA ISD BPDA and to have a developer that is responsive is one reason that we approve this. We will work with any developer, but our job as counselors and as
neighborhood association members is to preserve quality of life the people in the neighborhood. We fight for that and we feel like we're fighting you a lot of the time. I just want you to know that because you need to start listening to
the neighborhood and you need to understand that there's a balance with all of this. It's not just build bill build. Okay. Thank you very much. >> Thank you, >> Madam Chair. There are no additional comments.
>> Okay. With that, may I have a motion? >> Madam Chair, this is a really good project. I appreciate the effort that the developer put to engage the community. And I make a motion of approval. Is there a second? >> Second again.
>> Mr. Stumbbridge. >> Yes. >> Mr. Valencia. >> Yes. >> Miss Turner. >> Yes. >> Mr. Langum. >> Yes. >> Miss Better Braza? >> Yes.
>> Miss. We >> Yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. >> Thank you. Kindly members of the board. >> Good luck. >> Next we have Excuse me. Next we have case BOA
171 9823 with the address of 32 Gordon Street. The applicants and board representatives. I believe attorney Morancey is present. Would they please explain the case to report?
>> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Spebridge. Good afternoon, Madame Chair, members of the board. My name is George Morancey. I'm an attorney with the business address 350 West Broadway in South Boston. I represent City Realy in this matter. Uh joining me from City Realy is Jacob Simmons. Also here is Eric Zacerson, the
project architect. This petition seeks variances for use, lot area for dwelling units, four area ratio, usable open space, sideyard setback, and off- streetet parking in order to complete the proposed conversion of an existing
three-unit building into a sixunit residential building located at 32 Cordon Street in a 3F4000 zoning subdist. Uh the property is located on a residential side street in Alustin between North Beacon and uh Cambridge
Street near Harvard Avenue. As noted in the planning recommendation, the immediate context here is compact residential uh a compact residential block characterized by triple deckers and small multifamily buildings. The site
lies near the Western Avenue and Harvard Avenue corridors, both identified in Alston Brighton community plan as transition zones with growing housing demand and incremental density pressures. This is a current three-story three
family structure as I say which is typical of Mston's early 20th century residential housing stock. Under the application, we are seeking zoning relief in order to expand the building's residential capacity through an internal reconfiguration of space and modest
exterior alterations consistent with recent smallcale infill patterns observed across similar three family districts in Alustin where mobile conversions are increasingly occurring as a reinvestment in or adaptation of
older housing talk as to the violations and requested zoning relief. There is a use violation as I noted for the proposed six dwelling units where uh where the multif family use does exceed that maximum three limits
under zoning. Um the proposed use here still remains residential in character and consistent with surrounding multif family structures on Gordon Street. The proposed use would not change the character. Simply it would be a matter of better utilizing the existing
threetory envelope. As to the lot area, uh in a three or 4,000, there's essentially a 2,000 square foot per unit minimum lot size requirement. Uh here with six units, we would be at approximately 868 square ft given that
the parcel is approximately 4344 ft. But the additional units here would be achieved as I say through an interior reconfiguration rather than an expansion of the building. So the project continues to respect the neighborhood scale. As the plan shows the proposal
here is not to build out uh rather this would be building more uh more efficiently within what is already there. With respect to F the resulting F would be approximately 1.09 09 whereas8
is the maximum. This increase arises not from the change in the building's massing but from extension of living space into the basement and attic which are common conditions in nearby properties. What's being proposed is converting
underutilized basement and attic space, not creating additional building bel notes that given the small lot pattern and consistent uh rear yard conditions in this area, the relief is appropriate since what is being proposed merely reflects the
reality of Alustin's compact urban fabric where small Our lots are actually the norm. The sideyard setback here of 5'7 in is an existing nonconformity. 6 ft is required by code. No additional encroachment is proposed and once again
the envelope of the building has not been extended in any direction. With respect to parking, no off streetet parking spaces currently exist and none are proposed. Um the planning recommendation correctly notes that the pro property's proximity to MBTA bus
routes in the green line uh supports a car white residential model consistent with city mobility goals. This location steps from multiple bus routes and the green line is exactly where the city uh is looking to reduce car dependency and
promote transit oriented development. At this time, manager, I'll turn the presentation over to Eric Zack to take the board through the architectural drawings and then we'll pause and take any questions that the board may have. Eric, >> thank you, George. Um, can you hear me?
>> Yes, sir. >> Um, can you scroll to the next page? Um, basically the existing um plans show um one more page to the first sheet of plans. The existing building um is a
fairly large residential building. So uh the idea is to uh build one um unit in the basement which is largely above grade and even walk out at the rear um and then put two units on level two, two units on u level one and one unit on
level three. So, as one enters the the building on the right, you would have a unit uh one bedroomedroom uh one bath unit on the right, a two bed uh one bath unit on the left, and a stair up to the units above and a stair down to the um
two bed two bath unit in the basement, which is the drawing on the left side. Um you'll note that uh at the front of the building, the two bedrooms towards the front do have window wells. Those are very shallow because as I said the building's quite a bit out of the ground and you can see that um with the porch
and the stairs that you you'll see on the um at the bottom of the page. If you scroll up to the next page you'll see that level two will have the same kind of configuration with a um a smaller unit on the right and a larger two bed one bath on the left. And then on the
very top floor we've got the another large unit. The one um significant change to the um building envelope is that on this floor on the top very top floor be replacing a couple of smaller gable dormers with a couple of shed
dormers. If we scroll down a little bit I can show you that the elevation. Um as George said we very much wanted to preserve the the nature of the building. So this is the proposed elevation. You see the two shed dormers on either side of the third floor. Um the front
elevation is on the left and the rear elevation is on the right. Um but the uh the existing gable, the existing window placements, the existing porch, the um little windows walk on the second floor, all of that is intended to be to be
retained. If you scroll to the next page, um you should be able to see the shallowess of the window wells. So notice along the bottom of of this drawing that um that we do need to bring the um bring a window well down, but
that's about 14 in. That's not your kind of deep window well. So those bedrooms on the uh front of the basement level are not going to be starved for light as sometimes bedroom uh basement bedrooms can be. If you scroll to the next page,
you'll see the same kind of condition that exists on the other side of the building. Um, can you scroll up one? Yeah. So, again, the um the front entrance is on the left side of the building and the rear you can see
how the basement is is all but walk out. You have to walk out and walk up two steps. And then I'm going to scroll just to the end of the um the presentation the presentation files. Uh so, if you could scroll a couple more pages, I want to show how the existing building looks
today. One more. Um, two more. Almost there. Those are the existing plans. And so this is the existing elevation as you see today. So you see that uh the bulk of the building other than those two dormers on the left and the right uh is going to look very much the same. It was
important to us that you know even though this is a very large building um and can accommodate six units and while we're doing that it it doesn't change the character of of the street the curb appeal of these units or the the street itself. So, I that's all I I'm here for
any questions and turn it back over to anybody else. >> Thank you. Any questions from the board? >> Hearing none. May I have public testimony? >> Yes. Sigy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This applicant has completed the community process. Our
office hosted an abutters meeting on June 5th, 2025 at which residents of the property itself were opposed due to being displaced as a result of construction. The Brighton Alston Improvement Association and the Alustin Civic Association are both in support of this application. And with that background, Owens defer judgment to the
board. Thank you, >> Madam Chair. There are no additional comments. Okay, with that, may I have a motion? Madam chair, I'll put forward a motion of approval. >> Is there a second? >> Second.
>> Mr. Stebridge? >> Yes. >> Mr. Valencio? >> Yes. >> Miss Turner? >> Yes. >> Mr. Langum? >> Yes. >> Miss Better Braza?
>> Yes. Miss Weell. >> Yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. The vote. >> Thank you. >> All right. Thank you everyone. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Have a good day folks. Have a great day. >> Yeah. Part: 2
one and a happy new year. The City of Boston Zoning Board of Appeal hearing for January 13, 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. [clears throat] In order to ensure this
hearing of the board is open to the public, members of the public may access this hearing through telephone and video conferencing. The information for connecting to this hearing is listed on today's hearing agenda, which is posted on the public notices page of the city's website, austin.gov. Members of the
public will enter the virtual hearing as attendees, which means you will not see yourself on the screen and you will be muted throughout unless administratively unmuted when asked to comment. Board members, applicants, and their attorneys or representatives will participate in the hearing as panelists and they will appear alongside the presentation
materials when speaking. Panelists are strongly encouraged to keep video on while presenting to the board. >> [clears throat] >> 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 Zoom webinar platform. Click it again and your hand should go down. When the host sees your hand, you will receive a request to unmute yourself. Select yes and you should be able to talk. If you
are connected to the hearing by telephone, please press star 9 to raise and lower your hand. You must press star six to unmute yourself after you receive the request from the host. Those called upon to comment will be asked to state their name and address first and then
provide their comment. In the interest of time and to ensure that you have enough time to do so, please raise your hand as soon as Mr. Stembridge 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. Thank Mr. Stebridge. >> Good morning, Madam Chair. President
Happy New Year, Mr. Valencia. >> Good morning, Madam Chair. Happy New Year. Present. >> Thank you. Good morning, Miss Turner. >> Good morning, Madam Chair. Happy New Year. Present. >> Happy New Year, Miss Turner. Mr. Langam. >> Uh, good morning, Madam Chair. Happy New
Year. >> Happy New Year, sir. Miss Benabraza. Good morning, Madam Chair. Happy New Year to everyone. [laughter] Thank you, Miss Welo. >> Good morning, Madame Chair. Another happy new year for everyone.
>> I know. Let's start it off right. Thank you. The floor is yours, Mr. Sebridge. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, we will begin today's hearings with the appro with approval of hearing
minutes scheduled for 9:30 a.m. These hearing minutes are from December 16th hearings. I'll make a motion of acceptance. >> Is there is there a second? >> Second.
>> Mr. Stebridge? >> Yes. >> Mr. Valencia? >> Yes. >> Miss Turner? Yes, >> Mr. Langu. >> Yes, [snorts] >> Braza. >> Yes, >> Miss Weell. >> Yes, >> Chair Bchess. The motion carries.
>> Next, we'll move on to the extensions scheduled for 9:30 a.m. Uh, as they all appear reasonable, I will read them in one after the other and then we will ask um for a motion on them after that.
We'll begin with case BOA 106586 with the address of 57 Webster Street. Next we have case BOA 1545096 with the address of 80 Shaw Sheen Road.
Next we have case BOA 154 511 with the address of 82 Shasheen Road. Next we have case BOA 153 0340
with the address of 58 Worth Street. Next we have KZ Boa 1144 072 with the address of 273 Maverick Street. Next we have case BOA
114. for >> with the address of 688. 8 Columbia Road. Next, we have case BOA121702 with the address of 95 to 97 Broadway.
Next, we have case BOA1258631 with the address of 1027 to 1029 Drummond Street. Next we have case BOA522969 with the address of 45 Milton Avenue.
And finally, we have case BOA105 0294 with the address of 382 Sar Street. Madam Chair, those are all the extensions scheduled for today. >> Thank you. Are there any questions from
the board? Hearing none. May I have a motion to grant the extensions as requested? >> A motion to grant the extensions as read. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Mr. Stebridge. >> Yes. >> Mr. Valencia?
>> Yes. >> Miss Turner? >> Yes. >> Mr. Lango? >> Yes. >> Miss Better Braza? >> Yes. >> Miss Weel? >> Yes. >> Chair Wells? Yes. The motion carries.
Next we have board final operative case scheduled for 9:30. This is this is case BOA 1677952 with the address of 95 Business Street. If the applicant andor their
representative were present, would they please explain to the board? >> Uh good morning madam chair, members of the board. Uh my name is Matt Wheeler of Hugh Architecture representing the applicant. Um we had originally submitted this and gone through the zoning process as an ALT permit um
intending to alter their single family into a two family. We received approval and uh after approval um we walked through the building with engineer and you recommended we replace the foundation, the existing rebel foundation, excuse me. Um, so that in turn, uh,
required us to switch from ALT to an ERT, which triggered a front yard setback violation, a new front yard setback violation. Um, you can see from my documents here, um, the previously approved setback uh, for the front porch
was 2.7 ft. Um, and we submitted upon the request of IC, we submitted a modal setback alignment study, which allowed us to set the porch at 3 ft. Um so we adjusted the design so the porch is set at 3 feet back. Everything else with the
approved design would remain the same including the footprint, the height, all the setbacks. Um so at that uh because of that I think we meet all the required setbacks. Um and I think that's it. >> Thank you. Are there any questions from
the >> hearing? None. Is there a motion? Madam Chair, given it given that there's no new zoning violations, I want to put forward a motion of approval. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Mr. Stebridge.
>> Yeah. >> Mr. Valencia. >> Yes. >> Miss Turner. >> Yes. >> Mr. Lang. >> Yes. >> Miss Better Braza? >> Yes. >> Miss We will. >> Yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries.
Good luck. Thank you very much. >> Next, we'll move on to the hearing schedule for 9:30 a.m. Before we begin, we'll ask if there are any requests for withdrawals or deferrals on the hearing schedule for 9:30.
