zoning board of appeal hearing in progress. The city of Boston zoning board of appeal hearing for June 24, 2025 is now in session. This hearing is being conducted in accordance with the applicable provisions of the open meeting law, including the updated provisions enacted by the legislature
this year. The new law allows the board to continue its practice of holding virtual hearings through June 2027. This hearing of the board is being held remotely via the Zoom webinar event platform and is also being livereamed. In order to ensure this hearing of the board is open to the public, members of
the public may access this hearing through telephone and video conferencing. The information for connecting to this hearing is listed on today's hearing agenda, which is posted on the public notices page of the city's website, boston.gov. Members of the public will enter the virtual hearing as attendees, which means you will not see
yourself on the screen, and you will be muted throughout unless administratively unmuted when asked to comment. Board members, applicants, and their attorneys or representatives will participate in the hearing as panelists, and they will appear alongside the presentation materials when speaking. Panelists are strongly encouraged to keep video on
while presenting to the board. As with our inerson comments, inerson 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.
Stebridge reads the address into the record. Do not raise your hand before the relevant address is called or the meeting host will not know to call on you at the appropriate time. Mr. Stebridge. Good morning, Madam Chair. Present. Good
morning, Miss Weell. Good morning, Madam Chair. Present. Good morning, Miss Turner. Morning madam chair present. Good morning Mr. Collins. Morning madam chair present. Good morning Miss Ponado.
Good morning madam chair present. Good morning Mr. Egan. Morning madam chair present. Good morning. The floor is yours Mr. Sbridge. Thank you madam chair. Uh we'll begin with the approval of the hearing minutes. Um, these
minutes are from June 3rd of this year. I'll make a motion that we that men are approved. Is there a second? Second. Mr. Sbridge? Yeah. Miss Weel? Yes. Miss Turner? Yes.
Mr. Collins? Yes. Miss Pado? Yes. Aken? Yes. Chairs? Yes. Motion carries. Next, next we'll move on to the extension schedule for 9:30. Uh there,
um I'll read them all in. Uh they all seem reasonable for the circumstances that are requested. Um so I would suggest that we approve them. Uh but we'll turn that uh when there are any questions for Madam Chair,
then we'll move on from there. First we have case BO8 16116 3856 with the address of 1175 Dorchester Avenue. Next we have case BOA1207621
[Music] with the address of 265 Amir Street. Then we have case BOA120869 [Music] with the address of 267 Amory Street.
Next we have case BOA 1135696 with the address of 85 Horror Street. Then we have case BOA1 B case BOA 486152 with the address of 270 Dorchester
Avenue. Next we have case BOA 725224 with the address of 37 to 41 B Street. Next we have case BOA 1472384 with the address of 330C
Street. And finally we have case BOA 721541 with the address of 114 Orleans Street. And those are the cases that are before us for extensions as well. Any questions
from the board? May I have a motion to grant the extensions as requested? I'll make a motion to grant the extensions as requested. May I have a second? Mr. Ste, yes. Miss Weo, yes.
Miss Turner, yes. Mr. Collins, yes. Miss Ponado, yes. Mr. Aken, yes. Chair, yes. Motion carries. Next, we'll move on to the recommendation
um for the hearing from the subcommittee of June 12th. Um they were all approved. I'll read through them and then we'll take action after that. We begin with case BOA
1693782 with the address of 11 Dorchester Street. It was approved. Case Boa 1698916 with the address of 33 to 39 Savill Avenue. Approved.
Two companion cases. Those those being case BOA16971-97 with the address of 2 Summer Street. Along with that is case BOA169759 with the address of 2 R summer street which were approved.
Then we have case BOA 1714460 with the address of 23 Wedgemir Road which was approved. And finally, we have case BOA1706593 with the address of 11 Bonaire Street which was approved with a provisal for
providing for a 12T curb cut and those were the recommendations from the last supplement here. May I have a motion? Motion to approve the recommendations move.
May I have a second? Second. Mr. Stebridge. Yeah. Miss Weell? Yes. Miss Turner? Yes. Mr. Collins? Yes. Miss Ponado? Yes. Mr. Aken? Yes. Chair votes? Yes. The motion
carries. Next we have a groundwater conservation overlay district with G-card case scheduled for 9:30. This is for case BO81719295 with the address of 393 to 395 Beon
Street. If the applicant and or their representative are present, will they please complain to the board? We have a raised hand here. One second. Evan Dian, are you here to speak on this proposal?
I sent a request to mute you. Can you hear us? If you speak and we cannot hear you. I just made him a panelist. Looks like we cannot hear him. the applicant for 393 to 395 Beacon Street on.
Can you raise your hand if you're on for this proposal? Okay, I'm going to suggest we keep going. We'll return to that here later. Mhm. Thank you.
Next, we begin the hearing scheduled for 9:30 a.m. Um, with that, we'll ask if there are any request for withdrawals or deferrals from the 9:30 a.m. per hearing. hearing none.
We'll begin with the first case which is case BOA 168 45 4856 with the address of 151 Hebrron Street. It's the applicant andor their
representative present. Will they please explain the case of the board? Yes. Good morning. My name is Bonnie Tan with JCBT Architect. Um, I'm representing my client which is
the owner of the property. He's looking to erect a new 8 unit uh apartment for rental at the 151 Herbron Street. Currently a vac uh vacant land. The proposed threetory
we're seeking for variance of minimum lot per dwelling uh front yard, side yard and rear yard setback, max uh floor area ratio, rear yard occupancy and open
space. The proposed will have uh one parking space uh actually three parking space total for eight apartments. Each apartment w will be two bed, two
bath ranging from 800 to,500 square ft living area. Um it's the drainage will be installed um possibly under the building or in the
parking area. Um is a threetory flat roof which uh it will um match the nearby triple deckers
with a more modern look. Um so we one of the unit will be affordable with seven of them being marketable rate that to meet the uh the guideline for
affordable. Uh I believe that is what I have for presentation today. questions from the board. Madam Chair, I have a question. Um I'm a little concerned about the parking
configuration. Most of the frontage is dedicated to parking and with those three vehicles. um backing out into the street most likely and kind of where that building comes closer to the frontage if you know
how the vehicles will be be able to enter and exit safely and have clear sight lines. Um have you thought of any other parking configurations or how to land on this? Apologize. Um so 151 Mahairbrun is at a dead end street um
with a like two building of multifamily residential there before us. So there's only one building um at the end of the street. So we're not expecting a lot of traffic, vehicle traffic. So backing in
and out is not an issue at all because it's at a dead end street. Thank you. I mean, I would also add, Madam Chair, the front yard parking is not something we typically like to see
either. Have you Is there a way to relocate that parking to the rear of the building? So, you're not looking at, you know, parking spaces on the on the main street. We try cuz uh
currently there an easement in the rear from Livermore but it hasn't been worked out. If it's possible, we would love to come in from Livermore, but there isn't with the tight width of the building,
there isn't really so much of a option unless we take out a unit and put them under. Yeah. And what about usable open space? Um and and you know you're also asking
for pretty variances on setbacks as well. Just speak to sort of the density of the site and so open space requirement is 300 square ft. So we're we are providing 255 or shy
of 45 square feet per the zoning requirement in the area. Thank you. and and set and setbacks. Setback uh we're uh front yard setback
is require 15 ft. So we have five side yards 10 ft requirement with a five to six feet. One side is five and a half the other side is six because of the uh the irregular shape of the lot and rare
yard require 30 which we have seven. Yeah. I mean more I mean we know the variances more speak to why you designed a project that requires these variances and if you could if you've looked at something with less density uh because I
I are you aware of the uh planning department's recommendation here? Yes, we are aware. And the reason why we're proposing the eight unit with high density pro uh project is because we're trying to match what's adjacent to us.
Currently, there's a a really actually two three buildings are really large multif family on this street along here, Bron. And they all have very tight density, no setback,
not much of parking except one of them have uh quite a lot of uh paved parking lot. at the corner of hairbr. May I have public testimony? Madam chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy
Benbury. I am the matter pan community engagement specialist for the office of neighborhood services. The applicant has completed the community process which consisted of an abutis meeting held on February 27th. It was very lightly attended where buddies voiced concerns for the area flooding and water runoff as well as the size of the proposal and
the number of units. Next, the proposal was presented to Greater Madapan Neighborhood Council on March 3rd where they voted in support of the proposal. Thank you for your time and the mayor's office of neighborhood services would like to defer to the board with their journal. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. We
have no raised hands at the moment. Okay. Is there a motion? Madam Chair, could I um put a question up to Mr. Hampton if he's here? Mr. Hampton? Yes, ma'am. So, I see the recommendation
from planning and I know it's always a balance of what can be addressed, you know, through design review or what should kind of be looked at more um you know, uh maybe starting over. But I just
want to confirm that that uh recommendation. Um yes, Miss We will. Uh thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. Jeff Hampton, City of Boston Planning Department. Um as you saw in our recommendation, we're not opposed to use
eight units is fine. Uh it does impart apartment buildings um on the uh the adjacent property. And to your point, Miss Panado, I think about the parking entering from Liverour, I don't know that's possible because they don't own
the land, right? So, I don't know if spaces behind the building are going to be possible. I don't know if spaces under the building is a uh realistic opportunity with a garage. Um but I think this you know the design of the
building leaves a lot to be desired uh in terms of eliminating front yard increasing open space increasing units. Does it need to go back to the drawing board? I don't know. We're not at that point right now. I would suggest that
because we do recommend approval that we have significant design review. It may need to come back to you for board final abiter if some changes were made uh drastic changes rather are made to this but we are in support of this project. I
just think it needs to be a little TLC. Thank you. And looking across this street it does appear that all of these apartment buildings for the most part have what you would call front yard parking. Um, any other questions from the board?
Madam Chair, I'm sorry. Have a a hand that raised. Did you want to go back to someone's hand raised? So, if we're done with that, we just had a person raised their hand. I'm not sure if they're looking to give testimony. Did you want to go back to that or Yeah, it looks like that person tried to speak earlier. So, we we
can do take one hand. Oh, thank you. Okay, sure. You've been unmuted. Can you state your name and address and tell us if you're in support of opposition for the proposal? Um, our names are Robert and Shirley Moore. Um, our address is 164 Hackon
Street and we are not in support. And the reason being uh when when I heard the architect speak about the runoff uh this is a wet lands area and the
apartment buildings that are in existence uh each have you know a parking a dedicated parking space. There are quite a few parking spaces there.
But what the architect iso uh proposing, she's saying it's a dead end street, but to come into it, you have to come down Livermore Street, and there's a a school at the end of the street, and the buses
are constantly going through the school buses. Um and the traffic is already congested and people um once in a while you see people parking on Livermore Street. So now you
want to add more parking along there. It's dangerous enough as it is and sometimes children are walking from the school. So you have to come to the area that you are proposing.
The space that is uh being requested for this building is small. You can see maybe a three family going there but the what this architect is proposing is huge in comparison to the
space that is available. So it's going to be super congested. People are going to be scrambling where can I park, where can I park? The water level will have to rise up to accommodate all of this. And
I don't I'm not an architect, but it's just Thank you, ma'am. Okay. Uh would the architect like to respond briefly? Yeah. Yes, we can work out to uh rework the parking inside, possibly create
another extra parking space underground and and we uh obtain more open space if that's possible. Thank you. Any other questions from the board?
May I have a motion? I'll make a motion to approve with BPD review um special attention to increasing sidebacks and open space in relocating the parking spaces in the
front yard. Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stebridge. Yes. Miss Weell? Yes. Miss Turner? Yes. Mr. Collins? Yes.
Miss Ponado, yes. Mr. Aken, yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck. Thank you. Next, we have case BOA170 2984
with the address of 84 Dell Street. It's the applicant and or the representative at the present. Could they please? Hi Owen, is that you? You can unmute yourself. Hey, good morning. Good morning. We can hear you. Yes, we
can hear you. Please proceed. Okay. Sorry, I have a new new uh microphone. Um so the customer currently has a um small cape. They have a small concrete landing in the front that they would
like to remove and replace with a larger landing. Um, essentially you would be uh right here come out 3'6 for mud room and then another 4T for the landing with uh
about 8 ft wide with a little roof over it. Kind of give the front of the house a little more character and give them more room um for closets and all that stuff. They come in the house. Uh on the rear of the house, they currently have a poorly built um addition that's kind of
sinking into the ground with an existing deck. They'd like to remove that and rebuild the the um the addition a little larger uh 5 ft further back and then replace the deck. And then beside that addition, they want to build a a sun
room which would also kind of incorporate um closet space for the the current um office on the first floor. and then uh just create some more livable space for all. It's it's very cramped currently. Questions from the board. Hearing none, may I have public
testimony? Madam chair and members of the board. For the record, my name is Jeremy Berebury. I am the Roslandale community engagement specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process which consisted of a subcommittee flyer to a brother with no community feedback or required neighborhood association meeting. The
proposal was approved to move forward in the zoning process. We've received no community feedback at this time. Thank you for your time and the mayor's office of neighborhood services would like to defer to court for their judgment. Thank you. Thank you. Madam Chair, we have no raised hands at
the moment. May I have a motion? Make a motion to approve. Second. Mr. Sunbridge. Yes. Miss Wro? Yes. Miss Turner? Yes. Mr. Collins? Yes.
Miss Panado, yes. Mr. Aken, yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck. Thank you. Next, we have case BOA 1697485 with the address of 148 Arlington
Street. If the applicant and their representative are present, they please explain to the board. Hello. Um, I'm trying to change of the occupancy from a two to three. Can you state your name? Sorry. Can you state your name and address for the record before you proceed? Yes. My name is
Caesar Roas, 148 Arlington Street in High Park. Please proceed. Thank you. Yes. Uh, I'm I'm trying to change the Okine from a two to a three family. This is an existing two family. It was uh newly
renovated in in 2024. Uh, I currently have enough space on the attic space on the third floor. Uh, we have two means of egress. I also have plenty of parking on the back for six cars. Right now, there's for four, but we can add, if you keep scrolling down,
you will see it all the way at the end. Um, that's the existing structure. So, here's the third floor uh right there. 1 2 3 4 5 six. That's my proposal to have six. We have plenty of green space around the house, grass, plenty space in the back. Um the house next to us is
about four families, but it happens to be they are on High Park Avenue on Arlington Street. Um but where I'm right the house is is only for two families and I don't have any other violation besides the uh the zoning from uh phone
for for for three families. Thank you. Questions from the board? Hearing none. May I have public testimony? Madame chair and members of the board. For the record, my name is Jeremy B. Benbury. I am the High Park community engagement specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community
process which consisted of an abbras meeting facilitated on April 17th. With only one in attendance, no concerns were raised. Next, the proposal was presented to Hyde Park Central River Neighborhood Group where they voted in support of the proposal and provided one letter of support. Thank you for your time and the
mayor's office for neighborhood services would like to defer to the board for their job. Thank you. We have no additional raised hands at the moment. May I have a motion? Motion to approve. May I have a second?
