--------- Mr Stembridge project manager Mr. Valencia Mistretta Brazel Miss
Turner Miss Panaro as Madam Chair Mr Collins President Mr Barroso the maybe you can start
Mr Stembridge and she will join us here. Madam Chair we left off at the eleven clock cases the last two were prepared in case you were
there for until June so that will take us to the discussion cases scheduled for eleven thirty and even though we have four oh ask again if there are any requests for withdrawal
of referrals from there on third down from here and none then you will begin with the first two cases which are
companion cases schedule for a lot of third CHA case VOA one six nine zero four eight two with the address of nine to
ninety to the shower room and along with that we have Case Etowah one six nine zero four eight four with the address of ninety four to one hundred
per share growth here. I just thought I would just ask if Mr Barroso is back with us. Yes I am sorry. OK perfect thank you. Onto the applicant Dunwood that will ask the applicant for a
visa and or the representative of present for the education. Yes thank you Mr Sandbridge Madam Chairman Mr Bowen Attorney Ryan Spetz with Ms Amarante business address one sixty eight Street first floor South Boston joining me today is the applicant Patrick McKenna in the project
architect Sangala. The current site consists of an existing single structure on a twenty thousand and fifty square foot line which will raise to a two new multifamily buildings with town style homes
on the same parcel with an address of nineteen ninety two Perthshire in the second following address will be ninety four to one hundred. CARGILE wrote the plan for ninety to 92 per schriro will be to a new two and a half storey two unit residential
building that will each contain three bedrooms. The plan for ninety four through one hundred PERTZYE a role will be to a new two and a half storey four unit residential building that will each contain three bedrooms as well. There will be a total of eight great parking spaces located in
the middle of the two buildings. Parking will be accessed by relocating an existing curve to the left hand side of the parcel with the width of twelve point two feet will have over a 20 foot wide access to the rear four units for fire access. The proposal is located within
a two hour five thousand subdistricts all six units will be approximately one thousand square feet containing a dining room, living room, bath and a bedroom on the first floor. Second floor will contain two bedroom two bath in the half storey will contain a small office space base which will
contain utilities and storage. We have the following violations for 90 to 92 Perthshire Road front yard setback the minimum required set back as twenty feet in the proposal is that approximately ten point one feet which aligns with a mobile set back in the area and would bring this
project into consistent with the surrounding area. We have two violations for Ostry parking. First the parking ratio in this area is one point seventy five per new unit of housing and the project total cost for eight parking spaces between the six units. However, the site is twenty
three miles away from Opsware which provides multiple MTA bus routes further this proposal is aligned with the mayor's initiative at reducing dependency on private vehicles. Second article fifty one at fifty six point five requires fifty percent of the proposed parking spaces to be at least
seven feet by 18 feet while the remaining must be at least eight point five feet by twenty feet. The proposal design calls for one at twelve feet by 19 feet and the other seven at nine feet by 19 feet which if approved the design of those spaces could be addressed
during design review to a more dwelling units on the same model. No dwellings should be built behind another on the same parcel however the proposed buildings exceed the required spacing. The minimum side yard is ten feet in the proposed distance between the two buildings is
more than twenty feet. Lastly, the unique shape of this loft makes it different to create a different layout as the law is two hundred and three feet long and it has a frontage of only sixty seven point eight nine feet. This layout makes it a viable option for maximizing the use for the creation of new
housing. The proposed F.A.A. hours of point eight and we are at a point twenty five. What is allowed by code? Hold on I'm so sorry. Disregard that one. That was a an hour on my end. Disregard that last comment
building height is under the code at twenty point eight. Sorry I once one second I just bear with me one second okay so those four violations that we are moving on to the next violations for ninety four to one hundred percent I wrote we
have a huge violation this proposal falls within a to have some district and the total amount of units being proposed to six units on a very large parcel which is forbidden but aligned with the planning goals to increase the housing stock. We had a flurry of vague ratio violations. What I was getting at a point
six compliance within this district and the proposal calls for a point seven five which is consistent to most lots in this area we do have a we are compliant and the feet as we are thirty five feet but we do have a slight violation in stories at this at this parcel, this building the sites grade
change mitigates any high concerns that this portion of the law which sits at the lower rate than the area fronting for Child Road. So as you can see from that elevation we are in three stories there and a portion of it we do have a violation. Thirty feet is required in the project proposes six feet.
We have a lot with minimal fifty feet as required in the project proposed a lot with the sixty eight point two two feet which was cited because the shared driveway includes walkways as two hundred feet which does not meet the 500 foot requirement. However under Article two the lock with is defined as the
shortest horizontal distance between the sidewalk lines in this definition does not exclude driveways. Therefore this should not have been cited again. We have two or more dwellings on the line for the reasons previously stated off street parking design front yard parking shall not be located in
any part of the front yard. However, due to the design of this project the shared parking place between the two structures which resulted in this violation again we have another off street parking insufficiency again for the same reasons as previously stated and lastly we have conformity of the existing building alignment the lost
size the front make it difficult to conform. It would not be feasible for all six of these units to front PERTZYE a road given that information manager, I'm going to turn it back over to the board and and apologize for the for miss misconstruing some of those violations at the beginning of this.
Are there any questions from the board? Are there any images your plants yet? Misael, you have the full set of plans if she can. I just could you just go
through thank you. Yes. Just would be helpful if you had talked while you were you want me to walk through the design? Yeah. We have Mark Santigold Cantabile. You know he didn't run from the quick design of the building itself here. I know in the past I think I
think the the person who was handling this least at this point I think she's fairly new to scroll through the drawings typically is make presentations they usually just scrolling through to show you aren't. So next time I'll I'll be more aware of that and I can just highlight specific pages as I go to my presentation.
So Mark, if you want to be just kind of run through the design. Yeah. And how is Firaxis access to that back building so on the left hand side of that driveway there is a 20 foot wide access way which is required by the code in order to access the RAM
we are compliant under code. So why don't we start right here with a drawing A to this drawing shows of some neighborhood context and kind of shows a density relationship between our project and the rest of the neighborhood. You can see it's of in line
with the density the rest of the neighborhood and what we strove for we originally had proposed nine units kind of modern small houses and the neighbors really didn't want anything to do with that. So we scaled back to six and made it more contextual project.
If we go to the next slide so you can you can see the the elevations of the project and on top there's an overview next slide some more elevations and
go to the next some of the units are of twenty by fifty so there are a thousand square feet for each footprint. There are relatively small units twenty twenty three sixty
five on the front and a twenty five hundred on the rear will go to the next that's the last one. Let's go back up to the site site plant so right here you can and that yeah.
So here you can see an image of the of what we're proposing. The idea was to do something very contextual on the street which blended into the neighborhood access drive on the left and centralized the parking so it wouldn't be completely visible from the street. It actually works out pretty well for the site design.
Go down to the next slide. So here you see the landscape plan, the access drive on the left, the centralized parking, the townhouse units, the autonomous units in the rear and the two in the front. The side slopes about ten feet
from the front to the back. So the the rear units are kind of like a walk out situation on the rear that's about it basically. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Any other questions from the board here me of public
testimony, Madam Chairman, board member see also at the mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services this particular completed though and that's a community process our office hosted an important meeting on May 22nd twenty twenty four which was heavily attended and which prompted a revised proposal. A second of Buttars meeting was held on August seven twenty
twenty four which concerns persisted about insufficient parking that the proposal involves building too close to the property line and the loss of a mature tree. The proposal was presented to the bargain Olsztyn Improvement Association which is the active civic group in this area and that group support with that background we defer judgment to
the board. Thank you. As one hand Anabella Mamchur members of the board Annabell comes in the Bagnasco Improvement Association the
applicant presented to Ibolya twice first day presented and there was concerns with the training the driveway location ,the trash, the parking and how it was set. They went back they moved the driveway to the other side
which was requested by the neighbors. They said one of the trees they trim they worked on the trash locations. They worked on the parking and for the most part the neighbors came back to the second meeting and we're pretty much happy with the work that they made to
change to accommodate their requests and to be able to to support us. We are very much in support of this project because it does provide family style housing that is much needed in the neighborhood. Thank you. There's no other Hans that may
have a motion Imam. I'll make a motion to approve with the Planning Department Design Review. It seems like there may be some need to take a look at the walkway to the units and the
shared parking and increasing permeable surfaces where a second Mr Stembridge yes, Mr. Valencia. Yes.