Hearing none, we'll move on to the first two companion cases which which are case BOA 1785030 with the address of 170 West Canton Street. Along with that we have case BOA
1782427 with the address also with the address of 170 West Kent Street. If the applicant andor their representative are present will they please explain the cases to the board. >> Good morning madam chair members of the
board. Mark Lcast Law 75 Arlington Street in Boston. I represent Cargo and Rachel Cargo who are the homeowners for the single family property in the south end. We are here today for two very
routine and straightforward requests for zoning relief, both in the form of conditional use permits. No variances are requested. The first is the familiar article 32 groundwater recharge system as this involves a substantial
rehabilitation of an existing structure and we have received approval from Boston water and sewer commission submitted our no harm letter and the BWC article 32 compliance letter which are all part of the record. The second
conditional use permit is pursuant to article 64 section 9 of the south end zoning code which requires a conditional use permit for extensions into the rear yard which otherwise satisfy all the dimensional requirements of the code and
it's important to start there. Um what is being proposed here is a threetory bumpout extension if you will into the rear yard at the garden level and two floors above that. So three floors of 3 ft bumpout by 18 ft in width or 55
square ft per floor for a total of 155 square ft being added to an existing family residence which represents an addition of 3% of the gross floor area of this property. Significantly, this lot size is over 3,100 square ft,
which is about 50% larger than all of the adjoining lot sizes. Here's a slide that that represents what's going on in the backyard here. So, the the smaller portion that is hatched is the rear bumpout. And then showing on the third
floor is a rear deck, 6 ft rear deck supported by cantal lever brackets, which of course is consistent with the design standards of the planning department and the Southern Landmarks Commission. And then you can see there's a huge rear yard. Not not only do we satisfy all the dimensional
requirements, but the rear yard setback here is 20 and we have about 38 ft even with the bumpout. Uh the two parking spaces along the side of the rear yard are part of the lot and are existing and that will provide parking. So we don't need to use any portion of the rear yard
for parking. There's no side setback requirement in the south end. Uh nevertheless, we have pulled the sides of the uh rear extension away from the lot lines on both sides. Again, we satisfy all of the
dimensional requirements. And the the initial proposal for this rear extension was the full five stories up the back of the building. But in response to community concerns during the process, we reduced it in scale by 40% removing
two floors at the upper levels of the rear extension. Important to note that we've already been to the Southland Landmarks Commission for all of the other work that's being done to this property on the uh in uh exterior facade and the South and Landmarks Commission
has approved the proposal. Also, there is a planning department memorandum on the record in this case that recommends approval and notes that the requests are consistent with the context of the neighborhood. in terms of uh working
with our director of butters. The direct and immediate abuter at 168 West Canton Street who basically is the only butter that is attached to this building supports this proposal. And on the opposite side is the um there's an alleyway where the parking is
located. So there there's only one direct and immediate butter that is physically attached to this building and that butter is in support. There is also and if we could stop at this slide, I'm going to have the architect address the design on this slide and the next slide. Um, but I will
turn to the building code appeal which is the companion case before you. There is a roof deck proposed for this property which has been approved by the landmarks commission and is not the subject of zoning relief but is the subject of the building code appeal. And
that is the familiar uh inconsistency between the zoning code article 64 section 34 which requires that access to a roof deck be by hatch and the conflict with the building code which requires a head house. So, we are seeking relief
from the building code requirement of a head house so that we may install a hatch for access to the roof deck consistent with article 64 and consistent with the requirements of the Southland Landmarks Commission. Um, so that is the building code issue. I
covered the article 32 issue, the article 64 conditional use permit, and we'll reserve the balance of um my comments for after public comment. But at this point, I'd just like to turn it over to Zach Malay, our architect, to
talk about the design of the rear extension. As you can see there, it's very minimal and dimminimous in scale. The rear deck supported by Cantalver. And Zach can just explain uh the architectural philosophy behind this, which is familiar and again consistent with literally hundreds of similar such
rear extensions and decks in the south end that has that have previously been approved. Uh so, Zach Malay, please. >> Mark, thank you. Good morning, chair. Good morning, uh rest of the board members. Um on this page, uh as Mark alluded to earlier, uh you'll see in the
red cloud here that the original proposal was to bring the addition all the way up. Um but after a substantial amount of time with neighbors in the community, we've decided to reduce that substantially uh by 40% bringing it down
to just the bottom three floors um of the the residence which are the most used part of this house. So as Mark said, there is no different language that we're proposing here. It is a 3-FFT um addition off the ex the rear and we
are going to be cladding that all in a black uh panled siding material. And then again we do have the 6T balcony. Again that is very typical uh with and consistent with all of the the context
both on this alley as well as the rest of the the context within the south end. Um if you go to page 18 the next slide and if we stop here this shows on the left side here this is the existing uh building and on the right is what we are
proposing as that addition. So again the architectural language here is is no different than what we see with the rest of the alleyway of this particular block in the south end. Um so we are you know
proposing historically accurates divided light windows. Um up at the top we have a series of double windows. Uh there is a small balcony on top of the new addition. But again you
can see that this addition in relation to the whole building. And if you walk up and down this particular alley is very much within context. it is very minimal uh with zero impact to the abuing neighbors. Um during the uh
neighborhood process we did provide a series of uh sun shadow diagrams um to to prove that this is so insignificant and there is no effect to the abuing neighbors of of the neighborhood in the
alley here. >> Madam chair that concludes our presentation. um of the issues. >> Thank you. And so just to confirm, the bumpout is three feet and then the deck which I see seems to only be on that third level is another
>> correct 6 ft. 3 ft. >> Correct. The deck is at the third level here projecting 6 ft. And then this balcony that you see at the top that is on top of the new addition. So that's not going any further than that. The only protrusion outside the 3 ft is the
typical 6ft balcony that we see >> on the third floor. Okay. And I know the architect and perhaps attorney Lcast you mentioned there are others in that alleyway that have a similar condition. Is that can you kind of go into a little more detail on that because obviously
you're aware we've received a lot of letters in support and in opposition and opposition talks about this being not in not consistent and you've said it's consistent. So I just want to understand a little bit more. >> Yes. So if you go uh scroll down to the rest of the presentation in the appendex
uh we did provide again these are some of the shadow studies but if you go down to the last three or so pages uh we documented all of the rear buildings that abut this alley. So you can see on
the first slide image here on the left that is our building that's on the right side of that first image. And really as you just march along the alley here, you know, we can see here at uh 164 166 West Canton, you know, there's a garage
that's extended more than what we are proposing. Um and then keep scrolling down, there's an addition here at, you know, between 162 and 160. They have the same balcony. And
even more so, as we go through 146 and 144 West Canton, right here, you see both there is a rear garage addition at the lower level. And then at 144, we have a very similar condition where
there's an a extension coming off. This building, it's going from property line to property line. We're not doing that. We're actually bringing it in about a foot and a half on either side, but you can see they do have a a rear balcony on top of their addition. In addition to
that, they then have another 6ft balcony up at the top. We're just proposing the 3-FFT with the 6T. Um, and as you go down the rest of the images, you can see that there are a series of rear extensions um that have been added.
Again, here we have something at 153 that right on the bottom left here that's been added. And again, as we march along 161, 163 Westbrook line, and then directly
behind us, the last set of images here on the last page, you can see that at 183 185, right directly behind us, there is an addition that's also happened with a rear balcony
attached to that. So, it's >> and Madam Chair, that's just this alley. If we conducted the same study uh throughout the south end which is all governed by article 64 section 9 but the very same conditions we could literally come up with a 100 such images to show
you also significantly the addition of 3 ft extension plus the 6T deck does not change anything. There's it's still a conditional use permit because we otherwise satisfy all the dimensional requirements. We have plenty of rear yard setback almost twice as much as
that is required. We we're adding sideyard setbacks where none are required. So we comply with all the dimensional requirements and you know as much as there may be uh noise in the background about 3 plus 6 somehow converts it into something else. It does
not. The zoning code refusal does not so indicate um nor does the planning department raise any concerns whatsoever and in fact recommends approval citing the consistency with the neighborhood. And we think that on the on the zoning and on the facts and on the law that
this is entirely consistent with cases that have appeared before you countless hundreds of times. >> Thank you. Questions from the board. >> Okay. Hearing >> I'm sorry. I just want to make sure that the landmark commission actually has
reviewed the rear because I know that it's been involved with the whole project. But I just want to make sure that for the record um the South Landmark Commission has reviewed the the extensions. >> Well, they they saw it, but South
Landmark doesn't have any jurisdiction over the rear facade except above the cornice line visible from a public way. So, routinely the Southern Landmarks Commission does not review these. But what typically happens in these cases is that this board when granting conditional use permits recommends
planning department design review. And that is where the whole uh design standards for rear facades has emerged is that the planning department rather than the landmarks commission because they don't have jurisdiction over rear facades. >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Any other
questions from the board? >> I have public testimony. >> Hello Madam Chair, members of the board. Excuse [clears throat] me, I'm still recovering from the flu, everybody. Um, and happy new year to all. My name is Eva Jones, representing the mayor's office and neighborhood services.
Regarding 170 West Canton Street, our office would like to express opposition to this proposal. A community process was conducted, including an abutters meeting held on Monday, October 27th, which was very well attended by the South End community with upwards of 50 uh neighbors present. The majority of
attendees expressed opposition to the proposal, particularly the dires uh in the area who cited concerns about proposed the proposed extension of the fence to the property line and the resulting impacts on the shared use of the alleyway. These concerns included
access for residents as well for snow plows, trash collection vehicles, and emergency vehicles. Many residents also raised concerns shared by others regarding the encroachment of rear editions on neighbors privacy and the precedent that a proposal of this nature would set in a historic neighborhood.
There was some support expressed in the meeting uh with a few residents stating that they felt the project was reasonable and wishing the applicant well in the process. In addition, our office received 38 letters in opposition, approximately 30 of which were from direct abutters encroaching or
echoing many of the same concerns uh related in the meeting uh related to zoning precedent and the historic character of the neighborhood. I've also received a letter in opposition from Representative Moran's office reflecting the community's concerns and expressing his own regarding zoning precedent and
the impact that on this type of proposal on a neighborhood as dense as the south end. Our office has also received 24 letters in support. The proposal was reviewed by the Pilot Block Neighborhood Association, which voted to oppose it. The association submitted a formal letter to the board stating that PBNA
opposes the proposal because it far exceeds the ZBA's long-standing 6-foot rear yard extension standard by introducing a 9- FFT multi-level addition. significantly impacts the butter's light, privacy, and alley conditions by increasing building mass
and human presence and sets a dangerous precedent that undermines consistently enforced south end zoning standards and invite similar development along the alleyway. At this time, the mayor's office and neighborhood services would like to formally express opposition to this proposal. Thank you everyone for
your time and consideration. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. [clears throat] Next, Madam Chair, we have a Conor Finn. Remember, please that you have 90 seconds per person, please. Thank you. >> Uh, good morning, Madam Chair and
members of the board. Uh, thank you for taking the time to hear me today. I'll make make my remarks very brief. My name is Connor Finn. I am here on behalf of State Representative John Moran, who represents the 9th Suffach District and is a longtime resident of the South End. Uh, Representative Moran respectfully
urges the board to deny this proposal due to its significant departures from long long-standing zoning standards in an already densely developed area. He believes a more balanced and appropriate design is achievable, one that meets the applicant's goals while preserving the
character and livability of the South End. Uh, thank you so much for your time and thoughtful consideration on this matter. >> Thank you. And next we have a Christian Simonelli. >> Good morning madam chair, members of the board. Happy new year. Christian
Simonelli, Boston Growler Trust. And we have both GCOD letters from the applicant. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you so much. Next we have um let me see one second please. people who are participating already
for we have N Blair please if you can unmute yourself and you have 90 seconds. >> Hi um thank you very much. My name is Nol Blair. Uh I work with the Pilot
Block Neighbors Association in development issues. Also I'm in a butter. I'm 100 feet away. I can see it from my back window. So hopefully he'll give me a little bit more time than 90 seconds since I've got two functions here. Um I think Ava did a great job. Uh
you've all heard the opposition clearly uh to this proposal. Extremely challenging proposal for the neighborhood. Um nearly unanimous objection to the proposal. I would put that asterisk on uh the presentation is that um nearly everybody that I've spoken to I think throughout this whole
process has been has been opposed to this and the reasons you've heard already. Everybody knows at the most basic level that deck extensions above the first floor are limited to 6 feet to limit their impact on neighbors. This is this extends 9 ft from the line of houses. Also, decks above the first
floor require can levered support uh with see-through railings to minimize the impact, minimize the presence. This one comes with a threetory 20 foot wide building extension. So, it's excessive, much larger than the 50 ft that would be as of right, not appropriate. We
identified all the nuisances to private light and air. Privacy, light and air, building density. Privacy is particularly important. We can see our neighbors decks outside of our windows here. So, I think that's incredibly important to note. Um, the precedents that are being offered um to the chair's
concerns. Um, no others in this alley um are in similar condition that didn't pre-exist these zoning rules. These zoning rules were put in place to prevent the impacts that these types of extensions have on a butter's privacy,
light and air, all of these things and the importance of keeping this precedent um clearly on view given you have a full um um page in their u in their write up about how um there's there's other ones in the neighborhood that make this appropriate and that's not the case. So,
I want to make sure I double click on that. If this project is granted approval for a 3-foot extension, what would stop the next door neighbor who at 168 West Kenton has already got an application in front of ISD from doing the same thing? What if they wanted a
depth? It extended 9 ft so that they didn't [clears throat] um it wasn't less large than the one next door to them. You can see how the the precedent is very important in establishing standards here. The neighborhood does not want to get bogged down in these issues. I'm
sure the board doesn't either. Um, so it's very important certainly that we protect these standards so we don't have to go through this every few months. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. Next, Madam Chair, we have the Casparian. Please, you have 90
seconds. >> Uh, good morning everybody. My name is David Casparian and I am the director of butter at 168 West Canton. uh the only direct uh butter from uh Michael and Rachel Cargo and I fully support their
efforts to renovate their house. Uh they've been great in terms of their communication to me and others and very forthcoming about uh their intent in the process. Um it is my understanding that they have made several changes that uh were highlighted earlier um in the
presentation based on feedback from [clears throat] the neighborhood. Um it from my perspective this will only enhance the aesthetics of the neighborhood. I think it's very tastefully done and in line with other buildings. Um I don't think that the re
renovation has any adverse impact uh to me or the the surrounding area and I I feel like they should be allowed to proceed with what they uh are proposing by right. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. [clears throat]
Okay. Um, next we have somebody from the attending section. Steve Tim, please if you can mute yourself. >> Steve Tammy. >> Yes. >> Can you hear us? >> Yes, sir. >> Hi, this is Dina Tammy. Um, we live at
191 West Brooklyn Street. Uh, 170 West Canton is the view outside of all of our rear view windows. We are about to we back immediately onto it. And yeah, it was kind of interesting that the previous speaker talked about communication being great because despite being immediately opposite, we
knew nothing about this plan until after many letters of support from elsewhere in the neighborhood had already been submitted. So there were no efforts to share anything with us. The first we heard was at the neighborhood meeting. I also want to correct some some facts or some things that Michael Cass said when
he was talking. Again, I think no one touched on this. Hundreds of similar things have been approved in the in the neighborhood. That is not true. Many of those were before the common current planning regulations and those that have been done since have mostly been considerably less than 3 ft. Secondly,
no matter which way you slice it, 6' + 3t equals 9 ft. It is not a small addition. It is 3 ft beyond what the ass planning has traditionally approved. And you know, dressing it up as 3 plus 6 doesn't change the fact it's a 9 ft
extension off the back of the building. Also, it is not historically accurate. The whole wall of windows is not the way the back alleyway looks and has looked since the 1860s. Every house has two or three small windows on the back. So, I just also want to set echo straight on
that. And just to, you know, and that's that's pretty much it. I just want to say as immediate butters with a fullon view of this, every time we look at out of our window, we're opposed to it because, you know, and no one stated it very eloquently. I'm not going to repeat all that, but it does change the
character of the neighborhood and it will set a precedent. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> And uh next we have Annie Wes. >> Hi everyone. Thank you so much um for having me. I live at My name is Annie
Weiss. I live at 166 West Canton. Um so I'm two doors down um from 170. I'm stating my opposition to the pro to the proposal as well. Um again, I don't want to reiterate everything that null already said, but um I really worry
about the precedent that this is going to set. I worry about um the light. I worry about particularly the privacy. Um and I just want to note that, you know, it is the case that their director Butter is in support of this, but he's
really the only one. Um if you look at the attendees, there's so many people from West Canson and from the um from the alley and there's just been enormous opposition. Um he also has submitted the
same the same proposal and so if this goes through and his goes through that he will have direct access to see right inside of my home. I worry about that happening and then if the person on the other side of me does the same thing,
I'll be tunnneled in on both sides. So, it'll really impact how it how it feels to live inside of my house. Um, so thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. And madam chair, we have one more person from the attendance section,
Rebecca. >> Hey, everyone. Can you hear me? >> Yes, ma'am. >> Okay, super. So, my name is Rebecca Hornbuckle. I live at 154 West Canton. Just down from uh Annie who just spoke. Um and really just want to second everything that those in opposition also
stated. Um I would take issue with the idea that there is context for this. I'm looking across the alley out my kitchen window right now at a series of flat front fronts. We recently underwent a renovation and preserved the flat back of our own home. um sharing a front and
a back alley with the proposal at 170 and now the proposal at 168 um I would argue sets a dangerous precedent for all the reasons that folks have mentioned. Um would hate to be tunnneled in here, lose the privacy and just the beauty of
uh hanging out with our neighbors and seeing the light and getting the ventilation. So thank you for uh listening to my protest. >> Thank you. >> Thank madam chair. There are two more people who raised their hand. >> Okay. So let's take these two more and then we can proceed.
