Good morning. The City of Boston Zoning Board of Appeal hearing for February 24, 2026 is now in session. This hearing is being conducted in accordance with the applicable provisions of the open meeting law, including the updated provisions enacted by the legislature this year. The new law allows the board
to continue its practice of holding virtual hearings through June 2027. This hearing of the board is being held remotely via the Zoom webinar event platform and is also being livereamed. In order to ensure this hearing of the board is open to the public, members of
the public may access this hearing through telephone and video conferencing. The information for connecting to this hearing is listed on today's hearing agenda, which is posted on the public notices page of the city's website, boston.gov. Members of the public will enter the virtual hearing as attendees, which means you will not see
yourself on the screen and you will be muted throughout unless administratively unmuted when asked to comment. Board members, applicants, and their attorneys or representatives will participate in the hearing as panelists and they will appear alongside the presentation materials when speaking. Panelists are
strongly encouraged to keep video on while presenting to the board. As with our in-person meetings, comments and support will be followed by comments in opposition. The order of comments is as follows. Elected officials, representatives of elected officials,
members, 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
can provide their comment. In the interest of time and to ensure that you have enough time to do so, please raise your hand as soon as Mr. Stebridge reads the address into the record. Do not raise your hand before the relevant address is called or the meeting host will not know to call on you at the appropriate time. We ask that
you keep your comments brief and all public testimony will be limited to 90 seconds per speaker. Okay. Uh, Mr. Stebridge. >> Good morning, Madam Chair. Present. >> Good morning, Mr. Valencia. >> Good morning, Madam Chair. Present.
>> Good morning, Miss Turner. >> Good morning, Madam Chair. Present. >> Good morning, Miss Brazza. >> Good morning, Madam Chair. Present. >> Good morning. Uh, Miss Pado. >> Good morning, Madam Chair. Present. >> Good morning, Mr. Collins.
>> Morning, Madam Chair. President. >> Good morning. And I will turn it back over to Mr. Stumbridge. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, folks. Uh we'll begin today's hearings with the approval vote for approval,
excuse me, of hearing minutes scheduled for 9:30 a.m. These hearing minutes are from February 3rd, and I'll put a motion for that. Uh they they're approved. >> Is there a second? Second,
>> Mr. Stebridge. >> Yes. >> Mr. Valencia. >> Yes. >> Miss Turner. >> Yes. >> M. Better Brazo? >> Yes. >> Miss Pado? >> Yes. >> Mr. Collins? >> Yes.
>> Chair votes? Yes. The motion carries. Next, we'll move on to the extensions scheduled for 9:30 a.m. These all appear reasonable. Um, and at this point, unless anyone has any questions, we take him direct chair. Um,
we >> Excuse me. >> I'm sorry. >> Okay. Could please continue, Mr. Snbridge. >> Um, well, they all appear reasonable. I'll read them all in one one after the other and then we'll take a vote at the
end. First, we have case BOA54 597 with the address of 472 to 474 Western Avenue. Next we have case BOA
1483092, the address of 60 621 East Second Street. Next we have case BOA 132 0835 with the address of 9 to3 Huan Street.
Next we have case BOA125 2953 with the address of 595 to 603 Newbury Street. And finally we have case BOA1279801 with the address of 120 street. Those
are the extensions that we have before us today. >> Thank you. Are there questions from the board? Hearing none. May I have a motion to grant the extensions as requested? >> Motion to grant the uh extensions as
requested. >> May I have a second? >> Second. >> Mr. Stebridge. >> Yes. >> Mr. Valencia. >> Yes. >> Miss Turner. >> Yes. >> Miss Better Braza?
>> Yes. Miss Ponado, >> yes. >> Mr. Collins, >> yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. >> Next, we have board final arbiter cases scheduled for 9:30 a.m.
First, we have case BOA 1261313 with the address of 154 Terra Street. If the applicant and or their representative are present, would they please explain to the board? >> Are you speaking, Mr. Federico? >> Yes. Can you hear me?
>> Uh, yes, we can. >> Hi. Hi, Madam Chair and fellow board members. Thank you very much. Um, I am Joe Federico, 1039 with a business address of 1039 East Street in DTO. Um I am the owner and the developer for the
154 terrestry project. And um so I'll just kind of briefly go through the changes that we've made from the previous um ZBA approval. Um so we reduced the building in height from seven stories to six stories which also
lowered um the overall height from 82 ft to 68 ft and lowered the F as well. Um the remainder of the building ground floor has remained unchanged. We still have 24 parking spaces. So the parking
ratio was lowered slightly. Um the total number of units decreased from 66 units to 65 units. Um and um as far as that the building footprint has been is exactly the same. It's really just reducing it in height,
cutting the stories and lowering the F. Um we also changed the use from um condo units to rental units and the project has already gone through um the BPDA or planning department
process and um the notice of project change um it was voted on in support last week from the planning board. So, we we did receive a letter from one of the Mission Hill groups that did have some concerns about some other aspects
of the project that I guess in a prior version were perhaps agreed upon around short-term rental uh dorm use and other things. I don't know if you can comment on those. So, um, as as far as dorm use, um, I'm
not not familiar with that. Um, we there >> was concerns about concerns about short-term rental, dorm use, and, uh, you know, rental instead of ownership. >> Yep. So, I I agreed um, not to rent to any short-term renters. Um, that the
minimum lease term would be one year, and that's something that I said and I 100% stand behind. Um, I'm not looking to run an Airbnb here. Um, it's just not something I'm interested in at all. Um, I I did not agree to not to rent to
undergraduates. Um, I don't have or agree to really any of those kind of restrictions because that would severely impact my ability to get financing and actually build this project, which is is the goal. Um, so as far as the short-term rentals, I agree with that.
It's not something that I'm going to do. Uh, it will be a minimum lease term of a full year, but um, I cannot restrict the rentals, um, and not rent undergraduate students. That's not something that I can agree to. >> Other questions from the board?
>> Yes. Uh, Mr. Perico, I also noticed that you are transitioning the project from home ownership to rentals. in your previous negotiation with the mayor office of housing um was about uh AMIs for home ownership
that is 80% to 100% as you were providing some funds to the affordability um to MOS for affordability and now with the rentals you are um I wanted to ask if you have had new
conversations or negotiations with the MOS about the changes because I think the AMI in the IDP is different from for I mean for the last project that you had to this new project. >> Yes, that's correct. So the previous project because it was a home ownership
project um the previous owner developer negotiated a partial buyout for the IDP units. So of the 66 units that were previously um approved, only three were going to be on-site IDP units. um we are
going to increase the number of on-site IDP units from 3 to 8 um and then also contribute to a buyout um for the fractional remainder um of of that percentage. So those would be at 70% AMI
the rental units um not the 180% that was previously agreed upon. So we lowered the AMI and increased the number of on-site affordable um units. >> Thank you. So you already have an agreement with the mayor office of housing for those changes?
>> Yes, we um that was part of the board memo the increase number of of units um of affordable units as far and as well as the um the contribution to the fund. Um we have not yet um we don't have the
signed affordable rental housing agreement yet. Usually that happens a little later on but the um the parameters of the IDP contribution both on-site and um financial contribution are agreed upon and I'm part of the
board memo from the planning department. >> Okay. Thank you. For some reason I couldn't find that information on my package but thank you for the clarification. Of >> course. Thank you. Are there other questions from the board hearing? Man, is there a motion?
>> Madam Chair, I'd like to put forward a motion of approval with a provisal that the project undergoes um agreement in regards to affordability with Mo. >> Is there a second? >> Second.
>> Second. >> Mr. Stumbridge. >> Yes. >> Mr. Valencia. >> Yes. >> Miss Turner. Are you on mute, Miss Turner?
>> You're on mute, Miss Turner. >> Sorry about that. Um, yes. >> Thank you. Uh, Miss Bzazza, >> yes. >> Miss Ponado, >> yes. >> Mr. Collins, >> yes. >> Chair votes, yes. The motion carries.
>> Thank you. Next we have case BOA 1485817 with the address of 521 Cambridge Street. If the applicants and or their representative are present, would they
please explain the case to the board? >> Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Johanna Schneider with the law firm of Hemway Environment 75 State Street. We are here today in relation to a multifamily residential project that the board approved in September 2023, a few months
ago in December of 2025. We were in front of you um for an extension of that approval. The originally approved project had 33 rental units, but due to changes in the market since the original approval. In order for this project to be financially feasible, it requires the
addition of two units for an overall total of 35 units. In May of 2025, the BPDA board voted unanimously to approve this change in unit count. As you can see from the plans that we submitted in connection with this request, the increase in units only requires internal
reconfiguration. There are no changes to the building exterior or to the approved zoning envelope, and no additional zoning relief is necessary. Um, but we are here today in an effort to head off any confusion with potential construction lenders who might see a ZBA
decision allowing for 33 units while we've got a BPDA decision that says 35 units and plans that show 35 units. Um, I do have Rob Savio, the project architect, available if the board has questions about the plans, but I think this is a fairly straightforward matter.
Um, and we would respectfully request that you grant our um, request that the board's uh, decision for the project be updated to allow 35 units instead of 33 units. >> Thank you. Are there questions from the
board? >> Yeah, I just uh would like just some clarification. If the zoning envelope, let's say that was originally approved stayed the same, what changes in
footprint is allowing for two additional units? Is it that you're decreasing the amount of unit beds? How how is there like an an equal to equal that you're not changing the massing of the overall
building? Yeah, it's a it's a totally internal reconfiguration in terms of the sizes of the units, the location of the demising walls, um a little bit of change to um the previously shown um common spaces. If you want to get into
more details, as I said, we do have the project architect who could walk through the changes. >> Yeah, I would like to know specifically what allowed for the addition of the two units. What actually was removed? Was it a decrease in the x amount of square
footage of uh community space? I would like to understand what was what was it the change that allowed for there to be no increase in F or stories or building perimeter just for clarity.
>> Sure. Um Rob, you you do not have audio access. Um, >> typically what's helpful is to see a before and after. >> So, we do have on the plans that we submitted, and I'm going to try to play architect here for a moment and not do
it terribly well while Rob is trying to log in. Um, and Rob, if you want to try to call in, um, maybe that would be helpful. Um, but if you look at the red bubbled areas, you can see where the
internal changes were. Please scroll down. I think that if we look at the floor plans in particular, yeah, anything that is red bubbled shows the areas that were reconfigured internally in order to um make the unit
count work. >> Thank you, Jesus. Jesus, can you go to the plans that are bubbled out? Can you hear me now? >> Yes, I can hear you. >> That's perfect. Yeah. So, I want to Okay, great. Is your architect here?
>> Yes, that was his voice. >> What was the flaw that allowed you to have an increase? So on all sides, all four sides of the building, no, there was no change to the envelope except in two locations, which we'll get to in a second. Part of the
increase in unit count comes from a red demising layout in the in the within the footprint itself. And then on the ground floor, which is the plan that we have in front of us here, what was previously common area in the bottom right there has now become a unit. So no again, no
change to the footprint, just use change on the top on the fifth floor of the building. need to go to that plan for just a second. It's A 105 or so. >> 105 is 105.
>> Yeah, I believe that's it. Actually, you can start 106. Next one down. So, previously, perfect. So previously we had a common area roof deck on the top of the on this level of the building. The roof deck was which still
exists today was a little bit more square in its proportions. So part of the increase in the square footage was to expand that unit which is clouded in red abuing the outdoor space slightly into the outdoor space. >> Okay. So between
>> so basically uh so thank you for clarifying that because it wasn't presented to us that you're actually removing common space to allow for additional units. Um but it doesn't necessarily at all change the envelope
for the building. Okay. Thank you. I don't have any further questions. Thank you. >> Any other questions from the board? Hearing none. May I have a motion? Madam Chair, given that there are no additional zoning violations, I would
like to put a motion forward of approval. >> Is there a second? >> Second, >> Mr. Stebridge? >> Yes. >> Mr. Valencia? >> Yes. >> Miss Turner? >> Yes.
>> Brazo? >> Yes. >> Miss Panado? >> Yes. >> Mr. Collins? >> Yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Next, we move on to the recommendations
scheduled for 9:30 a.m. These are from the subcommittee meeting on February 12th. Um, they were all approved. So, if we have any questions, ask them after I read them in. The first
is case BO8 1802 07. Um with the address of 301 to 305 West Broadway that was approved. >> Um what happened to our third BFA?
>> Oh um I apologize Madam Chair. Uh um forgive me folks. Uh going back to order the final arbitary cases um we have case BO8
126 34 29 with the address of 28A Ridland Road. If the applicant and nor their representative are present, would they please explain to the board? >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Stebridge. Uh and madam chair, members of the board. Thank
you for uh coming back to us. It's appreciated. Um so we presented before the board previously obtained zoning relief to construct a new uh single family dwelling on this parcel. Uh the current owner controls uh what is identified on your site plan there as
2826 as well as the subject parcel. Uh the proposal was to put in a long linear driveway with parking to the rear to service both parcels. Uh the long linear driveway would skirt both parcels to be memorialized by a future recorded
easement. Uh the board did approve that prior plan uh with the construction uh as indicated uh with the specific proviso of trying to maximize green space. Uh so with that in mind uh the owner underwent uh discussion with the
BPDA. Um there's also significant elevation change on this parcel to the rear and a significant amount of ledge exposed ledge and rock which renders parking at that elevation and configurations difficult. Um so
trying to effectively allow parking to still exist on site for the sake of trying to hopefully increase uh green space. The updated proposal from the applicant was to try to put uh front yard parking. Uh there's an existing not on this plan but the site plan that the
ZBA has seen previously as part of the prior iteration of approval. There's a very long existing curb cut in place. Uh the proposal is to utilize a portion of that existing curb cut but then also return curb uh to the public domain for on street parking. Um, this would allow
us to continue to utilize that portion of the existing curb cut and put in two parking spaces uh into the front of the building to remain um compliant with parking requirements. But it is triggering a front yard parking uh refusal that we're coming back before
the board for um board final order approval of. So that is the uh proposed updated change from the last iteration approved by this board uh to allow for two front yard off streetet parking spaces not in tandem orientation.
>> Questions from the board? Did um was there a possibility to explore relocating the building closer to the front so that you can avoid the ledge to some degree and allow
for the parking to exist at the rear. The the prior iteration had a modal shift to the front to bring us into alignment with current structure along the street today >> with parking to the rear and and that what was previously approved by this
board in the prior plans and that is you know for geography and other reasons kind of um not permissible u when it comes to the actual construction. So this is the iteration now back before the board. But to answer your question, that was the original proposal.
>> Okay. Thanks. No further questions. >> Mr. Hampton. >> Uh thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. Jeff Hampton, City of Boston Planning Department. Um we are opposed to this new plan that's being shown to the board today for board final
arbittor. Uh one of the reasons is we do understand the the difficulty for the off- streetet parking. However, um we would never support front yard parking. Um and as the appellant has stated, this has triggered a new zoning violation.
So, in the BP in the planning department's opinion, this needs a new hearing because we need to take a look at it and make a recommendation on a new zoning violation. Um, our urban design department has also stated that they
wouldn't support this as a board final arbiter for any sort of design review because we never support front yard parking. So, we just want to go on the record as being opposed to this as being before being before board final arbittor and not a new hearing.
>> Thank you. Are you Caroline? >> Good morning, Madam Chair. Yeah, just to clarify. So if the board did approve the removal of this proviso, the applicant
would still have to come back for a >> you're going in and out a little bit and you see the last part the board the applicant would still have to come back to the board. >> Yes, sir. Um correct because it does trigger a new zoning violation. >> Thank you.
Other questions from the board hearing? None. Is there a motion? >> Um, so Madam Chair, if I could just briefly respond. >> Sure. >> Uh, so I guess uh if if this is ultimately denied in light of prior approval, the prior plan would still
remain in effect. Uh theoretically linear parking to the right of the structure might be an option but that would require replacement of a curb cut. Uh it would also you know the the tandem orientation of parking would still suffice for parking but itself create a
violation. So that would theoretically be another option with maybe the same end effect. So I guess procedurally I was just asking if you had any opinion as a board on that orientation of parking versus front yard non-tandem parking. Thank you. Any comments or feedback from
the board? >> Is that something that can be worked out in design review with the BPDA off the original decision? >> Uh, we can happily have that dialogue with the BPDA and see if that's less offensive to the BPDA. But if it does
require uh a zoning violation for maneuverability or orientation of parking, even though it would still require that the requisite number, uh I guess then would ZBA board final decision be applicable in that scenario? >> Uh Mr. Collins, if I may, um I think
they're back here because of the design review process um and because it does trigger a new zoning violation. This is why we are opposed to them, you know, removing the proviso. They have an approved plan. >> U, I understand that the parking may not
work for them. Um, but having it come before you to show you new parking spaces in the front yard is not something that we support. Uh, especially when they acknowledge it's a new zoning violation and, you know,
needs its own hearing. um they do have design review. >> I I if they're agreeable to going through the design review process then um you know the original approval would
stand uh because it did go through excuse me the uh provisal was through design review. um if they decide that they want to move forward with the front yard parking, this would require a new hearing and you'd get a recommendation from us and um so you know they do have
an approved project with design review pending >> and Mr. Hampton. So Mr. Smith mentioned other alternatives. Um, is it safe to assume those were already vetted through? >> I I can't speak for the design department, but I
can assume, but I don't want to, but >> Okay, gotcha. Thank you. Other questions from the board. >> Is there a motion? >> I'll make a motion of denial. It sounds like it needs to go back through the design review process with the planning
department. >> Is there a second? Second, >> Mr. Stumbridge. >> Yes, >> Mr. Valencia. >> Yes, >> Miss Turner. >> Yes.
>> Miss Better Brazo? >> Yes. >> Miss Ponado? >> Yes. Mr. Collins? >> Yes. >> Chair votes? Yes. The motion carries. >> Understood. And thank you for your time. >> Thank you.
And we'll go again to the recommendations scheduled for 9:30 a.m. from the February 12th subcommittee meeting. All the all of the these were approved. So if there are any questions,
I'll read through and pass them after that. First we have case BOA 1802 07 with the address of 301305
West Broadway which was approved. Next we have case BOA 1788475 with the address of two Pacific Street which was approved. And finally, we have case BOA
1696173 with the address of 4843 Washington Street which was approved and those were the cases of recommendation from the sub previous subcommittee.