Has been Broza and I'm going to vote no for the zoning violation of building two to two separate units on one lot looking at the site plan it looked not to be in context
with the neighborhood typologies I think you can do a larger kind of dense building and it being cited better you lose Turner Yes. This problem.
Yes, Mr. Owens. Yes, Chairman. Yes. The motion carries good luck. Thank you. Thank you. Have a nice day next to the next case in the hallway one
one one five zero seven one with the address of ninety three Howard Avenue is the applicant and they represented the former president. The president pointed out everyone Madam Chair, members
of the board they need to now since eleven thirty must been a long day for everyone I'm here to present again four ninety three Howard Avenue. This was a smart card reader I
would like to build nine units. Would you guys like me to share my screen about you? Can I share your screen but you can walk us through the plans that you submitted. >> I submit plans to develop on my line which partial one you
zoom in here yet partial one at and it's to build nine units originally when I went through the zoning and civic meeting I got overwhelming support from DC nine overwhelming support
from the neighborhood and as I mentioned in my previous meeting my biggest concern was my neighbor to my right. I'm standing directly at my property there are there specific slides I want to direct?
I'm not sure what you can see and we see what you submitted so that's all I that's all I can say. We're looking at it. I'm on page I'm on page one. If you go to page seven you can see what it's what it looks
like so we ask you for specific signs of something that in particular that you're looking looking we just want something to look at while you're talking that makes sense. That's what you're talking about. So please feel free to proceed .
Are you are you seeing the nine units? Yes, I'm asking that are you looking at the screen like we are or are you not looking at the screen? Only screen that I can see is your face OK? Well, I think I'm I'm not sure what to say other than many to
change your view how you're viewing the screen as the representation is up. >> So there's a little button that says view on a top. Right. And you can do like side by
side gallery or standard if you move your arrow to the top you'll see that you when I see you I see a gallery I when I look gallery I just the other one's face I don't see inside
side side by side gallery and you can see I don't have an option for a side by side gallery it's just show me speaker gallery and then it goes into high so is here not is he not promoted as a panelist is that why now he's
finished? Well is there a standard I mean I'm on standard shows me plans if I may interject I'm not sure how he would enter the room. I was asked to send the link so I simply copy from the events page I'm not sure but that may
help with any information. I'm not sure he has a panelist . Yeah, I mean I'm not missing here so if anybody knows how to get him to that would be
helpful. You can OK Cameron says to try signing in and out now what link would I be using the signing? You know I had yes.
Stephanie, this is Daniel Economicus suggestion. Please gather Gary if you have your plans, could you just let staff know about it and a one four so we looking at the same thing that you're looking at
the same page on the plan. Do you have a copy bands that you're looking at me are you speaking to me? Yes. Yes, I do have a copy of my friends on my computer. So at the bottom of your plan
it has a warrant out for whatever page it can you just let staff know what page to look at it the same thing that you're looking at as you go. So I'm looking at maybe that helps. I'm looking at a one three right now. So if I students go back up to
the beginning which is dog zero is that right now she has a one eight one dog and one dog are showing me the third floor plan. Are you seeing thirty four point four eight one three
yeah. Perfect. So I guess I would like to start with D o zero and then I could work my way down and as I am I'll keep you I'll let you guys know what I'm looking at. Is that all right with everyone perfect.
Thank you so so originally the plan was to build to to knock down my property and build 12 units and that was approved the civic community meetings
everybody you know, supported me. Yes. And I supported me my neighborhood supported me. The only pushback that I received was to the matriarch of our neighborhood with the mission statement and she's to the right of me if I'm standing
right with the property and it was a push back in a way of just saying no. It was more so in a way of full respect for her. She said, you know, she's called me and she's like, hey, you know, if you take your your
family's property it'd be a lot of noise and she's elderly and I respected that. I said All right, got it, came back, took a look at and say look, I said just make 12 units, we'll go to nine. We don't have to you know, we
don't have to do a demo and just that was out of respect for her. So I came back here you guys deferred it out because you originally wasn't review zoning. I meant I I I met with Mark met
with Mr. Williams Paul Williams in terms of the commissioner deputies and let them know hey look this is what I'm this changes my what's your current proposal? Can you start my also just if we get the twelve units
everything's been approved they've got the support it's just been deferred several times on on your in units or nine units because I'm sorry that we have nine units of nine units. Correct. Sorry my apologies. Can you just walk through the
violations the violations was parking we are giving support to it. We are addressing the parking situation. We do have parking in the rear three parking spots the spacing
in terms of height we're addressing that by digging lower so it would be in compliance and my architect was here earlier just because of how the day planned out. He had no other business to
attend to so I'm the only one here I'm on currently. Jason, you and someone who is must be considered board members question about what the violations are.
Yes, sorry. So there is a violation for off street parking for parking in the and a parking size. We are deficient in a number of parking spaces. We're proposing nine dwelling
units and three and I guess if you go down a slide you can see that you can see the three unit three parking spaces that were proposing at the rear of the building. So those are the parking issues. We are a bit excessive on our
favor I think I think point eight is permitted. I think we're at one we're a little deficient in our usable open space. We are within the excuse me we're outside of the side yard set backs.
So that's another relief item we're looking at none other than that. It's really just that the density on the front yard yard side side setback we're looking at. So you mentioned parking so you're at three a.m. to park.
We are required to have nine spaces OK got nine nine dwelling units of nine spaces because the units are only one bed units. We feel as if we feel it accurately represents the deficiency again we've got nine
single bed units and three parking spaces provided with questions from the board hearing none the public testimony Madam Chair and members of the board for the
record my name is Jeremy Bambury from the Roxbury Community Engagement Specialist for the Office Neighborhood Services. At this time of office I would like to request a referral for the stepfather and community process regarding changes to the proposal the proponent due to a Partizan to the Square Neighborhood Initiative approximately one year ago due
to the time and changes that have been made and not been presented to the community, your office at further community community process would allow for the public square Neighborhood Association community to approve the changes necessary which we just
just to be clear he's been presenting twelve and not the nine and that's that's why you're requesting the different ma'am. You're OK. Thank you Mrs. Other recent you
say your name sir your name and you state your name for the record Katie Brown. Hi my name is Mandy Avon from eighty seven hundred eighty seven Howard Avenue not just
State and just listening to Mr. Promotor speaking this is this is the first time that Mr. Batbold anything about change
in about anything all the thing that I just got to talk about is when he removed my property like in his face against my
hands when I was on and I just discussed that with you and he didn't say anything about you would change it or go how apartment building. But he don't have no space. I could go where so that's what
I was concerned about about this space. They threw me out in the park and called Quiddity in his driveway is a little on my property.
So Cadel's I know he was changing now that slide but he didn't say anything about his property just how big wrong. So it couldn't be a lot
of blasting away and didn't he don't have enough space where he be you even nine definitely twelve and but Mr. Barbosa had discussed with it explained to
him but he's a nice fellow all are this stuff it's new and I've been here you've been on my property like sixty two years so a bold move name
of baby. Thank you. Could change you know I don't know I can't understand where he goes. We're already gone. It's so we thank you for playing Blake.
We have and we didn't even talk to me about it and I want telling you I'm trying to tell him the law and everything how he expects jammed it up against my fan after he removed the
property of my you know, to him next. Don't you show him how the property line is. Thank you, ma'am. Mr. Hampton, are you on can you shed some light? Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. Members of the board Jeff
Hampton City, Boston Planning Department we haven't seen him do refuse a letter from my esteemed nor the new plants or night units. Our original recommendation for this project the Twelve Unit Count was for denial without prejudice and we base that a lot because the the size of the
building the height of the building was the reasoning for it. And since we haven't seen the new plant or letter from ESTIE nor sent you a recommendation on the new proposal, I'd like to echo the sentiment of oh
what s did ask her deferral on this case. My question about those I reached out to you guys several times I've been to Eiseley twice. I spoke to both commissioners, the deputy commissioner and they were both approved and it seems like the ball was dropped
on your end and it's a bit frustrating to me. I've thought this process about a year ago and when I went out there wasn't I didn't receive a denial. I was never denied I was never informed of the denial at again
my while I'm back here is Mrs. ABIM. How are you doing this Ed? I didn't notice she was on my reasoning for the change was strictly because of my neighbor and the noise and respect for her.