>> Okay. Um we have Ingred Ingred please if you can unmute yourself. If not we can go with John Eman please if you can >> I believe I'm unmuted. >> Okay Ingred. Yeah, we can hear you.
>> Um, my name is Ingred Shra. I live at 182 West Canton. I wanted to voice my oppos opposition to this uh expansion and also say that it is very hard to be a young person and a child living here
um and hear these people talk about what they think is best for the neighborhood that I've lived in my whole life when they still do not live here and are not living in these homes. And so to talk about the impact this will have on the neighborhood, specifically hearing Annie talking about the impact this will have
have on her kids playing in her backyard when they do not even live on our street and live in our neighborhood is hard to hear. Thank you. >> Thank you. And the last person is John Erman. >> Yes. Good morning. Uh John Erdman. I
live at 163 West Brooklyn. So I'm on the alley. I have a view of this house. I've lived in this in this house for 35 years and I am opposed to this extension. Um I can see down the alley and uh I just I
appreciate the charm and the design of these 200-year-old buildings with their rhythm of bay windows and flat fronts. And uh I think this this will harm that charm. This will reduce the attractiveness and the desiraability of all the houses on the alley and mine
[clears throat] included. And again, as N said, this is a 9- ft extension. Yes, there's precedent for 6-ft decks, but there's no precedent for 9 ft extensions three stories high. And um the architect showed these these uh
projections of light, but he failed to mention any of the light coming from the north. He just uh projected from the south. Um and so this extension will will uh shadow light from both directions. And again, as Noel and Annie
mentioned, it it puts a tunnel effect into the alley. So, um, you know, we have a 200-year-old historic neighborhood here. Once we lose this, it's gone forever. So, I urge the, uh, council to to not approve this and let's
preserve this neighborhood for future generations. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Okay. Uh, Miss Phil Cash. >> Yes. Briefly address some of these points. Um, I mean, in our case of chief, we made our our points, but um,
with respect to the comment by Eva Jones of ONS regarding the fence in in the backyard shown on the site plan. Fence number one is not an issue, is not a zoning issue. Number two, during the community process, including the abutter meeting that she hosted, um my clients
made concessions about the fence rounding it, um because they recognize the access point there. And that is something they're very much willing to continue to do and will do to ensure that no access is impeded, nor nor would BTD or anyone else who reviews these
plans permit um a fence that would block access. were actually agreeing to improve the condition of the existing fence. Uh number one, uh with respect to the butter number 166 Westkin, she has the garage that projects out in the rear
yard, including a large deck over the garage, which actually is the one thing that is inconsistent with the rest of the block when you talk about precedent and harming the neighborhood. Um the comment about children in the neighborhood. My clients are homeowners
in the South End, have lived in the South End for over a decade, have three small children, and are intending to make this their forever home, which is why they're undertaking these renovations and expansions um to house comfortably house their family of five,
including three children. So they are very much Southounn residents with children as well who very much wish to make this their forever home and have carefully undertaken that. Um all the chatter about president of course this board understands that precedent is not
recognized in deciding any case because every case is different and what makes this case different is the lot size. This lot size is 3100 square ft, which is at least 50% larger than all the other lots on this block, which are all about 2,000 square ft. And the the extra
breathing room back there, if you will, makes a difference. And alongside is on one side is an alley and on the other side is an abuner who supports us. There were 24 letters in support. That does not constitute unanimous opposition. As
as has been said, there are people that do support this and and don't think that this is any different than the many many many many many similar projects like this. Um, which I think is testament to the planning department issuing a a a
simple one-page memo recommending approval because they've seen these hundreds of times before, literally. Um, with that we conclude our case. >> Thank you. Other questions from the board? >> Yeah, I just I just want kind of
clarification from BPD. Um, Mr. Lacass mentioned that Boston Landmark Commission approval is not needed, but on zoning viewer, I see that it does fall under historic district south end landmark district. And so the BPD also
mentioned in [clears throat] their uh notes uh that the project is uh subject to that review by the Boston Landmark Commission. So it seems like those that have spoken in front of us um have
concerns regarding the overall characteristics of the rear. And I believe that um uh that this can be kind of reviewed with the applicant under uh the Boston um Landmark Commission, you know,
following following this process. And so, um I would like just to hear from BPD on their feedback. um because we could add a provisal to ensure that that review does does occur, but at least it would clarify uh the comment that was
made by Mr. Lacass that it does not fall under um BLC review. >> Mr. Hampton, are you with us? >> Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. Jeff Hampton, City of Boston Planning Department. Uh it is true that
the rear decks um in the south end are not subject to BLC review. We typically uh and historically when decks have been added to uh the rowouses in the south end have made the recommendation that we
review them and that the decks are no long uh no deeper than 6 ft in are bracket supported. That's always been uh our recommendation to the board and to the applicants when they have applied for
this. So the decks themselves are not going to be subject to BLC review. >> But but what about the extension? You you are modifying >> well the extension they would have to go to BLC for a determination. Whether BLC wants to review that is completely up to
them. >> Can I speak to that a little bit? May May I on the legal issue, Hanzi? Um the Southland Landmark Commission guidelines and standards are very clear on what they what they do cover and what they don't. And I've had this issue countless
dozens of times with respect to rear facades. The only thing that is within their purview and jurisdiction is above the cornice line, i.e. roof decks. Um, anything below the corners line in the rear, which is not facing a public way,
is never subject to Southland Landmarks review. And whether it's just an extension or just a rear deck or some combination thereof, as Jeff Hampton said, those determinations are always covered by a proviso of this board for BPDA design review. That's typically
where that process occurs, not at landmarks because they don't have jurisdiction over it. >> Okay. Thank you. Other questions from the board? >> Hearing? None. May I have a motion? >> Madame Chair, I would like to put forward a motion of approval, but with
BPD design review, so they can also take into account some of the concerns that were brought up in front of us. >> Is there a second? Second, >> yes. >> Mr. Valencia,
>> yes. >> Miss Turner, >> no. >> Mr. Langum, >> yes. >> Miss Betterraza, >> yes. >> Miss Weel, >> yes.
>> The chair votes no, but the motion carries. Next we have case DOA [snorts] 177 399 91 with the address of 269 Commonwealth Avenue. If the applicant andor their representative are present, would they
please explain to the board? >> Hello. Yeah. Uh I'm I'm representing the applicant for 269 Commonwealth Avenue. >> Can you identify yourself? >> Uh my name is Nicholas Highland. I work construction who is going to be the contractor on this project.
>> Okay, please proceed. >> Um so we are only rejected on article 32 for the groundwater system. We have approved BWSC plans. We have submitted our no harm letter and our letter from BWSC. We intend to fully comply with the
GCOD uh responsibilities. >> Okay. Are there questions from the board? >> Hearing none. May I have public testimony? >> Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Sigy Johnson with the mayor's office of neighborhood services. Our office was
planning to request a deferral for this application as a community process was not completed and uh the agenda lists a violation for uh restricted roof structure district. But what has just come across the screen was a refusal letter for a G-code only which would not
require a community process. So suppose I will leave it to the discretion of the board. But if there are in fact zoning issues at play here, ONS would like to request a deferral so that the community process could be completed. Thank you. >> Thank you. commentary on that. >> I was going to say, can Mr. Hampton
weigh in? >> Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. Jeff Hampton, City of Boston Planning Department. Uh, Beck Bay is not in a restricted roof structure district. So, that uh I think that was just an error on the uh refusal letter. So, G-card is the only reason why they're here.
>> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Simmonelli. >> Yes, Madam Chair. Good morning, members of the board. Christian Simmonelli, Boston Water Trust, and we have both G-Card letters from the Alex. Thank you. >> Next we have Alysia. Alysia Max.
>> Okay. I don't see her hand Chris anymore. So Joseph finder from the attendee section. >> Uh yes. [clears throat] Can you all hear me? >> Yes. >> All right. Good morning. Um yes I am
direct a butter to 269 living at 273 commab and three things. There has been zero communication about this addition. It just suddenly went up. Uh it obstructs
the view from our roof deck. Secondly and third it sets a dangerous precedent in which anyone can add a level. There's no reason why we wouldn't be able to build a penthouse at 273 Conab. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. There is one more person I think Batu the person with the name Batu Y. >> Yep. >> Yes, sir. >> You can. >> Hi.
>> Uh I'm at 13 Gloucester right behind uh 269 comm. Um just joining in to uh the gentleman who spoke before me. Um it will be obstructing my view of the mall and back bay. Um just wanted to speak my
word and put that in there as well. >> Thank you. >> Thank you madame chair. There is one more person. >> Yes. Go ahead. Ben Benjamin Benjamin iPhone, you can speak now.
>> Can you hear me? >> We can now. Yes, sir. >> Hello. >> We can hear you. You got >> Can you hear me? >> Yes, we can hear you. >> Hello. >> Yes, we can hear you. Benjamin, >> can you hear me? >> Yes.
>> Good morning. We can hear you, but it sounds like you can't hear us. >> Oh, okay. No, I can hear you now. Thank you. Okay. Um, I used to live at 273 Commonwealth Avenue. I currently live live at 250 Commonwealth Avenue, but I do a lot of maintenance work at 273
Commonwealth Avenue, which directly abuts. I'm on the roof a lot, as are other people, uh, to enjoy the sun. and and we went up there one day and noticed there was an extension of about 10 foot uh going up the wall obstructing the
view. U no one was ever given any information about this uh you know extension going up that high. I also noticed in some of the material they're talking about building decks out which will obscure the view from the ground
level. Um, so the the big issue don't understand why there was no community outreach. Also, I've dealt with the construction firm when they first started and in general just spoke with them about what they were doing and any changes and they
never mentioned about going up higher um or bringing decks out um when I specifically spoke to them about a shared wall that actually needed maintenance and what they were going to be doing in the back. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> All right. Uh, we have three more people. Uh, >> okay. Well, let's leave it at that because this is just for GCOD. So, if folks are not speaking to G-COD, you may want to put your hand down.
>> Chair Samantha Chair, this is Sorry, I was muted. Um, this is Samantha with counselor Sharon Burkin's office. I just wanted to briefly wanted to give support from the counselor. We've been in contact with NAB, the local community um association who is a non opposition. Um so the
counselor is in support at this time. Thanks so much. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Any other questions from the board? >> May I have a motion? [snorts]
>> I'm in a May I speak? I don't see a raised hand. Uh >> I'm in a B. >> Jesus, do you see the person who wants to speak? >> Last speaker. >> I don't see the person is okay. Now I
see I can is Michelle Michelle. >> Yes, that's me. Yes, I uh I'm at 273 Commonwealth Avenue and I agree with
the other abutters who really take issue with this whole thing. Something that bothers me credibly is that this this edifice was being put up
before any of us had any information about it. I mean they have they it's the infrastructure is there already. It's it's mindboggling how they would have the audacity to do that.
This is back bay. You don't just slap on another slap on another. >> Thank you. >> All right. Thank you, >> madam. M madam chair, I I would like to just ask um Jeff Hampton just for
clarity again because it seems like there's two issues here. one is residents are complaining about an addition and then what's in front of the board we are going to rule really on GCOD um applicability
in regards to a recharge system. So, you know, is this just because everyone that has showed up has talked about the addition and not the recharge system. Um, [clears throat] can you just provide clarity or context or feedback to the residents in front of that are that have
spoken in front of us >> about this case? So, they they hear they feel that we have heard them. Um, but we're ruling on on a different on a different >> Sure. Thank you, Miss Benza. Um, yeah, I
when you look at the code, it's not mapped as a restricted roof structure district. Um, it just isn't. There's a 65 ft height limit. So, you can go up to 65 ft and from, you know, what else? You know,
this is here for G-cod. It's not here for a restricted roof structure because >> Right. So, basically, their addition is by right and I think it's important for them to hear that. >> Yeah. I mean the only reason why they're here is G-cott. Yes. >> Yeah. Okay. Great. Thank you.