Second. Mr. Stebridge. Yes. Miss Vio, yes. Miss Turner, yes. Mr. Collins, yes. Miss Ponado, yes. Mr. Aken, yes. Votes yes. The motion
carries. Thank you very much. Have a great day. Next, we have case BOA 170 5566 with the address of 1690 to700
High Park Avenue. This is an article 80 case and if the applicant and representative are present, would they please explain to the board? Yes. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Stemers, Madam Chair, members of the
board. My name is Dennis Quilty. I'm the project architect with an address of 28 State Street. Representing the applicant before you this morning, uh, ownership is here represented by Brendan and Mark Feny and Michael Sheen. We are represented as
well by Eric Robinson of Roadie Architects and Mitch Fishman of MLS Consulting is on board as well. Uh I would like to just quickly run through the uh uh project and then before I turn it over to Mr. Robinson for the uh
details on the plans. This is as Mr. Sebridge indicated an article 80 project. We were approved by the planning department board on December 12th of 2024 under article 80, having previously gone
through the review process with the planning department which consisted of uh IG meetings, excuse me, two full meetings of the IG plus a site visit with the IG. We
interacted and met with the hide park neighbor association having held two meetings with them. Uh the second of which was considered by ons to re to take the place in the butters uh here meeting. Uh we met in addition with the
reedville watch the neighborhood group closest to the site uh who were also involved in our site visit. We met with and went over the plans with district city councelor Pepin, state representative
Rob Gonavo, state senator Rush, uh and we met with the budding businesses. This is primarily a uh commercial zone, if you will. Uh we met with the four nearby businesses. Um
Doma, Susa, um I can't even read my own handwriting. I'm sorry. at the four four abuing businesses uh and stayed in touch with them uh as well. Um we are um I think we've we've gone through the
process uh with cooperating with the two neighborhood groups, the elected officials, etc. Uh feel as though we are here with a project that's fully supported in the uh in the community. And if I may introduce Mr. Robinson to go through the plans and then we'd be
happy to take any of your questions. Thank you very much. Thank you, Dennis. Uh, good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. Great to see everybody. Um, if we could start on page 11, so I apologize. It's going to jump down.
Oh, yep. Keep going. Sorry. Keep going. Sorry. 12. Um, so, uh, thank you. So, what we're proposing is 115 residential units um on a 30,000 square foot site on
High Park AB. Um, as you can see in the bottom right diagram, the location of this site is actually a peninsula uh away from a lot of the smaller scale residential areas adjacent to us, separated by uh two railroad lines on
each edge and within a close proximity to the Rebuild uh MBTA train station. Um there's also uh some additional development that's been approved in the area as you can see in the bottom left. um of varying heights, five and four
stories, but there's also quite a bit of grade change. So, when we first looked at this project, um you can see in the upper diagram, we did look at uh making the project a sixstory building um that then is actually carved away and we're
creating a um publicly accessible pocket park on the front of the building of about uh 8,000 square ft. And then we're stepping down the massing uh to our adjacent building to our south at 1702. So we're really trying to set forth a
good precedent for future development along High Park A. If we can then jump to um page three. Mine's frozen. What? What page do you want her? Oh, sorry. Page three. That Sorry. That page with the the
landscape. So here's just the sort of a breakdown of how we're looking at the site on the upper right hand corner. So we worked quite a bit with the BPD BP uh TD on creating um much more setback on
High on High Park AB that creates uh a clear bike lane. So we're sort of initiating that moment on High Park AB as you move from south to north. We also worked with the community near the Butters to create a small vehicular drop
off area that is on um High Park AB to allow for Uber drop off um on the street. So the streetscape was a large discussion point through the community. Um we think we really successfully were able to capture their concerns and address their concerns. You can see the
the pocket park in the middle anchored to the south by a community commercial space and then by to the north with our bike room uh full loading off high park a which was another consideration and then we are providing 69 parking spaces
below grade access on the northern part of the site. The um units themselves uh have gone through some uh iterations throughout the process which has been great. The community has been very involved in that. Um we were able to increase the number of three-bedroom
units through the process as well as increase the IDP units um to 20 to which is about 17 1.5%. Um so all in all this was a very great process with the community. um they were very active and
and showed their concern for future development along High Park AB and I think the development team has done a great job to work with them and address their issues through the process. We were also able to adjust the building to
take away all of the setbacks um violations. So um the side and rear setback are in compliance, the front is in compliance. Um, our only two zoning uh requests are for Height and F, which
are um remnants of the industrial district. And with that, I will uh answer any questions by the board. Thank you. Are there questions from the board? Hearing none, may I have public testimony? Yes, madam chair, members of
the board. Conor Newman with the mayor's office of neighborhood services. At this time, the mayor's office like to defer to the judge from this board some background information the community process. Uh this went through a Boston planning le uh community process involving um public meeting as well as
IG meetings. Uh as you heard from the applicant's representation uh they met with the high park neighborhood association. Uh we understand that the High Park neighborhood association was ultimately in opposition to this proposal, citing concern about this area that is mostly industrial um changing
into a more residential component uh with concerns about parking as well as pickup drop off. As you heard from the applicant during their lengthy community process and engaging with stakeholders, they made some changes to the project including that pickup drop off area um that goes onto the property um as well
as changing uh the height and the setbacks as well. Uh with that information, we'll defer to the board. Thank you, Mr. Newman. Quick question. What What was the concern about parking? Too little, too much, or something else? Too little from what I understand. They're worried about potential impact
on uh surrounding businesses. Okay. Thank you. Any other raised hands? Um, Madam Chair, we have no raised hands at the moment. Any other questions from the board? Hearing none that. Is there a motion?
I'll make a motion to approve. Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stbridge. Yes. Miss Weo, yes. Miss Turner, yes. Mr.
Collins, yes. Miss Bonado, yes. Mr. Aken, yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Thank you. Next, we have case BO8170 9403
with the address of 53 Cedar Grove Street. It's the applicant andor their representative present. Would they please explain to the board? Uh good morning chair. Um Gavin Driscoll White Lighthouse Architecture and Design
um 180 Allen Street Bryant Mass. Uh this is just a renovation of an existing single family home. Um the second floor currently has uh two small bedrooms. So the project would be ripping off that second floor and then adding a second floor with the full height and then
matching uh the existing roof that's there now on the third floor uh with some dormers. Uh the violations are F and then uh front yard and sideyard which are uh both currently existing. Um we're not changing the footprint of the
building. We're just going uh up. If there's any questions I can I can take those. Okay. Are there questions from the board? Hearing none, may I have public testimony? Hello, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Eva Jones representing the mayor's office of
neighborhood services regarding 53 Cedar Grove Street. Our office defers to the board's judgment on this matter. A community process was conducted, including at a Butters meeting held on Thursday, March 27th, 2025, and was not attended by any community members. The applicant was also connected and met
with the Cedar Grove Civic Association, which has expressed no concerns regarding the proposal. At this time, the mayor's office of neighborhood services defers to the board's judgment on this matter. Thank you everyone for your time and consideration. Thank you. Hello, Madam Chair, members of the board. Liam Remis from councelor Fitzerald's office. Our office go on
record in support of this proposal. Thank you. And madam chair, we have no raised hands at the moment. With that, may I have a motion? Make a motion to approve. A second. Second. Thank you. Stbridge?
Yes. Miss Weel? Yes. Miss Turner? Yes. Mr. Collins? Yes. Miss Bonado? Yes. Mr. Aken? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries the vote. Thank you.
Next we have case BOA 1694232 [Music] with the address of 10 Westerly Street. If the applicant and or their representative are present, will they please explain to the board?
Go ahead. Nicholas, you can unmute yourself. Hi, my name is Nicholas Best. I am the owner of 10 Westerly Street. Uh my GC Joel Hopper is on the line also. Um so
the plan is to take the roof off and make a flat roof to increase the living space on the third floor. It should be I think slide six, page six. Um
the issues, the zoning issues are the the setbacks from the rear side in front of the building. We don't have enough space, but there are currently uh I think two other houses with flat roofs on Westerly Street. And then the surrounding neighborhood, there's
probably at least 50% of the houses on the next two streets have the three families with flat roofs. Uh as part of that conversion, we're also planning to add a sprinkler system. Quick question. The uh setback the
insufficient uh setbacks, those are pre-existing conditions. Are you making them worse or are they the same? Um I think they're pre-existing other than the roof line on the third floor. I'm not not increasing the the outer outer space of the building. It's just the
roof line. Thank you. Questions from the board? Hearing? None. May I have public testimony? Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Benbury. I'm the Jamaica Plane community engagement specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The
applicant has completed the community process which consisted of an umbrella meeting facilitated on April 14th. That was very lightly attended with two guests. No concerns were raised. Next, the proposal was presented to Jamaica Plane Neighborhood Council on May 7th where they voted to approve the proposal. To date, we have not received
any community feedback in the form of opposition or support letters. Thank you for your time and the mayor's office of neighborhood services would like to defer to the board for their judgment. And madam chair, we have no raised hands at the moment. With that, may I have a motion? Motion to approve. Is there a
second? Second, Mr. Stanberg. Yes. As we will. Yes. Sorry. Uh, Miss Turner, yes. Mr. Collins, yes. Miss Otto, yes.
Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck. Thank you. Next, we have case BO8170 3780 with the address of 190 L Street. If the applicant and or their representative
are present, would they please explain? Yes. Thank you, Mr. Stembridge. Madam Chair, members of the board, attorney Ryan Spitz with Adams and Morancey, business address of 168th Street, first floor, South Boston. Uh joining me today is the owner, Scott Schneider, and as well as the project architect, Gavin
Driscoll. The proposal in front of us today is seeking to change the occupancy from a three family to a four family by legalizing an existing basement unit. By way of history, Mr. Schneider recently purchased this piece of property and what he thought he was purchasing was a
an existing four family structure but discovered during his due diligence period that the basement unit was was not legal. He is here now taking the proper steps of legalizing this unit. Further, he will be taking additional safety measures in adding a sprinkler system to the unit itself. This is a
proposal that is very closely aligned with the city's byright conversion of internal spaces to accessory dwelling units except that this one is investorowned. The footprint of the building will remain the same. Possel falls within an MFR subd district. Basement unit will be approximately a
792 ft one-bedroom with 7t ceilings. The floor to grade is approximately 4 ft. We have violations for a flurry area ratio. The required F is a 2.0. The proposal calls for a 2.0. Before we have an open space insufficiency, 800 ft of open
space is required and the proposal calls for a total of 429 square ft. Additional lot area is insufficient. We would need an additional,000 ft of lot size, but this is a pre-existing condition of the lot. We do have an off- streetet parking insufficiency as the code requires 1.5
parking spaces per new unit of housing and the proposal doesn't provide any parking. In concluding, we feel that this proposal would not create any adverse impacts to the neighborhood. Um, at this point in time, Madam Chair, I'm going to pass it over to the board for any questions or comments. Thank you.
Any questions from the board? Is the Is the basement level currently occupied? No, it's it's actually unoccupied during the due diligence period. Um, he didn't too much as far as liability, so he put it on the seller uh to deliver that unit um as unoccupied
prior to closing. Okay, thank you. Any other questions from the board? Hearing none, may I have public testimony? Madam Chair and board members, good morning. Sigy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This petitioner completed the ONS community process. Our office hosted an abuters meeting on April 17th at which
no opposition was expressed. The City Point Neighborhood Association is aware of this application and chose to take no position on the proposal. With that background, we defer judgment to the board. Thank you. Good morning, madam chairs and members of the board. Laura Tolano here for council's office at this
time. He would like to on record and support. Thank you. Thank you, madam chair. We have no raised hands at the moment. Oh, sorry. Hand justic. Were you looking to give testimony here? She lowered her hand. We should be all set. Okay. With that, may I have a
motion? Motion to approve. Is there a second? No, you know, she doesn't have to do anything at all. At some point, can you mute? Thank you. Uh, Mr. Stebridge. Mr. Stebridge, did we lose you? You're mute. Sorry
about that. Sorry about that, Madam Chair. Yes. You were the wrong person to be muted, Mr. Ste. Thank you. Miss Leo, yes. Miss Turner, yes. Mr. Collins, yes. Miss Panado,
yes. Aken, yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good vote. Thank you. Next, we have case BOA170 3095 with the address of 96 Chambler Street.
If the applicant and or their representative present, will they please explain to the board? Okay. if you're on for this um applicate. Um sorry, this proposal. Can you raise zoom in? Okay. Oh, Chris, I see you.
Can you raise zoom in if you're on for this proposal? Okay, Chris, I'm going to send a request to unmute you. Go ahead. There we go. Can you hear me now? Yes, we can. Great. Thank you very much for
this time today. My name is Christopher Barry. I'm the architect representing 96 Chandler Street and our proposal is for a roof deck and the R1 zoning issue is the roof slope is greater than 5% and
that's what triggered this review. We've been through a landmarks procedure. We've been through a community procedure and today we're seeking final approval for the roof deck. Questions from the board.
C can you just show us uh to make sure that it's set back properly etc. Yeah. Visible from the street. Yeah. If you can scroll to the roof plan. Keep scrolling a little bit. There we go. Stop. You go up a little bit.
Up a little bit. That's Yeah, previous. Yeah, previous page. There we stop right there. So in the lower right hand corner we have our roof deck and the rear setback is within compliance. I believe the rear setback is 5T and we're 6'6. The front setback is over 20 ft. Then
there are zero setbacks on the sides although we are set back on the sides a bit as well. Great. Thank you. Are there questions from the board? Yes, I have a question. Um how much higher um this put
um how much higher is the roof deck than the original uh roof line in adjacent buildings? We are within the code allowance at 1 ft above the peak of the roof. Thank you.