So for you to tell me here that you know you didn't receive the changes is very it if you make changes to your project and what you said that you need to go through the committee process. I did. I did. I went through I went through it and again they told me
specifically since I'm decreasing the number of units that this small again I spoke with Paul Williams there and I said back to the merits of that, sir. But according to onis and your letter that has not been the case. So but in any case, are there
any other public comments before we proceed, Lisa? No, there's not an arms race, OK? Are there any other questions from the board? I mean no questions. But I think that if we were to defer this case I would
encourage Stephanie as well to coordinate with Barbosa and to let him know that he would need to resubmit these plans with the update reduction of unit. But for him to if someone can
assist him because there is merit for his reduction and his conversation, maybe this is an opportunity. Well, Mr. Barbosa, to just talk to your neighbor but at least we heard her present in terms of a testimony I would
encourage that there would be more communication to help this applicant with that was I've been upset that zoning board three times with an attorney on three different occasions and spoke to both of your commissioners about this and I'm very frustrated about that
process. You guys dropped the ball. I'm frustrated and waited here for three and three hours to be heard. It seems a bit a bit frustrating to me and I would like to express my I know just
frustration but again not mad at you guys, just the process within itself. Like I submit this I've met with you guys physically when up there with an attorney twice twice sat in that office and I was the took the time out of my things to go sit up there to
come in here and for you guys to tell me that you don't believe that you have the plans which I emailed it to you physically walked it up there and met with both commissioners and they had they looked at it we looked at it together. I see sir noted no there's no I
would like to make a motion to defer but to get the next hearing from Mr. Barboza and hopefully his process can be expedited a well is better because I don't have enough
time to do that because the next hearing is next Tuesday. So you need a month to review I we need a couple of weeks. I mean we're still doing the stuff for next week and get a new plan and you know, I would
suggest maybe what's the next Tuesday the 20th May 20th? Well, I'm going to bring I don't get to make that choices right. That's up to you. I'm going to I'm going to ask Mr. Emery if he's still on because he asked for a deferral because of community process.
I'd like to understand how much time is needed for that. I don't think it's just a matter of getting up to plans. It sounds to me like the neighbors have heard this new version so it would not behoove the applicant to come to an
immediate hearing without that peace having occurred. Yes, Madam Chair, we do request that the proponent visit the Dundies neighborhood initiative
and present the changes to the Civic Association. We do feel that that would be the that would satisfy the committee the process when their next meeting. That information would have to be gathered did not gather information before the museum
but it's not going to be in the next week or two. Let's does that sound about right that would assume to be accurate. Yes, ma'am. OK then so so perhaps we can look at another date, Stephanie that allows for this piece of process but better so just
to be clear we would need one community one additional community meeting obviously for the plans to be up to the planning department and I as D has the plans.
Is there anything else that might I'm missing? I mean we do have we did hear the testimony. We do have the plans in front of us. What we don't have is BP's recommendation but we could
make a motion to have additional input also. But yes, that is what I I am so sorry concern is that this is obviously what members at this time, sir, as I have known is
that I'm sorry but we just said that he didn't have this is better just said that we're looking at the plans this you guys are contradicting yourselves and Mr. Obvious now we're trying to take care.
OK, so OK. So let's have a motion with a date. We need a date from Stephanie. I'm sorry but we Jeremy I'm so, so sorry Mr. Embry. Yes, Madam Chair.
I do believe that they they meet the last Thursday of the month. OK, so that would be late May. So we're talking about the earliest in June. So Stephanie had mentioned several June dates will have to
be June 3rd, June 3rd in the early days the earliest. OK, so who is making that motion deferral mantra I like to put forward motion of deferral for June 3rd because their second Mr.
Stembridge yes. Mr. Valencia. Yes, Miss Bedrosian. Yes. Miss Turner. Yes. Miss Fernado. Yes. Mr. Collins. Yes. Chairman.
Yes. The motion carries you that Miss Don. One quick question. I appreciate everybody, madam. So the deferral there in the meantime between I know we didn't get a date for a community meeting.
Should I just know what I heard? Not immediately. I suggest you reach out to Mr. Bambury to work with the Civic to get on that next agenda and it sounds like Dede needs those plans which they do not have
and I think that's what I heard . Thank you very much. Thank you very much. A couple of things. Yeah, I'm sorry I didn't hear the next day that I'm meeting is the 20th of May so that's
why we said June 3rd and if I'm not sure I know this will be a brief discussion but can we move this up to nine to the first case of nine thirty here ? So so he we will have to wait
to go through all this later in the day again, that's a great point. And I'm that's that's a staffing question in terms of questions about how is this happening is fine to do until
nine thirty great. You just have to make that announcement. I'll give questions that she critics she suggested thank you. So yeah and I would say I was in the meantime a Super Bowl so it's OK for you to also go out of your way to meet with your
Buttars just in case any in things anything happens with association. We know you're your liaison as advocated on your behalf and you just and you just checked all the boxes and you should be good to go on June. Thank you all and I'll certainly meet with my
neighbor. I appreciate your time. I'm sorry for your frustration. Nobody expressed rest here today. It's just been well thank you. Thank you. Yes we have in case VOA one six
five three one eight to put the address of fifty nine was out before two attorneys call to Yes. Good afternoon Madam Chairman I
was looking for attorney small business a fifty one Dobsonville here today. I love being with me today is Mr. José Guzman was the architect for the project we're here today said he relates to change the legal occupancy
of the building from a two family dwelling to four residential units. There's only seven Mr. Keres as multifamily residential and our land size is two thousand one hundred sixteen square feet and our zoning violations as
follows if they are required if they are to point out we are proposing two point three with regard to the real set back we are set back requirements twenty feet we are proposing 17 feet. I'll turn it over to José and
he can go to the plans and I think most of the questions will be answered then that José Yanto good afternoon.
My name is something of mine I I'm the architect of record on fifteen on Wooster Street Project Project at the front is three and a half stories at the rear elevation drops and it reaches additional story it's
to walk out basement career it has dormers at the front of the building and with the emergency escape railings at at the on the front and the rear is Mr
Turnbull said it's currently a to family and we're looking to convert it to a four one bedroom apartment that if you go to the the next drawing next slide.
So here we're proposing three parking spaces at the rear just the rear like I said it's one storey lower in the front and we just go to the next one. I appear at some point the the
two family was converted to a multi-family and in the basement was a studio apartment and mechanical room at the front. We are doing away with the the studio apartment and making it storage. If you go to the next slide
skip this that's so there's no living space in the basement. Yeah. So let's go to the next next slide next page Gleeks next one . OK, so here are the proposed
Elevation's there are no existing sorry keep you going not one more. These are existing conditions. OK, here we go. So this is the proposed basement. You can see that there's a storage at the rear with a rear
entrance pane back courtyard with parking and then we have at the front of the building we have a mechanical room with laundry room and additional storage and a sprinkler room on the on the first floor is the
first unit it's it's a one bedroom where they walk out porch at the back. So that's what we're proposing a porch on every level where they exit stairway going from the upper level down to great. The second floor is almost
identical to almost identical to the first floor. It's again it's own one bedroom with a porch. We go to the next slide and that's OK. And then on the third floor it's again a one bedroom with a
living space walk out porch with a single stair that goes down to the great and then at the upper level is a smaller unit because it's a smaller unit because of the front it's a massive roof and so the
square footage is less than in the lower levels there we go to the next on this is as much Section two girls as Section eight to point to.
So the front of the building is to your left and that's Wooster Street on the right is the alley that provides access to the parking to the three parking spaces where the steel staircase goes up to the upper
levels within that they are also what we are proposing a shed roof the rear of the of the building that runs the full width of the building. There are currently shed dormers on the two adjacent
neighbors and on the front we're going to keep the existing dormers as they are no changes to the front facade other than to introduce Reilley for the for the student ornamental tree.
Next slide please. So this is the front of the building. You can see here that there some notations but basically
we're putting in new windows painted black. There can be black windows to windows is it's already been reviewed and approved by historical commission. So both the front and the back unit and next slide and this is
the rear you're looking at the rear with the new steel porch. It goes to or from the basement level. That's a great all the way up to the upper level and you can see here the proposed dormer that is from side to side and
on each side are existing or so . Do you have any questions any questions from the board just just want to know about say we did go before the South and landmarks the railings, the windows and doors were all
approved. So thank you. Are there any questions from the board hearing? None. We have public testimony. Good afternoon, Madam Chairman. My name is David Jones representing the mayor's office and neighborhood services regarding 59 Wasco Street.
Our office will defer to the board's judgment on this matter . A committee process was conducted including in today's meeting held on eight nineteen twenty four which was attended by about six constituents. The primary feedback from this meeting was concerns about the historical character the neighborhood in regards to the dormer being built on the front
of the house and affecting the historical look of the building. But there was also support expressed by the constituents believing this was a good fit for the community in the neighborhood. Additionally, the proposal was reviewed and met with the Whurley Block Neighborhood Association.