>> Yep. So, so with that, Chair Don, I'll give it to you. >> Okay. So, if there are no other questions from the board, is there a motion >> based on what based on what we're here for? I make a motion of approval. >> Okay. Is there a second?
>> Second. >> Mr. Stumb. >> Yes. >> Mr. Valencia. >> Yes. >> Miss Turner. >> Yes. >> Mr. Langum. >> Ye. Yes.
>> Miss Better Brazo. >> Yes. >> Miss. We will. >> Yes. >> Chair votes. Yes. The motion carries. >> Thank you everybody. Have a good day. [clears throat] Next we have case BOA
1774492 with the address of 298 to 290 Beacon Street. If the applicant and or the representative are present, would they please explain the case to the court? >> Yes. Uh good morning. My name is Timothy Burke. I'm the architect for the
project. I have a business address of 142 Berkeley Street in Boston. I am also um joined with the owner of the property um this is Deer and um she uh raised her family in this unit. She's
been uh living in it for over 40 years and uh now the kids are gone. And so what we're looking to do is separate a portion on the ground level that could easily be a separate apartment as a two-bedroom, one bath apartment. And um
this will allow her to make better use of her space on the other levels and it provides an additional uh dwelling unit with a minimal amount of work. We are seeking relief for the fact that we are adding a unit to this building and thereby are required to have one off-
streetet parking space, but we uh do don't have the ability to provide that on the property. But we feel the uh the project's still a very good one for the city and the neighborhood. by uh creating an additional dwelling unit with, as Ed mentioned, very minimal amount of work.
With that, I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> Thank you. Are there any questions from the board? >> Hearing none, may I have public testimony. >> Madame Chairwoman and members, Sigy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This applicant has completed
the community process. Our office hosted in a Butters meeting on October 21st at which no concerns were raised. The neighborhood association with the backbay is in non opposition to this application. That background our office defers judgment to the board. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Next we have Sam Courage. >> Madame chair, members of the board, Sam Courage with councelor Sharon Derkin's office. Um as Sigy explained, um we've been in contact with Butters as well as the local association which is NAB who is a non opposition and with that the
councilor is in support. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. There are no additional comments. >> Okay. With that, may I have a motion? >> There a second. >> Second. >> Second. >> Mr. Stebridge. >> Yes.
>> Mr. Valencia. >> Yes. >> Miss Turner. >> Yes. >> Mr. Langum. >> Yes. [snorts] >> Better Brazo. >> Yes. >> Miss Weo. >> Yes. Chair votes. Yes, the motion carries.
>> Thank you very much. >> Next, we have case BO8 179354 with the address of 227 Newbury Street. If the applicant andor their res and or their representatives are present, would
they please explain to the board? >> Yes. Hello, my name is David Silverman. I'm an architect at STA Design at uh 308 Congress Street in Boston and we are representing uh the Cobble Group, the owner of the building and we are seeking approval for a change of occupancy at
227 Newbury Street. Uh the prior use of this space was a dry cleaner. However, the space has been vacant for quite some time. The proposed new use is a French bakery cafe. The operator has two other locations, one in Belmont and one is Cambridge. Um we have met with the
neighborhood associate association of Backbay twice. The first time to discuss the awning at the exterior of the building and we also have two um exterior tables in Fort uh chairs at the garden level entrance. Our second
meeting with FNAB was to discuss um with the um with Praline Bakery the um operations of the facility and um after that meeting u NAV had reported back to us that they would not oppose the
project. Um there are 12 seats inside of the u of the cafe and that's that's really why we're here. So thank you for your consideration. >> Thank you. Questions from the boards. Hearing none. May I have public testimony?
>> Yes. Sig Johnson with the office of neighborhood services. This applicant has completed the community process. Her office oversaw distribution of anformational flyer to all occupied structures in a 300 ft radius which solicited no comments to our office. The neighborhood association of the back bay
is in non-oposition to this application. That background our office defers judgment to the board. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thanks. Next we have Sam Courage. Please. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. Sam Courage from councelor Sharon Durkin's office. Um, similar to Sigu's
comments, we've been in contact with the betters as well as the local association which is NAB. Um, NAB is a non opposition. We're excited for this use and I'm the counselor in support of the proposal. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. There are no additional comments.
>> Okay, with that, may I have a motion? >> Motion to approve. Barz a >> second. Mr. Mr. Stebridge. >> Mr. Stebridge, you're on mute. >> Sorry, Madam Chair. Yes.
>> Thank you, Mr. Valencia. >> Yes. >> Miss Turner. >> Yes. >> Mr. Langham. >> Yes. >> M. Better Brazo? >> Yes. >> Miss Weo? >> Yes. >> Chair V? Yes. The motion carries. Good luck.
>> Thank you. Next we have, excuse [clears throat] me, next we have case BOA 1766 6854 with the address of 1071 Massachusetts Avenue. If the applicants andor their
representative are present, would they please explain to the board? >> Hello. Uh my name is Justin Parker. Uh I work for Classic Signs. We are representing um Metro Credit Union at um 1071 Massachusetts AB. Um our proposal
is for uh to replace the electronic message center at this sign. Um this sign was approved and built uh originally around 2011 um around here. And when I went to apply for um a permit
to replace the signs, uh the uh I believe the parks commission came back and said that the we are in violation uh within setback distances of the park. Uh I'm asking the uh board to please appeal this uh decision uh so that we can uh
update this EMC. uh it's going from instead of this old style dot matrix uh it's going to a more modern RGB style so we have a lot more freedom to uh unlike what kind of content we can advertise um of course that's all dimmable uh we can
uh control how long it's for or how long it's on for how bright it is uh that sort of thing um and I have the specs available for that EMC if anyone wants to ask any questions about Thank you. Are there questions from the board?
>> Can I hear from Mr. Hampton on this? >> Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. Jeff Hampton, City of Boston Planning Department. Uh, in keeping with the city's policy on these types of appeals on electronic signage, uh, we recommend denial of
this, uh, proposal. Uh we acknowledge that the site is already existing and I think it did receive design review uh from the BRA back in 2011. However, um we just don't think that a full conversion to an electronic sign is appropriated in this area, especially
with its location to the park. Um and being consistent with our policy, where on the record is going in denial of this proposal. Thank you. >> Thank you. May I have public testimony? Madame Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Benbury. I am
the Roxberry community engagement specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process which consisted of an abot meeting facilitated on October 23rd with no aboters or guests in attendance. Next, the proposal met with new market business improvement and with no opposition, the community process was completed. Uh thank you for
your time in the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services would like to defer to the board for their judgment. >> Thank you. >> Next, Madam Chair, we have Ben Morphy. Good morning, uh, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Ben Murphy. I'm with the New Market Business Employment
District. Uh, as was just mentioned, uh, Metro Credit Union came to us to discuss the update to their sign. Uh, back in 2011, when the original sign went up, our executive director, Sue Sullivan, was in communication with them about the design of that sign. There was no
opposition from the neighborhood then or now. Um as said the sign is already pre-existing and we think this is a reasonable update to what is already there. We are in support of uh this project. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you madam chair. There are no
additional comments. >> So can can I just confirm the sign you have now uh versus what you are proposing. So what you're proposing is converting it to 100% digital. right now it's like a stagnant Metro Credit Union and then you have the dot dot dot you
know letter part. >> Um yeah, so the um the Metro Credit Union part is going to stay um just like a regular sign cabinet with like a Lexan face on it and then we're only replacing what is the EMC and there's no changes to the side. I think the new EMC is actually a little bit smaller.
>> Um okay, >> but it's just updating the screen itself pretty much. Okay. So, the s the sign itself stays sort of similar or same size. >> Yeah. [clears throat] >> Thank you. Any other questions from the board?
>> Yes. Uh, is there an expiration date for the signed or is this signed or the new one going to be there in perpetuity? Um, uh, we usually don't, um, uh, deal in expiration dates, uh, and that sort of
thing. Um, it's usually whenever there's, um, some sort of problem like we're replacing the faces cuz they were cracked and they figured it, uh, would be time. Um, uh, I'm not sure if that's a question more for the plane department or me. Um, >> yeah, maybe Mr. Hampton is here.
>> Yes, thank you, Mr. Beth Nazia. um say an issue where if if you look at the zoning code in section 117 where it deals with conditional uses, the sign is in an area that doesn't allow a conditional use. It's actually forbidden use uh which would require a variance
rather than a conditional use permit. Um, and only those areas where it has a conditional use permit. Is there a time limit on um how long and a a sign is allowed to
stay? Uh, it's 8 years. However, again, I think they're looking for a variance in this case rather than a conditional use permit. >> No, they're they're asking for a conditional use. >> I understand that. That's what's cited. Okay. But when you read the code, that's not what is actually true. Um because
there are only three areas where electronic signs are allowed as a conditional use and this isn't one of them. Um >> that's right. >> So um I think it's just the technicality. So and because it's uh they're asking
for a variance rather well I take that back. Under 117, one of the conditions for a conditional use permit is that it is limited to an 8-year time period. So, I think that's where uh Mr. Valencia is
coming in with a a time frame because it does state that in section 117. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Any other questions from the board? >> Yeah. Um, >> go ahead. Sorry, Turner. Um, I guess
first I want clarification that we're regardless of whether we say yes or no, the sign the sign will stay up, right? Um, either it's this sign or the sign that's being voted on >> and the applicant confirm that. Um yes,
the uh existing sign if uh the denial to um to change the EMC um uh if we if this gets denied um we're just going to keep the existing EMC. >> Okay. And then I have a second question. Um do you
have you done a study to compare the brightness level between the existing sign and the sign that you're proposing? Um, we haven't done a study, but I do have the specs uh for um the uh for the new cabinet that we're going to put in.
And it is dimmable. So, uh the specs will say the max brightness, but we can uh control that to pretty much whatever we like. >> Okay. And including it being the same level of brightness that the existing sign is. >> Yep. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Miss Barrowza. Did you have another question? No, I think um Okay, >> Miss Turner uh feedback was was very good. So, just no no questions. >> Thank you. Uh with that, may I have a
motion, >> Madame Chair? Um I I I really just see it as an upgrade. Um uh it's already existing. Um it's probably more energy efficient as well.
Uh I'm going to move forward with a motion of approval with a provisal that the project um illumination stays similar to the existing sign.
>> Okay. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Mr. Stebridge. >> Yes. >> Mr. Valencia. >> Uh no. I'm going to No. I don't think a billboards are good for the city and a
better and bigger billboard or a more bright billboard has the chance to stay there for longer. So I my vote is no. >> Okay. Thank you. Miss Turner. >> Yes. >> Mr. Lo. >> Yes.
>> Miss [clears throat] Bear Brazo. >> Yes. >> Miss We will. >> Uh yes. I'm voting yes because I think this is in a pretty heavy commercial area. I think the park is the most sensitive use, but it seems like the kind of edge of the sign is more facing
the park. So, for those reasons, I'll face uh voting yes. >> Thank you. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. >> Thank you. Next we have case BOA 1777 66619
with the address of 5557 Center Street with the applicant and or their representative present. Would they please explain the case to the board? >> Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Michael Chavis. I'm the architect within 26 on Hill Park
in Dorchester and I'm representing Mr. Michael Winston, the owner and developer of the uh of the project. Uh this is a uh two uh unit new construction building. Uh it's an infill lot. There's site had um uh you know a number of row
houses that were built in the late 1800s altogether. Some burned down over the years and we're infilling one of those lots kind of reinfilling it again. Uh the uh the the zone is a three family. Um, and so we're we're only putting two units in. It's just a tight lot. And we
wanted them to be comfortable size modern units. Uh, because it's a tight lot. There's a number of basically all the zoning variances are being triggered here. Uh, setbacks, uh, you know, F, uh, frontage, pretty much everything here. Um, however, we are, uh, we have
designed it to essentially, uh, be in line with the adjust the adjacent buildings. Uh it has some uh some modern touches to it, but all the windows are aligned, bit window bays, doors, uh the the uh Mansard roof, etc. um are all kind of falling in line with that. Uh
we've had a number of uh voters meetings, neighborhood association meetings, we did a preliminary review with the um uh uh the historic historic district. So, we've talked to those folks as well about the about what we're proposing here. Um we've had unanimous support of the project. people are
wanting to get the lot infilled. Uh and um the uh historic, you know, board has also talked about their um approval of our uh kind of more slightly more historic facade on the front street and then kind of as you wrap around the side, it gets a little bit more modern.
They like the fact that it's not actually trying to replicate exactly what was there in the past and has um uh you know, it's contextual but not but not uh rep replicating. Um and so the only changes that we made during the process uh during the community process
was that the uh they wanted to reduce the number of bathrooms in the upper unit from 6.5 to 5.5. Uh the community just wants to make sure that this doesn't become student housing and and they wanted to kind of you know lower the number of buite bathrooms for for the bedrooms. So we did that um and uh
made some adjustments in that way. So that letter on the on the cover kind of just lists some of the things we did. We also added some bike parking um and moving the master bedroom on the upper unit from the fourth floor down to the third floor. Um but otherwise uh the yeah we have that support and we still
need to go through some additional uh review from an exterior design perspective with the uh historic commission uh in the in the neighborhood. Um I'll pause there and answer any questions we have and Michael Winston's also on the call if we have any questions for the owner.
>> Thank you. Are there questions from the board? >> Hearing none. We have public testimony. >> Madame chair and members of the board. For the record, my name is Jeremy Benbury. I'm the Roxbury community engagement specialist for the office of neighborhood services. The applicant has completed the community process which
consisted of an abutas meeting facilitated on October 14th. That was very well received by the community and directors alike. Receiving overwhelming support during the abutters meeting and abut is very excited to see the change and commended the design. Next, the proposal was presented to High Park Neighborhood Association on November
11th where they voted in support of the proposal. To date, our office has received two letters of support, one being from High Park Neighborhood Association. Thank you for your time and the mayor's office of neighborhood services would like to defer to the board for their judgment. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Madame Chair. There are no additional comments.
>> Okay. With that, may I have a motion? >> Motion to approve. May >> I have a second? Second. Second, >> Mr. Stbridge. Yes, >> Mr. Valencia. >> Yes, >> Miss Turner.
>> Yes, >> Mr. Lango. >> Yes, >> Miss Bter Brazza. >> Yes, >> Miss Weo. >> Yes, >> Chair Wils, yes. The motion carries. Good. >> Thank you all very much. Have a good day. >> Thank you.