>> Are there questions from the board? May I have a motion? Motion to accept the recommendations of the subcommittee. >> Is there a second? >> Thank you. Mr. Stebridge, >> yes. >> Valencia,
>> yes. >> Miss Turner, >> yes. >> Miss Benabraza, >> yes. >> Miss Pado, >> yes. >> Mr. Collins, >> yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Next, we'll move on to the hearing
scheduled for 9:30 a.m. At this time, we'll ask if there are any requests for withdrawals or deferrals from the 9:30 a.m. hearing. >> Mr. Luna, are you >> Yes.
>> Uh, yes. Morning, Madam Chair. Joseph Luna representing uh 33 Princeton BLA number 1642. >> Okay. So, is that the address you're looking to defer? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, please let Mr. Stumbridge read it into the record. >> Okay.
So, this would be for case BOA 164 2295 with the address of 33R Princeton Street. >> That is correct. >> Would you go ahead? Uh yes. Um this is the second part of a
two-part um two-part approval. My client um has advised that he did pull permits on this back in 1992. Uh we are trying to locate more documentation through ISD regarding that initial permit and would like a request
for an additional month to find this information. >> Okay. Um Caroline can do um April 7th. Okay, >> that'll be fine. >> Okay. Was that May I have a motion? >> Motion to defer this case to April 7th.
>> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Mr. Stebridge? >> Yes. >> Mr. Valencia? >> Yes. >> Miss Turner? >> Yes. >> Miss Brazza? >> Yes.
Mr. Pado, >> yes. >> Mr. Collins, >> yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. See you then. >> Thank you. We'll see you in April. Have a good day. >> Any further requests for withdrawals of
deferrals for the 9:30 a.m. hearings? Then we will move on to the first case which is case BOA 180 3891 with the address of 344 to 350 Washington Street.
This is an article 80 case. So if the applicant andor their representative were present, would they please explain to the board? >> Uh thank you Mr. Stebridge. Um, good morning, Madame Chair, members of the board. Attorney John Pini, uh, here on
this proposal at 344 Washington Street in Brighton. Um, currently this property is a Dunkin Donuts and has the Asperia Grill, which has been a neighborhood institution for decades. It's a one-story commercial building. With me today is Mark Sullivan, the project's
architect. Um he's having some difficulties as am I with power outages. So he is trying to join by phone as well as the property owner Tim Ethan status. Tim is a longtime fixer in Brighton neighborhood together with his wife and son. They've been operating the Asperia
Grill at this location for the past 20 years. Um we appreciate the opportunity to speak before you. 344 Washington Street. The zoning is neighborhood shopping 1. The lot size is 6,450 square ft. The proposal before you is to take down the current one-story
commercial building and the construction of a new six-story mixeduse building on this lot. The ground floor of this building will remain retail space housing uh a new Dunkin Donuts location. The remaining five floors will be comprised of 19 two-bedroom condominium
units. Each unit will have private outdoor deck space and again these are offered as home ownership units. Project will also include 17 parking spaces in Terry to the building. Six of those spaces will be for the Dunkin Donuts customers while the remaining 11 spaces
will be for residents. This project underwent a part uh planning department's article 80 and was approved by the board in August um throughout the uh community process. Proposal was well received especially in light of the home ownership um home ownership part of it
and we received support letters from the BAI as well as city council president Breeden. Um, as I stated, the proposal was just approved by the BPA in August. Uh, in addition to providing 19 home ownership opportunities, proposal will provide three affordable home ownership
units, street c um improvements to both Washington Academy, a crosswalk at Washington, street trees, and widen of the sidewalks through the granting of a pedestrian easement to the city. I appreciate your um the opportunity to present, and I'm happy to answer any questions.
>> Thank you. Are there questions from the board? >> Hearing none, we have public testimony. >> Good morning, Madam Chair and members. C. Johnson with the mayor's office of neighborhood services. Booking has completed the community process led by the Boston Planning Department. The BPD
held its public meeting on July 30th of 2025. The applicant spent multiple times with the BAIA and has secured the support of that group. The proposal was adjusted to accommodate more parking and the home ownership aspect was supported by the community. With that background, our office defers judgment to the board.
Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Next, we have Zo Dval. >> Yes. Good morning. My name is Zoe Dval. I'm a project manager in the development review division, the planning department here to express planning department support of the project. Um the project
filed their SP with us as an article 80 small project on June 25th, 2025 and the planning department hosted a public meeting on July 30th. Um the team conducted independent community outreach as well as explained and both received
with public support. Um the project was approved by the BPDA board on August 14th and we're happy to see this project move forward and progress to this design review phase of article 80. Um so we defer to this board for further action. Thank you. >> Okay, next we have Brandon.
>> Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is Brandon Dashin and I'm here as the owner and operator of the property located at 354 Washington Street in Brighton. I'm a director and immediate butter and I apologize for giving all my feedback late in this
process, but I was never given access to the drawings until 2 weeks ago. So there was no community outreach with me being as the director Butter. To provide a little history, we began our design development a few years ago. Our drawings were coordinated as we look to
develop our lot as well and we coordinated with the 344 Washington Street team. However, the coordination has not been reciprocated to us. Since receiving these drawings on 211, I've been able to review them and have the following comments directly impact my
project. 344's building is directly on and against my common wall. This is a structural wall. Also, the violations of acquired setbacks and fire separation are directly on my property. The placement of the windows and openings
that directly overlook my property does not accommodate my future development in the absence of recorded protections binding future property owners of the condominium units excuse me on weather. Um there is no recorded party wall agreement easement
or covenant permitting the use of the structural wall or the W line. Absent of such agreement, any construction built on a lot line against my building is improper. I do not consent to the use of my building or lot line as a party wall,
firewall or structural support for this project. >> Excuse me. >> May you please wrap up and it sounds to me like there needs to be some conversation offline with uh the applicant. >> Sure. Yeah. So my proposed reasonable
resolutions are 4 foot setback on the shared common lot line. Also reconfiguration of the design that there are no windows that overlook my property since this will impact my future development. And lastly provide legal documentation to my legal team that will be included in the condo association
documents and all these efforts will be reciprocated on my future development as well. >> Thank you. >> Any other raised hands? There are no additional comments. >> Okay, Mr. Bjini. >> Sure. I'll just address that last um uh
>> Thank you. >> Um issue that was raised by Brandon. So these two projects are going through the part going through the BPDA approval article 80 approval process concurrently. They're we were using the
same architect. Okay. The same architect was developing their project as our project. The BPDA wanted these to work together. We have been as open and obvious and and as transparent as possible. 352 right next door. It's a 19
unit just as us with six parking spaces. That's an apartment building. Ours is home ownership. We'll continue that dialogue and we'll continue working with them. But we have been reaching out to everybody and there has been no everybody has had the plans for quite
some time. >> Thank you. Any other questions from the board? Can I respond to my call? >> Thank you. Any other questions from the board? >> Hearing none, may I have a motion?
>> Mam sh would like to put forward a motion of approval. I think this this is a very good way to utilize existing parking lots and especially to to keep retail retail or businesses in the area and at the same time providing affordable housing. So my motion is of
approval. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Mr. Sunbridge. >> Yes. >> Thank you. Mr. Valencio, >> yes. >> Miss Turner, >> yes.
>> Miss Barazzo, >> yes. >> Miss Panado, >> yes. >> Mr. Collins, >> yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck. Thank you everyone. >> Next we have two companion cases. The
first is case BOA 180 01 01 with the address of 255 Allenale Street. Along with that we have case BOA 18011
with the address of 257 Allenale Street. If the applicants and andor their representative present, would they please explain the cases to the board? >> Yes. Thank you. Good morning, Madame Chair and members of the board. I'm Barry Fogle. I'm the attorney for the
project from Keegan Warland. With me here this morning is Helen Gladzer. She's the president and CEO of Allenale Farm. Uh this is a project to build two new structures to replace some aging structures on the portion of the
property uh on Allenale Street near the Brooklyn Boston town line city line. Uh if we go to the next slide, our project team quickly involves uh uh the farm. Uh we have landscape architects at Clapford
Martin. Uh Union Studio is the architect. VHP has been the civil engineer. Our general contractor is Landmark Services. Next slide, please. Allenale Farm is a working farm in the city. It's over 105 acres. It's been
operating for more than 150 years, and the retail use has been on this parcel for more than 60 years. This parcel is subject to an agricultural preservation restriction held by the trustees of reservations. And this particular part of the property
under that APR is considered the farm building envelope which validates and allows retail and agricultural uses. The retail market has been there operates sustainably grown fresh produce and the goal is to upgrade the facilities to
make it more efficient, more sustainable and to support the regional community but in a way that's continues to be consistent with the neighborhood. Next slide, please. Again, the project goal is to offer a better visitor experience. It improves
parking and circulation. There's increased environmental sustainability with storm water management, protection of the adjacent wetland resources. It's dark sky compliant to improve lighting. The market barn is the first of the
buildings that will serve as the headquarters for the retail. And there's a retail greenhouse that will be able to support the greenhouse function. Next slide, please. Uh, this gives you an idea of the location. It's a little bit small, but
that orange parcel in the middle of the circle is where it is. Um, and that large larger parcel with the outline is all of Allenale Farm. And as you can see, it's part of a larger green space
area in this entire area. The JP neighborhood plan actually identifies this as open space. The next slide, please. This is an aerial photo showing you the facility. The Allenale Street is on the
left running uh from east to west into Brookline. Uh there's a pond to the right of the property where the parcel where the structures would be. These are the former structures but you can see how it relates to the larger wooded area of the farm uh which is to the off the
image. Next slide please. This is the current this was the current view. We actually got approval uh from the Boston Preservation Commission to allow demo and this was completed in the fall without any significance having been found. But this was what it looked
like previously on from Allenale Street. The stone wall is remaining. If you go to the next slide, please. Uh this is a a plan view showing that same image. Um these were the structures in the black and in the gray were the
former retail structures on the property, the parking area between them and Allenale Street. Um the orange structures are existing. The harvest barn is the smaller one and the production greenhouse, the larger production greenhouse in Brookline is on
the top left. Next slide, please. So, these are the two new structures that are proposed uh in these filings. The market barn on the left and the retail greenhouse on the right. As you can see, there are landscape islands in the parking lot which is going to be
have new storm water management system in it. But the pond and the wetland adjacent to it on the right are are protected. We were before the conservation commission earlier this year last year and received approval from the conservation commission. Uh the
project was approved by the BPDA board in Mar March of 2025 and we've been before the public improvements commission for the uh crosswalk that you see a new pedestrian crosswalk has been proposed and approved
by the PIC uh to allow pedestrians to cross from the sidewalk on the south side of Allenale Street to make it into the property. Next slide, please. So, this is a rendering of what the new buildings look like. The retail greenhouse on the right and the uh
market barn on the left. You can see the crosswalk through the stone wall and into the parking area. And um we have a couple of elevation views that I'll run through quickly to go to the next slides. Um
this is the south elevation looking from uh Allenale Street on Oblique. Actually the north arrow is a little bit oblique to it. So this is the market barn and the retail greenhouse. Next slide please. This is the view from the back from the
pond side. Next slide please. This is a view from the north looking from over where that harvest barn was. The retail greenhouse is obscured behind it. And then the next slide please. Uh and that's the view from if you will
from the Brookline side looking back. Next slide. So uh we received refusal letters from ISD when we filed for our building permits because under the JP neighborhood uh
district, retail and agriculture actually are forbidden. Um, even though the Lawrence Farm uh conservation uh protection subdist, Allenale Farm used to be called the
Lawrence Farm. Um, and because green uh Allenale Street is a green belt uh in the green belt protection overlay district, we require a conditional use permit because each of these structures is just a bit over 5,000 square feet.
Um, >> thank you. >> We have happy to answer any questions you have. >> Thank you. Are there questions from the board? >> May I have public testimony? >> Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Benbury. I'm the Jamaica Plan Community
Engagement Specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process and received board approval on March 13th of 2025. And the proponent has also met with the civic association for that area, Jamaican Hills Association, and was approved in April of 2025. The proponent then met with the neighborhood
council, Jamaica Play Neighborhood Council, and received approval on December 17th, which completed the community process. Today, our office has not received any further community feedback at this time, and the proposal was approved to move forward with the zoning board. Thank you for your time, and the mayor's office of neighborhood services would like to defer to the
board for their judgment. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Next, we have Jordan from Convers. Oh, >> good morning chair, members of the board. Jordan Frius here, uh, director of policy for councelor Weber. Uh, councelor Weber like to go on record in
support of this proposal. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. There are no additional comments. >> With that, may I have a motion? >> Yeah, Madam Chair, I would like to forward a motion of approval. >> Second. Second. >> Thank you, Mr. Stembridge.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Valencia. >> Yes. Miss Turner, >> yes. >> Miss Better Brazo, >> yes. >> Miss Ponado, >> yes. >> Mr. Collins, >> yes.
>> Share votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Next we have case BOA 171 0868 with the address of 110 to 114 business
street. This is a this is the application for cannabis license this or a cannabis establishment. Um, if the applicant and/or their
representative are present, would they please explain case to the board? >> Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair, and the board attorney Quinn Heath on behalf of the petitioner Caleb Matthysse and New Growth LLC. New Growth LLC is
seeking a conditional use permit for a marijuana related use, which consists of direct delivery to consumers only with no on-site sale of product. They new growth is also seeking a variance related to a buffer requirement
to be over 500 ft from schools on the basis that the the business is over 500 ft when you take into account impassible barriers including a train track and a brook. New Growth was approved for and executed a host community agreement
after presentation to the Hyde Park Neighborhood Association and Boston Cannabis Board and executed that host community agreement for 161 Reservation Road on January 30th, 2026. Uh, New Growth will be owned and
operated jointly by its two owners, Caleb Matthysse and Moaha, who have joined us today. if you have any questions. Uh I'd like to just walk you through very quickly the simple plans for this project. So on this slide we have just
the general layout. This is going to be a small single unit in a shared lot. It will be used for uh administrative use for drivers who are making deliveries to stay when they're not making deliveries as well as storage of cannabis product
which will be secured in line with all of the state regulations with strict requirements for health and safety of cannabis products. This slide shows the surveyed buffer plan that shows the distance to the nearest school and daycare facility
measured by the B Austin regulations and state law around buffers to schools. Although the distance is approximately 428 ft measured from entrance to entrance,
the distance when you walk or drive is over 800 ft. I believe it's closer to 1,200 although it's not measured on this precise plan. With that, I think this is a simple project and proposal. So, I will turn it
over to the board for any questions. Thank you. >> Thank you. Any questions from the board? >> Yes. Yes. Is this a certified Boston equity applicant? >> Yes, this is a certified social equity applicant.
Okay. What are the hours that you're operating? >> I believe I would need to check. I'm sorry. It's um I believe we've got 10:00 a.m. to 900 p.m. But I would It was approved by the
Boston Cannabis Board. I can get you that info in just a minute. >> Okay. And Mrs. Numbers, did you have a question? >> Uh two. Yes. Um so there will be no onsite transaction. There will be no on-site transactions.
There will be a shed that is uh a garage essentially that we can pull a van into to load product into. That is all that will happen. The products will be loaded there and taken to the uh consumer's order. >> And >> also I do have the hours of operation.
That's 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. Thank you. >> And there's no direct access from the school that you mentioned before. No, the only entrance is by the road through the surveyed plan is the distance that we showed you. And that is a a gate. So
at night and in the evening hours, there's going to be no access to the lot at all without a key. During the day, you will have to drive in, but it is a shared lot with other businesses and a private shared lot. >> Any on-site security?
There will be at least one individual working during business hours doing security. During uh nighttime hours, there will not be, but it will be a fully secured establishment with cameras, perimeter alarms, and other um security mechanisms.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions from the board? May we have public testimony? >> Madam Chair, members, Sig Johnson at the Office of Neighborhood Services. This applicant completed the community process and a butters meeting was hosted
on October 23rd, 2025 at which in a butter raised a concern about the street being narrow and the suitability of this location for delivery operations with the concern that delivery vehicles would block the street. The applicant met with the hide park neighborhood association. That group is no application. Boston
Cannabis Board heard this application on January 21st, at which time commissioners asked questions about the buffer conflict with the school nearby, but were satis sad that the train tracks and reservation road park provided an impassible natural physical barrier
between the school and closed location. That background, our office defers further judgment to the board. You >> Thank you, Madam Chair. We don't have additional hands raised at the moment. Okay, with that, may I have a motion?
>> Motion. Would you >> like to make a motion of approval? >> We provide so that the approval is for this uh applicant only. >> Okay. Is there a second? >> Yes. Second. >> Mr. Stumbr.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Valencia. >> Yes. >> Miss Turner. >> Yes. Miss Better Brazo, >> yes. Miss >> Pado, >> yes. >> Mr. Collins,
>> yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck. >> Thank you, Madam Chair, and the board. >> Next, we have case BOA 178 3270
with the address of 7 Mountain Avenue. If the applicant andor their representative are present, they please explain the case to the board. >> Oh, I'm here. Can you guys hear me? >> Oh, we can now. Perfect. Perfect. Um, good morning members of the board. My
name is Ali Man and I'm the architect representing the owner. He's also current um in the meeting for this project. uh proposal to develop on an existing lot to develop a new three family residential located in the new address will be 11 Mountain Avenue. This
will be three units with four bedrooms and two bathrooms. Um these will be rental units. The owner has had a very successful meeting with the neighborhood and one of the main goal is having four bedroomedroom units that will be allowed to be used within the homebased program and the section 8 as the owner currently
has properties around the area and he works very close with the program. Um as of now it's a vacant lot. We will have two parkings on the rear and we are asking variance for a front yard and side yard. Um we had at some point a rear yard but with the conversations with the meeting with the with the
neighborhood we're able to shift the building to um smaller to be able to suffice the rear yard. Now we'll pass it to the board for any comments or questions. >> Okay. Any questions from the board? Public testimony. Madame chair and
members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Benbury. I'm the Matapan community engagement specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process which consisted of an abuters meeting facilitated on October 22nd that was not very well received by the community at that time with many abuters
voicing opposition and others voicing concerns in line with the opposition being issues with congestion and density in the neighborhood and a concern for parking. The positioning of the proposal abut is felt would cause a blind spot from woodro to mount a nav and with the speeding issue in the neighborhood would create a dangerous corner that is
already experiencing accidents would increase the danger. Abut has also voiced concerns for the upkeep and management of the property of approved as the current state of the property. According to a brother is uh unckempt and dirty and something must be done to which the owner stated they would have a team go out and clean the property the
upcoming Friday at the latest and secure a company to manage the property in the future. Next, the proposal was presented to Woodro A Neighborhood Association on November 20th where they voted no opposition and the proposal was allowed to move forward in the process. Thank you for your time and the mayor's office of neighborhood services would like to
defer to the board for their judgment. >> Thank you, >> Madame Chair. There are no additional comments. >> Okay. With that, may I have a motion? >> Um, Madam Chair, can I just have a clarification on the survey plot plan? >> Yes.