At this time the mayor's office and neighborhood services defers to the board's judgment . >> Thank you for your time and consideration on this particular interest. Without me I have motion make a
motion for Mr Stembridge. Yes Mr Valencia yes is better Broza yes Mr Turner yeah. This Fernado yes.
Mr Collins yes Cherbourg's yes the motion carries thank you Madam Chair of the Board. Thank you. Thank everyone. See something from this week. I regret that vote recording
stopped Part: 2
in progress. I just want to thank Stephanie in advance. Madam Chair has a a sore throat, so I'm going to speak sparsely. Good morning. The city of Boston's own board of appeal hearings for April 29th,
2025 is now in session. This hearing is being conducted in accordance with the applicable provisions of the open meeting law, including the updated provisions enacted by the legislature this year. The new law allows the board to continue its practice of holding
virtual hearings from June 2027. This this hearing of the board is being held remotely via 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 notice page of the city website
boston.gov. Members of the public will enter the virtual hearing as attendees which mean you will not see yourself on the screen and you will be muted throughout unless administrative be unmuted when asked to comment. Board
members, applicants and their attorneys are representative will participate in the hearing as panelists as they will appear alongside the presentation material when speaking. Panelists are strongly encouraged to keep video on
while presenting to the board. As with our in-person meetings, comments in support will be followed by comments in opposition opposition. The the order of comments is as follows. Elected officials, representative of elected officials and members of the
public. The chair may limit the number of people called upon to offer comment and the time for commenting as time constraints required. 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 the 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. Sambridge reads the address into the record. Do not raise your hand before the relevant address is called or the meeting host will not know call on you at the appropriate time. I'm going to
pass it over to Madam Chair to do the roll call. Thank you. Uh Mr. Stebridge. Good morning, Madam Chair. President, good morning Mr. Valencia. Good morning. Present. Good morning, Miss Better Braza. Good morning, Madam Chair.
Present. Good morning, Miss Turner. Good morning, Madam Chair. Then good morning, Miss Ponado. Good morning, Madam Chair. Present. Good morning, Mr. Collins. Morning, Madam Chair. Present. Good morning. The floor is yours. Mr.
We'll begin with the extension scheduled for 9:30 a.m. Um, the extension all the extensions here this morning uh seem reasonable. and we'll ask after I read them all, we'll ask for a vote on them.
At that point, we'll begin with case BOA 101 9011 with the address of 22- 24 Woodbine Street. Next, we have case BOA
982435 with the address of 198 Woodro Avenue. Next we have case BOA 1183158 with the address of 99 Maverick Street. Then we have case BOA253
232 with the address of 57 Dell Dell Avenue. Next we have case BOA1446970 with the address of 207 to 209 E Street. Then we have case BOA
932 844 with the address of 192 Kstone Street. Next we have case BOA 1163709 with the address of 60- 64 St. Mal
Street. Next we have case BOA 773 858 with the address of 6 Evelyn Street. And finally, we have case BOA 1291093 with the address of 41 Williams
Avenue. And those are the extensions that we have scheduled for this morning. Thank you. Any questions from the board? If not, may I have a motion to approve the extensions as requested?
Motion to approve. there. Second, Mr. Sunbridge, yes. Mr. Valencia, yes. Miss Benza, yes. Miss Turner, yes.
Miss Pado, yes. Mr. Collins, yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Now we'll move on to the board file operator cases scheduled for 9:30 a.m. There are five of these cases. First is case
BOA1068596 with the address of 1088 Saratoga Street. If the applicant and or their representative of would they please explain to the board? Yes. Thank you Mr. Stebridge. Good morning madam chair, members of the board. Richard Linds with a business address of 245
Summer Street, East Boston on behalf of the petitioner. U Madam Chair, just by way of brief history, this was before the board in 2021. It involved a pre-existing two family structure that was uh proposed to be modified uh to four units with an addition. Uh as part
of that, relief was granted for the uh requirements for uh off streetet parking under article 53. Uh there was an original proposal to have a total of four parking spaces. Three would be located in the garage and a fourth compact space located in the rear of the
building. I do believe we have the deck here and if we could just jump to uh slide 11 that would probably illustrate what we're specifically asking for. Um the project is uh under construction currently. Um there is um u a question
as to whether or not the compact space is practical in its location. Uh the preference would be to eliminate the compact space uh and to uh allow that to be open space. The location of that compact space is very close to the property line uh and would certainly
impact uh the rear yard the abite uh neighbor. Uh so creating a buffer between the building uh and the fence would be a much more uh practical uh use for this area. Uh and we would also point out that we're in pretty close proximity uh to public transit. This is
within steps to the Oregon Heights T-station parking lot. Uh so if we yeah slide 11 would show exactly what we're looking for here. Um yeah, if we could just zoom in a little bit here. Um, so we did explore the opportunity of putting the compact space within the
garage. The only location we'd be able to put that at is sort of perpendicular to the three spaces that were approved. Uh, that creates a maneuverability issue. Uh, so we had petitioned uh through ISD plans examiner to take this before the board for the um request of
board final. As I said, the board did grant relief for insufficient off street parking. This was a twounit building. uh it was proposed to be changed to four units um and as a result uh we were required to get relief uh for the
additional uh spaces that were being additional units are being proposed uh again I would submit I feel that the uh parking issue in this particular location uh is not necessarily the biggest concern considering it's proximity to public transit but also
would uh identify this area as a better use of space for open space and screening and buffering Um, so with that, I'm happy to answer any questions uh regarding that change. Thank you. Any questions from the board? No questions. No questions. Okay.
Hearing none, may I have a motion? I'll make a motion of approval. Second. Second. Mr. Sbridge. Yes. Mr. Valencio. Yes. Miss Better Brazo? Yes, Miss Turner. Yes, Miss
Ponado. Yes, Mr. Collins. Yes, Cher. Yes. The motion carries. Good luck. Thank you very much. Next, we have case BOA 1482725 with the address of 247 to 251
Hancock Street. If staff again or dear representative present, would they please explain to the board? Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. Johanna Schneider with the law firm of Penway and Barnes, business address, 75 State Street on behalf of the applicant, AU Manager LLC.
This is a proposal to replace an existing car wash at 247 Hancock Street in Dorchester with a 47 unit residential apartment building, 100% of which will be affordable. The board approved this project in July of 2023. Since that approval, the project has undergone a
design review process with the mayor's office of housing. That process resulted in some minor refinements in order to align the project with MLH guidelines with respect to unit size. The refinements increased the gross floor area of the project from 48,000 ft to
48,488 square ft. So approximately 1% increase in size. The modal setbacks of the building for which the ZBA had previously granted relief also shifted somewhat. These changes are shown on exhibit A to our board of final arbiter submission and on the floor plans
accompanying that request. As you can see from the images that are currently being shared, um there is no perceptible difference in the appearance of the building. Um and these changes do not trigger any new zoning violations. You should also have in the record a letter of support from the mayor's office of
housing noting that all sources of funding for this project are in place and emphasizing the urgency of closing this project by June 30th, 2025. Um approval from this board of these minor changes is part of the critical path to closing um by the end of June. Based on
the foregoing, we would respectfully request that the board um approve these project changes to enable the expeditious delivery of 47 much needed units of affordable housing in the city. Thank you. Any questions from the board?
The the only question I have is um under shared drive uh did your sideyard um increase uh at all in regards to the violation? I'm looking at the 3 foot6. Did that stay the same? It stayed the
same. The only the only thing that has changed is that existing building alignment conformity. Okay, great. I don't have any further questions. Thank you. Thank you. Is there a motion? Madam Chair, I'd like to put forward a motion of approval. Is there a second?
Second. Mr. Sambridge? Yes. Mr. Balencio? Yes. Miss Better Braza? Yes. Miss Turner, yes. Miss Bonado, yes. Mr. Collins, yes. Chair,
yes, the motion carries. Good luck. Thank you. Next, we have case BOA1270458 with the address of 525 East Broadway. If the applicants and or their representative president, please report.
Yes. Good morning, madam chair, members of the board. Mark Lcast, Laccast Law, 75 Arlington Street in Boston. I represent the St. George Albanian Orthodox Cathedral in South Boston, which is immediately to the right on the image that you see here on the screen of
this Hansen building that the church also owns at 525 East Broadway. Um this board in 2023 approved conversion or restoration of that um residential structure from two family to three family um with some
minor zoning relief related to a small two-story addition on the side of the building. And if you go to slide six, that demonstrates that piece um as well as there was a proviso um of the board's prior decision to remove a rear deck on the extension at
the back of the building. So the two changes before you this morning um represent the reduction of that two-story addition on the side which was to contain bathrooms. That's being removed and a small one-story box will be for improved access to the basement.