>> [snorts] >> Norm, you're on. Mr. Sam, you're on mute. >> Oh, >> sorry about that, Madam Chair. Case case. Next, we have case BO8 172 3197
with the address of 10 to 12 East Code Street. If the applicants andor their representative are present, would they please explain the case to the board? Hi, my name is Diana Santinelo and I'm the homeowner at 10 Heath Coat Street.
Um, we are looking to renovate our basement to make a playroom for my two children age 2 and four. Uh, there will be no bathroom in the basement. Um, it [clears throat] will not change the footprint of our existing home. The only thing that will be changed to the
structure of the home is an addition of a window um to comply with Boston codes. Um does any there has been no opposition by the neighborhood our directive butter we it's a front to back condo they have voiced support of the project
>> are there questions from the board hearing none may have public testimony madam chair and members of the board for the record my name is Jeremy Benbury I'm the Roslandale community engagement specialist for the office of neighborhood services the applicant has completed the community process which consists of butter's meeting facilitated
done on November 5th with two director voters in attendance that expressed their support. Next, the proposal presented to West Village Neighborhood Association which completed the community process. Thank you for your time and the mayor's office of neighborhood services would like to defer to the board for their judgment. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you, Madam Chair. I think there was one person, David. I'm not sure if you're looking to speak for this case. >> Hello. I am just a contractor and I'm here to support the model. Perfect. >> Thank you, >> Madame Chair. There are no additional
comments. >> With that, may I have a motion? >> Motion to approve. >> May I have a second? >> Second. >> Mr. Stebridge? >> Yes. >> Mr. Valencia? >> Yes. >> Miss Turner?
>> Yes. >> Mr. Lang? >> Yes. >> Miss Better Brazo? >> Yes. >> Miss We will. >> Yes. Chair >> votes. Yes. The motion carries. basketball. >> Next, we have case BOA
177 6266 with the address of 24 [clears throat] Newberg Street. If the applicant andor their representative are present, will they please respond? Hello,
my name is Rose and I live at 24 Newberg Street. That's the house I grew up in and I have lived and I'm living there. The house needs some work for safety issues such as redoing the porch and repairing the panels on the side of the house. I'm getting married in August and
I would love to continue staying at my home and the goal is to have the repairs completed by then as this will be the place we will be living and I am the co-owner of the house with my dad who is
also a contractor. >> Thank you. Are there any questions from the board? >> Hearing none may have public testimony. >> Madam chair and members of the board for the record. My name is Jeremy Benbury. I am the Roslander community engagement specialist for the office of neighborhood services. The applicant has
completed the community process which consisted of an abutters meeting facilitated on November 5th with no abutters and attendance. No concerns were raised. Following the abuters reading, no further process was required which completed the community process. Thank you for your time and the mayor's office of services would like to defer to the board for their judgment.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Madam Chair. There an additional comment >> with that. May I have a motion? I put forward a motion to approve. Is >> there a second? >> Second. >> Mr. Stebridge?
>> Yes. >> Mr. Valencia? >> Yes. >> Miss Turner? >> Yes. >> Mr. Langum? >> Yes. [clears throat] >> Miss Better Braza? >> Yes. Thank you. >> Miss We >> Yes.
>> Chair votes yes. Motion carries. Good luck. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Next we have case BOA 1743924 with the address of 24 to 26 Lose Place. If the applicants and their representative present, would they
please explain the case to the board? >> Good morning. Happy New Year everyone. My name is Sylvio Ribero. I'm representing and I am the builder for Mrs. Antonelli's. Uh she's their family owned the house
and she's the only survivor and she owns the house now for a long time and she would like to extend the second floor making the attic space and some bedrooms for family members. The uh niece lives
on the second floor. She lives on the first floor. The niece is a nurse and takes care of her. Denise mother lives in the cape and they would like to have places to stay when they come over. So they don't have to drive back and forward to the cate two hours a day
whenever they come over. >> Okay. Are there questions from the board? >> Hearing none. May I have public testimony? >> Madam Chairman and board members, Sigy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This applicant has completed the community process. Our office hosted
in a Butters meeting on November 3rd at which no concerns were raised. The Brighton Alustin Improvement Association chose to take no position on this application. With that background, our office defers judgment to the board. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> And we have Joseph Finder.
[snorts] Joseph, if you can unmute yourself, if you're providing public testimony for this case. >> All right. >> Okay. >> Sorry. >> With that, May I have a motion? >> Motion of approval.
>> There a second. >> Second, >> Mr. Stebridge. Yes, >> Mr. Valencia. >> Yes, >> Miss Turner. >> Yes, >> Mr. Langum. >> Yes, [clears throat] >> Miss Brazza. [snorts]
>> Yes, >> Miss We >> chair votes yes. The motion carries. >> Thank you everyone. Happy New Year to everyone. Next we have case BOA 1781 1833
with the address of 36 Champion Street. If the applicants and other representative are present, would they please explain to the board? >> Hello. Can you hear me? >> Yes, sir. >> Yes. Good morning, chairman and member of the board. My name is Jin Xan. and
the uh uh general contract for this project. So uh 26 Champion Street is a is a large single family and mostly used as a rental and they are since it's a it has six six plus bedrooms. So the owner
said it's really hard to find a find a single family who need that many bedrooms. So it ended up like uh they they rent actually illegally rented out the you know the actual rooms to other unknown individuals. So making the traffic and the safety pattern for the
neighborhood is really hard and it's also hard to man to to manage the property. So we are proposing a 200 205 square ft rail addition directly above the first floor uh kitchen to make the
kitchen for the second unit and also trying to make a doorway in the in attic. So we uh respectfully u seek the approval of the you know building up here. >> So right now you have six bedrooms for
one family. What what will the makeup be for the two units? >> Is the same. >> So three and three. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Uh questions from the board >> hearing none. May I have public testimony? >> Yes. Sigy Johnson with the office of neighborhood services. This applicant
has completed the community process. Our office hosted an abuters meeting on October 21st at which a concern was raised about rodents. The Brighton Alustin improvement association is in support of this application. That background ONS defers judgment to the board. Thank you. >> Thank you,
>> Madame Chair. There are no additional comments. >> Thank you. With that, may I have a motion? >> Motion for approval. >> May I have a second? >> Second. >> Second. >> Mr. Stebridge. >> Yes.
>> Mr. Valencia. >> Yes. >> Miss Turner. >> Yes. >> Mr. Langum. >> Yes. >> Better Brazo? Yes. >> As we will. >> Yes. >> Your votes. Yes. The motion carries. Good luck.
>> Thank you so much. >> Okay. So, with that, it looks like we'll take a 5m minute break and come back at 11. recording in progress. >> Is Mr. Stebridge back with us? All right, I'll keep going through call
and circle back. Mr. Valencia. >> Miss Turner, >> present. >> Mr. Langum, >> present. >> Miss Better Brazo, >> present. >> Miss Weewell, >> present. >> Mr. Stebridge, >> present. Madam Chair,
>> Mr. Mr. Valencia, you're on mute. You're here, Mr. Valencia. >> All right. Well, I'm going to get started with six and Okay, there you go. >> Present. >> Okay. Thank you. Floor is yours, Mr. Stebridge.
>> Thank you, Madam Chair, for your patience. Um, next we we'll go to the hearing schedule for 11, excuse [clears throat] me, for 11:00 a.m. Uh, we'll begin by asking if there are any requests for
withdrawals or deferrals from the 11:00 hearing. Hearing hearing none. >> Bless you. >> Thank you. >> Hearing none. Uh we have we'll begin with two companion cases. The first is
case BOA 178 5822 with the address of 146 to 146A Bunker Hill Street. Along with that we have
Casey Boa 1786353 with the address of 148 Bunker Hill Street. >> Excuse me. Is there any way I can register? I'm trying to raise my hand. >> Uh raise your hand in regards to what, sir? >> Is
>> uh I'm This is the uh the project at 10102 Warren Street. They'd like to We'd like to redraw withdraw the project from today's hearing. >> Okay. Well, let's do that first maybe, Mr. Stenberg.
>> Sounds good, Madam Chair. Uh and that would be for case BOA178 6443 with the address of 10 100 to 102 Warren Street. Would you go ahead and explain,
sir? >> Okay. Thank you. And I'm sorry for the technology flaw here. Uh u I'm uh David Lee. I'm the architect for the national council for the uh in incarcerated and formerly incarcerated women whose
headquarters are at that location. Uh they would like to withdraw uh the proposal today because of funding issues. They need to uh revise the scope and return with a modified uh program in
the future. Uh but in today's uh funding climate uh they need to uh scale back on some of their aspirations. >> Thank you. Okay. Uh may I have a motion? >> I make a motion to withdraw.
>> I have a second. >> Second. >> Mr. Stebridge. >> Yes. >> Mr. Valencia. >> Yes. >> Miss Turner. >> Yes. >> Mr. Blank. >> Yes. Braza,
>> yes. >> Is we will >> yes. >> Air votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck. >> Thank you very much. I appreciate you doing this and I hope to come back to you with a revised scheme that everybody will be happy with. >> Thank you.
>> You're welcome. [snorts] Um, so with that, if there are no other requests for withdrawals or deferrals, uh, once again, I'll return to two companion cases, case BOA,
178522 with the address of 146 to 146A Bunker Hill Street. Along with that, we have case BOA 1786353 with the address of 1448 Street. If the applicant and other
representative are present, would they please explain to the board? >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Stebridge. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is George Morancey. I'm an attorney with the business address of 350 West Broadway in South Austin. Madam Chair, strictly speaking, these are not
companion uh cases, but they are budding or actually connected properties, and I am the attorney of record for both. Uh the owner of one is my client. Uh but they are in separate their ownership. The owner of the other property is someone else, but my client is purchasing a property. So, I will
continue. Uh but I will um I will present each case separately. I hope the board understands in a matter >> that makes sense. >> Okay. And uh and I'm sorry, we're on 148 or 146 first, which they were both called. Okay, I'm going to start with 146-146A
Month Hill Street. Uh my client here is the Nickmore. Uh we're seeking variances for relief u zoning relief floor area ratio building height usable open space and radiard setbacks as well as a conditional use permit uh for rest
restricted roof structure district to allow construction of a third story addition uh with a roof roof deck on this existing two family home. This is located in an MS neighborhood shopping subd district. Um to begin, I'd like to highlight that the planning department
has recommended approval of this project. Uh subject to design review, uh this um uh location is within a neighborhood design overlay district. First, regarding context here for this proposed third story addition. Um,
again, the property sits in an NS neighborhood shopping subdist, but this is a predominantly residential stretch of Bunker Hill Street characterized by two and three family dwellings and multifamilies featuring the same elements that are being proposed here.
Group X bay windows and side balconies. Uh, the planning department recommendation explicitly notes that these are common neighborhood architectural elements. Uh with respect to the height, we're requesting zoning relief to reach a height of 36 feet, which is only one foot over the 35 foot
limit. Uh as the recommendation notes, the resulting three-story pipe here is more consistent uh with the surrounding multif family residential buildings on Bunker Hill Street than the current lowscale twostory structure. Um at 22'4
in what is there now is significantly shorter than the asbuilt environment. typical residential buildings in this district. So by adding this third story, we're actually improving contextual compatibility. With respect to F, while
the building is going from 1.52 to 3.45, exceeding the maximum of 2.0, again, as the planning recommendation notes, the surrounding residential properties in the subdist frequently exhibit FS of 3.0 zero or greater making
the proposed mass in contextual with established neighborhood patterns. This proposed F would not be an outlier. Therefore, rather it's approximately matching what is already there. With respect to open space, it is acknowledged that uh at great open space
is being reduced here to approximately 55 square ft. Uh however again the planning department finds that this condition is mitigated through the addition of a substantial roof deck and third floor deck. Again features that are common throughout this neighborhood.
It's also noted that the property uh has is in proximity to significant public open spaces including the Bunker Hill monument and the surrounding green space uh open space in the Naval Shipyard Park and the Charles Town athletic fields. The rear yard nonconformity is existing.
the original structure already extends to the property line. So, we're not worsening this condition and they're maintaining an existing footprint. Finally, regarding the conditional use permit for the roof deck, uh while the deck does result in that 36 ft height,
that additional foot is owing to the deck platform. Uh the deck is as the planning department recommendation notes appropriately set back to minimize visibility for the public way and is consistent with the scale and character of other three-story residential
buildings and group decks in the neighborhood. Uh the property sits directly across from the Boston Housing Authorities's Bunker Hill development which is adding um mixed income housing and public open space uh public spaces to the neighborhood. So, I think our
modest addition of approximately 2,000 square feet here helps to preserve and enhance housing opportunities in a highly walkable transit oriented location. Um, with that, I will pause and I'd be happy to answer any questions from um from members.
>> Thank you. Are there questions from the board? Hearing none, may I have public testimony? >> Madam Chair, members Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. Our office hosted an abut's meeting on November 13th. A concern was raised by Annabutter about drainage impacts of
this proposal on Boswell Lane. Additional concern was raised about part of this structures deck having been built across the lot line and complications that would pose with construction that background our office defers judgment to the board. Thank you. >> Thank you
madam chair. Next we have Steve Marie from councelor Kleta. Hi, I'm Stefan from councelor Kleta Zabata's office. Uh, at this time the office would like to go in support of the project. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. There are no
additional comments. >> Thank you, Mr. Marci. Do you want to address any of the feedback from ONS? >> With respect to water runoff, obviously no water is going to allow um or ISD and Boston water and flow regulations the
site uh by the time of permit issuance. if that issue exists or certainly exists as a concern but that will be addressed and proper site mitigations will have to be in effect so that there's no runoff before ISD will issue the permit uh with respect to the deck uh once again I'm
not aware of that but uh ISD will obviously not issue a building permit for a deck that is crossing the boundaries of the property line absent uh an easement which apparently is not in place. So again, whatever is permanent issued by ISD would only allow
for lawful construction within the lot lines. >> Thank you. Any other questions from the board? >> Hearing none, may I have a motion on 146 to 146A Bunker Hill Street.
I put forward a motion of approval with a proviso that um is submitted to the planning department for design review. >> Second. Second. Okay. Mr. Stebridge. >> Yes. >> Mr. Valencia.