>> Okay. Um, your survey plan notes dimensions that are different than the survey. So, one of them on the left side says 4' 7 and 1/2 and then you have 15 and 2 and 1/2 on the access um car
aisle. And on your drawings, you have something different, which is you have a 10 ft Carl uh drive aisle, but then you have 3 ft from the left sideyard. Which one is
more accurate? Um I'm just pulling drawings in my side. We'll have So in the beginning, the building was center. In the latest drawings that we made the change, we have a 10 foot drive aisle to access the parking lot in every year of the lot and a three foot from the new building to
the existing property line. Okay. Um Okay. I don't that's fine. I don't have any other further questions and we >> Thank you. >> It's ready for a motion. >> Yes. May I have a motion? Madam Chair, I'd like to put forward a motion of
approval with a provisal that the project is goes under BPD design review for site plan. >> Uh, I have a second. Oh, sorry. >> To increase open space. >> Thank you. Second. Is there a second? >> Second,
>> Mr. Stebridge. >> Yes. >> Mr. Valencia? >> Yes. >> Miss Turner? >> Yes. Miss Bad Brazza, >> yes. >> Miss Bernado, yes. Mr. Collins,
>> yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck. >> Thank you. >> Next, we have three companion cases. First the case BOA 1798548 with the address of 101 School Street.
Along next we have case BOA 1798549 with the address of 103 School Street. And finally, we have case BOA 1798550 with the address of 107 School Street. If the applicant and or their
representative present, would they please explain the cases to the board? >> Yes. Uh thank you, Mr. Stimbridge, Madame Chair, members of the board, my name is Timothy Burke. I'm the architect for the project. I have a business address of 142 Berkeley Street in
Boston. and thank you for this opportunity. Um my client is also with us today, Mr. Michael Cohen. Um on the screen you're seeing the um overall lot is just under 12,600 square ft and it um
has two buildings on it. On the right are two two families that are attached and on the left is our two three families that are attached. And uh for the two family building uh 101 and 103, we are seeking um
permission to expand the first floor living space into the basement. We have a very good height in the basement. It's pretty far out of the ground and uh some simple window wells will provide the emergency uh egress that we need for the
proposed three bedrooms and one bathroom that would be in the basement. So that unit um would become a five- bedroomedroom two bath which would be uh great for families. These are rental units and um we feel that the work can
be accomplished without much change to the neighborhood and a very little embodied energy required to make this a useful space. The u building at 105 107 is similar. Uh that one we are only
proposing two bedrooms in the uh lower level and that would become a four bedroomedroom a two bath unit for 107. 105 doesn't have the ability to uh expand into the space because of mechanical equipment and um so I'd be
happy to um answer any questions that you may have. >> Thank you. Are there questions from the board? Hearing none, man. Public testimony. >> Madame chair, members of the board. For the record, my name is Jeremy Benbury.
I'm the Jamaica Plane community engagement specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process which consisted of an abut meeting facilitated on December 17th with two guests in attendance, also members of the Echos Neighborhood Association, had a few inquiries that were addressed during the
meeting regarding current occupancy, future occupancy, and the clarification on the total unit count. Next, a proponent presented to both Eglesson Square Neighborhood Association and the Jamaica Plane Neighborhood Council. Egles Square Neighborhood Association voted in non-oposition and Jamaica Plane Neighborhood Council voted to approve
the proposal. To date, our office has received one letter of support from the Egleston Square Neighborhood Association with suggestions to the proponent to upgrade all units for energy efficiency, window clearance for safety, and adding sprinklers, which was sent to the board for review. 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. Madame Chair, we don't have additional hands raised at the moment. >> Okay. Any other any questions from the board? May I have a motion?
>> I'll make a motion of approval. >> May I have a second? >> Second. >> Mr. Stebridge? >> Yes. >> Mr. Valencia? >> Yes. >> Miss Turner? >> Yes. Miss Barazza,
>> yes. >> Miss Pado, >> yes. Mr. Collins, >> yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck. >> Thank you very much. >> Next, we have it is BOA181355 with the address of 145 to 157 St. Alons
Street. If the applicant and or their representative are present, would they please explain case case to the board? Uh so thank you madame chair and uh on behalf of the board and staff of Mission Hill Neighborhood Housing Services. Uh
we wish to thank uh you for your time and consideration of our >> Madam Chair, I'm sorry to interrupt. I need to recuse myself. >> Thank you. We are now a six member board. Please proceed. Thank you. >> Thank you so much. Um and so we we do
thank you for your consideration of our 145 to 157 uh San Alonsa Street project. My name is Ricardo Sanchez. I'm director of real estate at Mission Hill NHS. Uh we're a nonprofit community development corporation uh serving Mission Hill for
over 50 years. Uh with me today are our executive director Patricia Flareity, our architect Katie Faulner of Westwork, our permitting attorney Nick Zazoula uh and several members of our board of directors. Do also want to thank those
folks who have participated in the process uh to date uh at the CAM community meetings, at the city of utters meeting and again here today. uh we're thankful for and we're proud of the generally overwhelming support uh
that the project has received. Next slide, please. So 1457 St. Alonsus was originally constructed in the mid 1960s. It included three town houses, two flats, and two duplexes over
those flats for a total of seven units. Uh, prior to Mission Hill NHS's involvement, the building had been operated for decades as speculative student housing. On our inspection, units were overcrowded and with significant code violations.
Mission Hill NHS is looking to acquire the property and is pursuing this development because it represents a very unique and highly unlikely opportunity for the organization to reclaim these units from the speculative and transient student market and instead convert them
to new 100% affordable code compliant and sustainable rental housing for extremely lowincome families at 30% of area median income. in perpetuity. The seven units is a similar unit count
and income level to uh as our hairouse property uh just on the other side of the park uh which we have operated since the 1980s. The project is in Mission Hill uh near the intersection of St. Alonsus and
Tremont Streets and located uh within the 5.5 acre Kevin W. Fitzgerald Park and Arboretum property. It's being subdivided as part of our proposed acquisition of the land and building. Uh
and it is this subdivision that triggers the zoning uh requirement and the need for zoning relief. Our proposed uh project reconfigures units internally but maintains the same unit count, same height and footprint, same square
footage as before, but with a little bit uh less off- streetet parking than previously. Uh it is intentionally limited in lot size and project scale to what has historically been the residential use. Uh, Mission L NHS
proposes to fully rehabilitate the property, including a deep energy retrofit and electrification, enhancements to the building envelope for sustainability, uh, all new interior finishes, uh, and the creation of a new fully handicap
accessible uh, uh, unit and ramp. And with that, I'll turn it over to uh to our attorney uh Nick Suzula for discussion of the zoning and relief. >> Thanks, Ricardo. Uh good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. Uh next
slide, please, Jesus, or or Madame Ambassador. Um as uh Ricardo had mentioned um on the left side you can see uh the site plan and uh you have the the park this park uh one Brigham Circle to the to the
north uh on the corner of Tremont County and then you can see on the bottom this parcel of land 145 to 157 St. Alonsus. Um the zoning requirement before the board today is 100% by the subdivision
and as Ricardo mentioned the carbo uh of this uh historic residential property from the park property. It used to be one uh property which kind of didn't make sense for a whole host of reasons and with the new ownership and stewardship of NHS uh it made sense to
subdivide the property out from the larger site and that's the reason uh for the zone. Again, as Ricardo had mentioned, uh the the use itself is allowed. Um there's no change to the footprint, no change to the height, no additional square footage, no change to the unit comp. It's strictly due to the
subdivision of the smaller site off of the larger Fist General Park. Uh and you can see to the top here of the screen, we do have just his own chart um for the board's uh edification, but again, all because of the subdivision. Uh next
slide, please. It's just our refusal letter. Don't need to spend a lot of time on this. Um this just shows what relief was cited uh by ISD uh for the subdivision again in this uh refusal letter uh correlates to the chart uh
that was up on the previous screen uh just to give you an understanding of the existing conditions and again uh why the zoning was needed as a result of the subdivision. um happy to go over this in more detail but don't need to belabor the point um because it is pretty pretty
simple uh requirement of why the zone needs to do this. So if you can go to the next slide I will toss it over to Katie uh Faulner from we work. We have three more slides. She'll be very quick and just go over the plans and then happy to answer any questions that that you all may have. Uh Katie, are you
available? >> I'm here. Yeah, thanks Nick. Uh this was well can you hear me? >> Yes ma'am. >> Okay, great. Thank you. Um, so it's been explained quite well. I'll try to be quick and certainly can ask questions. We've really tried to keep what's good about the scale and size and approach
and street front of the building while giving it another 50 years of durability. We're enhancing the um access to it. There is new handicap parking. There are new handicap accessibility to the unit which is accessible which wasn't there before. Uh
improved sight lighting. We have fewer parking spaces than we did. We've gone from 11 to 7 and that's primarily to give bike parking access, better access to site operations like trash and storage and then also adding a transformer as we have to increase service because we are moving from gas
to electric. Uh there will be improved storm water management with um a a drainage strip around the building and there's also some dedicated outdoor space for every unit with a deck in the back. Next slide. Next slide, please. Thanks. Um, so the
unit reconfigurations try to stay within the existing footprint. However, improving the sizes on some of the units to meet Mo and ELC standards of room sizes, that's not possible always. We can't always hit the closet size or the
bedroom size, but it's much improved. Uh, the interior materials are meant to be both sustainable and durable. There's a variety of flooring in a variety of, as you can imagine, student housing kind of turning over over the years. We would take all of that out and replace it with
a marmolum, which is a primarily a lenolum flooring. Uh, tile in the bathrooms, uh, rubber treads on the risers for both the community for the community stairs as there's duplex units to the side. Uh, all of the cabinetry would be the HUD rated for uh, smart
cabinetry or equal. And the HUD rating just is a durability rating which we've been using in a lot of our supportive housing. Um resilient countertops and then non-paperf faced wallboard in any wet area including bathroom, laundry and kitchen. Next slide.
Exterior is also meant to improve sense of address and generally upgrade the appearance of the building while keeping the scale. So the siding all comes off because we're adding insulation to the outside as well as building envelope. The existing windows are often replaced
with larger windows because some of the bedroom windows were too small. Uh so we're putting on lap siding, new uh impervia double um IGU thermally broken windows, new doors and new roofing. And with that, I believe we are finished. Happy to answer any questions and thank
you so much for your time. >> Thank you all. Are there any questions from the board? >> Just curious, how many bedrooms in these unit There is a variety. There's um if we can go back to the floor planner, I'll try
to get it off the top of my head. So, there's a one-bedroom accessible unit on the first floor. I think they are mostly two bedroom, one bedrooms and two bedrooms. And then I think Ricard, if I'm not mistaken, we're maintaining three bedrooms in the town houses. Is that right?
>> Yes. >> With that, let's have public testimony. Madame Chair and members Siggy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This application is completed the community process and the mayor's office would like to express our support for the relief being granted here today. Office hosted an abuters meeting on
January 28th where the proposal was widely supported by community members. The application brings new affordable housing units online. The community alliance of Mission Hill is also supporting this application. That background just to reiterate we urge to the board to grant the relief that's
requested. Thank you. Thank you. >> Good morning. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Tony. I'm here on behalf of Councelor Sharon Durkin, who represents Mission Hill. Uh Mission Hill NHS is a great organization or organization that meets the needs of
the neighborhood um and would like to support this project. >> Okay. Thank you. Next, next we have Liam Remis from >> Hello, Madam Chair, members of the board. Liam Remis from councelor Fitz Herald's office. The councelor just
wanted to go on record um it support his projects but his uh father's park. So he just wanted to let it know that the family supports use of this uh lot. Thank you. >> Thank you. Next we have uh councelor
Indus Johnson from city councelor. >> Yes. Good morning madam president members of the board. Uh my excuse me, my name is Indis Johnson from Councelor Santana's office and we would like to go on record in support of this. Thank you
so much and have a wonderful day. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Next we have Emily. Emily, >> good morning. Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. I'm Emily Pollston from Councelor Lu Jean's office. The counselor would like to go on record in support of this project. Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. Next, we have Christopher Ronnie. Good morning, Madame Chair and members of the board. Christopher Rooney from the mayor's office of housing. Mo is in strong support of the project. Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. Next, we have Sam Montano. >> Uh, hey everyone. State Representative Sam Montano for this district. I would like to go on record in support of this project and glad that it's moving forward. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. And the last person, Richard
Jordano. Always a trick to remember to find the uh unmute. Um I'd like to go on record in strong support uh full disclosure. Thank you, Madam Chair, for this moment to speak. Uh I am a board member of Mission
Hill NHS, but I I do want to point out two things. Mission Hill NHS is the organization that created Fitzgerald Park that gave us this incredible shopping center at one Brigham Circle and they're continuing on the mission to
improve the neighborhood. Uh so these are going to be the good stewards of these houses. Secondly, this is probably the first time in the last 35 years that I've lived on Mission Hill that I found that we've been able to convert student
housing into permanent long-term residential housing. Uh, this is a first. And I don't know if all of you can appreciate how significant that is, but we have about 3,000 students living on Mission Hill, a thousand of them alone on Hillside Street. This is the
first time we're able to turn a building around and get long-term residents back in the neighborhood. We need that for stability. We need that for just livability. So, uh, want to thank you all for entertaining this and hope you support it. Thank you.
>> Thank you, >> Madame Chair. There is one more person, Adam Serbu. Madam chair, members of the board, my name is Adam Sarva, community alliance board member, NHS board member, and resident admission hill. Um, you heard from all of our electeds in strong
support, Mo as well. You don't really need to hear from us um further, but we we echo everyone um comments of support here in further in this process and in a timely manner. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Madame Chair. I'm sorry.
There is >> one more. Yes. One more. Martin, >> thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Martin Vinborn. I'm speaking on behalf of the Community Alliance of Mission Hill, the local civic association in this area. Uh we agree
with everything that was said. We near unanimously support the project in our vote and think this is a highly meritorious application. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Without there are no additional comments. >> Okay. With that, uh, may I have a
motion? >> Madam Chair, this is a really good project. Ah, sorry. Go ahead. >> Go ahead. Go ahead, Giovani. >> Thank you. Really good project. I'm happy to support especially very pleased to see so much community support from CTN state officials and
organizations. And I make a motion of approval. Is there >> a second? >> Second, Mr. Stumbridge. Uh, I concur that. This appears to be a very good project. And yes, >> thank you, Mr. Valencia.
>> Yes, >> Miss Turner. >> Yes, >> Miss Better Braza. Oh, sorry. Miss Pado, >> yes. Mr. Collins, >> yes. >> Chair votes, yes. The motion carries.
Good luck all. >> Thank you. Next we have case BOA1805985 with the address of 11 to 11A Parker Hill Avenue. This is an article 80 project. So with the applicant andor their representative
please explain to the board. >> Uh thank you Mr. Stembridge. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. Attorney John Puljini on behalf of the proponent. With me today is Alex Yun from Monty French Design Studio. Uh the project architect 11 Park Hill have
uh the lot size is 22,69 ft. Zoning is multif family residential one. Before um as Mr. Steers pointed out, it's an article 80 located on a irregular shaped 22,000t lot. Uh currently on this property is a 24 unit
apartment building which is also owned by the proponent. The proposal is to build a six-story addition to the rear of the existing building adding 71 additional units for a total of 95 apartments, seven off- streetet parking spaces and 86 bicycle spaces. The de
development will also include uh amenity space and communal roof deck. of that proposal, 12 of the 71 new units will be offered as affordable units at 60% AMI. Um the existing building to which this addition will be attached will undergo no structural changes. It will just be
uh updates the facade to be to better match the uh new addition. It underwent a full article 80 uh review from BPDA uh was approved on November 1325. At this point I'm going to pass it over to Alex Yun to walk through the plans and happy to answer any questions. appreciate your
time this morning. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Alex. I'm an architect at Montiffra Design Studio. Um I will just quickly go through uh the project here. Um I believe most of my time will be spent explaining um the sighting. Um
if you can go to page uh four, please. Um, sorry. If you can go to page uh EC00001, the fourth page of the PDF. Um, as John mentioned, this is a regular uh shaped site. It does have frontage, significant
frontage along Parker Hill Avenue, but as you can see, it does turn the corner uh behind our neighbors at, I believe, uh, 17 and 19 Parker Hill. And so, the majority, a good chunk of the site is behind these properties. And then the
rear of the property, which is the south of this bottom of this page, overlooks uh the Mission Hill side as well as an electrical substation. Um across the way, um there is an existing four-story building that is that longer rectangular
portion um that is fronting Parker Hill. And then behind that is a current existing uh surface parking lot uh which is accessed by on the right side a drive aisle that a buttser and our neighbor at 15 Parker Hill. Next page please.
Um this is the proposed addition in the dark gray. Um, we are proposing a six-story edition that will add 71 units uh with a uh basement um below that will house seven uh vehicular parking spaces,
71 uh enclosed bike parking spaces, a new fitness area, and then as well as a new uh trash room that will serve um the entire site. And we'll uh move the uh existing uh just service exterior uh
trash bin uh indoors. Uh next uh slide please. Uh this is just a front modal uh uh hey sorry we can skip this one. Our front yard is 20 ft unchanged. Um so this is to explain some of the site
improvements. There is a landscape plan that was not included in this set but we did uh commission verdant uh landscape design to provide a robust open space and landscape design. um uh that was reviewed with the Boston planning department. But just to quickly go over
the main site components, the existing building is in the long rectangular gray portion. The dark gray at the bottom is a six-story edition. And then uh we do have a main drive which is on the right uh of our frontage uh which is 20 ft
wide to accommodate a fire access lane um that goes uh deep into the site and narrows down into a drive aisle that goes down into the parking below grade uh on the left uh of Park Hill Avenue frontage. We do have an additional fire
access lane uh that is required per uh the building code and fire department access requirements. uh so that we have adequate uh coverage of firetruck access uh around uh the six-story edition. Um
surrounding uh filling out the remainder of the site, we do have a variety of open spaces and landscaped areas along the front yard as well as the sideyards um as well as some small terraces um around as well as a new roof deck at the
top of the sixtory edition. Next page, please. Uh this is that basement I was referring to again. Seven parking spaces enclosed. Uh the 71 enclosed bike parking spaces, a new trash room that will accommodate uh all of the u
uh the 95 units uh that will be on the project in total. Once this project is completed, um it will be changing to private pickup um from the existing um uh trash that is currently on site. Next page, please.