And then the second change is that the rear deck has been removed, but an egress stair has been added for egress from the third and second floor down to the rear yard. Um, if you flip to slide six. Oh, sorry. Uh, next one. Here we
are. So, the image on the left is simply a threedimensional of the front of the building. No changes perceptible there. The image on the right shows the small now onestory box um for the basement access and the rear stairs access and
the elimination of the roof deck. And if you go to the final slide, there are some elevations which depict these two changes as well. So the lower images represent the two-story addition on the side of the building and the rear deck that the board had reviewed the prior time
approving the two-story addition and and it provides us um eliminating the rear deck. The top image shows the smaller one-story addition for basement access and the rear stair access from the upper floors. Uh neither change implicates any
further zoning relief and is otherwise consistent with the board's prior approvals. With that, I will pause for any questions. Thank you. Any questions from the board? Hearing none. Is there a motion? Yes. Second. I second. All right. Thank
you, Mr. Sambridge. Yes, Mr. Valencia. Yes, Miss Brazza. Yes, Miss Turner. Yes, Miss Panado. Yes, Mr. Collins. Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck. Thank you
kindly. Next, we have case BOA1255410 with the address of 19 Bennington Street. If the applicant and or their representative are present, would they please explain to the board? Good morning, Madam Chair, members of
the board. Attorney Ryan Gaza on behalf of the petitioner with the business address of 245 Sumar Street, Sweep 110 East, East Boston, Mass. with me on the call as well is Filix Zmel, who is the code consultant on the project. Um, as the board might recall, back in 2023,
the zoning board previously granted relief to the existing restaurant lotazza at 19 Bennington Street to update the certificate of use and occupancy to include use item 38 so as to allow live entertainment at the property operating after 10:30 p.m.
which required a conditional use permit at the site. Um, however, since that time, the restaurant has had some difficulty obtaining the updated CO um, due to some issues identified by the building department in so far as under the state building code. Um, this can
technically be considered a nightclub given the presence of low lighting levels, live entertainment, and an occupancy number of 80 persons. Um, so this would require the installation of a 72-in wide front door as well as a few
other emergency system responses at the property which are um impractical given uh physical constraints at the property itself. Um so since that time we've been working with ISD to come up with a creative solution so as to allow the restaurant to move forward. Uh and we
have put before the board today a proposal to split the occupancy of the restaurant uh by floor so that we would have an occupancy of 30 persons on the first floor and 50 persons on the second floor which would then take this outside of the state building code definition of
a nightclub and therefore allow the restaurant to move forward as intended. Um otherwise there are no physical changes at the property and nothing has changed in terms of what was presented and approved by the board back in 2023. Um so in this respect we're asking for
the board's approval today to basically divide the building's occupancy by floor and to ratify the formal relief as applying to each individual floor. Um having said that we're certainly happy to answer any questions that you all might have today. Thank you. Any
questions from the board? Hearing none. May I have a motion? Motion to approve. Is there a second? Thank you, Mr. Sambridge. Yes. Mr. Valencia, yes.
Miss Browza, no. Miss Turner, yes. Miss Panado, yes. Mr. Collins, yes. Chair both chest. The motion carries the vote. Thank you. And next we
have 830854 [Music] 0489 with the address of 26 Newberg street. If the applicant or their representative present, would they please? Yes. Um, Darwin Fortuna, uh, business
address 50 Gro Street Sweet 221 Salem, Massachusetts. Uh, representing Mr. Ricardo Hernandez, uh, on this project. Ricardo is also on the line. Um, this project was previously heard and approved by this board on March 5th,
2024. Um, for um, eight different violations regarding F, front yard, side yard, rear yard, um, and height. Um we've gone through the process of going uh before BBDA and after doing so um some changes to the attic were triggered
which uh basically increase the F front yard, side yard and rear yard requirement. Um out of the eight those are the four um that were exacerbated by this change and it was basically to make it a little bit more functional and and the look and appeal of the exterior to
work out a little bit better. Um, as I was looking at it, I actually couldn't perceive the changes too much. Um, I wasn't the architect of record at the beginning. I am now with the owner working together on that. So, if Ricardo may add to that change, he's here, uh, the owner. But, um, but that's that's
basically what's before you today. Thank you. Other questions from the board. You you received um relief for the zoning violations. It's just going through the BPD process. You are just increasing those violations
um by a little. Correct. Exactly. That's exactly what happened. Yeah. Okay. I don't have any further questions. Thank you. Thank you. Is there is there a motion? Madam Chair, I'll put forward a motion of approval. There a second. Second. Mr.
Sambridge? Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Miss Bavarza? Yes. Miss Turner? Yes, Miss Bonado. Yes, Mr. Collins. Yes, chair votes yes. The
motion carries. Good luck. [Music] Next, we'll move on to the recommendations scheduled for 9:30 a.m. These recommendations were from the U subcommittee meeting on
17th. All of them were approved. Um, so I'll read through them. and and answering the question that um the board they have. First is case
BOA 168 6131 with the address of 286 Pam Street. Yes, this was approved. Next we have case BOA168
2233 with the address of4 Eastwood Circuit which is also approved. Then we have case BOA 168602 with the address of 28 Shaw Street
approved. Case BA1 168 6290 with the address of 28 Chro Road approved. Case BOA 1662019 with the address of 118 Woodro
Avenue approved. Then we have case BOA 163 1 0 09 with the address of 857 to 861 Dorchester Avenue
approved. Then we have case BOA 1682573 with the address of 401 West for Street approved. Excuse me. And then finally we have case BOA 1667594 with the address of 68F street
also approved. Chair those cases from the sub committee. Is there a motion? I make a motion report the recommendation from the subcommittee.
Second, Mr. Sbridge. Yes. Mr. Valencia. Yes. Miss Veterza. Yes. Miss Turner. Yes. Miss Ponado. Yes. Mr. Collins. Yes. Yes. The motion
carries. Next, we will move on to the hearing scheduled for 9:30 a.m. At this time, we will ask if there are any requests for withdrawals or deferrals from 9:30.
Yes, Mr. Stebridge 87 Morris Street may turn of the 930s. So that would be for HBO 148
2368 with the address of 87 Mar Street. Would you go ahead and explain? Thank you again, Mr. Ste, Madam Chair, members of the board. Richard Linds on behalf of the petitioner business address average 245 summer streets Boston um requesting a deferral. We have
uh some G-cod items to clean up with this particular file and need additional time to do that. So looking for uh a relatively brief deferral, but certainly understand the board schedule. Before we go further, um I apologize.
These are companion there's a companion case with us also. Uh seems like um 287 Morris Streets. Yes. So if I can read that one and also uh that would be
that that is case BOA 148 2374 also with the address of 87 bar Street. Um I'm sorry. Go ahead. Yes, I'm sorry. Yeah, that was for the building
code which we're actually addressing uh and should be able to dismiss that request um at at the next hearing. But really just an issue for the G5 that we need to address. Stephanie, do you have a dates? Madam Chair, we have June 3rd, June
24th, or July 8th. Uh let's go to the 24th, please. With that, may I have a motion? Motion to defer to June 24th. Second. Second. Thank you. Mr. Stebridge.
Yes. Mr. Valencio. Yes. M Brazzo. Yes. Miss Turner. Yes. Miss Ponado. Yes. Mr. Collins. Yes. Chair votes. Yes. The motion carries. See you then. Thank you very much.