>> Yes. >> Miss Turner. >> Yes. >> Mr. Langam. >> Yes. >> Miss Better Braza? >> Yes. >> Miss We will. >> Yes. chair votes yes. The motion carries. >> Thank you. Um I assume that since Mr.
Stbridge already called 148, I'll just proceed without recalling. >> Yeah, please. >> Thank you. Uh again, for the record, Madam Chair, my name is George Morreny, an attorney with the business address of 350 West Farland South Boston. Again representing the hepore in this matter
seeking variances for excessive floor area ratio in sufficient area to allow construction of a third floor addition with the rear deck along with expansion of the uh livable area building through excavation and installation of
code compliant egress windows in an uh NS neighborhood shopping subd district. I again wish to begin by noting the planning department's recommendation of approval subject to design review. Uh I also wish to clarify an important point uh which is also noted in the planning
recommendation that while the refusal letter sites relief needed for um the site's location within a roof structure uh restricted roof structure district um the project doesn't propose construction of a roof deck or even rooftop
utilities. The aerial label roof deck on the plants is actually a rear deck aligned with the third story addition, not a rooftop structure. Regarding the F violation, what's being proposed is an increase from approximately 1.45 to
approximately 2.40. Again, the maximum F here is two. Uh this additional F will be achieved through expansion of the basement and the addition of third story. As the planning recommendation notes, residential properties in the immediate
area are commonly a full story taller than this building uh which is more aligned with the massing for commercial properties in this district. Again, it's an NS district, but this is an area where it is predominantly residential. Uh the proposed height would also and uh
as the board knows from the immediately preceding hearing complement proposed height of the abudding and connected uh structure at 146 Bunker Hill Street. As the planning recommendation additional notes, it is exceptionally common for
residential properties in this area, especially when supporting multiple dwelling units to have FS ranging from 2.0 to 3.0 exceeding the maximum. Even though this is a newly created dimensional violation, the uh the Fear
that would result is still highly contextual with existing residential property. So in other words, the proposed F actually brings this into alignment with the established residential pattern of the block um as to the rear setback violation that's an
existing nonconformity. The original structure already extends uh beyond the rear setback line as the planning uh analysis instructs a conforming rear yard setback there would require fully 40% of the total parcel dedicated to a
rear yard compliance uh which would constitute a hardship for uh the successful residential expansion of the building. So that's the very definition of a dimensional hardship. The lot's configuration makes strict compliance essentially impossible for expanded
living space here. This proposal incorporates part of the original structure that exceeds um the rear setback line uh doesn't create a new one. So it's maintaining that 0 foot setback condition but not worsening it.
Finally, regarding context, like the preceding property at 146 Bar Hill Street, this site is in an NS subd district predominantly residential. Uh planning department again knows that homes here commonly feature roof decks, bay windows, rear side decks, precisely
the elements that are being proposed under this application. And again, as with the other property, uh it sits directly across from the Bunka Hill development. There's a lot going on in this area in terms of adding actively adding uh new mixeduse housing to the
neighborhood. Uh is well suited or wells cited with respect to being in a highly walkable area transit oriented and again the proposal restrict respects the existing uh residential fabric of this neighborhood. With that I'll pause and take any questions that members may
have. >> Thank you. Are there questions from the board? Hearing none and public testimony. >> Madam chair, board member C. Johnson with the office of neighborhood services. This application was presented at an abuter's meeting jointly with 146.
So I will restate the testimony. A concern was raised by an abuter about drainage impacts on Boswell Lane. An additional concern was raised about part of the structures deck having been built across the lot line onto a neighboring property and complications that would pose with construction. That background, our office defers judgment to the board.
Thank you. And um and madam chair George Morancey with respect to those comments since they are the same uh my response would be the same as with respect to 146. >> Okay thank you questions from the board.
>> May I have a motion? >> Motion to approve with a proviso that it plans is submitted to the planning department for design review. Is there a second? >> Mr. Stembridge.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Watio. >> Yes. >> Miss [clears throat] Turner. >> Yes. >> Mr. Langham. >> Yes. >> Miss Brazza. >> Yes. >> Miss. We will. >> Yes.
>> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. >> Thank you. The next two cases will be our companion cases. The first is case BOA 179 9398
with the address of 34 me Street. Along with that we have case BOA179 9401 excuse [clears throat] me with the address of 34R
street and I believe these cases are for attorney Morenzi. >> Thank you Mr. Stebridge. Madam Chair, members of the board, good morning. Uh my name is George Morreny. I'm an attorney with the business address of 350 West Broadway in South Boston. uh in these cases are most definitely
companion cases. I represent the owners of property, John Campbell and his mother, Claire Smith. Uh Madame Chair, what is happening here is the movement of an invisible uh site
boundary line. Um this uh site is currently occupied by a three family dwelling owned and occupied by John and Claire. Uh there are two units in the front as can be seen here on the site plan. Uh two units in the front portion
of this building which is attached by a firewall uh to the rear portion of the building which is essentially a standalone single family. Uh it has its own separate entrance in egress. Uh it's where John and Claire live. Uh what uh
is being sought here is to subdivide the property to create a two family dwelling in the front number 34 Meat Street and a uh single family in the rear standalone single family number 34 R me street. Uh
no changes at all are being proposed to the building. Uh it is simply a subdivision of uh the lot uh where the existing structure sits to allow for uh independent ownership in the future of
uh the two family and the one family as separate uh dwelling buildings. >> Questions from the board? >> Hearing none. We have public testimony. >> Yes. Sigy Johnson with the office of neighborhood services. This applicant has completed the community process. Our
office hosted an abuters meeting on November 12th, 2025 at which no concerns were raised. That background and defers judgment to the board. Thank you. [snorts] >> Thank you. >> Okay, madam chair. Next we have
Arlindo. You can unmute yourself. the personal window in the attendee section. You can unmute yourself if you're speaking on behalf of for this case. Sorry, >> I'm sorry. I am waiting on another
another case. >> Okay. >> I'm sorry. I didn't see the number of the case pulled up. I'm Gary. Is this 688 Columbia Road? >> We are on 34 Me Street. Are you here to make a comment? >> I'm Gary Mendoza, the project architect
uh operating out of Dorchester. And >> are you here for 34 Me Street? >> No. >> No. >> No. Okay. Thank you. Uh so with that, may I have a motion? >> I'm here. Make a motion of approval. >> Second.
>> Thank you. Mr. Stebridge. >> Yes. >> Mr. Valencia. >> Yes. Miss Turner, >> yes. >> Mr. [clears throat] Langum, >> yes. >> Miss Better Brazza, >> yes.
>> Miss Weell, >> yes. >> Chair votes, yes. The motion carries. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, >> thank you. Next we have case BOA1770713 with the address of 921R to 923R
East 4th Street. If the applicants and or their representative present, would they please explain to the board? >> Um good morning u madam chair, members of the board. Nick Landry from DRT. We're the project architects. Um, I
believe that the owners are on the call. Um, but I I'm I'm going to run through the plans here. So, we're we're at 923 R Street. You can see there on the left hand side of the page, uh, you've got that aerial view. The the street on the right hand side's
Fairy Castle Island is kind of down to the right. East Fourth is along the top. This is a um a carriage house at the rear of the property that was converted into two units. So the the front building that you can see there is a two family and then at the rear there's there's two units side by side.
Go to the next sheet please. So we we were cited for two violations on the left hand side there of the page. Um a rooftop structure violation. We're going to be enclosing that existing roof deck to create some more living space. Um and the usable open space violation.
We're going to be because we're removing the the um the roof deck space. what it is. We have we have a a townhouse here. If we flip to the next page, you can see um as I mentioned, they're kind of divided right right down the middle. It's toward the the bottom of the page
there. There's a single family house at the front. Eastport Street's at the top of the page. There's parking in between that structure and that carriage house in the rear that was converted to two units. Go to the next page, please. So, the the purpose of this is to is to convert [clears throat]
um a an existing head house and a roof deck into um a primary suite for the owners. They have a growing family and they're looking to stay in place. The front the front building on the property and the the the neighboring townhouse that that we share party wall with at
the carriage house are all family members. Um so, in order for them to stay here, they're just looking to uh to increase the the usable square footage by enclosing that roof deck. We flip to the next page. You can see on the lefth hand side that shows you that that carriage house with
those two separate entries, two separate units in the back. And we're going to be enclosing that roof deck on the lefth hand side. The the unit on the right hand side stays the same. No change to the roof deck. Go to the next page, please. Here you can see you can see that existing elevation on the left hand
side where there's a head house. We're going to be pushing that lefthand wall out a little bit and then extending the head the the what what was the head house all the way to the front of the roof deck to enclose all that space to create more room for master mass uh primary speed. Go to the next page,
please. Again, you can see on the lefth hand side that's the existing head house with the with the roof deck to the right. We're just going to be enclosing that roof deck, pushing that wall all the way to the front of the mansard. Um no change in height. Uh we're just adding about 330 square feet with this
renovation. Go to the next page, please. And from the back side, um you see that head house there on the on the lefthand side. There's there's some existing mechanical units. Those are those boxes on the top. Those will stay. Nothing changes. We're just going to be providing roof access for them for maintenance. That's what that little hatch is there. Um we'll be pushing out
that wall and adding some some more windows. Bring some light in on the top floor. The next page, please. And this is kind of just a view. You can see you can see the the enclosed roof deck um that's now part of that that unit and then the the open area roof deck that's
part of the other unit. We're not touching that unit. That's not part of the project at all. >> Um that's the end of the presentation. If there's any questions I'm happy to circle back. >> Let's do that. >> Thank you. Other questions from the board hearing? None. We have public testimony. >> Yes. Sigy Johnson with the office of
neighborhood services. This applicant has completed the community process. Our office hosted an abuters meeting on October 20th at which no concerns were raised. City Point Neighborhood Association chose to take no position on this application. That background ONS defers judgment to the board. Thank you.
>> Okay, Madame Chair. Next we have Ashley. >> Hi, 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 and work with neighbors and abutters. You respectfully request that the proponent and team to continue to work closely
with the community on any quality of life issues during the construction phase. Thank you. >> Madame Chair, there are no additional comments. >> With that, may I have a motion? >> Madam Chair, um I would like to put
forward a motion uh a [clears throat] motion of approval with a provisal that the project undergoes BPD design review. um paying a special attention to the addition
massing and to work with um the manser roof and the top story which is in conflict with with one another in regards to complementing the character of the neighborhood. >> Thank you. [clears throat] Is there a
second? >> Second, Mr. >> Yes. Mr. Valencia, >> yes. [clears throat] >> Miss Turner, >> yes. >> Mr. Langum,
>> yes. >> Miss Better Braza, >> yes. >> Miss Weall, >> yes. >> Chair, the motion carries. >> Thank you very much. Next we have case BOA
1786734 with the address of 6 Brookside Avenue. If the applicants and or they represent the present, would they please explain to the board? >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Stebridge. Madam Chair, members of the board, attorney Ryan Spitz with Adams Morancey, business
address of 1688 Street First floor, South Boston. I'm here on behalf of my client, Storm Riders LLC. Also joining me today is the project architect, Eric Zapper. This proposal seeks to erect a new single family with parking on a vacant lot consisting of approximately
1984 square ft, which creates the need for relief as of insufficient lot area. [clears throat] Code requires 4,000 square ft uh within this 3F4000 subdist. Further, the pre-existing conditions of the lot also create the need for relief
as to lot width and frontage. This three-story structure will consist of first floor, living room, kitchen, and a bathroom. Second floor will consist of two bedrooms and two bathrooms. Third floor will consist of two bedrooms, one bath, an office space, and an additional family room. Also, the roof plan will
contain approximately a 250 ft square foot roof deck accessed by a hatch. We have violations for F violation as the proposal calls for a 1.28 as compared to a compliant.7 which is actually lower than most of the properties F in this
neighborhood. Sideyard proposal calls for 3 ft on the left side of the property and code requires 10 ft with a cumulative sideyard 17 ft and the proposal has approximately 11.75 ft but does maintain adequate light and air between the neighboring properties.
Rare rear yard shallow lot exception applies here which lowers the set back to 15 ft and the proposal calls for 10 ft to the structure but again consistent with other rear yards in this neighborhood. We have open space violation as we're required to provide 800 square ft in total and the proposal
calls for approximately 365 ft. Uh lastly we were cited for conformity of the existing building alignment. We believe we were cited in error as the proposed structure lines up with the existing building alignment on this block with the proposed setback of 7 ft. Uh so at this point in time, Madam Chair, I'm going to turn it over to you
uh for any questions or comments from the board. >> Thank you. Any questions from the board? >> I do have a question. Um one of the letters submitted asked requested that
you install a sprinkler system. Will that be happening? Yes, it's not required. Um, we did consider many accommodations going through the community process which resulted in in a lot of changes uh to the actual plans that you presented here, but that was not one thing um that the owners were
willing to accommodate. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. Another question. >> Yes. This uh property is located about two blocks from the orange line. Uh do you think the the proponent will
consider reducing the parking lot from the parking spaces from 2 to1 to increase open space? >> So we we did that already. So in the original proposal Mr. Valencia uh the it was side by side parking and there was there was an indent of the building itself to accommodate uh
maneuverability. Uh what we did is we changed rever changed the parking scheme to uh be tandem spaces and we filled in to provide more living space and as well as more outdoor space for the proposal. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Other questions from the board? May I have public testimony? >> Madam chair, members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Member. I am the Jamaica Plain Community Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process which
consisted of an abutters meeting facilitated on November 3rd with no abutters in attendance. Next, the proponent presented to Jamaica Plane Neighborhood Council Zoning Committee and the Edgeson Square Neighborhood Association who voted to support this project as does as does the neighborhood uh excuse me, the Jamaica Plane
Neighborhood Council Zoning Committee with their request of provisal that the sidebyside parking get changed to tandem parking to allow for more green space. To date, our office has received one letter of opposition with concerns for increased emissions, parking, and the height of the building, as well as one
support letter from Egleston Square Neighborhood Association, who supports the proposal, including their requested changes. The support letter was sent to the board for review, but I will read the changes into record. Uh, the changes included enlarge the first floor in order to provide an adequate family dining area on the first floor, which adjust the driveway to allow for tendon
parking to provide space for two cars. Second, to extend the backyard space with the width of the lot by shortening the driveway to provide a more usable backyard for residents. Again, the letter was sent to the board uh with the rest of the request. Thank you for your time and the mayor's office of
neighborhood services would like to defer to the board with the judgment. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Madame Chair. There are no additional comments. >> With that, may I have a motion of the
There a second. Second. >> Mr. Stumbridge. >> Yes. >> Mr. Valencia. >> Yes. >> Miss Turner. >> Yes. >> Mr. Langel. >> Yes. >> M. Brazzo. [snorts] >> Yes.