Um we do have a new consolidated uh entry lobby and mail packages room which is in the kind of corner between the existing building and the uh the new addition. Um that will consolidate uh what is currently two addresses which is 1111A Parker Hill which are the uh two
walk up entries to the existing building that will be consolidated with the new proposed addition. Um so that uh there will be a single spot delivery for both uh mail and packages. Uh next slide please.
This is a typical floor plan. Um there are going there will be 54 studios, five one beds and 12 two beds. Next slide please. Uh and then as again I mentioned there's a common roof deck at the top of the the
new sixtory edition. Um next slide. Um this is the front elevation as I mentioned before. Uh this is the vertical edition which is six stories. But um what's not shown is that uh from Parker Hill Avenue um our neighbors at
15 and 17 are actually in front of this elevation. So that um this vertical addition is really taking advantage of the deep rear uh portion of the site um that is uh sitting behind um the uh
smaller scale uh portion of uh the street frontage that is primarily made up of three to five stories. Um and so that is relatively undisturbed from uh the street view. Um there are some other elevations but I'll be uh happy to
answer any questions. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Are there questions from the board? >> Hearing none. May I have public testimony? >> Madame Chair and members, Sigy Johnson with the Office of Neighborhood Services. This applicant completed an
article 80 community process led by the Boston Planning Department. A public meeting was held on October 20th, 2025. Members are concerned about the unit mix at this location. Uh members of the community do not want to see studio and micro studio units would prefer larger
unit sizes. Uh the file from BPD included five letters of opposition and four comments in support. The applicants have met with the community alliance of Mission Hill. That background office defers judgment to the board. Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Okay, Madame Chair, we have a Richard Jordano. Thank you, Madam Chair, for this opportunity to testify. I'm a Mission Hill resident, live on 129 Fisher Hill A. I'm very sorry to go in opposition to
this project, and I would hope that the board would look at the entire context. This same developer is building another uh unit uh across the street diagonally on another parking lot for about uh 40
or 50 units. in both cases taking away existing parking uh increasing the density tremendously and then uh has another project up the top of Parker Hill uh at the former Baptist nursing
school with 114 units and about tw 10 parking spaces. So, um, in context, the developer is jamming studios all over, uh, Parker Street to the tune of about 225 units, minimal minimal parking. And
this one in particular is down the end of a small narrow driveway uh, at the precipice of a drop off below the power plant below it. It's a bad location. The density is too much.
the number of units is too much and the mix is all wrong. And it's what this developer does all over Mission Hill. Lots of studios, uh, good for transients and short-term and students. That's not what the neighborhood needs and I would
hope that you would oppose the project. Thank you. >> Thanks. We Next we have Martin Benborn. >> Thank you for the opportunity to speak. Uh I'm speaking on behalf of the community alliance of Mission Hill and
also as a Mission Hill resident myself. Uh we share similar concerns that were uh were just mentioned and strongly oppose this proposal. What we heard is uh that the proposal is excessively dense. Uh we are concerned about the
very small rental units that are predominated by studios. the likelihood that this become another transient stu student dormitory which would further ste destabilize our neighborhood coherence. We also concerned about the lack of adequate parking in a narrow
very steep street where a butters are already struggling for parking and another two similar parking deficient developments by the developers are in progress. I think maybe the most serious concern is traffic danger and congestion which is exacerbated by the fact that
the Baker Center family and children and families is very nearby uphill and by the absence of adequate accommodation for deliveries in emergency vehicles. In the end there was near unanimous opposition to this proposal. Thank you
for your consideration. >> Thank you. Next we have Mitch Hilton. Thank you. Uh my name is Mitch Hilton. I live at 59 Irakcoy Street. I've been a Mission Hill resident for over 50 years.
Um this uh proposed development in my opinion does not benefit the neighborhood. It's too large. It's the wrong kind of apartments and it's most definitely in the wrong location. Tucked in on the side of the hill down a driveway that has been a surface lot. Um
that stretch of Parker Hill is narrow, difficult to navigate as is and it's dangerous. Some 20 years ago, um a fire engine lost its brakes going down the hill. Um just perhaps a 100 yards away
from the driveway that um at the end of which this project is proposed. Um firefighter Kevin Kelly lost his life that day. I don't think it is safe or good for the neighborhood to put 71 units in the location that's proposed.
Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. Okay. The last person that we have is Tyler Rose. Tyler, you can unmute yourself now. >> Thank you. Um, good evening, Madam Ch. I mean, not good evening, excuse me. Good
morning, Madame Chair, members of the board. Tyler Ross, uh project, senior project manager in development review department of the planning department. Um we reviewed this project and uh the planning department hosted two public
meetings on August 13th, 2025 and October 20th, 2025 which were well well attended and advertised in the local newspaper. Uh the planning department reviewed and supports this project as um
you know is stated sixtory 71 units um adding an addition to the rear of an existing 24 unit building um uh totaling just under 49,000 uh close uh floor area. The project will
also contain seven parking spaces and 16 short-term bike parking spaces. Um and then um with that I will turn it back over. Thank you. >> Thank you
>> Madam Chair. I think there are two more people. Eric. >> Okay. He's Are you talking about Eric Zacherson? He's a architect. >> All right. Okay. So >> Okay. So if I could ask the applicant to
comment on these concerns >> he mentioned >> I'm sorry. >> Yeah. >> Are you are you here to provide comment? >> Okay. So if the applicant could address some of the concerns about unit mix and appropriateness for the area etc. that would be really helpful.
>> Sure. Thank you uh Madam Chair. Uh first I'd like to say that this went through uh extensive design between us our engineer and BFT with respect to any sort of access or problems with respect to that. Also where this is located I mean this is a very large lot. This is
over half an acre of lot where it's an under underutilized section of this building that is pressed back and with respect to the uh unit count. We we're providing two beds we're providing studios. providing a gamut of different
type of how onebedrooms and one thing that's important to know when you come in with you know three-bedroom units people talk about dormitories if you come in with studios and they're saying well it could be dormitories this developer in property owner has hundreds of units his portfolio is less than 15%
undergraduates and with respect to um the smallest the smaller units that gives the the ability for people that are overhoused who live in Mission and are, you know, their house is too much for them. It gives them an
opportunity to go someplace, stay in the neighborhood and have a full service building uh for them. So, that's um all I have right now, Madam Chair. >> Thank you. Any other questions from the board? Yeah, if the um if the BPD uh
project manager can expand on the community process because um what what I was hearing from the community members was that there was a lot of opposition and I have not here heard from the
project manager and BPD in regards to um those that were present, you know, what was what was kind of the recorded of opposition and what was a recorded kind of um support for the project from the
community. That would be good to hear. >> Um yeah, Tyler Ross here, planning department um project manager for the project. Um so as you heard in terms of opposition, I think you've heard it here. was about unit mix and safety regarding the fire access and the site
um location being tight um on on that um on the site in the hill. Um as that uh John just spoke he about um as Paul Jun just spoke uh the fire access
had been discussed with um our transportation planner who ensured us that it was safe and that um Boston Fire Department will be reviewing the plans and so if the plans are not adequate to what uh the fire department standards
then um obviously the plans will not be approved by them. But um our transportation planners um landscape planners um all of our internal planners that reviewed the plans seemed to be confident that um the fire access was safe and that it would be fine when um
Boston Fire Department reviewed it in that aspect. In terms of the unit mix, uh we did hear opposition in the public meeting about the unit mix. I believe the um project team adjusted the unit mix slightly to add um I believe larger
bedrooms, some of those two bedrooms that u Mr. Bjini was talking about. Um and so that was uh addressed um somewhat by the proponent and an attempt to um listen to the community and address
those concerns. And um I believe and in terms of support for the project, we heard from um community members on the public meeting that more units are needed in Mission Hill uh because of the rising cost of
housing and that um you know, putting more units in all of Boston in general, just not specifically in the Mission Hill neighborhood, will help alleviate some of the rising cost of rents in Austin. Um so that's some of the support
um that we heard >> and and Miss Federa, if I could just comment quickly, um we also provided um nine letters of support uh for today's meeting as well. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Other questions from the board?
>> Is there a motion? Say okay. Um I I'm really concerned about the community process. Uh I do see the nine letters of support, but I also see um 21
opposed and uh with community alliance of mission hill along with the um the people who are present here on the meeting talking about the problems with the community process. And so with that, I'd like to put forward a motion of denial without prejudice so that there
could be a better community process to come back um and resolve some of those issues. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Mr. Stumbridge? >> Yes.
>> Mr. Valencia? >> I'm going to vote no on this one. >> Miss Turner? >> Yes. Miss Beza, >> I'm going to vote no because this is an article 80 and we article 80 projects
that are in front of us typically needs to vet out the community in regards to uh support more so support than opposition. So I'm going to say no. >> Miss Parado.
Yeah, I I agree with uh Miss Bed Barza that you know that article 8 pro uh process has occurred and been approved and I'm going to vote no. >> Mr. Collins, >> uh I'll vote no as well.
>> Chair votes no. The motion does does not carry. Uh is there another motion or actually no? >> Yeah. Is there another motion? >> Yeah, I'll put forward a motion of approval.
>> Is there a second? >> Second, >> Mr. Stumbridge. >> I'll vote no. Um, even though it is an article 80 case, I don't believe it's been vetted enough. >> Mr. Valencia,
>> I vote yes. And I want to ask the proponent to keep working with the planning department to see if there are ways to uh modify the the unit count or
No, just keep it like that. Yes, >> we will do that. Thank you, >> M. Miss Turner. >> Uh, no. Is better Raza? >> I'm I'm going to vote yes, but I'm going to ask the BPD on future article 80
process. They should have a recording to present in front of the board that counts how many committee members are voting to support the project versus those community members and director Butters are largely impacted and is in
opposition. that information would be tremendous because I can see us turning it back and voting no if we hear a lot of community opposition on the on in front of us. So I I just wanted to recommend that on the
next on the next article 80 review uh project. Thank you. Miss Pedto, >> yes. >> Mr. Collins, >> yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Thank you everybody. Enjoy the rest of your day.
>> Thank you. >> We are at 11:16. >> So you motion carry. >> Oh, we're at 11:16. So we'll ask at this point >> if
we'll ask if there are any requests for withdrawals or deferrals from this time period. Hearing none, we'll return to the 9:30 hearings and we will go to case BOA
1764751 with the address of 33 Sher Street. If the applicant and/or their representative are present, would they please explain to the board? >> Someone present from 33 Shirley Street, >> I think. Okay. Is Brian Glasco speaking
on behalf of this case? >> Yes, thank you. Can you hear me? Yes. >> Great. Thank you. Uh good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. Uh my name is Brian Glascock. I'm a resident of 30 Johnswood Road in Roslandale, and I've
been a member of the Shirley Eustace House uh board for uh about 7 years. Um the the request that you see before you today uh is really to memorialize a condition of pre-existing nonconformity
uh that's been been this way for about the last 50 years. Uh Shirley Yse's house uh was the colonial governor's mansion for uh uh William Shirley who was the governor of the uh Massachusetts
but also uh uh under uh under England uh controlled uh all the uh British uh activities in the Caribbean as well. was very uh uh sort of very the very essence of the British u uh uh monarchy here in
the new world. Um the house itself built in 1747 u was was moved at one point but it's been in its presence location and in fact uh the Shirley Eustus house association uh took over the care and control and
management and ownership of the house uh early uh in the early 20th centuries uh early early 20th century. Uh the house consists of a museum uh house above uh with one residential uh unit uh on the sort of the garden level where the we
call it the basement but it's really the first floor level as the uh house stands. Now uh the uh second issue uh that uh we're seeking to uh get memorialized is the fact that uh it's existed all this time without any uh
off- streetet parking. uh the uh house itself we uh are open to the public um and uh give many tours. There are also special events there and in all these years we've never had any off off streetet parking on on the site. Uh so
this is really pre-existing nonconformity. Uh we could go through look at uh uh some of the slides. I'd say our executive director Susie Buchanan prepared a nice uh slide exhibit so you can sort of see if you haven't been to the house itself. It's
truly amazing uh that that it has survived all this time in Boston. It survived the British Revolution. It survived uh you know benign neglect. It survived the rash of arson in the in the 50s and 60s and 70s. Uh it really is a
amazing piece of history that we have right here uh in the middle of Roxbury. So if we could just uh quickly go through a couple of slides and then I think we can answer any questions you might have. See the second uh you go please advance
the slides. I'm not going to spend much time >> can can the ambassador advance the slides? >> Yeah. And next slide. So, we're just going to pause here for a second um just to see
where it is uh in relation to the uh to the rest of of Boston. Initially, uh it was very close to the water um back before the South Bay was filled in. Uh this house is uh uh 4244 Shirley Street.
Uh caving stop right at back in 4244. This is a property that the Shirley Uses House Association acquired across the street. It's a the former stables. Uh the building you're looking at here is the uh carriage house uh that was uh
moved on to site. That was the u uh carriage house for from the Isabella Stewart Gardner estate uh that uh was slated to be demolished and we obtained it and moved it on site. The prior slide is 4244 Shirley Street. that was the
former uh uh uh stables for uh the uh the mansion in Governor Shirley. Uh and it was also uh we later learned was uh uh home to some of the enslaved people that Governor Shirley uh uh had to do
all situ all of his his work around the estate uh as well as care for his many many horses and carriages and so on. Um next slide. Yeah, there's the uh list of names that we've been able to determine so far. Uh,
and we have uh tried to gather as much information as we can and you can find it around outdoors u when there isn't uh 4 ft of snow on it uh that there's markers around the property uh telling you a little something about uh about these people uh that were part of the
estate. Next slide, please. Um this is some of the many activities we have uh with Roxbury Russet Day uh uh celebrating a a a strain of apples that was uh uh uh bred uh right in in Roxbury
and was part of the um orchards there. Uh we also uh have large and really fun Junth celebration. Uh get the kids out. Um it's it's a really great gathering spot for the for the community. Uh we hold
many events there. Also private events, weddings and things like that. Next slide, please. Yeah. So, this shows some of the things that done some on-site uh archaeology uh to try and find out more about uh you
know what was going on there. And I think in that very small picture and that's uh someone's hand there looks like a cower shell which u found its way to the site from Africa uh because they're not they're not native to the New England waters. And so uh in all
likelihood that was something that had belonged to one of the enslaved people that lived there at uh uh 4244 Shirley Street. And then the final slide please. And this tells you a little bit about um uh the work we're doing at 4244 Shirley
Street to try to determine what the building really looked like. It was initially twice as big. Uh and so we're in the process of of uh uh both fundraising and planning for how we interpret that building, making it uh
usable again. Uh getting people in to sort of show them uh that this this part of history is still still here in in Boston, still here in Roxbury. Uh it's a it's a real thing. You can see it, you can touch it. Uh and it's all part of
our our collective histories. And I um appreciate the board's indulgence in letting letting me uh uh take you on this this little tour, but uh it's uh not often I get a chance to to uh tell people exactly uh you know uh how how
wonderful this site is. And so, uh, again, appreciate your, uh, uh, uh, indulgence and I'm open to any questions that might have about the legalization of of this use as a museum house with, uh, a dwelling in it, uh, and, uh, and
relief from the requirements of off- streetet parking. >> Thank you. 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. am the Roxbury community engagement specialist for the office of
neighborhood services. The applicant has completed the community process which consisted of an abundance meeting facilitated on September 15th and with no abundance present the proposal moved forward and presented to Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative on September 25th and with no opposition the proposal was allowed to move forward in the
process with the zoning board. Thank you for your time and the mayor's office of neighborhood services would like to defer to the board for their judgment. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Next we have a donor If you can unmute yourself ways.
If not, we have uh Jerry Jerry Welock. >> Yes. Uh Madame Chairman and CBA board members, my name is Jerry Welock, presiding at 10 Builtmore Street, Jamaica Plane. I'm on the board of the
Shirley Eustus House Association and we have an important need to upgrade our fire detection system in both the Shirley Street mansion and the carriage house which is at 15 Rockford Street Parallel Street. We have Boston landmark status, including the 4244
Shirley Street property, but need to comply with all ISD requirements for code and online documentation to proceed with this project. Um, while we have an ISD certificate of occupancy for the carriage house, obtaining this variance
is really essential to completing the change of occupancy u status for our mansion. Thank you for your time and consideration. >> Thank you. Any other raised hands >> for support or opposition?
>> We don't have additional interest at the moment. >> Thank you. That may have a motion. >> I'll make a motion of approval. >> Second. >> That bar has a second. >> Second. >> Mr. Stebridge. Thank you. Appreciate all the seconds.
>> Mr. Stebridge. Yes, Madam Chair. >> Mr. Valencia. >> Yes. >> Miss Turner. >> Yes. >> Miss Benza. >> Yes. >> Miss Ponado. >> Yes. >> Mr. Collins.
>> Yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck all. >> Thank you. >> Next we have four companion cases. The first is BO case BOA1809760
with the address of 98 Winthr Street. Next we have case BOA1808916 with the address of 96 Win Street. Along with that we have case BOA 1808911
with the address of 100 Winth Street. And finally we have case BOA 1809 9764 with the address of 102 Winth Street. If the applicant andor their representative
present, would they please explain the cases to the board? >> Thank you Mrs. Stebridge. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. Attorney Jeff Drago with Drago and Tuscano with the business address of 11 Beacon Street here in behalf of the applicant, Jimmy Zu. And we also have
Eric Zacherson from Context Design who's the architect on the proposal. What you're looking at uh and this is a an existing conditions picture and view of >> dropping the chat. If you want to be recognized as a panelist, you please
mute. Thank you. Sorry. Uh it it's comprised of four buildings. Uh 96 and 98 are attached and 10 and 102 Winthr Street are attached. And all of the plans that we're proposing are typical of one another. So
they're all similar in layout and design. Um what we're proposing is in line with what the BPDA recommended for approval and under their guidelines which is to create additional housing opportunities within existing buildings without building out on the building. So
all of the building the contours of the building would remain the same. What we'd be utilizing is this top floor uh pitched attic spaces on all of the buildings. Currently, all of the buildings have uh rooms in
that attic space. Part of them are finished, many of which when my client purchased it, uh of those top locations are unfinished. Um and so just we we'd be changing the occupancy of all the buildings to add one additional unit to occupancy for each of the four
buildings. So a total of four um additional occupied units. So at 96 just to go over these um a little more clearly if you go to the next slide too. Um Mr. Best thank you if you can say on that slide. 96 we're proposing to go
from seven an occupancy of 7 to 8 units from n at 98 from 6 to 7 at 100 from 4 to 5 and then at 102 from 6 to 7. All of this space would be within the attic. Um
on two of the units, um at both 96 and 100, we're proposing to demo the top and add two one-bedroom units. Um and then on, uh 96 and 102, we're proposing to add two larger threebedroom units on
site. If you take a look, even though this area is zoned as three family, you can see all of the similar apartment style complex or many apartment style complexes within the immediate area as well. So, it is typical of this area for this kind of building. Um, in the back
uh through access of an existing uh curb cut and driveway, there is parking for about six spaces. And as part of this proposal, we'll actually be making the building safer. They're going to be completely sprinklered as well as second
means of egress um off the top floor. Um the violations uh really all are pre-existing. The only two that we're increasing slightly for each building is the F which has an existing F of 1.07
and we're proposing to go to 1.08 and then parking because we're adding additional units although this immediate area is 2 miles so walking distance Dudley station as well as two bus routes uh right across from us as well. Um and
so all of these top floors are already have like a hodgepodge of rooms and bedrooms. My client is not utilizing them right now. We don't feel it's safe. And so what we're proposing to do is add these units within um the existing
structure. With with that, uh, I can pause and answer any questions that the board may have. >> Thank you. Appreciate it. Uh, are there questions from the board? >> Can you just describe how you're accomplishing the second means of egress from that top floor?