Uh any further request for Yeah. Good morning, Mr. Mr. Secretary 507 Massav so that that so this request is for case VA 1690706 with the address of 507 7
Massachusetts Avenue. Would you go ahead and approve the clip? Yes. Thank you, uh, Mr. Secretary, Madam Chair, members of the board, attorney Joe Hanley, McDerman, Quilty, Miller, and Hanley, 28 State Street in Boston. Um, this we received the the uh planning
department's recommendation um, which references uh some issues with regard to the coastal flood resilience resiliency overlay district. Um and we would like um a to ask for a brief deferral for the
opportunity to address the BPD recommendation with respect to our resiliency plans which I don't uh think were either received or reviewed as part of that recommendation. Uh Stephanie dates June 3rd, June 24th
or July 8th? Yeah, June 3rd would be great. Does that mean I have a motion? Make a motion to defer to June 3rd. Second. Mr. Sbridge. Yeah. Mr. Valencia. Yes. Miss Bter
Brazza. Yes. Miss Turner. Yes. Miss Ponado? Yes. Mr. Collins? Yes. Chair votes? Yes. Motion carries. See you then. Thank you very much. Are there any further requests for all
of the pro of 9:30? Hearing none, we'll move on then to case BOA 1687823 with the address of 25 Brown Avenue. If the applicants or their representative are present, would they
please explain the case to the board? Morning, Madame Chair, members of the board. My name is Lorraine. I'm with Simba. Uh we're here for 25 Brown. Um our clients, the homeowners are also on the call. Uh the architect on record. Doug Jack will be presenting. Doug, if
you're on here. Hi, good morning. My name is Doug Jack. As mentioned, I'm the architect for this project. Are we able to to fast forward to the other slide that shows the attic plan? Um, this may be the incorrect image.
Whoever's I'm not sure who's running the screen share, but this is not our project. Yeah, it should just be an attic renovation on my title blocky studio. Um I have it on my own screen if I'm
able to screen share. We're not able to screen share. Um yeah, I'm not sure what project that is, but that's not ours. That is fair. Maybe you can talk us through it and uh Sure. Cameron looks like he's going to look Yeah, it's a so it's a fairly straightforward proposal.
It's a single family residence at 25 Brown AB in Roslandale. Um it's an unfinished attic currently in a single family house. It's a young family. They're growing in size and they're looking to finish the attic to be a new primary bedroom suite. Um the the
request that we're asking before the board today is are two things. One is the Florida area ratio on the lot. The current lot is 3,993 ft and existing living area is 8 1,839 ft. The proposed attic would add
490 square ft of finished space to the the overall uh living space on the lot, which would make the Florida area ratio 0 58, which is a little bit above the 0.5 limit for this uh zoning district. Uh the second thing that we're asking for um approval from you all on today is
the half story of a uh attic. This is a 2 and 1 half story zoning district um is supposed to be less than half of the floor area below it. The floor area below us is 807 square ft. The attic renovation we're proposing is 490 square
ft. So we're at about 60% of the floor area below it. Um if the drawings were showing, you would see that the roof is a really generous um scale. There's a lot of space to be used up there. We've kept the the footprint of the bedroom as small as we can reasonably, but there's
a lot of space to be had and we're not touching the roof line at all. Um, so we we think this is still a modest proposal to finish out the attic to a reasonable extent without changing the character of the neighborhood. The windows on the attic are primarily existing. We're just going to replace them with the exception
of one wall that is a single window. And we're going to expand it into um three three windows to add a little bit more light into this living space. And then lastly, we're proposing to add two skylights to bring some natural light into the middle of the um the dark attic space. But again, there's no change to
the roof line and the exterior envelope. Thank you. Any questions from the board? I I don't have any questions. Um but reading the BPD recommendations, uh it's just noted that there's a F
violation just due to the extension of living space to the attic. So there's it's in terms of um in terms of any changes. Thank you. Any other questions from the board?
May I have public testimony? Madame chair and members of the board. For the record, my name is Jeremy Benbury. I am the Roslandale community engagement specialist for the office of neighborhood services. The applicant has completed the community process which consisted of an abot meeting facilitated on February 24th where voters voiced
overwhelming support for the proposal with one concern for height and construction work of parking areas. The proposal was not required to present to a civic association and our office has not received any further community feedback at this time. Thank you for your time in the mayor's office of neighborhood services would like to defer to the board for their judgment.
Thank you. Thank you. Any other raised hands? Yes. No raised hands. Okay. With that, we have a motion. Madam Chair, I'd like to put forward a motion of approval. Have a second. Second one. Mr.
Sambridge. Mr. Snbridge. Yes. Mr. Valencia. Yes. Miss Fred Brazza? Yes. Miss Turner? Yes. Miss Ponado? Yes. Mr. Collins? Yes. Chair votes yes. The
motion carries. Good luck. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Next we have case BOA 1690262 with the address of 551 to 555 Beach Street. If the applicant and or
their representative are present, would they please explain to the board? Uh thank you, Mr. Steinbridge. Uh madam chair, members of the board, uh my name is Kyle Smith of Statera Law, a business address of 359 Newbury Street, Boston's Back Bay. Uh the proposal before you uh
is for Roslandale. Uh we lie in a single family subdist requiring 6,000 ft of land for development. Uh there's a couple parcels along this stretch of Beach Street that are abnormally larger. Ours being the largest. Uh so our lot size is about
12,750 ft. So effectively double the square footage required for a single family residence. Um our unique limitation is that we have a very deep lot. So we have 85 square feet of frontage whereas 60 is required per developable lot. Uh we otherwise have a
very large footprint that we could build something uh uh within right um as of right. So we could otherwise build a very very large 6,000 ft² uh single family home here. Uh the proposal is to take a relatively small structure, raise
it and then erect the proposed um three family dwelling that you see before you. Um we are otherwise completely uh building parameter compliant. Uh we did scale back the um footprints of the structure slightly to bring us into F
compliance. Uh and as a slight update to the uh record that went out to the community, we are now otherwise F compliant as confirmed by our plans examiner uh just this past week. Um the sole relief we're looking for is to be able to erect the three family structure
that you see as for a use relief. Um so if you want to proceed down through the slide we can talk a little bit more about the detail but we effectively have uh three uniform uh units. Uh you can see the bubbled in red. We did bring oursel into F compliance there coming
down below the 0.5 F allowance. Uh so otherwise again we are just seeking use relief um for the three family uh structure. Um the uh owner, the proposed owner on the call with us, Matthew Arnold, is also the architect. Um we've
intentionally stepped back the structure from right to left to give some difference to our most immediate impacted abuter to our left. Uh to the right of the structure is the proposed driveway with setback. So we do have a lot more distance between our proposed structure and the immediate abuter to
our right. Um the uh butter to our left would be the most impacted. So we trying to step back the structure to reduce the proposed massing. uh the visualness of the massing as well as to give some additional sight line to our neighbor to our left. Um the proposal calls for three units all slightly in excess of
2,000 square ft of uh livable square footage. Uh proposed to be three bed and a fourth kind of office/bed. So arguably four beds in total uh stretched over three floors. So first floor would be uh with basement level unfinished. First floor uh
slightly elevated above grade would be livable um uh and open and common and then second floor would be three beds and then the third floor is a reduced footprint proposed master bed and bath. Um so again we have a I have abnormally large-sized lot for which we're trying
to bring to uh market three uh units for uh familysized home ownership in place of uh an otherwise you know very large single family structure that we could build as of right uh we had a well attended utters meeting on the 3rd of March I would say that a lot of the
concern we heard was more I think about construction logistics ensuring that we don't uh block off traffic and otherwise impede with commuters uh during the day. We have an overly large size lot as I've said. So I think we can stage and have all all of our construction workers parked off site. We can have all
deliveries offsite. So I think the impact of the community from a construction perspective uh will be minimal. Um and I can let uh Jeremy Benry of ONS confirm as to that. And we've also had some communications with our local city councelor uh Pepen in relation to their feedback and they're
on the calls I'm told to also offer the counselor support. So, with that, I will turn it over to the board for questions. Thank you. Are there questions from the board? Uh, can you talk about the driveway? There's a driveway in the parking. Is there a
driveway on this site? Uh, yes. So, currently there's an existing curb cut. The plan is to maintain that currently on uh right side. So, we're going to have a linear drive with uh required parking to uh surface the or service the uh proposed three units to the rear of
the structure. So, we're trying to be um parking compliant. We'll see what the BPDA says about that ultimately, but that is the current proposed plan. Thank you. Other questions from the board? Hearing none, we have public
testimony. Madam chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Bry. I'm the Rosendale community engagement specialist for the office of neighborhood services. The applicant has completed the community process which consisted of an aboters meeting facilitated on March 3rd whereas voiced
concerns about the size of the proposal with a suggestion that two family would be more in line with the neighborhood. Uh increased traffic and congestion as well as the strain on the infrastructure from gas water gas to water and a concern for water runoff were also mentioned. Uh the proposal was not
required to present to a civic association. Our office has received five letters of opposition maintaining the theme of traffic impact, congestion, quality of life, and the overall size of the proposal being out of line the character of the neighborhood. Uh thank you for your time in our office of neighborhood services would like to
defer to the vote for the judge. Thank you. Any other raised hands? Hey, Madam Chair. Um if I may, my name is Eddie Connley. I work in the office of city councelor Enrique Pepin as the
constituent services and policy coordinator and I'm here to represent uh our office's stance on this project. Um our office is and the counselor is in support of this project uh being a home ownership opportunity for families in
Roslandale which is a very uh familyoriented neighborhood. Um, we're very uh pleased with the parking accommodations on the property, which has been a uh very large community issue in uh district 5. And so uh we're happy
to see home ownership in a building that isn't very aggressively placed into the neighborhood. Uh and so our office is in supportive of this project. Thank you. Thank you. There is one hand raised. Um,
I'm getting you the cell phone number. Hello. 717. Did you want to speak? Okay. Maybe that was an accident. There's no other answers. Any other questions from the board? Yeah, I only
have a comment in the site planning. Um the the neighborhood uh is in a single family kind of typology and so you typically see uh like a walkway a single
walkway with its uh you know driveway on on one side. And so, you know, my only kind of comment would be that the BPD takes a look at the site planning. If you're introducing a new typology, like
three town houses, um, you know, is there a way that you're not cutting up the lot and introducing three individual um, walkways? So, that would just be kind of my comment that needs to be looked at more carefully, the site
planning of the project. So effectively a single stem with a tree off to the Yeah, I think so. And and I think it's to be respectful that you are introducing a new typology. So what does that front look like um in this neighborhood? That would be my comment.