Thank you. Uh with that, may we have public testimony? Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Eva Jones representing the mayor's office of neighborhood services uh regarding 96 Chandler Street. Our office defers to the board's judgment on this matter. A community process was conducted
including an abuters meeting held on Tuesday, April 29th, 2025. It was lightly attended with minimal feedback. Additionally, we received one letter expressing support for the proposal with no concerns expressed um and they supported their neighbors. Uh, the applicant was also connected to the
Ellis Neighborhood Association and has expressed no concerns regarding the proposal and did not choose to meet with the applicant. At this time, the mayor's office and neighborhood services differs for the board's judgment on this matter. Thank you everyone for your time and consideration. Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair. Good morning, Madam Chair,
members of the board. Laura Toddano here again for council's office. He would like to go record in support. Thank you. Thank you. And madam chair, we have no raised hands at the moment. With that, may I have a motion? Motion to approve um with landmarks
commission review. There a second. Second. Mr. Stumbr. Yes. Misswell? Yes. Miss Turner? Yes. Mr. Collins? Yes. Miss Ponado? Yes. Mr.
Aken? Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Thank you very much for your time. Next we have case BOA 167 8910 the address of 16 Barn Street. If the
applicant the Android representative are present please explain to the board. Good morning madam chair members of the board. Mark Lcast, Lcast Law, 75 Arlington Street in Boston. I represent the owner of this property, which is a
single family home, Jeremy Jacobs. And also with us today is the architect, Mark Van Brockman of Embark. Um, this is an amendment to an existing permit for ongoing renovations at this single family uh residence, which is owner
occupied. Um the amendment concerns certain um aspects namely the replacement of the existing roof deck to make it far more compliant with southern landmark guidelines than than the previously existing was. Uh creation of
a small dormer on the roof ridge to access the roof deck and installation of groundwater recharge system. Um there are three items cited on the zoning code refusal letter. One is a conditionally use permit for installation of the
groundwater recharge system and we have submitted our BWSC compliance letter as well as our no harm letter from the engineer. Um second item cited by the examiner which I believe is an error and believe is not required. We were cited
for use conditional. Of course, this is a single family dwelling existing has always been a single family dwelling will remain a single family dwelling in a multif family residential subdist. So the use is in fact not conditional but is it is an allowed use. So I would note
that um although cited for a use violation, there is no use violation present. Uh the third item is a conditional use permit for the roof structure, namely the small dormer that's being added to access the existing roof deck which is being repaired and replaced. Um and that is
under article 64 section 34 which requires a conditional use permit um for any additions to the roof line. Our Boston planning department memo uh recommends approval with two provisos, namely that we achieve approval of the groundwater recharge system, which we
have, and that the plans be submitted to Southern Landmarks District Commission for approval of any exterior changes. And I'll note that the architect has submitted three applications to the Southern Landmarks Commission, all of which were deemed reviewable pursuant to
their administrative procedures. And we received three certificates of design approval for the administrative um approvals by the landmarks commission for the roof deck uh replacement and and reduction if you will. Those railings that you see there at the side of the
building are are being replaced and made compliant with southern landmark guidelines. Um the dormer was approved and other exterior modifications or repairs have also been approved. So fully approved by BWSC, fully approved by landmarks commission and seek the two
conditional use permits and the notation that the conditional use for single family use is not required. Um with that I will pause to take any questions. Thank you. Are there questions from the board? Have public testimony.
Hello madam chair, members of the board. My name is Eva Jones. I represent the mayor's office of neighborhood services regarding 16 Bond Street. Our office defers to the board's judgment on this matter. A community process was conducted, including an abutters meeting on Monday, March 24th, 2025, which was attended by about four community
members. The feedback from this meeting was some concerns about communication with the applicant during construction, the historical integrity of the building and the neighborhood, concerns about the size of the decks on the property, and lastly, damage to the neighborhood's sidewalk by the construction. Uh there
were two civic associations that were involved in this proposal. Bradford Neighborhood Association as well as 8 Streets uh attended the Abutters meeting and they provided no significant concerns following the Abutters meeting. At this time, the mayor's office of neighborhood services defers to the board's judgment on this matter. Thank you everybody for your time and
consideration. Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chairs and members of the board. At this time, Councel Flynn would like to go on record and support. Thank you. Thank you. Now, Mr. Simmonelli. Good morning, Madam Chair. Thank you, members of the board. Christian Simmonelli Boston Groundwater
Trust and we have both GCOD letters from the applicant. Thank you. Thanks. With that, may I have a motion? We do have another raised hand here. I apologize. GS. Yeah. Okay. I sent a request to unmute you.
Hi, GS. Are you looking to get testimony? Yep. Can you name and address otherwise? Good morning. My name is Gail Simoto and John Malo. We live at 8 Bond Street. We are a butters to this project. Um, we just wanted to say that one, it's unfortunate for the owner and the applicant to have do this pro
process so late in his project because he's almost done the building and it we we felt it was a little bit unfair for him to have to go through this. We just have two quick comments. At the Abutters meeting, we brought up the fact that their subcontractor had damaged the stairs in the alleyway and the
subcontractor refused to repair them. We called the architect the next day and he did not want to assist us with this and told us we should contact the city which we did and we contacted Eva Jones and she suggested that we bring this up at the board of appeal hearing. We don't really believe that this is the
appropriate form for that but that's what we were directed to do for the city. And the second comment has to do with the deck on the first level. Um it appears that it is the size of it is not really in dispute but at the Abarters meeting we were told that it is replacement of an existing deck and what
was there previously was a landing to a staircase which was much lower than this deck and did not have access um in from the home and so we don't we believe it is a new deck. It is not the addition replacement of an existing deck. This would be akin to you know calling a fire
balcony an existing deck or an existing balcony. But that said, other than that, we're in support of the project. I'm sorry. That being said, what other than that we are in we object to sort of how the process has gone through. We don't know what to do. Uh
okay, understood. So, Mr. Lassa, I think the issue with the the stair probably is the best one to start with. Yeah. So, um, number one is that there's no citation in the zoning code refusal letter for the rear deck. Um, article
64, section 9 applies, uh, the conditionally use standard for rear decks which are above the first story. This is at the first story. So, there's no citation for the rear deck and it's otherwise compliant because there are no
violations cited in the refusal letter. Um, as for the process, as I stated, this is an amendment to the prior permit, which permitted most of the work at this property to proceed as of right without the need for any zoning relief. These couple of items are just add-ons
um pursuant to amendment permit. So, that's why it's quote so late in the process and there's nothing unusual about that. I'm sorry. So, can you address her concern about property potential property damage? Oh, yes. and I will certainly confer with my client and
address any sidewalk issues. We have not been cited by any public authority for that, but we understand that a concern has been raised and we will certainly look into it and and make necessary repairs. Thank you. Any other questions from the board?
Why why this GCON coming up at this point after you're under construction? Um because with the addition of the amendment work we we exceeded the threshold for children GCOD which is 50% of the assessed value of the building.
Um so then it was cited and then it was designed and installed and approved by BWSC. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. It's not necessarily triggered until you uh cross the threshold of 50% of the assessed value of the building when you're doing
a substantial rehabilitation of a property. Thank you. With that, may I have a motion? I'll make a motion to approve. Got a second. Second, Mr. Sambridge.
Yes, Miss Wi. Yes, Miss Turner. Yes, Mr. Collins. Yes, Miss Ponado. Yes, Mr. Aken. Yes, Cher. Yes. The motion carries. Good luck.
Thank you kindly. Next we have case BOA1691757 [Music] with the address of 75 Harrison Avenue. The applicant and or their representative are present. Could they
please explain what's important? Hi, good morning everyone. My name is Jamie Chang. I am Is it possible to uh scroll down to the second page? Thank you so much. Thank you. Uh my name is Jamie Chun. I
am representing Kuya LLC, the applicant for this project. We are proposing a change of occupancy at 75 Harrison Avenue from retail to a small restaurant with a takeout component. This shop will be takeout only with no seating. Um
there will be a small prep area and pickup counter in the front, another prep space in the back, and an employee only restroom. Uh, we plan to be open from 11:00 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. serving customers throughout the day into the
evening. Um, I'm happy to answer any question that you may have and we appreciate your consideration. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions from the board? May we have public testimony? Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Eva Jones representing
the mayor's office and neighborhood services regarding 75 Harrison AB. Our office defers the board's judgment on this matter. A community process was conducted including an abutters meeting held on Tuesday, March 25th, 2025 uh that was not attended by any constituents. The meeting uh the
feedback from this me oh excuse me um the proposal was also reviewed by the Chinatown Residents Association at their meeting on 5725. The association expressed non- opposition and but has expressed some concerns about the proposal including the increasing number
of bubble tea shops in the area and the amount of litter generated by these proposals as well as the increase in pedestrian traffic taking up space on the sidewalk. Uh CRA has provided a letter of non-opposition on this proposal and 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. Good morning, Mad Chairman, members of the board. At this time, councel Flyn would like to go record and support. Thank you for your time. With that, may I have a motion?
Motion to approve. There a second. Second. Mr. Stumbr. Yeah. Miss Wo, yes. Miss Turner, yes. Mr. Collins, yes.
Honado, yes. Miss Aken, Mr. Aken. Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Thank you so much. Good luck. Next we have case BO8690949 with the address of 163 Falcon Street.
If the applicants in their representative present, would they please explain the case to the court? Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board, attorney Jeff Drago at Drago and Tuscano with the business address of 11 Beacon Street. Here on behalf of the
owner, Matt Schuster, and I also have David Choy, who's the architect uh for the proposal. Uh pretty straightforward. This is a proposal uh to change the occupancy of an existing 3-unit building in the Eagle Hills section of East
Boston at 163 Falcon Street by adding one additional unit uh converting basement space uh into a a new unit. My client felt uh uh given the city's position on many of these basements uh
which they're saying in the future may not even require zoning relief um it was the ability to create an additional dwelling unit by keeping all the rest of the building exactly the same. So we're not adding anything in height in in uh
rear yard setback or side setback. Uh we met all of the code except two areas. off- streetet parking. Obviously, we're we're keeping the building, so there was no ability uh to create parking, although we're we're very close to the tea stations uh in the immediate area
and then use. Uh if you look at this building, the reason we were we're asking for it, if if you see it's it's unique in the position, it's an elevated uh threetory and it's about 60% above grade in the basement. At some point uh
prior to my client um purchasing the building, it was being used uh for housing in the basement. Not legalized, but there was kitchen area. He took that out um to keep it as a clean slate. It has its own entrance already existing on the front of the building. Uh it would
have a separate utility area. It would uh we're proposing a one-bedroom, oneb unit at about 715 square ft with a separate utility room entrance. As I had mentioned, it's already really built for, as you can see based in the elevation. It's surrounded by a mix of
housing stock. There are a number of fourunit, threeunit, and then sixunit or more uh buildings within this particular area. Everywhere else under the new code, uh we met all of the requirements. The other uh units in the building would remain exactly the same as we're not
building out. Um we worked with the Eagle Hill Civic Association and the neighbors. We had strong support across the board. They actually appreciated the fact um given a lot of the zoning changes that we were not asking to build out or up or change the contours but try
to work within the existing structure of the building to create additional housing opportunities. We also uh as part of our uh work with them agreed to completely renovate the exterior of the building as well. of that and we already started doing that. Um and also uh to
create uh to plant a street tree um just to add some more trees to this particular section of Eagle Hill as well. Um there would be fully sprinklered uh so the building would become safer. Um uh we would install
egress windows as well and a separate utility room uh in that basement uh level. It has 7 foot6 in ceilings existing across the board. Um, and so with that, uh, I can pause and answer any questions that the board may have.
Thank you for your time. Thank you. Questions from the board. Yeah, Madam Chair, just to understand the zoning a little bit more, if Mr. Hampton could address um, the information given to us in our materials that the relationship between the number
of units allowed is proportional to the frontage. Is that right? Yeah, that's correct, Miss We will. Uh, thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. Jeff Hampton, City of Boston Planning Department. Uh, the new East Boston zoning in the EBR3 does allow for more
than a three family. It allows for family. However, uh, it allows these additional dwelling units if the lot frontage is a minimum of 55 ft, which this lot is not. It's only 25 ft. Um we
weren't opposed to the the parking variance uh because as you can see on the site you just can't do it. Um but because this zoning is you know just over a year old uh the conversion from 3 to a four and because the lot is less
than 55 ft that's why we have a recommendation of denial. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions from the board? We have public testimony. Hello, madam chair, members of the board. My name is Eva Jones representing
the mayor's office and neighborhood services regarding 163 Falcon Street. Our office defers to the board's judgment on this matter. A community process was conducted including on a buddy's meeting held on Wednesday, March 12th, 2025, which was not attended by any constituents. The proposal was also reviewed by the Eagle Hill Civic
Association at their meeting in May. The association did not provide any feedback on this proposal, but at this time the mayor's office of neighborhood services defers the board's judgment on this matter. Thank you for your time and consideration. Everyone, if I could just add, madam chair, one one point. So, the Eagle Hill Civic
Association did submit a letter to the board in full support and I have a copy of that letter as well. Thank you. We're still doing public testimony. Yep. Go ahead, Gabrielle. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. Gabriella Ramirez here present on
counselor about this office. The council would like to go on the record in support of this proposal. Thank you. Oh, wow. Okay. And David Joy, you looking to get testimony here? He's he's with he's with you. Okay. Yep. Do we have no additional days?