>> Uh, Eric Zacherson, who I see is on here. I think he'd be the best to to describe that, Miss Pa. >> Yeah. Uh, thank you. I can I can answer that. So the existing the building has a a central stair in the front and has a stair in the rear that goes up from the basement to the third floor. We'd be
extending that that common stair in the rear of the building. Yeah, you see it at the very top of the page there. Extending that up one story to get that second means of course. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Other questions from the board?
>> We have public public testimony. >> Madame chair and members of the board. For the record, my name is Jeremy Bie Member. I'm the Roxbury community engagement specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process which consisted of an abot meeting facility on July 10th that was not very well
received by the community. Abutters while recognizing the need for housing voiced concerns for the increased density, parking and traffic congestion along with the increased and current road activity from the lack of property maintenance. A but felt confused on how or why any variances would be allowed considering the property is already a
problem property. abutdders complain of an overflowing dumpster that also takes up parking spaces, increasing the rodent issue and exacerbating the parking issue. Three of Buddies voiced opposition to the proposal for those reasons. Next, the proposal was presented to Roxbury Path Forward, where they voted in opposition to the
proposal, maintaining the theme of the concerns in opposition, as well as stating the area is too small and too narrow. To date, our office has received one letter of opposition from the Roxberry Path Forward sent to the board for review. Thank you for your time and the mayor's office of neighborhood services would like to defer to the board for their judgment.
Thank you. >> Thank you. Next we have Carol Tisco. >> Yes. Good morning. Thank you for calling me. I'm in a butter within um within a
few homes of this. And I'm opposed because number one, the street is way too dense to support more apartments going in. I mean, I know that we've had a snowstorm, but if you came down our
street right now, it is beyond you can't even get around that corner where those homes are. But beside the fact of that, I'm very afraid those buildings were built in the 1800s. They're over a 100red years old. and to add more
families to the top floor. I'm afraid that it's going to cause a fire hazard, lose lives because one of the buildings, the brick wall that is um supports the building had collapsed once already and
it had to be rebuilt. So, my concern is on top of it being too dense for the neighborhood, adding more families, I believe it's going to be a fire trap. The homes are closed together. If one house gets on fire, you're looking at
six large apartment buildings all going on fire. There's no place to park. It's just not acceptable in our neighborhood. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thanks. And we have another person, Lorraine. Uh good morning. I'm uh here this
morning on behalf of the Roxbury Path Forward Neighborhood Association. And as you heard, we met with the um developer uh several times and um the neighbors are just against this. And most of these reasons have been stated well by KL and
also by uh Jeremy. But I want to tell the board, I don't know if you received it, but I sent you photos of the parking behind the building. It's simply unacceptable. I don't know how the the Boston planning could approve this. They
have dumpsters and they might have room uh uh for six cars altogether, but they already have 27 apartments. And these buildings were built as three on each side, side by side apartments. And so
the number of people on this property um is just um too much for the neighborhood, which is still Winth Street is primarily three family buildings, homeownership buildings, and
it's just they would be taking more than their share of the parking. And in addition to that, if you see the photo, you see for yourself, there's one car that's parked almost on the stairs behind the building. That is just not
reasonable to suggest that um the parking um can be used that way. So, we're going to ask that the board um oppose this project at uh present. And and and then just one other thing about the bus line. There is a bus line on
Blue Hill Avenue, but it is incredibly slow and will not get you to work on time and so and we don't have local jobs and so therefore people drive and as Kyle stated, the street is already overwhelmed by the number of cars that
are there. So, um, thank you very much. >> Any other questions from the board? Does the applicant wish to address any of those concerns? >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Appreciate it. So, I just want to point out the space on the top floor that we're looking to
utilize is already uh existing space. So, my client purchased it. Half of it was unfinished. Half of it already had bedrooms up there, which he isn't using. Um the occupancy on two of the buildings reflects that uh that that that space is
being counted towards the general occupancy. What we're looking to do is one, I know was mentioned um concerns about fire, make the building safer. It'll be fully sprinklered with two means of egress. Um two, utilize that space. We're not expanding the building.
I know it was mentioned that um density is an issue within the building, but we're simply cleaning up those floors and adding um two three bedroomedroom units and then a and then um some one-bedroom units for a total increase
of occupancy of four units um which is exactly what the BPDA's recommendation had mentioned. I I realize parking is an issue that seemed to be uh the general concern. We are near the bus route. We are within walking distance of the tea. There's also a playground directly
across the street for additional open space. And we're not expanding uh the footprint of the building at all. My client has a property management company that manages the buildings. We actually have dumpster pickup once a week uh for
the buildings as well. Uh when we went to the meeting, it was mentioned there was concern about rodents. He has uh an exterminating company that comes by once a week. There's been no signs of rodent activity. There's been no ISD issues uh on the building or citations or anything
like that which we check and we did update the the civic association on all of those points which they asked us to look into. >> Thank you. Any other questions from the board?
May I have a motion? Madam chair, I'd like to put forward a motion of approval. >> Is there a second? >> Second, >> Mr. Stebridge. >> Uh, I believe it needs more work. No,
>> Mr. Valencia. >> Yes, >> Miss Turner. >> No, Miss Bza. Yes, >> Missado. >> Yes, >> Mr. Collins. >> Are you on mute, Mr. Collins?
>> You're on mute, Mr. Collins. >> Sorry about that. Yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. >> Thank you very much, members. Next we have case. Um bear with me, Madam Chair. Uh we pass
the 11:30 time frame. We'll ask if there are any requests for withdrawals or deferrals from the 11:30 time frame. >> Requesting deferral for 62L Street
>> with me. So that would be for case BOA 1575425 with the address of 62 L Street. You go ahead and explain, please. >> Yes. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is David Luciano, owner of 62 L Street in South
Boston. Um uh we had gone through the community process and worked with our director butteries that were previously opposed. uh uh to our project, but we came to an agreement. We've submitted or we are
submitting the final paperwork uh today um to ISD for the revised plans. We request deferral to um wait for approval from ISD and and conduct our uh u
meeting. Okay. Um how much time do you think you need? Oh, go ahead. Sorry, Stephanie. No. Um, April 7th, April 28th on May 5th. >> April 28th.
>> Okay. With that, may I have a motion? >> Motion to defer until April 28th. Second, >> Mr. Stebridge. >> Yes. >> Mr. Valencia. >> Yes. Turner.
>> Yes. >> Miss Better Brazo? >> Yes. >> Miss Ponado? >> Yes. >> Mr. Collins? >> Yes. >> Chair votes? Yes. The motion carries. Then >> thank you.
>> Any further requests for withdrawals or deferrals from the 11:30 time frame? >> Yes. >> Mr. Stbridge? >> Yes, Mr. Stan. 49 through 51 calendar street and sister application 53 calendar street please.
>> So this would be for case BOA 176 6723 with the address of 49 to 51 calendar street along with case BOA 1766 6728
with the address of 53 calendar street. Go ahead, Attorney Spitz. >> Great. Thank you, Mr. Stebridge. Madam Chair, members of the board, Attorney Ryan Spitz with Adams and Morancey, business address of 168A Street, First Floor, South Boston, are requesting a deferral as there were some
inconsistencies u that were just cleared out with the refusal letters that they need to be readvertised. >> Okay, Stephanie. >> Um, we're going to do this one for March 24th. We already have them scheduled to be readvertised then.
>> Okay. Uh, may I have a motion? >> Motion to defer until March 24th. >> There's a second. >> Second. >> Mr. Stumbridge? >> Yes. >> Mr. Valencia? >> Yes. >> Miss Turner?
>> Yes. >> Miss Brazzo? >> Yes. >> Miss Panado? >> Yes. >> Mr. Collins? >> Yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. >> Thank you. against request.
>> Uh, yes. Uh, going to be requesting a deferral for 183 St. Pat Street. >> What's so request to defer for case VA 1741777
with the address of 183 St. Pat Street. Would you go ahead and explain for us? >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Sebridge. Uh, good morning, Madam Chair. Members of the board, attorney Justin Burns from Pulini and Norton, business address, 10 Forbes Road, Brainree, Massachusetts. Uh, the proponent and the design team have been
discussions with the landmarks uh department in regards to some design components of our project. And based on those discussions, we are beginning a re-evaluation of the design of the project. So, we will need a little more time to complete that process. Okay.
>> Um, April 7th, April 28th on May 5th. >> Uh, we'll do May 5th. >> I have a motion. >> Motion to defer until May 5th. >> I have a second. >> Second. >> Second,
>> Mr. Stebridge. >> Yes. Excuse me. Yes. >> Mr. Valencia. >> Yes. >> Miss Turner. >> Yes. Miss Brazza, >> yes. >> Miss Pado,
>> yes. >> Mr. Collins, >> yes. >> Chair votes, yes. The motion carries. See you then. >> Thank you. >> There are no more requests for withdrawals and deferrals. We'll return to the cases to the 9:30
a.m. cases. That will take us to case BOA 178 4126 with the address of 634 Dorchester Avenue. The applicant andor their representative
are present. Would they please explain to the board? >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Sebridge, Madam Chair, members of the board, attorney Ryan Spitz with Adams and Morancey, business address of 168th Street, First Fore South Boston. Uh joining me today is the project architect Eric Zacherson.
The proposal in front of you today seeks to change the occupancy from a three family to a four family dwelling by legalizing an existing garden level unit by maintaining the footprint of the building. Unit will have its own private entrance. I would also like to note for the board that this is a garden level
unit with the full walk out in the rear. There is a substantial grade difference that runs from the front of the property to the rear. The property is also abuing the Marielle McCormack housing development which is currently under construction to redevelop the site with substantial heights and a substantial
increase in units. By way of history, Mr. Ordway purchased the property over 20 years ago with the existing garden level space built in. At that point, this property was owner occupied and Mr. Ordway utilized the finished space to house his family close relatives that had no place to reside. Further, it has
always been Mr. Ordway's presumption that the space was always considered legal habitable space. However, it was discovered during this application that when he purchased the building over 20 years ago, the space was never legalized as living space. This proposal was very closely aligned
with the mayor's byright conversion of internal spaces to accessory dwelling units except that it is investor owned. This parcel falls within the old base zone code with an L1 subdist. Garden level unit will be approximately 9944
square feet, two-bedroom with 8 foot ceilings. We have violations for lot area and additional lot area. The current lot size is 271 square ft which is pre-existing non-conformity as the lot size requirement here in the old base code is 5,000 ft and 1,000 ft for
each additional unit. Lot width is another pre-existing non-conformity of the dimensions of the lot that was cited. We have a floor area ratio violation. The required F is a 1.0 and the proposal calls for a 1.8. Again, this is proposal is subjected to the old
base code zoning rather than an MFR which is one block away that has an F of a 2.0. However, the density is consistent with other neighboring FS along this block. We also lastly have an off streetet parking violation as the proposal does not provide any parking
for the new unit of housing, but is a very close walk to the Andrew Square train station. I am aware of the recommendation of denial put forward by the planning department based upon the CD fraud. However, I'd like to remind the board the C fraud is not applicable as this proposal does not meet any of the
applicability requirements as set forth within section 25A-4 of the code. Also, there was a carbon copy of this proposal located at 630 Duchess Avenue, which is two parcels down from this one, where the recommendation of the planning department was approval with design
review as the property fell within the seafront. There is a discrepancy between the two recommendations, but we ask that the same relief be granted for this proposal as it was for 630 Doorchester Avenue. I also want to remind the board that this livable space has been in existence for over 20 years despite not
being legalized and is also again a full walk out in the rear. In concluding, we feel that the proposal would not create any adverse impacts to the neighborhood and is consistent with the other recent approvals of garden level units as well as meeting the mayor's initiative of
increasing unit counts by maintaining the structures of the building itself. So, at this point, Madam Chair, I'm going to turn it over for any questions or comments from the board. Thank you. Any questions from the board? >> Are are you um remodeling at all or are
you just putting or is it just existing plans that you're trying to make uh a legal occupancy? >> Yes. So, there's um that's a great question, Hanzi. Um the the plans are is nothing else is being done to the actual three units. I believe there's some slight changes uh being made to the
actual basement. I know Eric Zacherson is here today. I think those are mostly uh digging out to require the full entrance, the private entrance on the side, the right hand side of the property itself. But Eric, if if you're here, if you can comment on that as well, please. >> Yeah, the the main thing is that the
we'd have to add a sprinkler system, a tank sprinkler system to the unit, but the wall configuration is going to be the same as as has been in place for quite some time. >> Um, okay. So, if you were to provide
basement flooding kind of mitigation, um, that would that would not really necessarily work because it seems like your modifications are are very minimal. It's not like >> very minimal. >> You're not redoing floors, >> uh, insulation. Okay, great. Thanks for,
um, responding to my question. And then I think it's really uh it'll be great to hear Jeff Hampton um in regards to what uh attorney spit basically mention in terms of the discrepancies between the
two recommendations being >> thank you miss better >> members of the board uh Jeff Hampton City of Boston planning department yeah we acknowledge that three years ago we made a different recommendation but that was also at a time where the policy
moving forward is this board knows now we don't support uh units that are within the seaf fraud we've done it um you know all over the city whether it be the south end the north end south Boston
um over time we've seen the policy change and we do acknowledge that back then we did design review to address the seaf fraud issues but because this wasn't um any sort of exterior changes.
We don't ask for that anymore to deal with the seaf fraud. Our policy is to been to deny these new units. Um and this has been very consistent over the last I'd say probably two two and a half years. And if I if if I could just respond
briefly, Madam Chair. >> Sure. So also I just again I just like to highlight I think the planning department is is forward is considered a full basement units underground. Again uh there's substantial grade changes going from the front of the property to the rear of the property which makes it
a full walk out in the rear uh which is very consistent with that 630 Dorchester Avenue uh property that was approved by this board as well. Uh, attorney Smith, do you have an elevation that you can show us for the back of the building so we can see the
garden level that you are referring? >> Um, Eric, was there one? >> Yeah, if you roll scroll up uh a couple of pages, there's an elevation or two that'll show how it drops off. Um if we can scroll up a little bit
>> further further >> and then um Mr. >> I don't >> um can you also let us know what is the trigger for the seaf fraud to be applied to this uh address? >> Yeah. So it's
>> just remind me please. Yeah. >> Yeah. So, so what triggers this is typically article 80 projects, anything 15 units above. >> So, it's about uh anything 15 unit or above or article 80. Okay. So, given that this is a smaller scale, it doesn't
necessarily apply. >> Yes. >> Okay. Thanks. >> Any other questions from the board? >> Apologies. If we could go back to the plan, I can explain the the elevation change. I guess there isn't an elevation included in this set, but I can show it on the plan. Yeah, I was thinking about
that because the planet department refers to this space as basement and and you are referring to the space as garden level. So I really wanted to see if there is a a way to ensure that this is not a basement. >> Yeah, if you could scroll to the uh the
page below this one um and I can show you on the ground floor plan what uh how this works. Uh one down one page please. Yeah. So on the left side here you see the basement. Um in the bottom right hand corner it
shows the gate from the sidewalk. So the sidewalk is the is the bottom right hand corner of the the drawing on the left. Um immediately as you go through that gate you go down seven steps. So you're going down um almost 4t right away. That's why the none of these windows
show window wells there. The windows are above the sidewall. The windows are normalized windows. um and the bottom of them is above the kind of grade around them. And then to get into the unit, you see another three steps going down. But at the very back of the building, you
see that it um is almost exactly at grade. Uh when you go through the back of the unit, through that little mechanical space with the sprinkler uh equipment and now at the back door, uh you're within 6 in of grade at the rear. So, while the the front of the building,
the the unit doesn't uh present much more than a couple of slim windows in the bay window, while all the rest of the windows are above ground. >> And how do you access the unit from the street? >> You go through that side gate and then
uh down um those seven steps and then down three more steps into the unit. >> Okay. Just looking at the street view, I see like uh there is a good gate that seems pretty old. And I was wondering if this is the main access to the to the unit.
>> That would be the main access. Yes. We would put an address on it and have a um and replace the gate. >> Thank you. >> What's the total square footage of the project? >> The the unit would be the gross square
footage of a basement um excluding mechanical space is 990 ft. Okay. So, it's it it is I'm going back to what triggers C fraud. It is less than 10,000 square feet. Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah. So, the total living area for all four units, if this was approved, would be 3,831
with the floor area ratio of 1.85. >> All right, with that, let's have public testimony and we can circle back. Any other questions? >> Yes. St. Johnson with Office of Neighborhood Services. This applicant has completed the community process our office hosted in an abutters meeting on October 22nd, 2025 at which no concerns
were raised. The applicants met with the Andrew Square Civic Association which supported the application but requested an additional review to ensure compliance with the egress requirements of the building code. With that background, I'll defer judgment to the board. Thank you.
>> Okay, next we have Ashley. Hi, my name is Ashley from Councelor Flynn's office. Councelor Flynn would like to go on record in support based on a thorough community process and work with the neighbors and the Andrew Square Civic Association when the proponent agreed to provide animalresistant trash
barrels for all four units, install exterior lighting, and improve the building's appearance through power washing and painting painting the trim and facade. With Andrew Square Civic Association support contingent upon updated plans being deemed compliant,
councelor Flynn believes this project will move forward in a way that respects the community. Thank you. >> Thanks. Next, we have Liam Remis. >> Aloha, Madam Chair, members of the board. Liam Remis from Councelor Fitzgerald's office. Our office would like on record support this proposal.