But that's for the BPD design committee to to we're zoning. So that's not really in our per purview. But it is important that if you're shifting from typology that you still are working within the con the contextual um uh you know kind
of design aspects of the project. No further questions or comments. Thank you. With that may I have a motion? So with that, I would like to make a um a motion of approval with uh a proviso
that the project undergo site planning um design maybe with BPD and to look specifically at not only the parking layout to increase um landscaping but to also look at the walkway configuration.
Is there a second? Second, Mr. Stbridge. Yes, Mr. Valencia. Yes, Miss Vabraza. Yes, Miss Turner. Yes, Miss Ponado. Yes, Mr. Collins. Yes. Chair
votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. Next we have case BOA 167 9 167
9123 with the address of 4280R Washington Street. Okay. Right. If the applicant and with their representative are present, will they please explain the case to the board? Hi, my name is Kevin Slopes. I'm the GC
on the project for Robert Truthi. I'm here with his daughter Eroni that's that's representing him as well. The reason for our um board of appeals issue is the zoning. The garage currently sits
right on the sidewalk and as of years ago, the insurance company has been asking us to take it down and rebuild, but we thought it was a better proposal to build it further back in the lot um and move it away from the street. As of right now, we have suppliers that come,
trucks block the road. with us being able to move it back um it's roughly 45 feet um away from the sidewalk, the the supply trucks would be able to get off of Kitridge Street and just go into the
property instead of impeding traffic. Um I know the zoning rules is we're supposed to be 65 ft or more away from the sidewalk. This doesn't meet that expectate expectation of zoning, but it
does make it the best possible for the community, for traffic, um, and make it look a lot better in area as well. Are there questions from the board? Hearing none, mayor, public testimony. Madam chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is
Jeremy Benbury. I am the Rosendale community engagement specialist for the office of neighborhood services. The applicant has completed the community process which consisted of an Alberta's meeting facilitated on February 18th very lightly attended with two constituents. One who voiced support uh the other representing West Village
Neighborhood Association who inquired about groundwater removal and a concern for a tree on the property uh suggesting an arborist involvement to save the tree. Uh today we have received no further community feedback at this time. Thank you for your time in the mayor's office of neighborhood services would like to defer to the board with agend.
Thank you. Thank you. Any other raised stands? No. No other. With that, may I have a motion? Make a motion to approve. There is second. Second. Mr. Stebridge.
Yes. Mr. Valencia. Yes. Miss Pedabraza. Yes. Miss Turner. Yes. Miss Pado, yes. Mr. Collins, yes. Chair votes, yes. The motion carries. Good luck. Thank you. Thank you for your
time. Next. Next, we have case [Music] BO81685652 with the address of 43 Alon Street. If the applicant and or their representative are present, would they please explain to the board?
[Music] Good morning to the board. Uh my name is Leslie Wuku. For the record, I am a residing um family member at 43 Gon Street. Today we are requesting for relief um for a project um converting a
single family dwelling into a two family um uh dwelling. We are currently the only single family in the neighborhood. Um we went through the butters process and um kind of explained the project. We are looking for relief. We also
providing I know parking was um an a problem. So we provided parking on the side and you know we currently have some issues with subre but we are here in front of the board today to ask for relief for the project. We are looking
to expand again going up um with the with the project just to create enough space for the family members who currently residing in the single family to be able to expand. So we're here in support um and asking for your support and and moving forward with this
project. And you know we also have the city council Jeremy here who we went through the process with. Any questions from the board? here. Can you show us the site plan and and how the driveways are configured? Sounds like there's two driveways now.
Yes, we currently have a driveway, an existing driveway, and we'll be providing a a an additional driveway on the left side of the property. That should have been in the first uh if you go all the way, I believe it was the first second page. Yes. But I see
another potential parking space. Um, it's it's paved. Do you have another parking space at the rear? Um, no. There there's no parking in the back. So, what's the what's the is you have
asphalt at the rear? Yes. Pave. Is this a Yes. It's just a pave. What do you What do you use that hard surface for? Uh currently we use it just for the that's where kids the kids uh we have a um how do I say grass on the side and
the asphalt where we kind of just have the kids toys and stuff where they we kind of store that but there's no access to drive through there to park. Okay, great. Thanks. No problem. Other questions from the board?
Uh, I know the planning department is opposed to a second driveway. Yeah, I mean I what I what I see um the rear the rear is Yes. Um I I noticed that too, Jean.
And you know and it seems like the applicant was responding to the neighbors of kind of increasing another parking space. Is is that correct? Correct. Yeah. How many are they adding and how many are they taking away on the street?
Is there street parking um on that street? Are you taking away parking space by adding a curb cut? So, we there's currently street parking and we with the proposed driveway, we'll be um creating additional street parking because our cars will be off the off the
uh the side of the street. that that will create additional parking for the residents to park in. But but you're taking away a street parking and adding just one parking space. No, we are adding two additional the driveway um occupies two cars.
Uh but they're tand I see Bob Deiko has his hand up. I don't want to let him uh take over. Sure, Bob. So um u madam chair, members of the board, excuse me. Baltimore BTD. Um I I would have liked
to see the uh cars uh shown on the plan. I I see the curb cuts which we would never want to uh approve. Um but I would like to request that the uh parking space be reflected on the plum because um I don't see any vehicles. Uh there's
driveways, but two curb cuts, I think, is uh a little excessive because they would have to supply at minimum uh four parking spaces. And it's sort of um confusing to me. Uh I'd like to see a new plan showing uh the location of the
parking spaces in remove one of the curb cuts. Thank you. And the current the the parking spaces we currently have the the current um parking space occupies two cars and the new one will also be um occupying two cars. So that'll be four
parking spaces. Yes, but you have to show it on the plan. Yeah. How the cars fit within that space. Okay. Other questions from the
board. You have public testimony. Madame chair and members of the board, for the record, my name is Jeremy Bevery. I am the mid Dorchester community engagement specialist for the office of neighborhood services. The applicant has completed the community process which consisted of an abutis meeting facilitated on February 20th where Abu
has voiced overwhelming support with one concern for rodent mitigation plans. Next, the proposal was presented to Greater Chamberlain Neighborhood Association where they voted to support the project. Our office has not received any further communication or feedback at this time uh from the community. Thank you for your time in the mayor's office of neighborhood services would like to
defer to the board for their judgment. Thank you. Thank you. Any other raised hands? Wait, I have a question for the applicant. Oh, sorry. I just want to finish if there are any other That's right. There's not there's no hands raised. Perfect. M Brasa. Yeah. So, the
the deck um that seems like it's existing. Would you be open to um reworking the deck so that you can use your existing curb cut and find a way to have the additional two parking space
near the rear but have only one uh driveway aisle? Would you be open to that? Yes, we will be open to that. Okay, great. So, um I don't have any further questions. Any other questions from the board? May I have a motion? Ma madam
chair, I'd like to perform a motion of approval with the provisal that the applicant works with BPD in um actually there's two provisor. One is that there's only one existing curve cut. to eliminate the second propose and
the second proviso is to work with BPD on a site planning strategy that allows the applicant to increase their parking um by working a site plan. Thank you. Is there a second? Second,
Mr. Sunbridge. Yes. Mr. Valencia. Yes. Miss Benabraza. Yes. Miss Turner. Yes. Missado, yes. Mr. Collins, yes. Chair Wils, yes. The
motion carries. Good luck. Thank you. Next, we have case BO8 168 32663 with the address of 64 Nelson Street. If the applicant andor their representative are present, would they
please explain the case to the board? Thank you, Mr. Stimbridge, and good morning, Madam Chair and the board. My name is Ryan Willingham, manager of 64 Nelson LLC and the owner of the property located at 64 Nelson Street. We are looking to erect a four uh unit uh
multif family structure. Uh each floor will be one unit, 1500 square ft containing uh three bedrooms and two baths. Uh the unit um level with the parking will be an accessible unit. Um
there will be four parking spaces in the back. The bottom unit is a uh at grade with Nelson Street at the front of the property but below grade um in the back of the property where the parking is located and the top unit is does have a
attached roof deck uh with the property. I also have my architect Bonnie Tan on the line as well to answer any questions that the board may have. 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 Bry. I'm the Doorchester community engagement specialist for the Office of Neighborhood Services. The applicant has completed the community process which consisted of an abutters meeting facilitated on February 6th with no abutters in attendance. The proponent went on to present to redefining our
community neighborhood association where they were approved to move forward. To date, our office has received two letters of opposition, both concerned for parking and congestion due to the amount of proposed parking on site. Thank you for your time and the mayor's office of neighborhood services would like to defer to the court for their
judgment. Mr. audience. Any other raised to hands? Nope. No other hands. Any other questions from the board? Hearing none. Is there a motion? I'll make a motion for approval. Second.