Okay. Was that May I have a motion? Chair, may I ask a question first? Yes. Of course, Mr. H Mr. Hampton, if Mr. Hampton could come back online for a moment, um to just talk a little bit about the relationship of the 25 the 55 ft with adding units. You know, there are blocks like this that have, you
know, significant number of buildings that might be eligible for this type of piece. So, it just helpful to hear a little bit more about the context of that relationship of the lot with and this unit. I don't remember uh that from the planning process. Uh yeah, that's it's actually when you look at the
zoning for East Boston, it's actually a footnote, Mr. Aken. So, it's one of those if you look at the use item table, and I know uh Mr. Drago will back me up on this. It'll say that it's an allowed use, but it's one of those footnotes
that says it's allowed if So, I did that. I I can't really go into detail on the planning process of this because I was not involved. I was involved on the zoning side. I'm not sure why. I don't know if Mr. Drago has
any insight to that, but if you were to look at the zoning now, you you would see that it's an allowed use. And I know I think it was caught kind of at the last minute because there are a couple of versions of a refusal letter that were out there that didn't have it as a
forbidden use that it did. uh one of the last ones and I think it's because you know that footnote was overlooked during the review process. Yeah. And and I can weigh in. Thanks Jeff. Um so just during the process I think everyone was looking more at creating additional units either
taking a building down and building four to six units or eight units. So new construction or empty lots is where everyone was looking at where the supplied. I think with adding existing when you have an existing building you're just adding a unit. Nobody was thinking, you know, a basement space or
something because the community really was more concerned about new development, tearing down buildings and and so forth. And I think that's why even though there is a footnote, so much of the community was relieved to see us coming forward for just adding one additional unit in a space that almost
looks like it belongs there because it's an elevated building. Um, but yes, the footnote is there, I think. But we've also seen both the BPDA and the community saying, "Why aren't you coming out to us rather than tearing buildings
down and trying to jam more units in um new units or, you know, double lots with eight units? Why don't you try to work within the existing structure of the building to create additional units?" And I've seen that time and time again on the recommendations. So that was our
thought process and we really did have full support for it. And in this block, there are sixes, fours up and down this corridor as well. Most of them new buildings, but many of them just using additional space. Thank you. Uh, Madame Chair, I'm uh
happy to uh close out by making a a motion uh to approve. I think that that's a a suitable use here. I do get concerned sometimes about the lack of uh you know, storage space or other things in the basement, but this is a very good fit here. And it's also telling, I think, to hear that the local civic
associations and uh counselors support this type of change uh under the under the zoning code. Uh so I move forward with an approval. Thank you. Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stebridge? Yes. Miss wheel? Yes. Miss M Turner?
Yes. Mr. Collins? Yes. Miss Ponado? Yes. Mr. Aken? Yes. chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck, madame chair, before we leave the 930 cases
to um the groundwater concentration over case. That's right. Yep. So if anyone is present for 393 to 395 Beacon Street, Hearing
none. No response. There's a raise. I'm here. Um, Catherine, I'm sorry. There's two raised hands here. And then also a number on the phone sending a request to unmute you on the caller 646.
If you press star three, you can unmute yourself. And then Catherine, if you you there are also one for this. Well, we're here for that. Can you hear? Can anyone hear me? Are you the applicant? Kevin Nassfield. Yes, you're the
applicant. Okay. Can you please proceed? Okay. Again, let me have Oh, sorry. Mr. Se Mr. that this is for case BOA 171 9295
with the address of 393 to 395 Beacon Street. Thank you. And go please identify yourself and go ahead. Hi, Evan Pia now sales project manager for 393 395 Beacon Street. And my apologies I
I'm not sure because I'm on the Zoom video call but I can't hear anyone. I can see everyone and I have I'm also called in on my cell phone so I can hear everyone and follow along on the Zoom
video. So I'm not quite sure what why I'm not able to actually and I've checked the the um sounds on my computer. I've tested it so I'm not sure why I can't hear anyone on my computer. Are you able Can you hear me now?
Ma'am, are you able to proceed? We can hear you. Yes. Oh, please proceed. Okay. So we just have um a violation for the article 32 uh for compliance the groundwater and um we provided uh which
uh you should have received a letter from the principal engineer Peter Tammy um from Columbia Design Group and um basically the whole no harm letter for 393 um Beacon Street for the Boston Water um
and sewer commission regarding our project which Um we have um it was two lots and it was um two lots into one um and renovation of the existing building to accommodate four units with the low
grade parking of six spaces. Uh the existing sewer services are to remain the same. The new domestic water and fire services are proposed as well as a storm water infiltration system to be located under the driveway. Um the storm drainage system uh complies with article
32 and um um there's also an elevator at the bottom um with also a subpo and plans were approved by Boston Water Institute of Commission and that is site plan number 22474
and there's also a letter from Boston that has been provided to the DDA for um the um from the site plan review engineer um that notes that article 32 um to groundwater and storage recharge uh is
in compliance and um and there's no um there's no overflow um issues and that it meets um the site plan meets the requirements set forth uh in the groundwater overlay district requirement. Thank you. Is Mr. Seelli
with us? Yes, Madam Chair. Good morning, Christian Boston trust. And we have both GCOG letters from the applicant. Thank you. Any questions from the board? We have public testimony. We have a raised hand, a couple raised hands. Um, Cindy, are you looking to
give testimony here? Yes. Thank you. Um, I'm concerned because Can you speak your name and address for the record? Uh Cindy Joyce. I'm a neighbor of 393 395 and 389 Beacon Street. I'm worried
about the fact that they've already dug out the garage. It's been this way for two over two years. And in fact, there's a red flag or a red tag that they're not supposed to be doing work. And two weeks ago, there were
people doing work in the building for a day. Um, so it seems a bit shoddy and it seems that we're now looking for permits for work that's already been completed or started. Thank you. Thank you. Um, Katherine, are
you looking at testimony here? Hello. Yes. Yes. Can you hear me? Yep. So, I I second uh Cindy Joyce's comments. I live directly next door at 391 Beacon. This work has been ongoing for like two and a
half years. Um, and the approval seems to be looking for approval for work that was started and has been ongoing and now abandoned for at least the past year. Uh, thank you.
Okay. Uh, can the applicant briefly respond? Yes, of course. Um actually the site plan uh and approvals from Boston Water and Sewer Commission um was all completed on June 29th, 2023.
Um we had this um actually on the uh as a violation in order to just prove that we were in uh compliance and also that we are within the requirements of the groundwater overlay district. And um so
this is not something that we're recently doing. This is something that we're addressing um now uh to the zoning board of appeals. So um this is not something that um we're again that we're doing now. This is something that was
approved in uh back in um back at the beginning of our project. Um and if you notice our letters from um a letter from Boston Water and Sewer Commission uh is actually dated June 29, 2023 when that site plan um review engineer uh Lewis
Blara um when it was approved and the letter was issued. So it was submitted way prior to that. Thank you. Any other questions from the board? Hearing none. Is there a motion?
I'll make a motion to approve. Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stumbridge? Yes. Miss We will. Yes. Miss Turner. Yes.
Mr. Collins. Yes. Miss Bonado. Yes. Mr. Aken. Yes. Chair votes. Yes. The motion carries. And with that, I will see you all at 11. Thank you.
Mr. Stebridge present madam chair. Miss Willow present. Miss Turner. Mr. Collins present. Miss Ponado
present. Mr. Aen present. Yours Mr. Stebridge. Thank you, Madam Chair. For the hearing scheduled for 11:00 a.m., we'll ask if there are any requests for withdrawals and deferrals. At this point,
right, hearing. Let's keep going. Okay. Um we'll begin with two companion cases. These are both uh mayor's office of housing projects coming through article 80. First we have
case BOA 170 9354 with the address of 79 Seattle Street. Along with that we have case BO8170 9357
with the address of 65 Seattle Street. If the applicant and their representative present they please to the board. Yes. Good morning uh Mr. Stebridge Madame Chair members of the board. Joseph Fester from the law firm of Dane
Tory, 175 Federal Street, Boston, Massachusetts. Uh before I begin, can I ask the ambassador to make Cameron Zahiti and Stephen Chung panelists?
Um and also my colleague Timothy Frasier uh as panelists. That would be appreciated. Um I am pleased to uh present this proposal which is part of as you mentioned Mr. Ster part of the
mayor's office of housing program. This is a exciting development at 65 to 79 uh Seattle Street in the Brighton neighborhood of Boston. It is it is comprises at 65 Seattle Street
19 affordable units at 79 Seattle Street 24 affordable units for a total of 43 units in keeping with the mayor's efforts to have affordable housing. This developer Arbanaker
um is well known and I have represented them for on a number of different projects but they have present this project 22 of the units will be below 80% AMI 21 units will be below 100% AMI
in order to make sure that we have opportunities for families in the in in this particular project. The developer Orbaner has made sure that they have a complement of one, two, and threebedroom
units. They have seven onebedrooms, 31 twobedrooms, and five threebedrooms. And five units will be accessible to those with mobility, hearing, and visual impairments. That gives you a a a brief overview of
the project. I'm going to ask Stephen Chung to present the project uh to you and uh if he has been made a panelist he will be able to do so. Thank you very much. I have but I think Cameron Zahedi
the president of Urban would like to start if he's there. We s you on Cam? Yes I'm here. Thank you. This is Came principal at Urbanico. Vanica is a design development firm,
missiondriven and design oriented firm and uh we've been you know working for this mission of creating affordable home ownership for past uh six years in Boston area and we have completed couple of projects already. Uh we've this
project was RFB that was initiated by Harvard. uh we there were five uh uh respondent to this uh RFB and Harvard and the community chose us to carry this
forward. Uh we did the project on 90 Antworp Street from again the you know collaboration with Harvard that was like 20 mixed income housing that we finished in 2021 and um we responded to RFB in October
2023. We got designated in January 2024. We got our article 80 approval in March of 2025 and we received the NO funding in January of 2025 and we are happy to
present this project in front of your board and thank for your time. Uh Stephen you can go ahead. Thanks Cameron. So my name is Steven Chung architect principal architect uh for Urbanica Design. Uh next slide please. Just very quickly some main concepts. Um
obviously trying to create affordable housing 43 affordable home ownership units. In terms of design sort of responding to context we are proposing three separate buildings which I'll of course show you in a minute. Um
two to three stories in height. Uh key concepts for open space trying to create a courtyard which I'll show you. We have a green perimeter meaning plantings and landscaping around uh our building on all sides and there's also a connection to a greenway which is being which is
there but it's being s further developed and enhanced by Harvard and finally we have always all our projects embrace sustainable sustainability as a kind of primary goal energy efficient design led gold uh standard stretch code compliant and so forth. Okay, next.
So again 43 home ownership units. I just want to stress that most of the units are uh two-bedroom plus. So that's over 90% family size units on% affordable. 21 parking spaces for the 43 units. That's sort of gone up and down, but finally that was a number that sort of everyone seemed to be happy with meaning city and
neighborhood. Uh next and just very quickly just give you a kind of tour around the property. What's highlighted in that pinkish orange is the site. It's a 1 acre site. Arbit is to the north. you see the science center and sort of the development of science drive and all their sort of new
institutional planning and to the south is really the kind of neighborhood which we're kind of right on that threshold between the institutional as well as the it's sort of a smaller scale residential. So that's kind of our our design challenge. Next uh next slide
and just an aerial view which shows the existing condition again the 1acre site existing one-story warehouse building that's will be demolished um uh you can sort of see the future park buyers there's uh something that Harvard is leading that's a new park with a a bike
path that goes through that and in subsequent slides we'll show you kind of their concept design and how we responded to that. It's not a slave finish, but at least we have a kind of a concept for what is being planned next. And just very quickly, just kind of want
to give you some insight into the thinking. I mean, this is the context I pointed out to to the sort of south of the slide of the first slide, which really shows that context gabled gabled two two to threetory buildings, different variations, the color and
vertically oriented punched windows, clabbered siding. um little front yards in front of of entries. I mean, this is kind of the the character of that of that um that residential uh sort of the residential part of the of the site.
Next, and this is the aerial overview with that concept for the park of sort of intact and reflecting three buildings which sort of make up our 43 units, our our development. Um, you can sort of see
a little courtyard between between the three buildings. That's I'll show you that in a second. But basically, our our our project is really comprised of three buildings which as you'll see in elevations is kind of further broken down to appear more like individual blocks which have somehow been linked
together. Really trying to look at the kind of smaller scale context that you see on the left of the page. Next. Uh, this is a civil plan. Probably is not as useful as the next plan. Next, this is the ground floor plan in
context. Uh, which shows sort of to the top of the plan, sort of bigger building, which has community room, lobby, mail room, so forth and so on, bike storage. Some of the the the the uses for the entire development. And to the south are two different buildings which are linked together by parking
which has a lattice over the top of it. A key concept was really to make it so that parking um whatever parking that we would provide would not be visible to neighbors as as well as residents. And I'll show you how we sort of accomplish that. And really that courtyard in between the three buildings is a resident courtyard. And then you can
sort of see that line that access which then connects through the building through the lobby and then creates a pathway to a public park to the north and towards Harvard. Uh next and an upper floor plan just kind of showing the kind of distribution of
units. One can look at that later if if you have interest but really trying to show kind of how the units are distributed. and to the lower I would just sort of point to the lower uh plan where the two buildings are sort of pulled apart and that parking is underneath that. And that was uh done strategically so that that courtyard
would have light um as much as possible during the course of the day which we sort of did lots of shadow studies and really try to demonstrate that we would make that a a sun-filled space. Next, and this is an aerial view, a couple aerial views around the perimeter. Now, this is from Seattle Street looking down
over the proposal. Uh, next, this is sort of overlooking the future park as if it had been completed, but you can sort of see how that linkage between um the two buildings with a little of bridge component. That's a a kind of lobby area. It's kind of a
bridge expression. It's really meant to be kind of almost a gate. And you can sort of see how we're connecting to the future park, which again is designed by others. But I think that our building provides a nice sort of backdrop to that park and even the landscaping the the landscape firm that is working on the park is sort of re really reinforcing
that edge and really trying to uh work in concert with what we're we're doing. Uh next and the third slide is on Windham Street. There's a temporary parking which is sort of carved out. This was sort of asked by neighborhood to try to create drop off and moving and all of
those functions, Amazon and I mean deliveries and and you know food deliveries and all of that. They really wanted us to create a kind of a drop off and again so really here you can see that the scale of the sort of individual blocks which are sort of linked together by recessed in this case metal panel but
really trying to stress that gabled roofs threetory expression mostly threetory expression vertically oriented windows horizontal siding um and then that rule of front that little front garden just as you see in the other houses that are around the neighborhood. a bigger building, yes, but really
trying to express it as um assembly of smaller buildings. Next, and now just very quickly on the ground floor, so eye level. This is on Seattle Street, sort of approaching um the building next.
And in between the two uh sort of blocks, you can sort of walk through. There's a kind of pedestrian pathway which then leads to the courtyard to the right and then the main entry to the left. next. And that's that view of the courtyard to
the right. That's a covered lattice with the fire pit and seating area. And again, it's it's it's I think it's well quite a bright sort of lively space and something hopefully a nice social space for residents to gather next.