Thank you. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. There are no additional comments. Any other questions from the board? May I have a motion? >> Madam Chair, I'd like to put forward a motion
um of approval and the reason why is I I do think that the project has had a habitable basement for a very long time. Um I do think that uh it doesn't necessarily trigger the SE fraud because the project is less than 10,000, less
than 15 units. What I would recommend is that the architect um uh really locates mechanical systems above um a height that seems reasonable if there was to ever be a flood. So I do think it's there is an exception to this to this
project. >> Is there a second? >> Second. Second. >> Mr. Scumbridge. >> Yes. >> Mr. Valencia. >> Yes. Miss Turner, >> yes.
>> Miss Better Braza, >> yes. >> Miss Bonado, >> yes. >> Mr. Collins, >> yes. >> Chair votes, yes. The motion carries. Good luck. >> Thank you. >> So, with that, I'm going to have us take a 15minute break
and come back probably to the interpretation. All right. Thanks, guys. >> Recording stopped. Madam Chair, >> thank you. Mr. Valencia, >> present. >> Miss Turner,
>> present. >> Miss Bearza, >> present. >> Miss Pado, >> present. Mr. Collins, >> present. All right, the floor is yours, Mr. Scridge.
>> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, we for now we'll hold off on the 11 and the 11:30 a.m. hearings and we will go to the interpretation case scheduled for 12:00 p.m. Excuse me,
which is case BOA181 01 64 with the address of 46 to 47 Beacon Street. Whoops. >> And the Yeah, Ambassador Gura, thank you.
>> Sorry about that. >> Um, just again, case BOA181 0164 with the address of 46 to 47 Beacon Street. If the applicant and or their representative are present, would they
please explain to the board? >> Yes. Um, my name is Michael Bay and I represent one of the applicants. >> Are you presenting or is someone else presenting? >> Yeah, actually, no, I'm sorry. I'm presenting and um Matthew Ferman is also on the uh panel but but but he's and he
represents the wards but uh he is he is uh I'll be the main presenter here >> with Mr. Visho our traffic engineer. >> Okay. And please please focus on the the zoning relief issues. I I know there are a lot of issues that you've cited. So thank you.
>> Yeah. Thank you very much. Um so my name is Michael Mari. I'm a land use litigator with Nixon Peabuddy in Boston and I represent Connor Lean and Katy Lee Lean who along with Robert and Lee Ward are challenging the issuance of a 2025 alteration permit authorizing the creation of eight luxury dwelling units
and a 16c car garage at 46 to 47 Beacon Street. The leans are a young couple with a newborn child who have lived in their home at 5 to7 Spruce Court since October 17th 2025 after purchasing the property in July of 2025. With me is Matthew Ferman, a land use litigator
with Todd and Weld in Boston. He represents the wards who have lived at three spru Spruce Court since 2025. The lands in the wards are deeply concerned with the impacts that the proposed 16c car garage will have on their property and Spruce Court, which is their sole
means of access to their homes. If we could turn to slide one, which is already showing. Um, it shows Spruce Court from from Spru I'm sorry, if you could go back to the page one, you had it on the correct page. Um, so this shows Spruce Court from Spruce Street.
Um, Spruce Court is a narrow cobblestone way that has existed for many decades and has never seen the type of automobile traffic that will result if 46 to 47 Beacons Garage project proceeds. In fact, in the roughly 100 year that roughly 100-year-old building
at 46 to 47 Beacon has never provided parking. If we now move to slide two, please we see a plot plan superimposed on a stamped plan prepared by Feldman Land Surveyors laying out the area. You can see the Ward's property and the Leans
property to the upper right. Directly below their properties is an area marked 3 to7 Spruce Court fee interest parking area which I'll get into in a minute. The bottom half of Spruce Court is an established 10-ft wide fire lane. Toward the bottom right is 46 to 47 Beacon, the
location of the proposed garage. Now if we turn to slide three, it reflects the result of a lawsuit that the previous owner of 46 to 47 Beacon brought against the prior owners of the lands in the wart's properties to prevent parking on the northern half of
Spruce Court. The land court ruled that the owners of three and 5 to7 Spruce Court also own the northern 10 ft of Spruce Court in front of their properties and have a right to park there and that 46 to 47 Beacon had access rights through the fire lane on
the southern half which had to remain open. Now, if we could go to slide four, please. 46 to 47 Beacon's prior owner appealed that land court decision but the appeals court affirmed in 2012. Now if we can flip back to the very first slide, the
photograph on the very first page. So this shows that Spruce Court poses significant maneuverability issues even without the addition of any new automobile traffic. Notably going all the way back to 1962 when the current rights to Spruce Court were created. We
have not seen any evidence that 46 to 47 Beacon has ever regularly used Spruce Court for automobile use, which makes sense because 46 to 47 Beacon has always had access on Beacon Street. Spruce Court therefore is just the back alley
to 46 to 47 Beacon, but to the lands and to the wards, Spruce Court is their sole legal means of accessing their homes. Before purchasing 46 to 47 Beacon, the developer knew of these existing tight
conditions. The developer knew that any plans it may pursue for the property must accommodate the fact that the homes along Spruce Court needed Spruce Court as their only means of access and had a right to park along the northern 10 ft. And the developer knew that whatever use
it made of Spruce Court could not result in blockages to the fire lane. Clearly, the developer should have thought twice before planning any garage on this little way here and at a minimum should have obtained a careful and thorough traffic analysis showing that a garage
was feasible. This is especially true if we turn to slide six, please. And this is where we get to zoning. So, this slide shows 23-9E of the Boston Zoning Code, which requires that all off- streetet parking facilities be
designed so as to avoid creating a nuisance, hazard, or unreasonable traffic impediment. In its written submissions to this board, the developer's only response to this provision was was to argue that it applies only to parking garages that are
needed in order to satisfy on-site parking requirements. developers interpretation is clearly wrong because the regulation unambiguously purports to apply uh to apply to and I quote all off- streetet parking facilities.
Therefore, the fact that the garage is not required under zoning and the developer has instead chosen to pursue it in order to sell its dwelling units for even more money does not exempt the developer from section 239E.
However, the developer's mistaken belief that it can ignore this provision may explain why the developer never took traffic impacts seriously. Now, if we turn back to slide one, please, which shows again the the sort of very tight conditions that pre-existed. Thank you
very much. Um, the developer did have enough sense to know that the garage project would be strongly opposed by those who live on Spruce Court. But instead of working with them, the developer figured out a way to get its garage project permitted under the underneath the public radar and
basically in the co in in the under the cover of darkness. Thus, in 2024, the developers sought and obtained an alteration permit to allow the conversion of the property to dwelling units only, no parking whatsoever. Then, in August of 2025, and without
informing any of those who live on Spruce Court, the developer sought a second alteration permit to allow the conversion to eight dwelling units and the 16car garage. This is a 2:1 parking ratio, which as far as we can tell is
unheard of for any new projects in Boston. As far as we can tell, the developer did this without informing the inspectional services department about the parking rights of the lands in the wards, without telling the ISD that the southern half of Spruce Court is a fire
lane, and without providing any valid traffic analysis showing that the garage project can satisfy zoning code provision section 239E. Now, if we could turn back to slide six, please, which is the zoning provision. Once we
found out that the permit had issued, we immediately tried to get our hands on as much of the information as we could about the project. And even more importantly, we retained Mr. Robert Misho, a traffic engineer with 37 years of experience and the president and
managing principal of MDM Transportation Consultants, Inc. We asked Mr. Misho to analyze the garage project. Am I still on? >> Yes. We might have missed like a word or two. >> Okay. I'm sorry. Um, we asked Mr. Misho
to analyze the garage project and determine whether the leans and the wards have reason to be concerned. Mr. Misho performed a thorough analysis. Actually, I'm sorry. We're having a couple of tech issues on our side, but um I don't think
it's interrupting what y'all are hearing. So, uh, Mike, please go ahead. >> Okay. >> Mr. Misho performed a thorough analysis, actually several of them with section 239E in mind. The results of Mr. Misho's analysis are sobering and they are the
primary reason why we are here today. Now, I'd like to turn the our presentation over to Mr. Misho to describe his analysis and summarize his professional conclusions. >> Thank you, Michael. Again, Robert Misho with MDM Transportation Consultants. Um,
as Michael had mentioned, uh, MDM has been retained to provide an assessment uh, of circulation to or from the garage uh, to determine whether or not vehicles could be reasonably accommodated uh, within the confines of court uh, uh, the
court uh, and in context of the parking rights uh, and location of a fire lane that exists within Spruce Court. and ultimately as I'll walk the board through have concluded that using wellestablished modeling protocols uh
normally and customarily used uh for projects for instance that are subject to article 80 review that there is insufficient area within the court to reasonably accommodate a standard design vehicle that would need to access and egress the garage. uh noting further
that the intensity of use of the court uh would quadruple from its existing and historic use levels. Um you know rather significant change uh and potential burden on the court uh particularly in
light of the constraints that we know exist uh and that were modeled and demonstrated to not properly accommodate uh certain vehicle types. Uh in the next slide, if you could advance, uh would indicate the modeling uh that we've
conducted uh which in this example is uh an what what is referred to as an ASHTO standard design vehicle. Uh this is a a design standard that's regularly applied uh to size and evaluate impacts of roadway facilities and circulation
areas. Uh it relies on a vehicle dimension that's upwards of 19 ft uh long, 7 ft wide uh and is intentionally uh sized to ensure that uh vehicle maneuver maneuverability is reasonable
and would not unnecessarily require the use of spars or undo proximity to or up to or beyond uh geometric constraints, whether that's a park vehicle or a garage structure in this case. And you'll see that through the modeling of
this particular design vehicle that in the entering movement to the garage, the garage door opening uh only being 12 f' 9 in wide that there's a substantial encroachment into the fewest area of Spruce Court uh shown in the yellow that
uh essentially comes within several feet of the the northerly curb line of that um of of the court. The next slide would indicate a similar result. Uh you in this case a vehicle attempting to exit the garage using that same design
vehicle type that shows again a substantial encroachment into that fee interest area that would uh not be feasible quite frankly with any parking activity within the fee interest area. Showing the encroachment again to be uh somewhere between 3 and 5 ft of that
curb line. uh in deference to um attempting to understand what vehicle types might be able to use the garage, we then turn our um our focus on another vehicle design type called ULI composite vehicle, which is really representative
of 85% of the vehicle types that may be inclined to use the garage. Uh we've also, as we've done in this example, shown parking activity within the fee interest area within 1 foot of the curb. Although there's no specific city ordinance that would obligate that
parking that close to the curb in this case, we nonetheless uh as a fair representation uh of of impact have have shown those vehicles parked again in the Fiat Trust area within a foot of that northerly
curb. The next slide uh if you could advance one slide shows that uh smaller vehicle type which is 17 feet 3 in long. Uh it's about 6 1/2 ft wide. Uh this particular entering
movement would also indicate a substantial material encroachment into that fe interest area of several feet uh upon trying to enter into that 12t 9 in opening. Uh and finally in the next slide you'll see the equivalent uh
movement on exiting the garage which itself also shows uh an encroachment into that fee interest area. Uh not not an insignificant encroachment an encroachment that for any parking activity within the fee interest area would impact vehicles that that are parked there. If you could advance just
one more slide uh to demonstrate that second movement that we've modeled. So again uh an encroachment of several feet uh into that area. I want to emphasize that this model of the smaller vehicle uh very precisely assumes that
the movements that are being made to or from the garage come within an inch of either the door structure or the structural opening of the garage. that condition quite frankly would rely on spotters and a very precise movement
of the vehicle. So even in an ideal circumstance using a smaller vehicle type uh it demonstrates the inability to reasonably circulate uh to or from the garage within that uh that spruce court
area. Uh we are also aware and you may hear testimony that the developer has conducted field testing of uh two vehicle types uh within the court. Uh one on January 20th of this year and again in February 20th. The January
testing involved a smaller vehicle, smaller than what's actually demonstrated here in this model at 16'4 in, which in their field test, which is video documented, took a vehicle over 8 minutes using two spotters to actually
maneuver from the garage. Uh on February 20th uh an even smaller vehicle was used 15 ft 4 in in length which also indicated even under the smaller vehicle type uh the need to uh seessaw if you
will to properly maneuver uh into or out of that garage structure. Uh the developer had subsequently uh retained engineering u uh expertise to conduct its own modeling swept path modeling
which we've uh reviewed and have identified as inappropriately making certain assumptions that are impractical or unlikely to occur. Uh for instance, uh parking within the fee interest area that is two feet from the curb, using only compact vehicles, uh
using vehicles that in fact are smaller than uh the typical vehicles that may be inclined to use the garage. uh and uh that uh very precisely require the same movements that are shown here but with
um in their own modeling a demonstrated need to impact structural elements of the garage notably the garage door. Um so we conclude on the basis of our analysis using industry standard
modeling modeling that's normally normal and customary to our glady type project for instance that it is not reasonable accommodation for access to or from the garage uh that the intensity of use of the court uh will be substantial. It
will in effect go from one vehicle an hour to four vehicles per hour based on the number of parking spaces that are being provided within that within that garage structure at 2:1 ratio. uh and that in the instance of even a standard
uh vehicle of 17 foot length, 17 feet 3 in uh that uh the likelihood will be the uh impact of seessawaring back and forth if you will for extended periods of time upon trying to exit that garage. Um that
itself will provide an impediment to the regular use of the fire lane. It will create an impediment to the ability for uh fee interest owners of SPR Spruce Court to enter the court or exit the court during those extended periods of maneuverability.
Uh and uh presents a material consequence to the owners of the court as well as to uh the regular ability to access the fire lane uh for the use. Uh so we conclude this is simply not feasible uh and and will result in a
substantial uh and detrimental impact to uh to the court. >> Thank you. >> Question. >> Well, I'm sorry. I just got to wrap wrap it up. It'll just be probably two three minutes. Um now we believe that Mr. Misho's testimony and reports prove that
the developer has not met and cannot meet its burden of satisfying the zoning standard um in 239E. Now, if we could quickly turn to slide 11, please. In our written submissions, we also identify other zoning code provisions
that we contend are violated by the garage project, namely the inclusionary zoning ordinance. Our position is on that is that the developer's project is required to provide one unit of affordable housing plus a six-f figureure payment towards affordable housing, but the developer is only
providing luxury units and no payment. And we've also explained why the parking area fails to comply with handicap accessibility requirements. We trust that this board will carefully consider those arguments and we will be happy to answer whatever questions you may have about them, but we otherwise don't want to take up the board's time with that in
this oral presentation. So, I'd like to end by noting that the garage project, if it is allowed to proceed, will benefit only the developer. It will harm those who rely on Spruce Court as their only means of access and parking while giving the developer a second means, a
second means of access that it does not need and that the property has never before used on a regular basis. It will hurt the public interest and public safety by adding unmanageable congestion to the fire lane for for the sake of an unheard of 2:1 parking ratio for new
luxury condominium projects. It will give the back of the developer's hand to the need for affordable housing. It will violate accessibility rights and it will do all this without providing any public benefit to the city whatsoever. the leans in the ward. Thank you for your
attention to this matter and your careful consideration of their appeal. >> Thank you. Is there anyone from ISD who's present to speak to these points? >> M Joseph here. I don't know if the developer is here because we have the
plans here. The >> the permit I'm here if you mad. >> Okay. know if he wants to respond to that. Mike Joseph, >> maybe we could have you first, Mr. Attorney Ross and then we'll turn to Mr. Joseph. >> Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the
board. Um, my name is Mike Ross. I'm a partner with the law firm of Prince Bell and I'm here on behalf of the developer 46 Sailor LLC, uh, along with co-consel Joe Hanley, a partner with McDermac Quilting Miller and Hanley. We submitted
an opposition brief on this matter on January 18th as well as a supporting memorandum on February 23rd from Doug Anderson, a former city of Boston plans examiner of six years and currently in charge of co-consulting services for the
international firm Rink Rimis and Doug's also here if needed. Uh the attorneys for the owners of Spruce Court who just spoke have conflated today's hearing by bringing extraneous building permits. Building permits that are well outside
the 45day appeal appeal period over a year old. The only matter that is before this board today is whether the building permit that was issued on November 24th, 2025 by the building commissioner was
properly issued or whether the building commissioner aired it and should have refused the permit and sent it to the zoning board of appeal. That permit, ALT1796638, reduced the number of units in 46 Beacon
Street from 11 to 8 and includes ground floor accessory parking. Both are allowed uses. Unfortunately, we believe that we are here for one reason and one reason only, to cause delay to this project and to ultimately be tied up in
court. I know there's a tradition of this board to not place itself in the middle of litigation and I just would like to note that these parties are presently amid litigation. 46 Beacon Street is located in Beacon Hill subdist where housing and accessory parking are
both allowed uses. Property is a precode structure, meaning it was built before December 31st, 1964. If the attorneys for the spruce court owners were correct and the building permit before the board to reduce the
number of units from 11 to 8 and include the allowed accessory parking, both allowed as bright, it would trigger zoning relief on every similar project that would now need to be approved by this board. They're essentially asking
you to supplant the authority granted to ISTD, the chief enforcement officer under the enabling act to review and determine zoning compliance. This is an as of right project. Nothing in this building permit or in the zoning
code triggers the need for relief as referenced in my memorandum and Doug Anderson's memorandum. Article 23 section 9E deals with parking design maneuverability exempts precode structures pursuant to
article 23 section 7A stating quote only the additional number of dwelling units additional number of dwelling units shall be counted in computing the off- streetet parking facilities required here there is a
reduction not addition of units and thus does not trigger zone. Likewise, article 23, section 10, which deals with the maintenance of the parking facility, specifically included the language that it only applies to parking spaces,
quote, provided to comply with this article so long as a use requiring them exists. So too with article 23, section 11, which deals with parking accessibility. This project is a renovation and because
there are fewer than 12 units, it does not trigger accessible units and therefore does not trigger accessible parking. This does not mean that developers of as of right projects can build whatever they want. They can't.