>> Miss. We >> Yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good. >> Thank you. >> The next case has been deferred. So that takes us to case BOA
1795532 with the address of 77 B Street. The applicants andor their representative present. Would they please explain to the board? >> Yes. Yes, Mr. Ste. Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board, Attorney Derek Small of a
business address 51 Doppson Road. And joining me today is the architect for the project, uh, Gavin Gavin Driscoll, and the owner of the property, Mr. Dwayne Bella. Uh, Madam Chair, we're here today seeking relief to erect a a building for four residential units with
three parking spaces on a vacant lot at the corn at 77 Bowden Street, which is at the corner of Bowden and Oakley Street. Here, the zoning subdist, and our lot size is approximately 4,100 square ft. Um with regard to the
violations madame chair um the F the required F in the zoning subd district is.5 we are proposing 1.5 uh we sited for parking um as the required space is one per unit um for four parking spaces and we are providing three off streetet
parking spaces. Um the sideyard setback requirement is 10. On the shortest side we are approximately four and the rear yard violation is 30 ft and we are um proposing 20 ft. I'll turn it over to Gavin and he can go through the plans um
and go through the the units and the and the bedroom count and all that stuff. Gavin. >> Uh thank you so much. Good afternoon. Um Gavin Driscoll Lighthouse Architecture and Design. Um we're proposing a four family home on a 4,000 uh vacant lot. We're proposing three three-bedroom,
two- bath units um with the traditional three- decker look. And then in the basement, we're pro providing a one bedroomedroom, one bath unit. Um the way that the gray lays out in the site, the the basement or garden level apartment is actually a walk out, which you can see on the the section on the top left
on on that page there. Um just because the grade um you can walk out at the um the basement level. And if you can go to the next slide, I can show you the exterior elevations. Um, in the top right, you can see the elevation facing uh Bowden Street with their traditional
uh three- decker look. And then you can see from the side elevation because of the grade, it's actually walk out um in the garden level or basement level where the parking would be um covered on that back side. And I can take any questions if there's any questions.
>> Yes, madam chair. Just to add, I know um the planning department's recommendation was for approval and support uh but they did have one uh comment on there with regard to accessibility and that bottom unit um which comes out onto the level
at grade is um is accessible handicap accessible. So I just wanted to to make sure that folks were aware of that as well. >> Thank you. Questions from the board. Hearing none. May I have a motion?
>> Madam Chair and members of the board for the I'm sorry. >> Oh, sorry. Public comment. Sorry. >> Thank you. [laughter] >> Madam Chair, members of the board for the record. Yes, ma'am. Uh, for the record, my name is Jeremy Remember. I'm the Joe Justice community engagement specialist with the Office of
Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process which consisted of an abs meeting facilitated on July 14th with one of Butter in attendance. Uh, no concerns were raised. Next, their opponent met with the Greater Bow and Geneva Neighborhood Association, which completed the community process. Thank you for your time in the Mayor's Office of Neighbor
Services. Elect for the judge. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Next, we have Brian. >> Hi. Uh good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. Uh my name is Timothy Dean. I'm here on behalf of city councelor Brian Warell. Uh we would like to go on record in support of this
project uh which will bring uh family style home ownership units into the area. So, thank you very much. Thank you, >> Madam Chair. There are no additional comments. [clears throat] >> Okay. With that, may I have a motion? >> Madam Chair motion to approve. >> Sorry, do you have a question,
>> Mr. Pra? Madam Chair, I'd like to put forward a motion of approval with a provisal that the project be um that the project undergoes BPD design review paying special attention to accessibility on
the site plan and in the and um in the internal unit um to accommodate group one units. [snorts] >> There a second. >> Second, >> Mr. Stebridge.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Valencia. >> Yes. >> Miss Turner. >> Yes. >> Langel. >> Yes. >> Brazo. >> Yes. >> Miss. We will.
>> Yes. >> Chair votes. Yes. The motion carries. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Members of board, have a good day. >> Thank you so much. With the time being edited what it is, um, we'll jump ahead to the red
discussion schedule for 11:30 a.m. and ask if there are any requests for withdrawals or deferrals. hearing none. Uh then we will return to uh end in the 11:00 case [clears throat] BOA
180 6139 with the address of 282 to 294 High Park Avenue. This is an article 80 case and we'll ask if there if
if the applicant or the um or their representative are present. >> Yes. Good morning madam chair, members of the board. My name is Johanna Schneider with the law firm of Hemway and Barnes at 75 State Street in Boston.
I'm here on behalf of Arcs Urban the developer. With me on the Zoom is Adam Tordano from ARCs and Anna Lockach, the project architect from JGE. We're really excited to share with the board a proposal to bring 48 much needed units of rental housing, a full 90% of which
will be affordable to an underutilized site on High Park A in Jamaica Plane. The site is currently occupied by a vacant one-story retail building with surface parking. We are proposing to develop an approximately 49,800
ft building with a mix of studios, 1, 2, and 3bedroom units. In all, there will be 43 affordable units. 10 of the units will be income restricted at 30% of AMI. 10 of the units will be incomerestricted at 50% of AMI. 16 of the units will be
income restricted at 60% of AMI. And seven of the units will be income restricted at 80% of AMI. There will also be five units in the development that are market rate units, which is intended to allow for upward mobility without displacement. That is to the extent that tenants in the building find
themselves moving out of AMI eligibility. They can move into the market rate units rather than be displaced from the building. The site is exceptionally well served by transit and really is a perfect location for residential density of this nature. It's in close proximity to numerous MBTA bus
lines and it is a short walk to the Forest Hills multimodal transportation hub as well as numerous open space resources uh including the arburetum, the Forest Hill Cemetery and Franklin Park. The project does leverage this transit-rich environment by taking a
progressive approach to parking while encouraging environmentally friendly travel by train, bus and bicycle. ARKs owns a number of similarly situated projects with comparable mix of units and affordability and based on its experience operating these other projects. We've arrived at a parking
ratio of.35 which is 17 on-site spaces. I would note though that we do not require relief for parking due to changes in the code adopted in 2021 which eliminate minimum parking requirements for projects with more than 60% of affordability. We're also providing secure parking, bike, bicycle
parking at a ratio of one space per unit. At its highest point, the building is six stories with that volume stepped back well toward the interior of the site. Preliminary shadow studies indicate that due to the orientation of the building in the sun, there will be minimal shadow impacts on abuing
properties. The project will include an approximately 635q ft groundfloor community room which will be available to neighbors by reservation at no charge. The project will be all electric and highly sustainable including design to meet passive house
and lead certifiable standards. We have had a very high level of community engagement including personal outreach to direct butters to neighborhood meetings and meetings with community groups. The project evolved significantly throughout the community process leading to a reduction in the
originally proposed height, the addition of stepbacks from both the Woodborne neighborhood to the rear and Hide Park Avenue in the front, a shrinking of the footprint, increased setbacks, and a wider sidewalk on Hide Park Avenue. As a result of these changes, there is now a 45- ft buffer between the building and
the nearest residential building to the rear. We also changed the building materials and the facade in order to blend in with surrounding foliage to contextualize the building massing and to align the building with the surrounding building rhythm. I also want to note that there will be new fencing
installed along the perimeter of the project site to increase privacy for neighbors. And in response to residents comments regarding potential traffic impacts notwithstanding the very low number of vehicular parking spaces during the PIC process, the applicant will work with the city agencies,
including BTD, to ensure that there is space available for short-term pickups and drop offs and deliveries. This project was unanimously approved by the BPDA board in December. We also have the support of the JPNC zoning committee and the Forest Hills Neighborhood
Association. We've submitted to the record a letter of support signed by 41 members of the Abadi Woodward neighborhood as well as a letter of support from state rep. Samantha Montano with respect to the relief that we are seeking, the infill nature of the project and the need to meet
requirements for state affordable housing subsidies really creates the unique conditions that drive the need for the requested variances. The proposed density of the project reflected in its height, F and setbacks truly is the minimum necessary to make the project financially feasible to
secure that state affordable housing funding and the requested relief for multifamily use is necessary to allow the development of these muchneeded affordable housing units which does align with the city's housing goals. Uh the requested relief with respect to
loading affords the opportunity to dedicate more space within the project to affordable housing. I'm happy to turn this over to JGE to walk through the plans or to answer any questions that the board may have. Thank you so much for your time this morning. >> Thank you. Are there questions from from
the board? >> Hearing none, let's take public testimony. >> Madame Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Benbury. I am the Jamaica plane community engagement specialist for the office of neighborhood services. This is an article 80 project that had a public
meeting on October 22nd, 2025. The developer presented to Far Hills Neighborhood Association on December 2nd, 2025 and to the Jamaica Plane Neighborhood Council zoning committee on January 7th of 2026. The Jamaica Plane Neighborhood Council voted in support of
the project. The developer has also met uh excuse me, hosted a meeting on January 8th uh 2026 prior to discuss the project and any concerns with the developer directly. Our office received a petition with 40 signatures in support of the project. And at this time, the mayor's office of neighborhood services
would like to go on record in support of this proposal. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Next, we have Jordan from Councelor Weber. >> Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. Jordan here from council Weber's office, director of
policy communications, district 6. Um, given the developers commitment to go beyond the required 20% of affordability, the need of for affordable housing in the district and the Jamaica plane neighborhood council support, council Weber would like to go on record in support of granting the various variances needed to complete
this project in order to bring more affordable units into the neighborhood. Uh, thank you so much for your consideration. >> Thank you. >> Thanks. Next, we have Nathan. Hi, my name is Nathan Extramm. Um, I attended the December 2nd uh neighborhood meeting um with Adam
Gerardano. Uh, I found Arks Urban to be extremely responsive um to all the neighbors concerns. Um, I support this project 100%. Um, right now it's an old auto parts uh shop. Uh, and we have the opportunity. Um, I think it said 48
units. Um, majority of those affordable. Um, it's right next to Transit. Uh this seems like a project that that the city needs. Um we have had projects in the neighborhood fail in the past um due to funding and if if this works uh funding
wise um I'm I'm hugely in support of it for for our neighborhood. Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Madame Chair. There are no additional comments. >> Thank you. Questions from the board
hearing none. I have uh a motion. >> Madam chair, this is a great project and I'm very um happy to see the affordability and the design. So I make a motion of approval. >> Is there a second? [clears throat] >> Second.
>> Mr. Stebridge. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Miss Turner. >> Yes. Mr. Langum, >> yes. >> Miss Bear Brazza, >> yes. >> Miss Weedwell, >> yes.
>> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck. >> Thank you. >> Next, we have case BOA 1762591 with the address of 19 to 21 Fresno Street. If the applicant and those they represent them are present, would they
please explain case to the board? >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Stebridge. Uh, good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. Thank you for the granting us the time to speak in regard to this project at 19 Fresno Street. My name is Justin Burns. I'm an attorney at Pulini and Norton, business address, 10 Forbes Road, Brainree, Mass. I'm here on behalf
of the property owner and proponent for this project, Jacob Lipton. Also with me today is the project architect, Tony Donado. Uh the proposal at hand here today is to demolish a existing single family dwelling on uh on this lot. Uh the dwelling is in extreme disrepair and
the uh lot has become a bit of an eyesore for the neighborhood. Uh and in its place, the plan is to construct a new twostory two family dup duplex dwelling. Each of the units in this uh new build will have three bedrooms and approximately 1,600 ft² of living space.
Each unit will have a dedicated singlecar garage interior to the building. on the ground floor level along with additional area for parking in the driveway. Each unit will also have a private deck space on the first floor. Uh the propos proponents use this proposal as a great opportunity to add
home ownership opportunities to a lot that can handle two family density uh while in turn cleaning up an unsightly lot uh an action that would be a benefit uh to the neighborhood as a whole. Regarding our violations, ISTD has cited us for insufficient uh lot area. The
required lot space for a two family in the subd district is 8,000 square ft. We're just at uh just under 7,000. We also have violation for open space where we're just under the required amount. And lastly, we have violations for rear yard and sideyard setbacks. Uh for the
sideyard setbacks uh outside of the private deck on the left side of the house, all other area are 10 over 10 ft from the lot line. Um and in the rear, we are at 25.5 ft away from the lot line. Um um with that I can turn it over
to Tony Ditto who I believe is on or he may be in the attending section to go over the plans and I can answer any questions uh from the board if they have any. >> Yes. Hi. Um I'mino Donado. Um I'm the architect for the project with AD
Architect based out of Canton, Massachusetts. Um just a brief description of the building is I'm sure you you actually got a pretty good one. is a two family duplex style front to back. Um it's done in a traditional style um with the same size, scale, and
setbacks of the adjacent homes. Uh both units actually address the street. Um they are separated by one car or garages. They are 2 and 1/2 stories with unfinished basements and walk up attics. They total 1660 ft of living space each
with three bedrooms, 2 and 1/2 bathrooms each. Um, again, it's a onecar garage, but there's also um assigned parking spaces on the exterior and um additional parking spaces for guests. Uh there's a
generous uh share drive that can can accommodate these uh additional guest parking. Um there is rear yard privacy and as you mentioned there the the the zoning relief that that we're seeking here. Okay. Are there questions from the
board? Hearing none. May I have public testimony? >> Madame chair and members of the board. For the record, my name is Jeremy Bimbury. I am the Rosendale community engagement specialist for the office of neighborhood services. The applicant has completed the community process which consisted of an abot meeting facilitated
on September 18th that was very lightly attended with three in attendance. One voiced support for the proposal saying anything is better than what is here now. While others voiced concerns for the size of the lot, feeling it is too large, with more concerns for construction debris, road mitigation,
the construction timeline, tree removal, and the distance of the deck from the adjacent property, inquiring whether it could be moved. The proponent presented to Wes Village Neighborhood Association with no concerns was approved to uh by our office to move forward in the process. To date, our office has received eight letters for support for
this proposal sent to the board for review expressing that this is a good addition to the neighborhood. Thank you for your time and the mayor's office of neighborhood services would like to defer to the board for their judgment. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Madam Chair. There are no additional comments. >> Okay,
with that, any other questions from the board? May I have a motion? >> I make a motion of approval. >> A [clears throat] second. >> Thank you, Mr. Stebridge. Yes,
>> Mr. Valencia. >> Yes, >> Miss Turner. >> Yes, >> Mr. Langum. >> Yes, >> Miss Better Brazo. >> Yes, >> Miss Weell. >> Yes. >> Chair votes. Yes. The motion carries.