And then this is turning sort of turning around looking at the main entry. There's that sort of bridge component that I explained to you. And then to the left on the ground floor is a community room. That's for all the residents in the entire development. That's basically like a living room with television and and dining area and so forth. So that's a that's a that's a use that's shared by
all residents. Next. And then now I've sort of gone through that um that underneath that gateway or through that gateway and now I'm in the park looking back towards the development. Uh next and just as if we were going to the left
and then now Windham Street is that sort of curving road into the back you can see the science center Harvard Science Center. Um I think that's the last few. Yeah, I think that's it. Yeah, I'm happy to answer any questions if you have them. Questions from the board.
Hearing none. Can I have public testimony? Yes, madam chair, members of the board. Connor Newman with the mayor's office of neighborhood services. This time the mayor has offered to defer to the judge from this board. Some background information the community process. Uh this went through a BPD
anled community process involving a public meeting in January uh before it was BPA board approved. Um during the community process they engaged with a number of stakeholders securing support from the Austin Civic Association uh the charles view uh apartments uh as well as
members of the Harvard Alustin task force. Uh during those uh support letters, the common theme was appreciation for the deep affordability that's being proposed here as well as the commitment to open space uh pairing nicely uh with the continued uh
redevelopment of uh Harvard owned land uh in Alustin. With that information, we'll defer to the board. Thank you. Thank you. All right, Laura and then Camille. Good afternoon members of the boarding as a member of creator member of city
cancer Brady's office. Uh councelor Baker would like to go over the stock support of this project. She is appreciative obviously of the poison and restricted water units that will be included in this project. These are um
greatly needed in the neighborhood. She'd also like to thank for all their the community outreach conducted throughout the process. Uh she'd also like to say um you know there's a great need for um home ownership units and
particularly in neighborhood. Um only approximately 2% of housing units in Alston are are owner occupied and um there are only approximately 30 30 um income restricted color units in Austin.
So these are you know these home ownership income ownership units are greatly needed. Uh thank you indis. Good morning madame chair members of the board. My name is Indis Johnson. I'm the
director of constituent services for counselor at large Henry Santana. and we would like to go on record of supporting um this project and we mirror everything that um council Breeden has has said. Um we are in huge support of this project.
Thank you. Thank you very much. Camille, Madam Chair, commission members. My name is Camille Platiccasta. I'm the project manager at the planning department for the project. very quickly. They filed their SP with us um on October 29th of 2024. Public meeting, as Connor Newman
hosted, was on January 22nd of this year after the comment period was extended. Comments surrounding car entry and exit on the site were heard and changed by the proponent to meet the needs of the community prior to our board approval on March 13th of this year. The project has received funding from the mayor's office
of housing as well for the project. Um and the planning department is in support of the project. Thank you. And we have no additional raised hands at the moment. That's it. Madame Chair, uh, Attorney Fe, may I
make one addition? I have a letter of support from, uh, Council President Luigi's, uh, office as well in support of the project. Thank you. With that, may I have a motion? I'll make a motion to approve.
I have a second. Second. Mr. Stumbr. Miss We will. Yes. Miss Turner. Yes. Mr. Collins. Yes. Mr. Otto. Yes. Mr. Aken. Yes. Chair votes.
Yes. The motion carries. Good luck. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Members of the board. Madam Chair. Um we asked that there were any requests for withdrawals of deferrals earlier. Um but I do have a note that the next case has been
deferred uh for administrative reasons 56. Are you talking about 122 St. Mary one St. Mary's Street? Yes. Okay. So this is for case BOA
1716753 with the address of 142 to 146 St. Mary Street. Um with if there's no one here to represent the case then I make a motion
uh to def deferral to July 8th for administration administrative reason. Second. Thank you Mr. Stumbridge. Yes. Miss Luwell. Yes. Miss Turner. Yes.
Mr. Collins, yes. Mado, yes. Mr. Aken, yes. The motion carries. So, with that, we'll move on to case BOA164 9460
with the address of 561 to 579 Center Street. If the applicant and the representative are present, if they please explain the case of the board. Yes. Thank you. Uh good morning, Mr. Steambridge and through the members.
Madam Chair, for the record, Richard Linds, uh an attorney with a business address at 245 Summer Street, East Boston on behalf of the petitioner, uh Stamato's Family Trust with respect to 561 Center Street. Um, Madame Chair, uh,
this is a proposal to erect a new 12-unit residential building, uh, with ground level commercial space, parking for six vehicles, and bike storage. Uh, this proposal will replace, uh, a decommissioned gas station that
has sat vacant uh, for close to 10 years on this very prominent section of Center Street, Jamaica Plane. Um with respect to the project uh and based upon the city's requirements uh there will be a total of two units out of the 12 that will be restricted under the
inclusionary development policy for the city of Austin. Um and that uh would be uh two of the units that would be required and therefore uh would align with the city's uh requirements for designation of IDP units. The proposed
project is for a rental. Uh so we would uh continue to uh own and operate this building uh with professional management. Uh and we do understand that the planning department has uh made a recommendation to uh support this or recommend approval this project provided
that we enter into an affordable agreement with mayor's office of housing uh that we eliminate uh a number of curb cuts along center street uh that were used uh with respect to the gas station uh and then obviously repair the sidewalks and create improvements to the public uh realm and public space around
our building. Um, we've also provided the board with a letter from the Jamaica Plane Center South Main Streets um, uh, group which supported the proposal. Um, so Madam Ambassador, if we can jump down first to the, uh, maybe slide four. Uh,
that gives us a little bit of view here. Not necessarily sneaking up here. Let's see. Here we go. Um, so as you can see, this is the MFI district. Madam Chair, members of the board, MFR multif family residential. The proposed use for the
residential component is allowed. Uh so multif family use is something that uh does not require any relief. With respect to this application, as we can see in the site context sort of uh screen uh somewhat right uh next to the roadway is the uh view of the gas
station. The board can note that there are a number of multif family uh structures around the immediate vicinity including structures which we uh would submit are consistent in size, height, and density. of what we're proposing uh for this site. Uh if we could jump down
perhaps to the next slide please. Uh just a different view perhaps. Next slide. This is a good slide to stop. I can jump back to the previous slide there. One back please.
Sure, we can continue. We just go to the street view. That's fine. Okay. So, um this is where you can see the street view showing the um location of where that gas station was. You can see the curb cut uh located here along Center Street that will be uh closed up in
connection with this project. Next slide, please. Yeah, just in the interest of time, if we can jump down to maybe slide 12. Uh that would be helpful as well. There we go. So, let's start here with a survey. So, um, what we can see here is the, uh, proposed footprint of our building, uh,
that would eliminate, uh, the pre-existing, uh, remnants of the gas station, and then our building would be set back, uh, pretty generously along the lot lines. As you can see, we have an 8.4T setback along Lakeville Roadside, at
least a 6ft setback on Good Ridge Road, and then a substantial setback along Center Street. Uh, part of that uh, will include a good amount of landscaping and buffering. You'll see that in the renderings in a moment. Uh I will point out that there is a driveway located behind the building. Uh that is that
area uh identifies by tuminous concrete driveway uh which allows for access to the back portion of the uh garage area for the building for the six parking spaces as well as access to bike parking. Uh there would be a separate curve kind of link roadside to allow for
uh appropriate circulation of parking uh in and out of the back of the building area. Uh if we can go to the next slide please. Uh next slide after this one. Uh next slide please. Okay. So if we can just zoom in here. Yeah. So, the rendering that we're uh
proposing or at least the style of the building we're proposing includes um probably some of the higher quality materials that typically uh we see in projects around the city. Um we include an entire masonry um front of the building and then a modified vans roof
to the top. Uh, and I'm sure as this board can see, the improvements would be dramatic and significant for essentially what is a smaller city block or the frontage of a smaller city block along uh, Center Street. Uh, the amount of buffering and screening that we've added on site creates we we do understand this
is a a corner lot in in two spots. Uh, so the actual amount of open space would be likely limited. However, we added about 1500 square feet of buffering around the building which would include uh the landscape and vegetation that you can see uh on the site in these
renderings. Next slide, please. Uh we can skip over this just floor plans, but I have a better view of the architectural site plan here. Perfect. So, as you can see here, the six parking spaces that are accessed from that driveway to the rear, uh, as well as the proposed buffer and any vegetation
around the building, our bike storage, and our ground level commercial space, uh, which is located on the, uh, corner side of the building. Uh, one of the things I will add is that we do include a good amount of buffering along the back property line. Uh, so you see those trees that we are proposing along our
edge with our neighbors to the rear. Uh, next slide, please. Just a study here to show the relative height of our proposed building in relation to the surrounding context surrounding neighborhood. As I mentioned in those earlier slides, the height of our building is pretty consistent with uh what we see in the surrounding
context. Next slide, please. Uh just our floor plans. We can go back to those if there's any questions. Next slide, please. Uh next slide after that and just shows our elevations. Um so real quickly uh madam chair and I know we have a lot of
things on today. I just want to run through the violations that were cited. Uh first of all uh parking we are proposing a total of six parking spaces under the code uh for that particular subd district. Uh a total of 18 parking spaces would be required. Um we did uh
hear different opinions during the community process a very lengthy community process I would add that uh some wanted to see more parking some wanted to see less parking. We feel that the total of six spaces is consistent with the Boston Transportation Department's recommendations for maximum
parking ratios. We would be at a 50% ratio. Considering this is on a main street with access to public transit, uh we believe it aligns with the uh the Boston Transportation Department's uh proposed recommendations for maximum parking. Uh we also include uh the
adequate number of bike parking spaces that would be sufficient for this building, including spaces that would allow for visitor bike parking as well. With respect to additional lot area which we were cited for uh because this was filed prior October uh 1st of 2024
uh we could have easily reduced this to comply with that particular regulation uh for Jamaica plane. Uh however that would have reduced us down to nine units as this was filed prior to October 1st. As I said we would not be required to commit to any IDP as a result. Uh we
think the building design uh and the unit sizes that we're proposing are uh fairly consistent with the market demands for this area and we think the addition of the two affordable housing units uh is a uh added bonus for this project that will certainly improve this area and get rid of this um blighted uh
former gas station. Uh we also were cited for forbidden use for the ground level commercial space. Uh while we understand that the MFI district does not allow for ground level commercial, uh we do believe is an appropriate and um uh necessary use for a building like
this. Uh one, it you know certainly allows us to not uh require residential units on a lower level. Uh and we're not sacrificing activation as well. We don't want this portion of the building just be limited to the lobby and some parking with bike storage. We think having
ground level activation with retail is a good use of this um uh location and certainly consistent with other uses of the surrounding area. Uh for height a number of stories uh we are proposing this is a four-story building. Uh we again believe that is quite consistent with the surrounding context and
certainly uh with future planning for new zoning uh that will likely take place in the coming years for this part of the city. Um, we do uh want to note that we have actually reduced the height of the building from around 44 ft to about 40 ft. Uh, in response to some of
the comments that we did hear through the community process, we're proposing no roof decks and no large headous uh or uh penthouse uh additions to this building. So, we feel that uh we have adequately and certainly addressed the comments and concerns we heard through the community process. We were also
excited, Madam Chair, for rear yard. Um we are cited based upon the understanding that the zoning code requires a minimum 20 foot setback in the rear. Um we are at 15 ft but I would point out the shallow lot exception does apply in Jamaica plan and therefore um
we can reduce down to 15 ft. So that actually is a compliant condition uh for this project. Uh our front yard that we were cited for we can certainly address through uh a modal alignment through any uh Boston planning design review. Uh we believe that incorporating the uh
buffered edge in front of our building with that landscaping and that vegetation that we've shown uh is a a good feature to include especially based upon how much of a of a block this building will occupy. So we believe that the experience that we're um introducing
regardless of what the setback requirement is for modal uh would be a uh a much more um aesthetically pleasing uh feature for this building. And last but not least is the uh open space. Um as I said, we do provide approximately 1500 square ft around the building. Uh
with all the vegetation and landscaping that we're adding, uh we certainly could comply with the open space requirement, but that would be at the uh detriment of the driveway that we're proposing to the rear to allow for the six parking spaces under the building. Uh I appreciate the time, Madam Chair. I'll pause here to
answer any questions of the board or uh take any comments. Thank you. Um, can you speak a little bit more about your thoughts behind the commercial space versus, you know, whether it's more uh units versus
parking or other other use? Um, your the commercial there would basically be the only commercial like in either direction for several blocks. And so just kind of talking a little bit more about that. Yeah, I I think that um in some of the conversations that we had and we did
have um as I said multiple community meetings with different constituencies um we did hear that uh activation at the ground level was something that would be um uh favorable um especially considering that you know putting a unit
on a very busy section of center street would be probably not the most optimal use of that space. Um so having an additional dwelling at the ground level um really would not add anything to the I guess the experience of living at that building. Uh we do have an elevator in
our building so we're able to comply with any of the accessibility requirements for uh you know the units above the ground level and we feel that that would uh certainly provide an opportunity for some type of activation at the ground level that wasn't residential.