They must comply with the state building code. They need to be approved by Boston ISD and with it all the other agencies including Boston Fire, Boston Water and Sewer, the Public Improvement Commission and the like. The appellant misrepresented themselves before this
board stating that this project was not reviewed by the Boston Fire Department. This is not true. The project went before Boston Fire not once but twice. First, as shown in the online portal printouts that I submitted to the board,
it was checked off as approved by the Boston Fire Department. And second, this project went before the city's public safety commission on licenses where a member of the fire department sits on December 17th, 2025 to determine that the garage was being lawfully and safely
used. I know this because I was in the room at the time, as were the appellants attorneys virtually. The appellants claiming that the project cannot possibly comply with article 23 because it requires multiple terms to get in and out of the garage. 8 minutes to get in
and out of the garage. What they fail to mention is that they are deliberately parking their car in violation of Boston parking laws. And Boston parking laws apply even to private lanes like this in front of the garage door to prohibit
ingress and egress to the garage. A photo doesn't lie. This red car is owned by one of the appellants. It is parked purposely in the middle of the street so as to directly block ingress and egress to the
garage, which is a deliberate misreading of the land court decision that was cited that prohibits parking in a manner that obstructs access. This is obstructive behavior intended to stop this allowed as of right project.
In addition, we've supplied this board with a turning analysis from our licensed traffic engineer that shows compliant access to the parking in this project when their car is not purposely blocking it. And not only that, but in the last 100 years, Spruce Court has
been home to at least three garages, beginning with a horse and buggy and later on automobiles and then including a housing of their own fuel pumps within. And just finally today, the appellent testified that the developer
sought to apply for the garage permit under the cover of darkness when it initially applied for its 2024 permit. without the garage. Again, this is not true. The project was in litigation with the Beacon Hill Architectural Commission
at that time relating to the garage door, a case that the developer won. But because the question of the garage door and therefore the garage was in question uh pending the outcome of the court case at the time uh of commencing
construction, the developer began without garage and so the ALT at the time reflected the project with only the units without the garage. Once they won the lawsuit, they they filed their new ALT, this November 2024 ALT that has the
garage entry. All above radar, all within the light of day. Let me just turn to Joe Hanley who has a few points to hit and then we'll conclude. >> Hello, Madam Chair, members of the board. Um, attorney Joe Hanley, McDerma, Quilting Miller, and Hanley representing
uh the developer with co-consel Mike Ross. I think Mike did a really good job talking about uh the zoning issues and what's really going on here with respect to issues that are outside of the ZBA's purview. Um you know rights in in
alleyways and and things of that nature. Uh Madam Chair, you asked the right question, the first question which is keep this to the zoning issues. Uh there are no zoning issues here. Uh what the appellants are asking you to do and this board to do is to supplant uh the
authority and the legal jurisdiction of uh the building commissioner of ISD under the acts uh chapter 6 655 of 1956 which is the enabling act. little different than uh other cities and towns and it gives a lot of authority uh to
ISD as you know to interpret occupancy based on permits and compliance with zoning. Uh this project is 100% zoning compliant as Mike indicated. Um, and if you look at Doug Anderson's opinion,
which we uh submitted for this board, again, Doug was a plan examiner for 6 years with ISD, 30 years of experience as a codeex examiner, speaking to custom and practice, as well as how um article 23 operates. It does not apply unless
you're required to create parking. That has nothing to do uh with how you get in and out. Now, our expert did in fact conduct uh and submitted an affidavit on maneuverability even though it's not
required. So, the article 23 zoning issue is not a zoning issue. It was reviewed. It was uh interpreted properly by ISD and there's no reason uh to supplant their authority on that. Finally, I would just say I think
council Murray or one of the attorneys for the appellant had mentioned a new article 79 which uh goes into went into effect for projects uh who apply uh after November 1 of 2023.
Mike mentioned uh ALT1638951 which was issued October 24, 2024. uh that would be the permit uh that would be of issue, but it's past the 45day appeal period, so it's new. Having
said that, that permit was applied for prior to uh the applicability and enactment date of article 79. And it is common practice and has been for this board um to enforce that deadline. And
again, ISD has the authority now because what article 79 does as a change is it makes affordable housing required even when you don't need zoning and it is has to be reviewed and triggered by ISD and
in this instance it wasn't and that is not at all uncommon to other cases that I have had uh that applied prior to the enactment. Um, so again, I appreciate the board's time. I regret that. Um, not
just for this client, but for everyone that needs to rely on uh compliance and zoning to move forward. Um, and this idea that for some reason we have multiple permits issued for a project, uh, that that allows the appellants to
reach back uh, through history. It simply doesn't. If you read Mr. Anderson's opinion, uh, you can have multiple permits open. Uh, the permit that they're trying to reach back to, which they cannot, um, is open because
the work is being still being done. We've had rough inspections and when it's closed out, then you'll get your CO. Again, nothing uh there's nothing in state building code or nothing in custom and practice that prevents this from happening. ISD did their job in
accordance with the enabling act uh and based on real submissions, plans, and review, including from uh the fire department as Mr. Ross indicated. So, I thank you for your time and and look forward to any questions you might have.
>> Thank you. Uh I'm going to ask Mr. Joseph, uh Commissioner Joseph, if you could weigh in, please. >> Uh yes. Uh good afternoon, Madam Chair. Mark here, Mark Joseph from uh from ISD here. I've been on this for quite some
times now. So, I reviewed their plans. I know the appeals. I know about the objection that the other side have with respect to uh the packing garage uh issued and reviewed by one of our
most uh objective and probably very very good pen examiner here, Mr. Frank the matter I went over the plans it's uh it's a ratio of two for one meanings that each units have two pockets so
there is no issue of uh of uh people blocking people here inside he only worked on what was presented to him that's the uh the first floor of the dwelling with the parking there is
accessibility there and also There is also maneuverability inside with respect to what happened on the street and then he had no jurisdiction over the street. He was acting he acted only based on what was in front of them per zoning. So
uh the space itself could sustain all these parking spaces and there is access drive to those parking spaces. there is maneuverability to those parking spaces and then he he applied the right zoning and approved those parking spaces. So
that's what with respect to accessibility and per for endicap accessibility it was not required because the number of units not 12 for existing buildings. So,
and then you have two packings per dwelling unit. That makes it eight. So, I don't see madam chair any problem with the applications with the uh permit being issued by. So,
I stand behind what was issued by our PL examiner which is a very one of our best if he's not the best PL examiner we have on board here. >> Thank you. Questions from the board. Okay, I will give a brief brief uh rebuttal from the applicant, the
opponent. >> Thank you very much. Um it you know 239E it it's we say it's as clear as day. It's not confined to parking to to buildings uh to to brand new parking um
in older buildings. If it were, if it was, it would mean that anyone could build whatever parking garage they want without worrying about maneuverability. I think we just heard that the um the impacts on on on Spruce Court um and surrounding streets were not considered
in this review. Um and and you know, your honor, it's it's madam chair, it's it's it's it's straightforward a matter interpretation of 2390 and we're very comfortable with our interpretation of that. And the only other point is the picture that was shown to you of a car parked further away. There's all sorts
of issues between the developer and people who live on the street. But the bottom line is our traffic engineer, Mr. Misho, did his analysis as if the cars were parked along the curb and not away from the curb. So the analysis that he
did which shows unmanageable traffic congestion, impairments of the fire lane and interference with our clients rights were based on parking next to the curb had nothing to do with parking further away from the curb. Thank Thank you, Madam Chair.
>> Just one minute, Madam Chair, if I may. >> Another minute. >> One minute. Uh I would just like to kind of bring this into the to the practical. Uh just consider your own experience as board members. You see projects all the time coming in front of the board. Think
about tandem parking spaces in a a two family or a three family in Dorchester. Think about stacker parking spaces. Think about turntable parking spaces. When they aren't required pursuant to the zoning, they don't get cited. When they're not required, they don't get
cited. And that's exactly the same thing here. I I if it is if it's a pre-code building, if it was already in place and that and with the changes you're making aren't adding units. Now, when you add a unit, yes, that's considered a new unit
and therefore that must comply with all the aspects of article 23. That's not what is in front of the board today. Thank you, Mer. >> Thank you. Are there questions from the board? >> I just have one question to um
uh to Mr. Joseph, in regards to um the garage, um typically when there's a project in front of zoning, uh we sometimes get recommendations from Boston Transportation Department. And so the
question I have for you is um in ISD when you do give a permit for a garage in this instance uh you have your plan examiner and do you also have or consult with uh Boston Transportation Department that typically
reviews um you know access uh to garages to uh that makes comments on parking and layout. I was I just I just wanted to know if that was >> Oh. Yeah, that's a that's that good
questions. But usually this issue came up with respect to other agencies when people have to go to the board or if he said NBOD neighborhood design over overlay district. This is not one of them. So the plan examiner based on the
zoning on the language of the zoning not the spirit of it the plan language of the zoning. So he issues the permit. There was no NDOD, no nothing. Send them to the board of appeals. So he did not have to consult with the other agencies
in order to issue the building permits. He had the authority to do that. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> But he consulted with Boston Fire Department. So where does the fire department come in? >> The fire department come in when they apply for the to change the occupancy to
eight units. That mean they have to do some work with the fire protection uh on the units and also on the uh on the garage itself for coverage for safety coverage. That's where the fire department cannot
>> I mean this is a really good question uh Janine because obviously ISD has jurisdictions looking at the interior of the building inside the building and then when when there's a a request for variance we look at the whole picture
and you know you have these kind of different agencies providing oversight and there's obviously a a gap in terms of reviewing of the public way in this kind of process. So, we can see why
they're in front of us, both parties. Um, but thank you so much, Mr. Joseph, for explaining that uh background. >> Okay, Madam Chair, >> I don't have any further questions. I'm pretty I I pretty I understand the conditions. >> Okay. You're very welcome. Thank you. >> Thank Thank you.
>> Say something about the gap just real quickly. And I think member better Barza, it's a good a good point. Um, but it's it's not a it's not something that isn't part of settled custom and practice. Right? I believe Mr. Mishu and his discussion mentioned something about
article 80. I don't know if that was an analogy. This is not an article 80 project. Obviously, if it was, that would be, as you know, subject to that review. So all my client can do is follow the law and the settled uh
practice over years which it did and which you've heard from uh Commissioner Joseph as to how they um reviewed this. This is a very limited circumstance. So Attorney Murray said, "Oh, you could we could build these parking facilities
anywhere." That's not correct. This is a pre-code structure and rather than looking at article 23, you should look at article 2 for the definitions of accessory parking for an allowed residential use. And that's really all
this is limited to. And in that circumstance to penalize our client for uh following the law uh and and settled practice um there may be some gaps but that's for for policy makers to address not necessarily plan examiners and the
permitting authority. >> Any other questions from the board? >> Right. >> Madam Chairman, may I please just briefly respond to what attorney said? I I will be very brief. I saw a miss. I I am an attorney on behalf of uh the
Leehands and the Warrens as well uh alongside with my colleague Mike Murray. >> Okay, last last comment. >> Thank you very much. I appreciate it, Madam Chairman. So, just the two responses to what attorney Hanley just said. Number one, as we have noted, um obviously directly within the purview of
the zoning board and ISD is uh zoning compliance. And as uh my brother uh Mike Murray has pointed out, article 23-9 begins with the words all off- streetet parking facilities. It provides no exception or grandfathered status for
pre-code buildings. Not to mention a very important fact is that in the over 100year history of 4647 Beacon Street, which is the project, uh there has never been a garage. Uh I can't remember if it was attorney Hanley or Ross that
mentioned that in the early 1900s there was a horse and buggy carriage. That that's not relevant. But also just the the one further point that has not been raised is that there is direct evidence that we have submitted directly from ISD's internal system that the Boston
Fire Department never reviewed the garage permit set. And I think that's very relevant and frankly incredibly concerning given that it's the addition of a 16c car garage and that it directly uh goes onto and off of a
wellestablished long-standing fire lane. I appreciate it. Thank you. >> Is are we ready to make a motion? >> Is is there a motion? >> There are members of the public here to speak. Are they going to be given an opportunity?
>> Not during an interpretation. >> Uh I I'm I'm sorry. Um is there >> is there a motion? >> I'll make Sorry, Caroline. Just to be clear, we are deciding on whether ISD on whether this is an as of right project
or not. Correct. Caroline here >> on whether ISC issued the permit or incorrectly or incorrectly >> and ISD wouldn't take into consideration the maneuverability of the park.
>> I was having >> sorry can you hear me? >> Yes. Yes. Sorry about that. Yes. So um the motion would be whether or not ISD was correct in issuing the as of right permit or if ISD aired in issuing the permit.
>> Uh I'll make a motion that ISD was correct in issuing the permit. >> Is there a second? >> Second, >> Mr. Stumbridge. >> Yes, >> Mr. Valencia. Yes,
>> Miss Turner. >> Yes, >> Miss Brazza. >> Yes, >> Miss Ponado. >> Yes, >> Mr. Collins. >> Yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries.
>> Thank you very much. Have a nice day. >> Thank you everyone. Have a good night. Good night. So, with that, we will return to the hearing scheduled for 11:00 a.m. We'll ask again if there are any
requests for withdrawals or deferrals from this time frame. Hearing none, we'll go to the first case which is case BOA 180 4155
with the address of 35 Aworth Street. If the applicant andor their representative are present, would they please explain the case to the board? >> Good afternoon, Madame Chair, members of the board. I'm Don Whis with the law
firm of Dane Torpy at 175 Federal Street in downtown Boston. Here with me this afternoon is Paul Celu who co-owns the property with his wife. If we could um keep the presentation, maybe the second
image while I speak, I will introduce the background of the case and then uh I'll turn the presentation over to the property owner uh to tell you more specifically about what he plans to do here. There are a few notable things about the 35worth proposal. Um, this is
a proposed change of use in a two family district from an existing two family to a three family. This is very close to fitting within the accessory dwelling unit uh program. There are some minor technicalities that complicated that a little bit and because the zoning
process, the zoning variance processes is available, that was a more straightforward way to pursue this project. But as we walk you through it, you will see that the changes to the property are are very minor. The significant factors here are this is an oversized lot. It's a 6,000 ft lot and a
5,000 ft district. Um, as you'll see when you look at the photographs, the third floor, which is proposed to be converted to a new separate dwelling unit, is original finished space within the historic building about 100 years ago when this building was built. Rather
than that third level being an attic with a subfloor and bare rafters as is the case in many of these older houses, this was a space with plastered walls, beautifully finished historic fur floors. It was always part of the living space of this building. For that reason,
there's actually no addition to F. Um the citation from ISD includes a violation for adding to the building height, adding to the F. those are mistaken but it can take a while to chase corrections through that process.
It is the case that we needed a few other variances and so we have as a precaution applied for those variances as well but in fact building height uh is not changing the F is not changing with this proposal. Um the real key issues are the addition of um uh another
unit. Um, we're not adding a parking space with that, although there are two parking spaces on the lot. And, uh, the real physical change to the building is a small dormer has been added on the side of the building to improve the head height as one comes up the existing
internal stair. and that dormer because this is a historic house and historic neighborhood is actually located you know 25 or so feet uh up in the air but within the existing zoning setback. So it creates a zoning setback issue and
and although the lot is oversized the math does not quite work out to add a dwelling unit in terms of lot area per dwelling unit etc. Uh but these are these are minor and and largely technical violations. With that, let me turn the presentation over to the property owner, Paul Cello, who will show you specifically what he is
proposing. >> Great. Thanks, Don. Can you guys hear me? Okay. >> Yes, sir. >> Awesome. If you just want to I I know you I know Don did a good job sort of summarizing everything we want to do, but if you just want to briefly go up to slide two, I'll just say a three no more than three four minute overview and we
can get right into questions if that's all right. So, if you could just go up to slide two, that would be great. Um, yeah, almost. I think you're on slide seven. If you want to go up to slide two, that would uh that would be great. Awesome. Okay, cool. Um, it's nice to
meet everyone. My wife Liliana and I here, we're the homeowners of 35 Answorth Street in Rosendale. Uh, we just welcomed our baby boy Sam in October. We really love the neighborhood. Just a little context on the house. We purchased the home about 3 years ago in early 2023. As Don
mentioned, the home has three floors and the prior owners used all three of them. When we purchased it, the house was was definitely in rough shape. Structurally, it was fine, but had like knob and tube electricity, cast iron plumbing. It needed a ton of work. So, we decided to renovate just the first and second floor
only with the first floor being a two bed, one and a half, the second floor being a three bed, two bath. And my wife and I and our son Sam, we live on the second floor. The home has two off street parking spaces as we showed in the previous uh previous slide and it is fully electrified. If you could go to
slide three that would be great. Um on the next slide. Great. Cool. Um so here's the current state of the third floor. As Don mentioned, it's pretty close to being finished. It was used by the prior owners and right now it's just going
completely unutilized. We're storing a couple things up there, but you know, we would really just love to transform it into a small but, you know, comfortable home for someone. It will have a well-sized deck. It will have a bedroom, a bathroom, air conditioning. Um, and we just think it could be a charming
apartment, frankly, for for someone that um wants to live in the neighborhood. Next slide. As Don mentioned on slide four, the only small change we need to make to the outside is the uh is the dormer. I know he went over that. And then next slide, slide five. Um, here
are the photos of the outside of the house on slide five, if you don't mind going to the next one there. Uh, and as you're bringing that up, so just two things to call out. As Don mentioned, we have two off- streetet parking spaces. One used by my wife and I. We have one car and then our tenant
downstairs has the other one. And we have already built the uh the egress uh going up on the back side. You can see there in the picture in the top right, the the staircases go all the way down. Um, and then if you want to go to the the seventh slide there, we can skip
over slide six. Um, just just one one thing on parking. Um, and then, you know, Don advised me never to argue with my neighbors about parking, but I did just want to share a couple of key points to show that, you know, an additional car on the street shouldn't
cause a major inconvenience. this slide here. Number one, we can walk to a commuter rail station, bus stop, a park, a coffee shop, grocery store, all within walking distance. And then on the next slide, slide eight, um with the recent
snowstorms, has sort of given us an opportunity, if you if you go to slide eight there, uh to see if there's any like unused spots in the street. And you know, leading up to this storm we had yesterday, there were two unshoveled spots that have been unshoveled since the first storm, which was on January
25th. So again, my lawyer told me not to argue with my neighbors about parking, but I just wanted to share these two points that it's very walkable. There's unshoveled spots, and I I I do believe that, you know, one additional car from a future resident on a third floor should not be a major inconvenience to
the neighborhood. So with that, I just respectfully ask you guys for for approval and happy to answer any questions and hear public comment. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you. Are there questions from the board? >> Hearing none. Uh may I have public testimony? >> Madame chair and members of the board.