Good. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Moving on to the red discussions scheduled for 11:30 a.m. We'll ask again if there are any requests for withdrawals or deferrals.
Hearing none, we will go to case BOA170 3964 with the address of 33 Princeton Street. If the applicants and with their representative present, will they please explain to the board?
There is one person who has raising the hand and is joined now as a panelist. I'm not sure is the iPod 2. >> Yes. Good morning. >> Yeah, please. Your name? >> Um, yes. Joseph Luna, principal of Luna
Design Group. On behalf of the owner, Richard Viachi Varachi. Um we are at 100 Conover Hill Drive, 406 in Danlers, Massachusetts. We are the project architects. Um I want to thank the board again um for the continuence to this
hearing because of a personal matter originally scheduled for last last month. Um that being said, I'll bring the what's going on on this whole thing. We were engaged to resolve violation
notices filed on the property um in January [clears throat] 2023 from for Boston ISD. Those violations consisted of the use of a basement um as a fourth family in what
was originally approved in 1987 as a three family and then the use of a residential unit as a studio apartment over an existing um carriage house project now is in in housing court and we are working with Kevin O' Conor um
from Boston ISD senior assistant corporate counsel because there were two sep separate violations. Originally, we had filed two separate permits for rejection um for one for the carriage house um with our initial rejection
coming uh in 82204 and then um the other for the four family which our rejection came on 327205. At the request to Kevin, he requested that these be companion cases and presented to the zoning board of
appeals. However, when you look at the description of what is on today's discussion, it only relates to the discussion regarding the four family, even though they were supposed to be combined as companion cases. Um,
at the request of the board, I'd like to be able to present both. that if that is not possible that we would like to at least move to have discussions on the four family um and then try to expedite the discussions on the carriage house at another hearing. >> Madame chair um I see the of the
position that he can move forward on this case and then at next month's hearing he can move forward on the following case. >> Okay. >> Okay. So please uh proceed with this case only. >> Okay. Um just just one little note on that we
have comm um have completed the community process and the abuters hearings for both separate cases. So that being said then we'll just go through zoning board of appeals. So we will discuss now the case before you today which is the
um use of the basement unit as the fourth unit in the primary structure. This was originally approved in June of 1987 by Boston Zoning Board of Appeals to go from a single family to a three family with the basement uniting being
part of a duplex of the of the of the first floor unit. My client, Mr. Barrage, stated that he later appealed this and was granted approval from a three family to a fourth family in the conversion of the basement unit into a
separate unit. ISD has no record of this and that is how the violations were were um filed against him. Um Mr. Barachi pays
taxes as a four-unit building on this has four separate units as four separate util uh utilities for each one of the units on this. Um this unit has been occupied in excess of 15 plus years uh and meets the
requirements for environmental in terms of ceiling height and egress bedroom egress and means of egress. The building is not sprinklered. Um there is no physical construction um going on in this unit and we are just attempting to
get this recognized as a legal unit as a fourth unit within the structure. Um, be happy to answer any questions the board may have on this. >> Thank you. Questions from the board. >> I have a question. Um,
so the applicant is stating that it was previously approved. Do you have any paperwork or any evidence to that? >> Yes, we do. I have a copy of the zoning board of appeals decision um June 1987 although I thought that was filed when
we submitted the application. All right. Um I have no record I have no record of any appeal for the decision from from a three family to a four family. Only the only original ZBA approval back in 1987
from a single to a three. >> And you said you submitted that to us? >> Yes. It was part of the initial paperwork. >> Right. Thank you. >> Thank you. Any other questions from the board? May I have public testimony? >> Hello, Madam Chair, members of the
board. My name is Eva Jones representing the mayor's office of neighborhood services regarding 33 Princeton Ring. Our office defers to the board's judgment. A community process was conducted including two of Butter's meetings held on 102324 and 62325 that was attended by several East Boston
community members. The feedback from this meeting was significant opposition regarding this proposal, especially from one of their direct abutters to the property whose family has been significantly impacted by the ongoing issues at the property, including the building of unpermanented apartments and complaints of renters moving in and out
as these properties regularly, which [clears throat] the Abutter and the family members have made several 311 complaints about. Uh there were also three community members in the meeting expressing support for the applicant and his proposal. Additionally, we received one petition in opposition signed by 51
community members expressing opposition to the proposal submitted to the board and the Eagle Hill Civic Association has chosen not to vote or review this proposal. At this time, the mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services defers to the board's judgment on this matter. Thank you everyone for your time and consideration.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. Next, we have Steve from Councelor Kletas. >> Hi, this is Stefan from Councelor Kleta's Abata's office. Um we are of the opinion that uh this property was developed to its current current state
uh without permission from the city. Um the owners have been asked to produce documents to show approvals for this former single family home to become a 3 to four family. Uh that hasn't been produced to the councelor's office. Uh Eagle Hill did not recognize them as having appeared in October. And a
neighbor at um a neighbor direct the butter has a petition with 55 signatures that oppose the Uh so Eagle Hill has asked them to return for a January presentation and and a February vote. Um so at this time the counselor's office would recommend
uh a deferral until the community process is fully complete. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Um we have somebody from the attendee section with the number that ends in
354. If you can unmute yourself. The person with the number 8577193354, if you're speaking for this case, is your turn to provide your testimony.
All right. Is 3354, are you able to unmute yourself? Are you here for 338 Princeton? Okay. Are there any other questions from the board? >> And um uh so just for clarification
um the proposal is that is in front of us is actually for the proposed access accessory dwelling unit. Is that correct? >> No, that is incorrect. that the is the accessory dwelling unit already built?
>> Um what we are here today is the basement unit that has been occupied again in excess of 15 years um or 20 years at this point. Um that was
originally in the original approval um in 1987. The basement was part was to be part of the first floor first floor unit. Mr. Barach appealed that and then converted that basement space into a separate apartment. Has nothing to do
with an accessory dwelling unit. Is just a regular apartment. Um and again that has been occupied in excess of 20 plus years. Um but there is no record of the appeal on this and that brought about the the uh violation notice by the city
and the project is in in housing court now. So it's not regarding an ADU, it's regarding just this being used being being used as a fourth unit in the structure. >> Right. So my and maybe my colleagues
need to help me. I I do see that you're seeking legal use of the property from 3 to 4 unit. That makes that's very clear in the drawings that I'm seeing. What's not clear to me is the accessory dwelling unit, the garage conversion to an ADU.
>> Okay. It it is the garage conversion. Um I have no record of any any any of this getting involved and I could not find anything at Boston ISD on this. At some point, um, the owner built over the
existing garage a studio apartment. Um, that studio apartment has been occupied, as I said, over 10 years, um, by a single tenant. Um, that unit has has an issue with with
egress as there's only one stair which is shown on the proposal for the new unit. that is the project that that is not specifically mentioned on our discussion today that I'm assuming we were going to talk about next. >> So that's what our attorney said is
separated. So maybe the maybe Mr. Hampton needs to weigh in because the recommendation >> so seems to be talking about both the big ball. [clears throat] Uh, Madam Chair, before we go there, uh, >> yes,
>> I'm looking at the file, um, dated June June 23rd, 1987, City of Boston, Board of Appeal, which, um, has a provisor. I won't read it all,
but the first proviso says that this was granted for three units only. Uh, no. No. No. Separate basement apartment duplex on the first floor unit only. Submit for board of appeal new plan for
three units. >> Okay. >> I believe Mr. Verace, the building owner is raising his hand to you can fill in more specifics of that. I I think what I just need clarity on is are we voting
for the legality of turning a three unit to a four unit or are we voting for and or are we also voting for the accessory unit but that but this has already been
built so I think I just need some clarity. >> So we are voting today for the three to the four. Okay. >> Okay. >> And then there'll be there'll be a subsequent hearing to discuss the the
>> Okay. Perfect. Thank you. >> Okay. Any other questions from the board? >> Hello madam chair. The director Butters did raise their hand. Um they have provided significant impact on this proposal and it would
>> Okay. Is this the person named Neil that I see? >> Yes. >> Because there's a phone number that still has a hand raised but didn't um weigh in. >> I believe that that's the applicant. >> Oh, that's Yeah, I'm also Oh, okay. Can you hear me? I've been raising my hand, too.
>> Who's speaking right now? >> Okay. I That's my brother Guy. Um I'd like to give a quick synopsis of >> Can you state your name and address for the record? I'm sorry. >> Sure. My name is Mr. Lockado and we are the director of Butters of 33 Princeton
Street and we reside at 31 Princeton Street. Um, >> okay. >> This has been the family home for over 78 years. My dad's parents bought the property from a friend after living at 31 Princeton Street house since 1923.
Very lucky out of my aunt lived on second floor for 89 years. Find and closing your file for review as time limitations on this platform. One probable statement of facts word dock dated 1216 2025. Probable statement of
facts word dock dated 109 2026. Probable statement of facts word dock dated 1112026 at bottom of page. Assorted photo showing nuisances affecting our quality of life in the quiet and peaceful enjoyment of our family home. Plans for
33 Princess Street refused to be heard. acknowledged by Eagle Hill Civic Organization when disclosed various violations. Two illegal units created without permits bypassing zoning oversight. Basement and garage converted to dwelling without
permits. Copy of Varian granted to 33 Princess Street. Basement to be used as part of first floor only. No separate apartment. If violated, goes back to a one family. Extensive neighborhood opposition letters discussed zone for
three family only. Four families not allowed in this zone. Variance is required for parking. Walkway converted to driveway is only 6 ft 8 in wide wide that leaves only a few inches from
vehicles tires contacting foundation of our property. Plan submitted by Mr. Luna to city shows a plot plan on page two from 1984 but has no width included for driveway far review by city plans examiner. I
sent an email off to the plans reviewer for clarification. Actual parking on plan submitted is one space. Property needs eight spaces. Zoning code required a driveway 10 feet wide and state law mandates four feet
away from an abundance property. State certified structural under report for our property is enclosed with photos of damaged photo of car family home extensively damaged from a motor vehicle after gate posts were removed so a
vehicle could fit. See photo ZBA bypassed twice for review as advances we needed was needed for the two illegal units. See we're dark was supposed to use new zoning laws as significant as significant use and intensity were
created. We have serious concern for our property >> and I ask you to wrap up sir. >> Okay. I enclosed a photos of vehicles sides swepting our property going 40 feet 43 feet downhill bouncing tires off the side of our home's foundation
basically sides swepting all the way down causing our house to shake causing large cracks and lads and plaster walls along with the brick foundation house wall being pushed in below grade at this time. Uh just to wrap it up, as as this
matter is important to us, we are requesting that the city and ZBA look at all the zoning issues, especially the use of vehicles trying to fit into a 6.8 in wide space between properties creating damage and the safety issue for our family home.
Thank you board members and chief for your time in this matter. >> Thank you. >> Is 3354 also commenting on this case in support or opposition. >> Yes.
>> Is that you, sir? Richard? >> Yes. Am I connected? I can't I can't tell. >> Okay. Can you identify yourself? State your name. >> Yeah. My name is Richard Baraki. 33 Princeton Street, East Boston. >> Okay. So, you're the applicant. >> Can you help us clarify any of these
issues that have come up? >> Excuse me. Can you help us clarify any of these concerns that have been raised by your butter? >> I I've been uh I moved into the neighborhood in 1983
and been there uh been there uh since uh my wife passed away and raised my daughter there. Neil Liato came into the neighborhood in uh late 90s, early 2000
into his aunt's house. And uh 2004, we started having issues with with him um neighbors and myself with my driveway, something that I've been using since 1985. Um
uh when the work started in 1987, all the permits were issued uh for the deck, the four kitchens, four bathrooms, four, um um bathrooms, for boilers, for hot water heaters, and everything was
inspected and tagged and metered. um the uh um driveway the the driveway light that would come on. This was continuously bothering Mr. Lakiato and I
try to um comfort him uh to resolute to try to thing to try to make the light possible for him but this aggravated him you know immensely and um uh I tried to
uh whatever try to lower it to see what would make him happy but he he was continuously having a problem. He had a problem me using this driveway. This actually went to this actually pause. Let's take a p a pause. Are there questions for the board? Let's approach
it that way. Okay. So, let's Is there a motion? Yes. I would like to prefer a motion of approval um to allow the legal use of a
three to a four family owning. >> Okay. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Mr. Stebridge. >> Yes. >> Mr. Valencia? >> Yes.
>> Miss Turner? >> No. >> Mr. Langham? >> Yes. >> Miss Better Braza? >> Yes. >> Miss Weell? >> Yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries.
Thank you, Madam Chair. We'll see you u next month to discuss the carriage house. >> And just a reminder, this doesn't grant building code relief. It still has to go through that review. This just granted zoning relief, >> right? We understand, as I stated, um we've met we meet the requirements for
an existing structure. Thank you. >> And and I and I recommend that you hold some community meetings to discuss the ADU. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Mhm. Next we have two companion cases. The first is case BOA
1765915 with the address of 3 3430 to 3436 Washington Street. Along with that we have case BOA 1767062 with the address of 3440
to 3446 Washington Street. These are both article 80 cases if the applicant andor the representative are present. >> I'm sorry. Can can I ask question? Are we supposed to go to the 12:00 interpretation?
>> Yes. Apologies. Okay, let's let's back up on that. Thank you. >> Yes, Madam Chair. Um, we have an interpretation case and red discussion scheduled for 12
p.m. and that is case BOA168 9794 with the address of 62-6 Condor Street. If the if the applicant and their representative are present,
will they please explain to the board? Is the applicant for 66 Condor Street present? Can you please raise your hand if you are? Madam Chair, I don't see I don't see anybody. Okay. Uh if that's the case, I'm going
to have us take a break before we go back to the rest of the cases. >> For how long? >> So, let's take a 15-minute break. >> Okay. Thank you.