Other questions from the board? Hearing none. May I take public testimony? Madame chair and members of the board. For the record, my name is Jeremy Berebury. I am the Jamaica Plane community engagement specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process which consisted of an abot
meeting facilitated on July 11th that was very well attended. Uh many abutters did voice support for the proposal and while no opposition was voiced, a few concerns were raised with about a 50-50 split with the abuters about the removal of the the removal and amount of
parking. Uh again, it appeared that half of abutters were uh in favor and half of the brothers were not. Uh this included curb cuts in the design and the facade of the building. Next, the applicant presented to the Jamaica Pond Association on se September 9th and
again on January 6th where they voted to oppose the project. The proposal was again presented twice to the Jamaica Plain Neighborhood Council beginning in February on February 5th. The first resulted in a vote to defer the second with no changes to the proposal resulted in a vote to deny. The concerns included
density, lack of parking, and the height of the proposal. To date, our office has received two letters of support and five letters of opposition with the opposed keeping in line with the concerns for parking as it will eliminate three parking spaces and again the appearance for the character of the neighborhood and the size of the proposal requesting
that it be reduced from four floors to three floors. The opposed mentioned concerns for increased vehicle traffic and foot traffic in the area uh regarding the again the size of the proposal and commercial space. Thank you for your time and the mayor's office of neighborhood services would like to
defer to the board for their judgment. Council Weber. Yeah, thank you. Um I've I've lived around the corner from this uh gas station for close to 17 years now and it's been out of business
for most of those years. Uh and and clearly something needs to be done on the site and we need housing. I I I'm dealing with I think is a unique situation here though where uh I have the JP neighborhood council which is
opposed or the zoning committee is opposed to it uh in part because of um lack of communication from what I'm told and maybe attorney Lind wants to address it between the property owner and the
the committee. Um, this is a property owner that owns a lot of property throughout our neighborhood. Uh, and we need to have a good relationship between the owner and the community. Uh, because there are other lots that are probably going to be developed. Um, and uh, so
while they're opposed to it, the main streets is in support uh, including I think the JP design committee uh, believes that this project is is a good design. Um so you know I I don't
personally I I think the density is good. Uh I think something needs to happen there uh uh very soon. I my request would be that because of what I'm told is a a lack of communication
between the property owner and the JPNC. Uh I would I don't know if the committee even entertains uh uh motions like this to table it until July 15th to allow them to have this discussion. Um and because
we're all going to have to work together on a lot of different properties. Uh and I see attorney Lind's hand is already up. Um but so that that is that just my proposal. I think we all need to work together. uh and you know obviously I'll
leave it up to the experts on whether the design is good. Uh clearly there's some you know uh I I you know disagreement but uh I you know I will say I'm for I'm for the density of the proposal uh and in principle something
going in there. I just would like the uh uh zoning committee and the uh attorney lens to at least have a chance to talk if they haven't already. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. And we have Jerry um
since a request to unmute you. Can you state your name and address and let us know if you're in support of opposition? Yes. Uh my name is Jerry Lev. I I represent the Lakeville Place condominium. Uh we are the director Butters at 8 Lakeville Road, Jamaica Plane. We are speaking in strong
opposition to this proposal. Um the community doesn't want this project. It wants to see residential, but it doesn't want to see this particular proposal for many reasons. The um the Lakefield Place uh condominium uh is the directive
butter. We support residential housing uh with conditions at this project site, but we do not support this proposal. Um during the review pro, we we do not support the proposed office space that is proposed for the first floor. This is
a residential. This is zone residential. This is a residential community. Um we support three floors of residential housing only and oppose all requested variances for this project. The background is during the review process
with the Jamaica Pond Association and the Jamaica Play Neighborhood Council as as director Butters, we voiced that our experience with the developer has been disappointing and frustrating not only for us as director Butters, but also for
Lakeville, Lakeville Road community, Goodriidge Road and Center Street residents. uh the developer seems to have no interest in working with us as director Butters or with the surrounding community. We reached out many times to try to meet
um and you know all we would get like months later is an email that isn't communication. We there was one uh meeting that happened um in I believe August August 12th and no communication since where we we had raised a number of
concerns and we wanted to engage the um the Stamato's family and attorney Linds in discussion. Nobody would return our calls. Nobody would would respond to us. Um this isn't a good neighbor. This is not a this is not a representative of a
good neighbor. We wrap up. Ma'am, I'm sorry. Please wrap up. Yes, of course. Um the um I'm gonna skip to my summary here. Um we support three stories of residential housing with conditions, but
we do not support this proposal as submitted. We support three stories of residential housing with parking for its residents. We do not support four stories. All of the surrounding buildings in our residential neighborhood are all three stories. Um
it the this proposal does not conform to the current zoning code where which the primary butter and the community both oppose. We do not support the office space which is an unzoneed use which does not conform to the current zoning code which the primary butter and the
community both oppose and there is no need for this office space in our in our in our residential neighborhood. We do not support the parking exit onto the Lakeville Road, which would eliminate three parking spaces from Lakeville Road, which is a one side of the street parking, very limited in our
neighborhood, and our street is very congested with with many condominiums on our street. Um, we do not support any of the proposed variances. What we do support is good communication between the developer, the primary abuter, and
neighborhood residents. It's to have a good neighbor. Thank you. Are there any other raised hands? Um, we Richard Lind, are you looking at You're all set, right? I want to respond. David Libby, I just see you. I just want
the comments to finish and then we'll turn back to you. Hello. Uh, my name is David Libby. Um, I currently live at 176 School Street. Um though um up until last year I lived off of South Huntington Avenue near this
project. Um I submitted written testimony um but by email this morning um if you would like to read that. Um but I did want to correct one misconception that this is a completely residential neighborhood. Um, this site is across the street from a gas station
and three doors down from some restaurants. In one direction to the south and to the north, uh, two blocks up, there are additional restaurants that are in the current what is currently zoned as multif family residential. Um, I think it's clear from
the ground that the zoning does not match reality of what this site is. Thank you very much. Thank you. We have no addition. Okay, attorney Linds. Thank you. Uh, Madam Chair, I I just like to respond briefly to a couple
of points that we heard. I I I thank the counselor for his comments. I think the, uh, um, you certainly conveyed what the I think a little bit of a conundrum here is that you have this site that is underutilized, has laid, you know, vacant for so many years. I know there's
been other proposals to try to make something happen here. And unfortunately the reasons why nothing has really happened is because of the level of opposition that uh seems to always come about when this when a proposal gets put forward for this site. Um with respect
to um the confusion or at least the lack of communication comments. Um I just want to be clear for the board. I believe we had a total of seven community meetings on this. Um we were before uh Jamaica Play Neighborhood Council uh zoning subcommittee uh
expecting a vote. We were asked to defer it um for purposes of uh of giving members more time. Uh the comment that there were no changes uh made when we went alone back for our vote is simply because all the changes we had made were
already done. The changes that were being requested are the ones that we've already said we can't do. uh i.e. reducing this down to a three-story building uh essentially making this as of right uh avoiding all variances um and then a shopping list of other things
that were put forth by the Lakeville Place condominium. Uh and unfortunately, you know, there were so many different points of view on opposition that it certainly seemed like there was a lot of opposition to the project, but there was a lot of individual opposition to specific things about the project. uh
and we're just weren't going to be able to address every one of them. We think the project we put forth is the best that we can do and certainly in response to um the comments that we heard. I do want to point out one other item though, however, that was raised by Lakeville that we were non-communicative or
certainly, you know, the suggestion that we ignored them. Um that is not true. Uh in fact, I do have email communications with Lakeville um condominium. We did meet with them separately and privately. They sent us a proposed abutters agreement. I know she had indicated that
uh we didn't respond after August. I have an email here October 4th of 2024 which office neighborhood services copied on responding specifically to the request and their butter agreement uh where we agreed to most of it. We could not agree to all of it and we asked for
more details on one of the items. So to suggest that we were less than communicative or we were ignoring a butter's concerns um sort of ignores reality here and the record in this case that you know is available to ONS. Uh we have done as much outreach as we
possibly can. Uh at some point we just can't keep going to community meetings and hearing the same thing. The project has to move forward and that was the position we took and that's why we're before the board today. I would remind the board that this is not only just uh
a reuse of a of a site that is you know again that you heard has laid vacant but also will add two affordable housing units in connection with the proposal. We feel that the height density uh and certainly the way this fits with the surrounding context is quite consistent
with what uh the planning objectives would be for the city and I we believe that's the reason why the Boston planning department has recommended approval of this project. So thank you again madam chair for allowing me those comments. So I just have a quick comment. Mr. Lens, I know you're here representing
your client but typically we do hear from the developer as well. Is is your client on the call or available to speak to some of the comments around? So Mr. Stamatos is here and you know I appreciate that through the chair miss I I appreciate having you know direct
questions to my to my client if it's about the project I I don't have a problem with that at all and Mr. Stamatos if you'd like to address the board on any particular questions or comments. The one thing I will point out and I we did hear this as well is that you know there are other projects um that was a point of contention with the
Jamaica Play Neighborhood Council um as to why we haven't um started on another project and that was uh stated on the record as a reason to oppose this project. I didn't think that was particularly fair. I understand that community groups can make that's not my
question. I just wanted to I just wanted I I just want about communication and and you know he's the one going to be on the ground for the next several years working with with neighbors. Yep. Chris, are you able to unmute yourself? I know he is on the
call. Let me get to unmute him. Go ahead, Chris. Hello. Yes, we can hear you. Okay. Yes. My name Chris Tomos. um developer of this property and they've owned this property
for a couple years now. Uh we met as uh my attorney mentioned uh multiple times with the budding association that owns the eight big lakeville personally and you know we try to address multiple issues that they brought up and I think
that we addressed about 70% of the issues that they brought up. Their main issue was of course they didn't want the traffic coming out of onto Lakeville. But as a as a planning for the site, we looked at you know multiple ways to to
look at the how the parking would work and the best solution we can. They would come in on Goodrich exit on Lakeville and that would be it. Um we added windows on the side of the building that they requested. We agreed to do some
follow-up mediation during construction of the project with their building as well as ours. Um, and obviously, you know, we have multiple um other meetings that we did with other neighbor groups and councils u multiple times to appease everybody to
try to work with everybody. And of course, our family has been a lifelong resident of Jamaica Plane and we're not looking to have any issues with any neighbors. Of course, we try to work with everybody. We're trying to produce a quality project. As my attorney even
mentioned, the project, as you can see here, we we're proposing to build this with quality materials, more than we had to put in there, just because we're planning to keep the property is a long-term hold, and we'd like to have a property that we can look at and say this is a great, you know, development
that happened here for the future for the neighborhood and for us, of course. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions from the board? Hearing none, is there a motion? Madame chair, um I'll put forward a
motion of approval with the provisos uh with design review with site plan and circulation and that a housing agreement be executed with the mayor's office of housing. Um, I just want to explain my decision to support this. Um, I agree
with the planning department's assessment that none of the proposed dimensional conditions are out of balance with the neighborhood. I think the shape of the lot is unique and it sort of fronts three different streets or surrounded by those three streets.
And then I think it's an improvement from the prior condition of a uh gas station and vacant currently. It's a motion to approve for that. There a second. Second. Mr. Stebridge.
Yes. Miss We will. Yes. Miss Turner. No. Mr. Collins. Yes. Miss Pado. Yes. Mr. Aken. Uh, yes. And I'd like to just articulate a couple points of of that.
Uh, I think the the site design, uh, is good, making use of the unique lot, uh, including the the setback from the abutters. I think I'd also note that many of those budding multif family buildings wouldn't also be allowed to be built under current zoning code. Uh, so I think this is a good uh, fit for for
the site in the context and that also having some commercial or off office office space there works. I see think that there's not much locally there because you don't have properties. You have properties that are stepped up from from the street, but then you go down a block and you do start to have that. So, this is a good infill to have some
office space there at the ground floor. Uh, so yes, I I approve. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Thank you very much. Your time. Next we have case BOA 1719485
[Music] with the address of 15 Conroy Crescent. If the applicant andor the representative are present they please explain. Uh thank you Mr. Stebridge. Uh Madam Chair, members of the board. Uh my name
is Kyle Smith of Statera Law with the business address of 359 Newbury Street in Boston's Back Bay. on the call with us as well today. I do have the current owner uh who is himself a um you know slightly well-known uh developer in this area that occasionally has some projects
including this which would be his most I think significant to date um but a you know kind of well-known developer to the larger West Roxbury Rosendale NJP community. Um the proposal before you today is to raise a existing single family structure and then effectively
rebuild over the existing footprint a new slightly larger uh single family structure increasing the aggregate internal livable square footage by only about 480 ft. Um the only proposed uh exacerbation to existing setbacks uh
would be to uh make the left side of the garage slightly wider for the sake of uh permitting an a uh a two bay car garage from the existing arguably single bay car garage. So, we have a slight additional bump out of the existing
footprint on the left side only and the footprint of where the garage will be from current uh location orientation making our left setback arguably about 2 ft worse. Um, as I I'll let the u um representative of uh ONS speak about uh
sorry, the mayor's office of neighborhood services. We've had a lengthy uh community process. We've engaged with a number of abutters. We have provided to Stephanie Haynes a letter of support from our most immediate abuter. Uh we have approval from the JHA and the JPNC as well as they can speak as to but a lengthy
process. Um about this site in particular uh there are some downs slope from kind of grade at street level to the garage followed further down to the base of the rear of the structure and then following down beyond it to the back of the yard. Uh there is an
existing pool on site that hasn't seen use and I can't tell you how long. There's active trees growing out of it. The intent is to remove that pool, regrade. Um, some of our concerns we heard were about uh what the site would look like during the uh process of excavation, demolition, rebuilding of
foundation, removal of pool, etc. Trying to mitigate what we perceive to be, you know, runoff coming down slope. Uh those will certainly be addressed by the owner and we've uh discussed that at length, I think, with the community and the immediate. Um if you if you go on site and into
this building uh I can explain to you how or why but um over the course of time there were additions that were done I don't think pursuant to permit uh there's about 5 in of slope in the structure from front of structure on Conroy to the rear there is significant structural insufficiency the current
proponent had no intent of raising the structure initially but seeing the improperly built rear foundation to support the rear half of this home which is singlestory uh it became readily apparent that the house would have to come down and the foundation rebuild. Um
the whole intent was to basically square off the structure uh including incorporating into the rear a second floor and that gets us our increase about 480 ft. Um you would not be able to rebuild any more weight over the existing rear part of the foundation
which was not built appropriately or correctly. There are u many immediate abuters that have been on site that knew the prior seller that can speak as to what the inside of this structure looks like as far as structural um insufficiency and um deficiencies. Um
so we do have a a laundry list I think of traditional setback issues and the like. I just would remind the board that this is a pre-existing non-conforming footprint that we're building over with the exception of a slight bump out to the left of the garage for an exacerbation of about 2 ft. And our our
main real change to the structure itself is to build a second floor addition over the current rear part of the structure which is currently only one story. And that is our aggregate additional about 480 ft. Um current F is uh 0.55.
The proposed F is 64. So we have a additional 480 ft and again that is a delta of current existing versus proposed of 08. Um, we are changing the roof pitch uh slightly from being more
linear running horizontally across the street to a garage pitch this way balance of house. We're just kind of changing the aesthetics of the building itself to kind of break up the roof line. Um but otherwise I think this is a uh proposed project that is the result
of necessity given the structural insufficiencies and deficiencies of the whole back half of the foundation uh and a community process that has been extensive and lengthy and uh has dealt with uh a proponent builder uh who again has a reputation to maintain who's well
known to the community who's done a very good job as far as I'm concerned of interfacing with the media abutters uh the JHA and the JPNC all of which we have votes of approval report. Um, with that, I'm happy to turn it over to the board and the chair uh and the proponent to see if they have any uh comments,
questions. And again, as the proposed builder uh and the person who has in our prior matter will be involved in this process for the next year or so, I'm happy to turn it over to him and have full confidence in him being able to answer any of your questions. Thank you. Any questions from the board?