For the record, my name is Jeremy Benbury. I'm the Roslandale community engagement specialist for the office of neighborhood services. The applicant has completed the community process which consisted of an abuters meeting facilitated on January 21st and well attended by Abutters. Abua's stances were divided equally with half in
support and half opposed. The opposed did not feel the change to a three family was felt the change was out of character for the neighborhood and did not want to see the two family residential area become a three family area which would increase the parking issues as well as the water runoff concerns. Supporters felt they did not
experience any parking issues and felt the change to increase the occupancy was a great use of the third floor and a great place for a renter. Director voters stated they have never had a parking issue and stated the proponent brought the plans to them 11 months ago and see no upcoming issues specifically with parking. Next, the proposal was
presented to Long Area Neighborhood Association, Longfellow Area Neighborhood Association, who voted non opposition to the proposal. To date, our office has received one letter of opposition and a nine signature letter of opposition maintaining the affforementioned proposed theme as well
as a four letter four letters of support sent to the board for review again maintaining the supportive theme. 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. >> Next we have Tom Johnson.
>> Good morning madam chairperson, members of the board. My name is Tom Johnston. I'm a city of Boston resident. I live at 50. That's 50 Aworth Street. I'm an abuter to this project. I live here with my family. We have two young adults who
are aspiring Boston either condo or homeowners. My spouse Christine, who's retired Boston school psychologist. My 95-year-old mother-in-law Joan Kavanaaugh, a widow of a Boston police officer. And a lifelong Boston resident.
All five of us at 50 Amesware Street are lifelong residents and registered voters and we fully endorse this proposal. We believe that the project does align with the spirit of the city right now in Mayor Mayor Woo's housing expansion. We
believe reasonable accommodation should be made to create more housing in Rosenddale. Thank you very much for allowing us to get our support on record. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Next we have a Mike McCarthy. >> Hey, good uh good afternoon everyone.
Mike McCarthy. I live next door to Paul. I'm at 31 Aworth Street. We my wife Katherine and I uh I've lived here for about 1 year. And um not from Boston, but from Brooklyn and need lived here my whole life. And um we love this neighborhood. And uh we I'm looking out
my window right now and I see what Paul had already he took the words out of my mouth. a bunch of empty parking spots covered in snow right now. Um, you know, he's got a he's got a pretty sizable driveway. I don't think there's any issue and I agree that with the spirit of adding housing in the city, um, that
it meets the needs that the needs of everyone equitably. So, I fully endorse Paul's project. Thanks. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. There are no additional comments. >> With that, may I have a motion? I'll make a motion of approval.
Is there a second? >> Mr. Stebridge. >> Hello. >> Yeah. >> Hello, >> Mr. Valencia. >> This is um this is an additional testimony. I tried to unmute. I thought it was unmuted. >> So, >> can you hear me?
>> We're in the middle of voting. Jesus, did you see this? >> Yes. >> Comment this person. >> This is 7070. She was supposed to unmute herself, but uh I don't know what happened. Um >> Okay. Well, in the spirit of hearing you
out, we'll pause our vote, which we don't normally do, so please be brief. >> Thank you so much. Good afternoon, uh board, members of the board, and neighbors. Thank you for this opportunity to speak. My name is Susan Jagger and I'm a long-term resident for
over 30 years of legal abutter and I'm in strong opposition to the requested variance at 35 Aworth. This proposal is not just about one property. It's about the long-term stability, safety, and character of our neighborhood. Aimworth Street has historically and is currently
made up of single family, two family homes. Families move here because it's a quiet, stable residential street. And converting this property into a three family rental fundamentally changes that character by increasing the density, the turnover, and the transient occupancy,
making it less attractive to families and long-term residents. Importantly, the zoning, I'm sorry, our street parking is very congested. Residents on our street are already forced to park far from their homes. It's especially dangerous for elderly and disabled neighbors, particularly in winter
conditions where the snow removal and disposal are also a big issue and getting stuck. So, um, importantly, the zoning commission has already uh addressed housing density through the recent resoning of the Rosendale Square corridor. that squares and streets
initiative was designed to concentrate multif family development near the transit and business areas while preserving the surrounding residential side streets like ours granting this variance directly contradicts that planning intent most importantly the applicant has not
demonstrated a legitimate hardship which is required under article 7 at the utter meeting no unique hardship was identified a variance should not be granted for financial gain >> thank you ma'am >> this variance would also wrap Thank you.
Okay. So, someone made a motion. Now, can let's let's start over. Can someone make a motion? >> Uh, I'll make a motion of approval. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Mr. Stebridge? >> Yes. >> Mr. Valencia? >> Yes.
>> Miss Turner? >> Yes. >> Miss Betterazzo? >> Yes. >> Miss Panado? >> Yes. >> Mr. Collins? >> Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. >> Thank you very much. Thanks.
>> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Next we have case BOA 1782400 with the address of 20 C Street. >> Sorry Madam Chair, I need to recuse.
>> Okay. So we are now a six member board. If the applicant and or their representative are present, would they please explain the case to the board? >> Hi, I'm Lita Maxwell and this is uh my partner Jennifer. Uh we're the owners of
20 Cotton Street and we are seeking to do um about a 350 square foot addition off the back of our house which goes outside of our normal build zone. We have uh five kids in our blended family. I'm looking at them if it's a snow day
here and um we just need a little more space and we would like to do the addition uh for room for us so that as we age we can uh stay in the home. So it's a pretty small project um and we've received no opposition from uh neighbors
just strong support from the people uh right around us. Happy to answer more questions but better to be brief I think. >> Thank you. Are there questions from the board? Hearing none may have public testimony. >> Madam chair and members of the board,
for the record, my name is Jeremy Benbury. I'm the Roslandale community engagement specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process which consisted of an abuters meeting facilitated on October 15th. Very well received by the neighborhood with the Butters voicing support for the proposal. Next, the proposal was presented to Longfellow Area
Neighborhood Association and with no opposition completed the community process. To date, our office has not received any further community feedback at this time. Thank you for your time and the mayor's office of nuclear services would like to defer to the board for their judgment. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Madam Chair. There are no additional
comments. >> Okay. With that, may I have a motion? >> Madam Chair, I'd like to put for a motion of approval. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Mr. Stumbridge? >> Yes. >> Mr. Valencia?
>> Yes. >> Miss Turner? >> Yes. >> Miss Benza? Yes, >> Miss Bonado. >> Yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck. >> Thank you so much. >> Next, we have case BOA1614957
with the address of 378 to 380 center street. If the applicant andor their representative approach, would they please explain the case? >> Please see anyone for 378 Center Street. >> Yeah, we come back to that, Madam Chair.
>> Sounds about right. Thank you. With that, we'll move on to case BOA 179 8286 with the address of 659 Park Avenue.
The applicants and the representative are present. Would they please explain the case to the board? 659 High Park Avenue. >> No, I don't see >> and we'll return to that one also.
And next we have case BOA 142 7993 with the address of 9 Batch Elder Street. If the applicant and or the representative present, would they please find the case for?
>> Uh this is Dr. Morris. I'm present. Can you hear me? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. So, basically, I bought uh Nine Back Shoulder Street number two in 2023. Um the uh previous owner had bought the
building and was flipping it and he had um applied for a curb cut and he had made the driveway and and the unit was listed as having parking and he said that he would have the uh parking
approved by the time that the closing occurred but that didn't happen. The curb cut wasn't completed. So you have a situation which there's a fully built driveway that can't be used because of the lack of the curb cut which results in tenants parking on the street. So if
the ZBA granted the curb cut approval there wouldn't be any um um increased parking on the street by doing that. Um and you the plans are are in front of you and you can see where the proposed curb cut is.
Are there questions from the board? >> Is there parking on that street where the curb cut would occur? Cars are allowed to park there currently on the street. >> Yes. I mean because because there's no curb cut then yes cars are legally allowed to park there and is the curb.
But what I'm saying is be like my tenants when they when they parked in the driveway there was a $150 citation. So they don't park in the driveway at all. They park on the street. >> Um, just to be clear, you're saying a driveway already exists. >> Yes.
>> And to and to park on the driveway right now, you have to drive over the curb. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> So, it's not really a driveway. Well, I mean, you could easily go over and park on the driveway, but yes, it's not a driveway until you have the curb
cut because because especially after getting the $150 citation, you know, nobody wants to park there. I don't want tenants parking there cuz I'm the one who had to pay that citation. So, I said, "No, you know, >> and and I'm also to understand that it's
paved." >> Yes, >> paved. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions from the board? >> No, but I mean, are we going to hear from the city? I mean, typically we don't approve
removing a space on the street for creation of tandem parking. Um, which is also we we have we have BPD's recommendation, but I'm happy to hear from Mr. Hampton directly if that's what
you want. Mr. Mr. Hampton, are you available? >> I am. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. Jeff Hampton, City of Boston Planning Department. Our issue with this isn't so much with the driveway and the curb cut. It's that there's no grass.
Like just our, you know, cursory review of it. The entire property is paved over where it wasn't at some point in time. We don't know when this driveway went in. Um, but when you look at, you know, just a cursory uh review from Google
Earth, the entire site is paved. And that's our opposition because there was a tree there and now it's gone. There's no shade, there's no permeable pavers, nothing. So, that's where our denial comes from. Not so much from a driveway point of view, but because usable open
space, which may have been a zoning issue as well. when you look at, you know, how this is all laid out. So, >> um I the the any removal of trees and stuff was done before my purchase, you
know, so there hasn't been any any removal of trees since both of both of the units were purchased around the same time. I think the the unit number one was in December of 2022 and my unit's purchase was in February
of 2023. So, and then unit one has since been resold to somebody else, but you know, the it was a, as I told you, the previous owner had done a flip and you know, he was the one who would have been responsible for, you know, removing any
trees and stuff. that that's not that's not on the on the on the trustees of the new association. >> Oh, the plans that we're looking at, Madam Chair, from December of 2022. I know that's when but that's that's
when the prior I told you when I bought the place the the owner had submitted plans for for consideration and there's no change in the in the plans because the exact work is still going to be the same doing the curb cut
you know so so I got the plans that were you know because the you know what we're talking about is just the curb cut I can show you the picture of the of the of the property as it is I have the zoom presentation that went to the community of butters meeting that shows the the
the the external view. >> Can I ask a question madam chair? >> Of course, please. >> Okay. Um would you be open to um uh removing a lot of the impermeable
surface that you have now in regards to all the pavement? >> Hold on. I think you should take a look at the photo. Let me bring up my Z. Is it possible for me to share the screen? >> You're you're not able to share screen. I I think I think where Miss Better Braz
is going with with this is to remedy the uh all the the pavement the paved surface, >> all the asphalt surface that you have. uh you know to um to to apply a little bit more of permeable surface um a
little bit more green grass uh rather or would you be open to that? >> Well, I mean I I I think that because when I had sent uh Mr. Bren the the Zoom presentation. I think you should take a
look at what the actual current state is because I'm not even sure you know if the if BPD is relying on Google Street View, which he says shows a tree that's not there anymore, then it shows that that's not an up-to-date reflection. And
so I would say maybe look at, you know, the slide in the presentation that shows what the current state of the property is. Or you could go to um like Red Fin, the real estate site, and and and see what the exterior is. And then we can
talk about, well, what is it that really can be done? because the only the only um um um usable grass portion would be in front of the building. Not the paved driveway on the side of the building, but but in front of the building. And I
think what happened the the changes that were done there is that when the owner of unit one u the other trustee of the association when she was and her husband were living there they they wanted minimal upkeep and they put gravel on
that. So you know if if if if what BPD wants is removal of the gravel and and and have grass there that's that that would be fine. But I I don't know what you're talking about with the terms of um the paved driveway portion. I'm not sure how you could make that
semi-permeable. I mean, it's it's concrete, you know. >> Well, it's asphalt, right? It's not concrete. It's it's asphalt. It's crushed stone asphalt. >> No. Okay. I I don't I don't want to I
>> Okay. I think I'm I think we're good. Thank you. Thank you. Uh can can I have public testimony? Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Benbury. I'm the Dorchester community engagement specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process which
consisted of an abuters meeting facilitated on January 14th with no abundance present. The proposal moved forward with no further community process required. To date, our office has not received any further community feedback at this time. 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, >> Madame Chair. Any additional comments? >> Okay. Uh, may I have a motion? >> Madam Chair, I would like to make a a motion to to approve with a proviso that
the project um adds a little bit of more landscaping and considers changing the uh impermeable surface to a more permeable surface. Thank you. Is there a second?
>> Second, >> Mr. Timberidge. >> Yes. >> Mr. Valencia? >> Yes. >> Miss Turner? >> Yes. >> Miss Bter Brazza?
>> Yes. >> Miss Panado? >> Yes. >> Mr. Collins? >> Yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you,
>> Madam Chair. Just to jump ahead and let folks know, all the hearings for 11:30 a.m. um were deferred. So, we'll go back to the two hearings
for 11:00 a.m. First being case BOA 161 4957 with the address of 378 to 380 Center Street and see if the applicant andor their
representative for this case is available. I see I see the person is here. Norberto Norbert Salgto Nolberg Salgto if you can in yourself please. This is
your case. Yeah, my uh name is uh Nolber, last name, and I'm the owner of Biva Taco Corp, located at 378 letter A Central Street, Jamaica plane.
>> And you're simply looking to remove a proviso, correct? >> No, no other changes. >> No, no other changes. Just remove the provider of the old provisor. Okay. Any question? Are there any questions from
the board? >> Let's uh take public testimony. >> Madam Chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Benry. I'm the Jamaica planning community engagement specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has been approved to move forward in the process. Our office believes the proposal being simple and
straightforward, do not require full community process and would not raise any concerns. To date, our office has received one letter expressing approval from Jamaica Plane Neighborhood Council. Thank you for your time and the mayor's office of neighborhood services would like to defer to the board for the judgment. >> Thank you manure. There are no
additional comments. >> Okay. With that, may I have a motion? >> Motion to approval. >> Second. Thank you. M Stebridge. >> Yes. >> Mr. Valencia. >> Yes. >> Miss Turner.
>> Yes. >> Miss Better Brazo? >> Yes. Miss Panado, >> yes. >> Mr. Collins, >> yes. >> Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck, sir. And finally, we'll ask again about case
BOA 179 8286 with the address of 659 Hide Park Avenue. See if there is anyone present to represent the case. I don't think there is anyone from
>> He's He's on the phone. >> He's on the phone. >> Yeah, it's Ivan the um he's listed his iPhone. >> Do you know is the number? >> There's no number. His his name is up there.
Fernandez iPhone in the attendee session. You just have to press star six to unmute himself. >> Ivan Moro Fernandez. >> Yes, that's for this case. >> I give you the as to yourself. Um,
>> Ivan Morucho Fernandez. >> Yes. Hi, >> we can hear you. >> Okay. Hi. Good afternoon. My name is Ivan Moro Fernandez. >> Can you let us know what you're
requesting today? trying to legalize back garage at 659 Hyper. >> I'm Yeah, I'm representing Rafael Bones, the owner. >> So, this is an existing existing garage.
What what do you mean by legalize the garage? And now it's existential. >> No, it's no. It doesn't exist currently. >> Okay. So, they're So, they're looking to
build a garage. No. So, yes, there is a garage there and he's trying to legalize. >> Okay. Okay. So, Okay. So, he's not looking to do anything different. It's already there. >> No, it's the same.
>> He's trying to remedy or correct >> a violation. >> Mhm. >> All right. Any any other questions from the board? Let's take public testimony. Can we look through it because we haven't seen it? >> Okay. Yeah.
>> Yeah. Can we just look through the pages? Yeah. Thank you. >> Can the ambassador just scroll? >> Just go through the page. Yep. Perfect. Thank you. >> Great. Thank you. That's good.
>> Okay. Any other questions from the board? >> So, the garage exists. It needs repairs. >> No, it's already built. He's trying to um put it on a record. >> I think they built it without
>> authorization. Correct. >> Built it first. Ask questions later. So the foundation isn't a question basically. I I I thought I heard that come up. >> Okay.
>> May I have public testimony? >> Madam chair and members of the board. For the record, my name is Jeremy Benbury. I'm the browser community engagement specialist for the office of neighborhood services. The applicant completed the community process which consisted of an abundance meeting facilitated on December 15th with no abunders present and completing the
community process. To date, our office has not received any further community feedback. Thank you for your time and the mayor's office of neighborhood services would like to defer to the board for their judgment. >> Madame chair, there are no additional comments. >> Madam Chair, can I ask a question? Um,
uh, to the applicant. Um, was he not aware that he needed to submit for permitting for his garage? I want to be able to for the record so people know that just appearing in front of the zoning board doesn't necessarily
mean an an easy pass, but we want to understand how we can improve communications to homeowners to know that there is a process anytime you build something. So if someone um I'll leave it to Ju, you know, I can
communicate with the applicant, but I think it's best if we have a translator. So for everyone. >> Sure. Okay. So Ian, >> okay. Um, sorry. Can you just >> Yeah. So just basically to ask like what
what um did did he not understand a process that before you built something >> you have to be you know you have to ask for permission like how can we enhance better communications to homeowner that's a proc you know of this process
Speech. Speech. Speech. All right. So, it looks like the previous owner he had had one permit, right? But they didn't know that it was no com the full permit that they needed for this. >> Yeah. They probably applied for a shore
permit not knowing that it also needed probably structural and it's an alteration. Okay. Thank you. You know, I think it's important, Madam Chair, for the just the record that, you know, coming in front of us doesn't immediately, you know, provide a permission to do something to correct an
error of a violation. Okay. Thank you. >> Any other questions from the board? >> Yes. Quickly, just to ensure that uh the hearings are welcoming to everyone. Jesus, could you please ask the applicant if he requested interpretation or if anyone from ISD offered
interpretation for this hearing? No, no, no. is the All right. So, >> you want to clarify for the rest of us? I I think I think I understood him. >> Oh, yeah. Oh, sorry. >> I'd like to make sure that he he he wasn't aware that this was a this
service is available in ISD. So, he didn't request previously this interpretation. Um but actually this is something of the things that I can support the community as well. If you need I'm happy to to follow.
>> Thank you. >> Okay. >> Okay. With that, may I have a motion? >> Madam Chair, I'd like to put forward a motion of approval. >> May I have a second? I >> second. >> Mr. Stumbridge?
>> Yes. >> Mr. Valencia? >> Yes. Miss Turner, >> yes. >> Miss Bavarazza, >> yes. >> Miss Ponado, >> yes. >> Mr. Collins, >> yes.
>> Chair votes your motion carries. Good luck, sir. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you to everyone. I think that's a wrap. >> Thanks. So, thank you. Thank you for having