Hearing none, may I have public testimony? Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Benbury. I am the Jamaica plane community engagement specialist for the office of neighborhood services. The applicant has completed the community process which consisted of an abundance meeting held on April 10th where aboters was concerns for issues such as a
filledin pool and a stream in the rear of the property as well as road mitigation and construction vehicle congestion while building uh the property. One of pointed out that an affected butter down slope from the proposal was away at the time and an effort should be made to contact them before construction. Next, the proposal
was presented to Jamaica Hills Association and Jamaica Plain Neighborhood Council where they voted to support the proposal. 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. Any other pass?
Yes. Uh so the reference to butter who is not present uh is specifically one of the Butters that we do have aou with and a vote of their non-oposition support and that was well known to the JHA who ultimately voted to support. Uh JPNC usually only hears matters after JHA has
approved or had a chance to listen to the matter. So we have uh engaged that specifically reference the butter and have anou with them. And again, this was a lot of about concerns of about excavation, the removal of the pool and uh water mitigation and runoff during
construction. Thank you. With that, may I have a motion? I'll make a motion to approve. There second. Mr. Stebridge.
Yes. Miss We will. Yes. Miss Turner. Yes, Mr. Collins. Yes, Miss Bonado. Yes, Mr. Een. Yes, chair votes. Yes. The
motion carries. Can I confirm if there's any provisos? I think the planning department was looking for design review on this. Okay. Um, as is customary, I just wanted to confirm. Would you like design review?
I just would don't want to uh potentially bypass any steps and we're confident in getting it. So happy to abide by the board's recommendation. It's a single family. I'm okay without it. If someone wants to add it, I'm also okay with that. Does anyone want to add it or are you fine? I'll make it easy. I
don't want it. Okay. Then we're all set. All right. All set. Thank you, Madam Chair. Members of the board, appreciate your time. And with that, I believe Miss Turner can confirm, but I believe she's she needs to drop off. So, we will become a six member
board. Yeah. Thank you so much and have a great day. Thank you. So, we we will now be a six member board for the duration of the hearing. And next we'll move on to case BO8171 9499 with the address of 34 C Compton Street.
If the applicant and or their representative present, would they please explain to the board? Yes, Mr. Stridge. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the board. Attorney Derek Small of a business address of 51 Dobson Road. And with me today is co-developer
Robert Nichols. Today we're here seeking relief to erect a three family dwelling on a vacant lot. Here the zoning subd district is a 3F4000. Our lot size is approximately 3600 square ft. The violations are um lot
sufficient lot size um again is 4,000. We have 3600 ft. uh F required F here is uh8 and we are proposing 1.2 sideyard violation the requirement is 10
ft we have three um and the rear yard violation um is the requirement is 30 ft and we have 19 ft. I can turn it over to Robert Nichols and he can go through the plans um as they are presented in on the screen. Robert.
Excellent. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the board. If you could uh push it up to the next sheet there so we can kind of see the the layouts. Thank you, Derek, for introducing the project and going through the violations. Um, next sheet, please. We can kind of see
the layout is three bedrooms, two baths on each floor. Uh, living space is about 1,400 ft². We previously came before the board. Um, one of the big changes we made based on the feedback was the ceiling height and elevations. Uh we were at 7 ft because we tried to add
garage parking at the first story. We had removed the parking and now we have 9 ft finished height ceilings based on the current elevations. We're still under the maximum height for the street and uh we went through the process with the community. Uh we did get some letters of support and non- opposition
from a butters behind the building. Um and uh we have you know really worked our best to work with Garrison Troder. They also did provide a letter of support uh for this project. Uh but if you have any further questions on the project, I'll turn it over to the board to uh let us know their feedback and
thoughts on what we're proposing here today. Are there questions from the board? Hearing none, may I have public testimony? Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Benbury. I am the Roxberry community engagement specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The
applicant has completed the community process which consisted of an ABS meeting facilitated on March 24th which was very lightly attended. One aba voiced opposition stating they do not like the proposal while one of brother voice support stating there is a need for housing. Next the proponent presented to Garrison Charter
Neighborhood Association who also voted to support the proposal. To date our office has received two letters of support. One of the two received from Garrison Tarter Neighborhood Association again in support of the proposal. 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. We have a few raised hands
here. Um Felicia and then Neil, can you state your name and address for the record and let us know if you're in support of opposition? Sends a request to unmute you. Okay. Can you hear me though? Yes. Okay. So, my name is Alicia Hayes. I live at uh 21 Coblin Street. Um, and I am uh in
opposition to this project. Um, with the elimination of the uh of the parking the the the um former plans I'm sorry I wasn't prepared to to actually present. I'm in opposition
because there are plenty of um I'm sorry I'm distracted here. Let me let me let me let me Okay. So, you're in opposition? I'm in opposition. In opposition. Yeah. Neil? Yes. Can you hear me? Yes. Yes. Okay. Um Yes. Um I'm in opposition. I live at 22 Cobden
Street and I looked at the six violations which were discussed at the previous, you know, um meeting and those violations to my understanding have yet to be resolved.
And as the violations you know from lot area insufficient which is article 50 section 29 un unusable usable open space insufficient lot width insufficient side dot insufficient floor area ratio excessive parking
requirements. Um, so if any if none of those violations have been resolved and if that was the reason why, you know, this property the proposal was denied in the first place,
I don't see why we're still talking about it if those issues have not been resolved. Thank you. We have no additional raised hands. Okay, Madam Chair, can I just respond? Yes, please. again for you know
certification that's why we come to the board of appeals to seek relief from those violations again this the 3F zone we're proposing a three three family dwelling um the 3F4000 and we have approximately 3600 square ft with regard
to um the lot size and again the sideyard um again is 10 ft and we are requesting or proposing a 3 threeft sideyard set back on that side so and I'll and I'll just with that. Um, can I can I just add one more thing?
Um, in terms of the letters of support they say they received, Garrison Potter has not doesn't have a single member of of a resident of Covenant Street on their board. They have no jurisdiction over us. I don't know why they they keep
signing these letters and offering support for a neighborhood they don't even represent. none of us are represented in that ne that neighborhood association. So I just want to any other questions from the board.
Hearing none. Is there a motion? Madam chair, I'll put forward a motion of approval. I think um as the planning memo points out um this is a narrow lot, but the makeup of the neighborhood also has similarly
um narrow lots that with similar deficiencies that are improved with residential uses. So I don't think this would be too out of context with what's already on the ground there. So approve. Thank you. Is there a second? Second,
Mr. Stumbrbridge. Yes. Miss We will. Yes. Mr. Collins. Yes. Miss Bonado. Yes.
Mr. Aken. Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck. Thank you, Madam Chair. Members of the board, members of the board. Thank you. Next, we have two companion cases. The first being case BOA 1719023
with the address of 179 West Line Street. Along with that is case BOA171 9017 also with an address of 179 West
Brooklyn Street. If the applicant and or their representative are present, if they please to the board. Yes. Hello members of board. My name is Marcus Springer of Springer Architects, 46 Walton Street in Boston, Mass. Uh
this is an amendment to the uh current permit of the project adding a roof deck and access uh with um air conditioning condensers on the back. Um if you go to the next slide,
um we had uh an abutters meeting on April 15th. Uh we also uh uh formed the design of the roof deck with the South End Landmarks Committee uh with on-site meetings uh uh as well as erectic
prototypes. It was passed on the February 6th hearing of the SELBC. Uh if you go to the next slide, um that's just the location from the Abutters meeting. And if you go to the
next slide, uh that's just the refusal letter with the um roof structure variances that we're seeking. And then the the next slide, um it's within the pilot block neighborhood association. Um we went
back and forth with them uh with the presentation and the design. Uh the deck did extend to the rear. We uh brought that back uh from the rear edge. So, it's 5 foot2 in from the rear, but we
did have left the condensers on the roof in that 5-ft zone. Uh we presented an elevation of that to one of the pilot block neighborhood association members who uh was appreciative of the design
and um thought it was fine. Um if you go to the next slide. So this shows a section through the building um with the front of the building on West Brook line on the right hand side of the page. Um you can see
the front edge of the deck is uh set back uh a little uh little under it's 9 foot 10 from the front edge. We that also aligns with the other roof decks uh on the neighboring buildings. Um and it was also confirmed with the
sight lines with the sealc on site. Uh then the staircase to the roof with the roof hatch and you can see the pulled back rear edge from the rear of the building with a condenser pad in that
zone. If you go to the next slide, uh this is the rear elevation. Um the one on the right is was the existing condition before construction. It had a significant air handling unit on the
roof which um we demolished. We we completely renovated the entire house all all five floors. Uh the elevation on the left is the one that we showed the
pilot block members concealing the um the condensers on the back of the roof in the 5ft zone. If you go to the next slide. So that's kind of a blow up of the plan of the roof deck itself. there to be a
gate to access the uh condensers to maintain them. Uh and then it shows the front edge and the the rear edge and the roof hatch. Uh then the next slide, this is a blow up of the rear elevation with the
railing concealing. Uh the there are five condensers for the building systems of the house. Uh and then the last slide. Oh, this is uh yeah, the last slide. This is just the email from the pilot block member.
Um you can see he said this is very helpful. I'm fine with this plan. It's much better than I expected. So, um and that's it. Thank you. Are there questions from the board? Hearing none, we have public testimony.
Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Seb Jones representing the mayor's office of neighborhood services regarding 179 West Brooklyn Street. Our office defers to the board's judgment on this matter. A community process was conducted including on a butters meeting held on Tuesday, April 15th, 2025 attended by
about four community members. The feedback uh from this meeting was concern about the placement of the condensers on the property causing noise issues for the neighbors as well as some concerns about the access door height on the roof. The proposal was also reviewed by the Pilot Block Neighborhood
Association and had planned to meet on 31825, but as the developer had stated, they changed the 5-ft roof setback requirement on the plans. The association expressed appreciation regarding this plans change and has not required the applicant to appear at a
meeting. At this time, the mayor's office and neighborhood services defers with board's judgment on this matter. Thank you everyone for your time and consideration. Thank you. And we have no raised hands at the moment. Thanks. Okay. With that, may I have a motion?
I'll make a motion to approve um with the the and have the plans sorry submitted to landmarks for their sign off as well. Is there second, Mr. Stebridge?
Yes, Miss Rio. Yes, Mr. Collins. Yes, Miss Ponado. Yes, Mr. Aken. Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck. Thank you very much. With that, we'll move on to the
rediscussion cases scheduled for 11:30. Uh we'll stop by asking if there are any requests for withdrawals or deferrals from this time frame. Yes, Mr. Stan. Attorney.
Yes. The address is 155R Princeton Street and 157 Princeton Street. that those are four companion cases which are case BOA
167881 with the address of 155R Princeton Street. Along with that we have case BO8 1621 0 also with the address of 155 R Street.
Then we have case BOA 1677882, [Music] the address of one 157 Princeton Street. And finally, case
BA 167786, also with the address of 157 Princeton Street. Would you go ahead and explain? No. For the record, for the record, attorney Derek Small, have a business address of 51 Doson Road. Yes. And these
was an um error in the advertisement and so these administratively these projects this project has to be readvertised and I was told by um the zoning board of appeals office that we're going to be scheduled for July the 29th, I believe.
Okay. Then with that, um, I'll make a motion that these cases be deferred till July 29th. Second. Mr. Sunbridge,
yes. Miss Weel, yes. Mr. Collins, yes. Miss Ponado, yes. Mr. Aken, yes. Chair votes, yes. Motion
carries. Thank you very much. See you then. Have a good day. Mr. Stebridge, I have another deferral as well. Uh, and which one would that be? Uh, that's the first uh rediscussion on the list. One Waverly BOA
1698. Please stand read that correct. Okay. Thank you. So, so that will be for case DOA1698184 with the address of 1 W Street. Would you go ahead and explain? Madam Chair, members of the board, good afternoon.
Timothy Fraser from the law firm Dane Torpy, 175 Federal Street. Um, this matter also needed to be readvertised. I believe it actually has been readvertised for July 8th. Um, so requesting a deferral to that date.
Okay. Is there a motion? Motion to defer this case to July 8th. Second, Mr. Sambridge. Yeah. Miss Wro. Yes. Mr. Collins. Yes. Miss
Ponado. Yes. Mr. Aken. Yes. Chair votes yes. Motion carries. Enjoy your holiday. Any further requests for withdrawals and referrals? Yes, Mr. Stambridge. Richard
Linds 87 Morris Street. Thank you, Attorney L. So that would be for case BOA 148 2368 with the address of 87 Mars Street. Go
ahead and turn. Thank you. For the record, uh Richard Linds, 245 Summer Street, East Boston, on behalf of the petitioner, uh requesting a deferral. I believe we still have some outstanding items with respect to GCOD, uh and a few other matters. So, we would need a brief
deferral, end of July, preferably. So, that what we have available would be July 29th. Works for me. Okay. Motion. Oh, sorry. Sorry, you have to read it on please.
Oh, that that will help. Good, good, good idea. Um these two cases are case first is case BOA 148 2368 with the address of 87 Mar Street and
along with that we have case BOA 1482374 also with the address of 87 bar Street. And with that I'll make a motion to defer these cases until July 29th. Is there a second? Second. Second. Mr.
Stebridge. Yeah, Miss Weel. Yes. Mr. Collins? Yes. M. Ponado? Yes. Mr. Aken? Yes. Yes. Motion carries.
Also, uh, Mr. Stebridge at 81 Oxington Street, which would be case is case BOA. 1575584 with the address of 81 L Street. Go ahead. Is there anyone? Thank you. Uh
Richard Linds again 245 Summer Street, East Boston on behalf of petitioner Allison Male. Um we are requesting administrative deferral on this. um preferably uh same date in July assuming you have um I know it's hard to tell at this
point but looking for a seven member board. Um definitely hard to tell. Yeah, understood. I'm I'm informed we still we have the date of July 29th available also.
Perfect. Okay, with that may I have a motion? Motion to defer this case until July 29th. There's a second. Second. Mr. Stebridge.
Yeah. Miss We Yes. Mr. Collins. Yes. Mr. Yes. Mr. Aken. Yes. Chair votes yes. Motion carries. Um Madam Chair, I know it's 12:20. Um just to save everybody some time. Um, I think you have three
interpretation cases on for 12 p.m. We do. They're all yours. Yes, they are. They'll all be deferred. I believe we're just about there with ISD on the um addressing all of the violations that we discussed. I know I've seen some email traffic this morning. So, if we could
just take a short deferral on those, we may just be withdrawing those, which is to keep them on the docket. Mr. Stebridge, you want to read those into the record? We are past the 12:00 hour. Okay. Um,
first we have Kate the the interpretation scheduled for 12 p.m. The deferrals are for the requested deferrals are for Kate and the one case BOA 170440
with the address of 944 Saratoga Street. Along with that we have case of BO8168 9794 with the address of 62- 66 Convo Street.
And finally we have case BOA 168 5296 with the address of 265 to 269 Mick Street. Um again the attorney yes thank
you uh for the record Richard Linds 245 summer street eastbas on behalf of the petitioners and all three of the matters that Mr. Stebridge just read. Uh madam chair these are all article 80 projects and these are all intended to be as of right I think as the board is aware we were before the board on interpretation
of certain violations that were cited by ISD. We believe that we are uh close if not there in getting ISD to agree with our interpretation. Um, we just would like that to be finalized in their updated refusal letters. Uh, and would leave these on the docket until such
time as that's happened. So, if we take a brief deferral on those, that would be great. [Music] Which one? Um, again, um, we'll we'll look to move them to the to July 29th.
Works for me. Motion to defer these three cases to July 29th. Is there a second? Okay. Mr. Stumbbridge. Yes. Miss Lilo? Yes.
Mr. Collins? Yes. Miss Ponado? Yes. Mr. Aken? Yes. Chair votes yes. Motion carries. Thank you very much. Have a great day. Thank you. So with that we'll return to the
discussion scheduled for 11:30 and we have excuse me we have it's 1685149 with the address of 31 notam
street. This was article 80 case. So if the applicant and the representative are present, please explain to the board. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Stembridge, Madam Chair, members of the board, attorney Ryan Spitz with Adams and Morancey,
business address of 1688 Street, First Florence, South Boston. Um, I just want to correct um, Mr. Stebridge, I know you read into the record. I believe that was just a typo error putting article 80. This this project was a straight zoning proposal. there was no article any
process in there. Uh with that being said, uh joining me today uh owner is joining us is Roy Yun as well as the project architect Tim Johnson. This is a proposal to combine two lots, raise the existing structure and erect a new
four-story 14 unit residential building. This new parcel consists of 4551 square ft. The property is located in a multifamily subd district in Roxberry, one block away from Columbus Avenue and within 1 half mile of the Stony Brook
MBTA Orange Line station and another half mile from the Jackson Square train station. The surrounding properties are a mix of residential units in vacant lots. 24 Notre Dame Street, which is directly across the street from this parcel, was recently approved by this
board for 26 units. There are also many other larger size projects within several blocks of this site. The erection of a multifamily residential building is in line with the planning goals of 2030 to increase the city's housing stock. The applica the applicant understands the need to create more
affordable housing opportunities and is required to provide 17% of of the units as affordable but he has committed to an increased percentage of approximately 30% offering four units as affordable. This proposal will consist of all
onebedrooms ranging from approximately 518 square ft to 586 ft. Each unit will have a balcony of approximately 47 square ft. If I can just um Madam Ambassador, can I direct your attention to go to page A02, please?
Right there. Back. Back on. There you go. Thank you. PJ02 ground floor will consist of units one and two in the front building will have a shared amenity space in the rear along with the storage trash room and a dedicated bike
room for 14 spaces. Uh page A03 please. This will consist of the second floor units 3 through 6. Page A4 will be the third floor which will consist of units 7 through 10. And page A05 will be the fourth floor which will consist of units
11 through 14. We have violations for lot area insufficient. The requirement in this subdist is 4,000 square ft and our combined lot size is over 4,000 square ft. There therefore this violation should not have been cited. However, the additional lot size
violation is accurate as the code calls for 1,000 square ft of additional lot for each unit after the first three. We have a four area ratio violation. We're proposing a 2.2 2 and a 1.0 is compliant. The proposed density does align with some of the other recently
approved projects in this neighborhood. We have a usable open space insufficiency code requires 200 square ft per dwelling and this proposal contains approximately 172 ft per dwelling. We do have a sideyard violation. Code requires a 10-ft
sideyard setback and this proposal calls for 8T on the right hand side and 5T on the leftand side. This type of setback is very similar to that of the other setbacks within this neighborhood. Uh lastly, we have a parking insufficiency code requires one space per unit and
this proposal doesn't provide any spaces but is aligned with the initiative reducing dependency on private vehicles. Further, we feel it is appropriate given the secured bike parking within the building, the proximity to rapid transit stations, and one block away from Columbus Avenue bus lanes. Um, with that
being said, Madam Chair, I'm going to turn it over to the board for any questions or comments. Thank you. Questions from the board? Hearing none, may I have public testimony? Madame chair and members of the board. For the record, my name is Jeremy
Benbury. I'm the Jamaica Plane community engagement specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process which consisted of an Abu brother's meeting facilitated on February 18th where Abu has voiced many concerns regarding flooding in the area plans for water runoff density and parking concerns and
Abua also mentioned the property was meant to remain a green space as outlined in the deed restriction and two of his voice support for the proposal. Next the proposal was presented to Egleston Square Neighborhood Association on March 10th where the proposal was opposed. To date, our office has received eight letters of support and
three letters of opposition, one from the Egleston Square Neighborhood Association, who wrote a letter with several concerns, including the building's lack of elevator and non-compliance with ADA, only offering one-bedroom units or management of existing buildings and setbacks uh violations. Thank you for your time, and
the mayor's office of neighborhood services would like to defer to the court with their judgment. Thank you. Any other raised hands? We have no raised hands at the moment. With that, may I have a motion? Uh, can can the proponent just um
address ADA U accessibility? This also was in the planning department's recommendation. Yeah, that's so I guess there because due to the step up, however, um those issues of accessibility can be addressed during the design review phase if approved.
Okay. Um, so I'll make a motion to approve um with a housing agreement being um issued prior to permits and that the plans be submitted um to for design review with attention to the accessibility of the
ground floor. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Sunbridge. Are you ready? Okay, Miss We will. Yes. Mr. Collins, yes. Mado, yes. Mr. Aken, yes. Chair votes, yes.
The motion carries. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. And next, we have case BOA 166 3421 with the address of 869 Saratoga Street.
If the applicant to enter whether represent or present their opposed hand here, Michael, I'm gonna send a request to make you a panelist. Can you press accept and then unmute yourself? Eric do the same for you as well.
Can you hear us? Yes. Madam Chairman, uh, members of the board, my name is Michael Welsh. Uh, my office address is 501 Congress Street, Boston 02210. Um, here uh, representing the owner of the property, Movie. Um and for this
project proposed project at 869 Saratoga Street which is a proposed three a four-story three family dwelling um that would be replacing uh the existing uh dilapitated um single store uh single family house that's currently on the
lot. This um came before the board last month. I believe it was on May 6th and um we were granted a continuence because the um the BPDA memo that the board had before it was I think incorrect. It was
referencing a different project. So um that's essentially what we're here for. And I don't know if you'd like me to redo go over the the full presentation again or um if there are any specific questions um after reviewing the the the
uh correct BPDA memo for the project. I mean I guess um maybe address um the fact that you chose not to adhere to plan East Boston in your approach. Sure. So um the permit that's the permit application was submitted on prior to
the uh implementation of the plan East Boston. So when we were designing it we did try to design it um you know based on the guidelines and the and the the changes that were being discussed but they weren't implemented
yet. So we were sort of in a a a gray area of trying to guess and you know get as close as we could. Um but so that's kind of uh the the reason for that. Um what I did I did put together um just a
table that sort of explains the variances that are required uh under the prior code versus the the new one. Um and the I can go through them but the the bottom line is under the former code which is um representative of the
refusal letter um we require uh that would require nine variances under if under today's code um there would only be four variances required um and one of them is is the is the height variance
and I will say that um I'm not sure Uh so directly across the street and directly behind this property are um EBR4 districts. Um I'm not sure exactly if it what the um that the proposed zoning map
was at the time that we were designing it, but I will say that, you know, four stories would be allowed if we were, you know, either on the other side of the street or one lot back. So, it's not it wouldn't be completely out of um out of sync with the um East Boston plans code
as far as the height requirement goes um due to location. Um and then the so I mean that's the the only other ones that would remain would be height, sideyard, rear yard and the related um
as lock coverage and perability requirements under plan East Boston. Um, and one of the other just to going back to the uh the height requirement is in a flood zone and
the lot's only 25 ft wide. So there's there's a small um lobby for to access the building on the ground floor and the rest of it is basically a driveway to the rear um and one parking space underneath. Um, so that's partially to,
you know, keep it elevated for potential flooding purposes and also to provide off- streetet parking, which we, you know, assume, uh, and from speaking with neighbors, um, we want to take up less off streetet parking if possible. Um, under the new the new code,
what you could build by, right, is a three-story, three family dwelling with no parking spaces. Um, and so it's not as if, you know, nothing could be built here, but but this is something that I think is a little bit
more of a compromise that neighbors might like, at least the ones who have expressed that they want some off street uh off streetet parking. Um, and I'll I'll I'll mention that we're showing a a 10-ft um curve cut. I know
that there was a at the last hearing there was a representative of the Boston Transportation Department um who recommended um removing one of the parking spaces and he also I think he suggested that the the curb cut would
have to be 20 ft. Um we're okay with and we we discussed maybe potentially having a proviso of eliminating one of the parking spaces and we would we would be okay with that that um if especially if you so if you look at the ground floor is the
underground the um the parking space that's under the building eliminating that would allow some um more maneuverability. So, I think that that might be appropriate to allow cars to um be able to sort of do a three-point turn and
pull out uh street instead of having to back out of the uh garage door there. Um and regarding the the the sideyard uh violations, um if the if the buildings
on the adjacent lots had been directly up against the those lot lines, then we would there would be no sideyard uh violation because they could be attached. Um th the those they're just they just happen to be about, you know, um one to one and a half ft off of their
lot lines. So, as far as the, you know, looking forward and what what what could be developed in the future, if those properties are um redeveloped at some point, then they would the, you know, be allowed to go right up to our building and then that
would essentially potentially eliminate that um violation at some point in the future. Um, but with that, I I'll just um leave it to the members of the board and see open up for any questions. Thank you. Are there questions from the board?
Hearing none, uh we'll take public testimony. Is there public testimony? Jessica? Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Eva Jones, representing the mayor's office of neighborhood services regarding 869 Saratoga Street. Our office will defer to the board's judgment on this matter.
A community process was conducted, including an abuters meeting on Tuesday, November 19th, 2024, which was attended by two constituents. The primary feedback from this meeting was some concerns about neighborhood parking, construction vehicles, and the setbacks being requested by the applicant.
Additionally, the proposal was reviewed with the Orient Heights Neighborhood Association, which convened uh in opposition on the proposal regarding uh zero in favor and 10 opposed for the vote. At this time, the mayor's office of neighborhood services defers to the board judge on this matter. Thank you everybody for your time and
consideration. Ellie, good evening members of the board and chair. Uh Ellie Sanchez with councelor Kleta about this office here. At this time, the counselor would like to go uh on the record in opposition of this uh proposal. Thank you.
See, we have um no additional raise. Okay. Any other questions from the board? Yeah, Madam Chair, could the applicant talk about the um retaining walls in the rear yard? They look to be about 5 to six feet. So, you're building up the grade back
there. The retaining there's a retaining wall um adjacent to So, the property slopes down from um 867 to 869. So, it's downhill
that way. There is a retaining wall that's there. Um and yes it is about 5 ft high. We there might be some fill but this project will also have to go through the um the conservation
committee. So all those the the drainage issues um things like that will be kind of subject to to going through that process. So, but yes, um the retaining wall would have to be repaired. Um
and but yes, there will be it there be additional drainage because right now there's no there's no on-site um you know dry wells or anything of that nature. So, as per the standard practice, you will have we will be putting in at least one dry well
depending on um uh what the engineering reports come out with during the conservation um uh review process. Uh potentially more than that, but we will definitely have be improving the drainage system uh situation there. And
also we'll have to um review the existing retaining wall um the structure of it and things of that nature. that that that retitaining wall is actually the was installed as part of the um construction of the
building on 867 um Saratoga Street. So, it's sort of encroaching onto this property, but not owned by the owner of 869 Saratoga Street. So, that's something that we
will have to um work out through that process. Okay. Yeah, it looks like the wall along the right property line needs to be replaced, but then you're constructing a new retaining wall around the perimeter um where the building ends.
So, so not all of it is replaced. Some of it is new. Yes. The Is there a new I'm just looking at it right now. Yeah. Um,
so that's the existing um. Yeah. Yeah. Right. So some of it was existing and then some of it will be new. So basically the the the foundation wall for the new structure will be the retaining wall on that side up until the um where the existing retaining wall is.
Okay. Thanks. Thank you. Any other questions from more? And you said this was this was five before the new East Boston uh planning came up. Yeah. Was it April of 2024?
Um Hampton, April 11th. Uh yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh members of the board, Jeff Hampton, City of Austin Planning Department. Um even though it was submitted in April of 2024, uh the legal notice for the public
hearing before the zoning commission is April 1st. So everything would have been frozen and would have been reviewed under the uh under the new zoning, which if you look at the refusal letter from ISD, even though it does say 3F2000,
that's a misprint because a lot of the provisions that they cited are under the new zoning. uh like permeable lot area uh and building depth and building lot coverage. Those are all new zoning
requirements under uh the new article 53, not the old. So, uh ISD did review this under the new zoning because the legal notice for the public hearing before the zoning commission was April 1st. And um so I believe that ISD did
site this under uh the right code. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll make a motion for denial. Um I think that new construction projects um as we just heard should comply with uh the new dimensional requirements of
Plan East Boston. Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stebridge. Yes. Miss Wo. Yes. Mr. Collins. Yes.
Miss Panado. Yes. Mr. Aken. Yes. I don't follow the the need for the this to be the minimum relief here uh that's needed for the project under the new code. So yes. Chair votes yes. The
motion carries. Thank you. Y. All right. Happy 4th everyone. I guess I'm not happy fourth. I will not see some of you until after. Thank you everyone. Thank you. Byebye.
Folks.