Mr. Stumbridge. Yes. Mr. Valencia. Yes. Miss Barza. Yes, Miss Turner. Yes, Miss Bernado. Yes, Mr. Collins. Yes, chair votes yes. The
motion carries. Good luck. Thank you. Next, we have case BOA 168468 with the address of 1526 to 1530 Dorchester Avenue. If the applicant and or their represent um this is a cannabis case, if the applicant and or their
representatives are present, would they please explain to the board? Absolutely. Good morning. Um um good morning, Madame Chair and members of the board. My name is Judith Sleder and I'm the applicant for the proposed cannabis retail establishment at 1526 to 1530 Dorchester
Avenue named Z Boutique. business address 28 Church Street, Winchester, Massachusetts. We're respectfully requesting that the board approve our various requests. The proposed project involves only minor cosmetic upgrades, the existing commercial retail space,
preserving the character and scale of the neighborhood. We understand that cannabis establishments require a conditional use permit and distance requirements under article 65, section 8 of the zoning code, and we've been mindful of these standards throughout this process. Um, since we began the
process, we've received uh letters of support from our city councilors, John Fitzgerald, Brian Warell, city councilors at large, uh, Julia Mahia, city council president Rosie Muen, as well as Senator Miranda. We also collected 300 signatures of support which were submitted to the Boston
Canvas Board prior to their review in January 2025, where we received a positive recommendation and a host community agreement for this location. We also engaged with the community extensively. Um, I received positive feedbacks from some of the local stakeholders. We believe the
establishment will contribute to the to the vitality of Dorchester corridor, offering a well- reggulated community centered business that prioritizes public safety, compliance, and economic opportunity. For these reasons, we respectfully ask that your favorable consideration and approval of our
various requests today. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Can you um just talk about your operating hours, security plan, uh things of that nature? Absolutely. So, our operating hours were
proposed to the city were 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Sunday. Um our operating plan will be based on the standards set by the campus control commission with over 30 security cameras a security access um into the facility
21 um ID check um so there's variance plans that we have to submit to the um cannabis board in the state also to the Boston cannabis board as well. And what products are you selling? We
would be selling regulated state um marijuana products and CBD products as well from the department of agriculture. Questions from the board? Yes. How many jobs will you be creating? We believe at the beginning we'll be
creating about 10 jobs. Uh we need to have uh managers and hierarchy in there and up to 15 jobs over the over time. Thank you. So it looks like you're fairly close to a park. Just what are your I guess plans
to ensure you know you're not sort of inadvertently promoting to young people? Well, there is signage requirements and restrictions set forth by state law. So there's no public advertising external facing um images or promotion of any
products. We are the business owners, myself and my business partner Leslie, who's also on the line. We're both mothers of teenagers. So, we're very aware of the need for uh aversion and education to young children to make sure that they're not engaging with adult use products. Um, and we've considered all
that in in the proposal as well. Thank you. Any other questions from the board? hearing none. May I have public testimony? All right. Yes, madam chair, members of the board, Connor Newman with the mayor's office of neighborhood services. At this time, the mayor's office record
in opposition of this proposal. Uh some background information on the community process. Uh so ONS had hosted a public meeting on November 21st of 2024. I was well attended. Uh there were residents there that were in support of the proposal. um citing an opportunity for
uh a new business to be brought into this district. However, there were a number of residents also who expressed uh strong opposition to the proposal uh setting concerns regarding uh impacts on parking uh more significantly impacts on um public consumption uh in the nearby
um Dhy Gibson Park as well as the uh Chua Wooa uh Buddhist Center which is just down the street. um neighbors felt that this potentially could lead to more antisocial behavior
in the community um and submitted a number of letters, excuse me, two petitions uh two petitions in opposition. uh one from the Vietnamese American community of Massachusetts uh with about 40 signatures. Um and then the Rainbow Senior Center submitted um
another additional uh several petitions uh with roughly uh 60 members of their community that were in opposition to this proposal. Uh as you heard from the proponents, they did receive letters of support from the city council members uh for this area. Um they had met with the
Fields Corner Civic Association um in early January. Um the civic association expressed concerns and requested the applicant to return back to the civic uh to kind of elaborate on some of the questions that were had. Um from my understanding this the applicant has not
met with that civic association again. Uh so the Civic has taken no formal stance, but they have submitted a letter to the board uh expressing that their their strong concerns and seeking further community process on this. Uh but as mentioned before, in light of the the outpouring that we've received
regarding concerns about the impact on the neighborhood, uh we will be in opposition to this proposal. Thank you. Thank you. Hello, Madam Chair, members of the board. Liam Ramos from Council's office. As mentioned before, our office like support this proposal.
There's no other hands raised. Okay. I don't know if would the applicant like to respond to those comments or concerns. Yes. Uh we are still working with the community to schedule a meeting with interpreter
services. I am a I've been a nurse for 20 years and our approaches had been uh health forward first and we wanted to make sure that we engaged uh the beauty of the plant and the healing um and promote the healing power of the plant not just public consumption. We did discuss that we were willing to partner
with the existing youth organizations that are combating the current state of uh public consumption. Um these are under age consumers which would not be able to get products from our dispensary or any other legal dispensary as well. Um, we also share with the community
that considering we were both from the city of Boston and my business partner uh was raised around the corner from there, um, the city will have a number of dispensaries and we really wanted to be the ones that were committed to the community to do so. Um, we have had uh,
conversations on site that require legal counsel to be involved. Um, so we have not followed up with some of the meeting requests that were presented. Thank you. Any other questions from the board hearing? None. Is there a motion? Motion.
Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stebridge. Yes. Yeah. Mr. Valencia. Yes. Miss Vabraza. Yes. Miss Turner, no. Miss
Ponado, yes. Mr. Collins, yes. Chair votes no. The motion carries. Next, we have case POA 168901 with the address of 155 Deadly
Street. If the applicant and or their representative of present, could they please explain to the board? Uh, how you doing board? Uh, my name is William Singleton. I'm co-owner of um, excuse me, Elevator Artist and Castay.
Um, we are trying to better our community by adding a business to the Nubian Square area. Um, we are doing a tattoo has evolved into a widely respected art form and professional industry. It is not only a personal form of self-expression
but also a thriving sector and contributing to the local economy. We will effectively be benefit the community by approving if we get approval of this zoning change by by um by creating more jobs, supporting local artists and contributing to the tax
revenue within our local community. The plans with you have are for our future development to even more beautify that corner. If you all know, it has been closed and has been vacant for a long time. And we're just trying to add an a business there that is respectable and
provide um good opportunities for young youth and um artists in the area. Any questions from the board hearing? None. They have public testimony. Yes, madam chair, members of the board, Connor Newman with the mayor's office of
neighborhood services. At this time, the mayor's office to defer to the judge from this board. Uh some background information the community process. Um O and hosted a moers meeting on March 11th. Uh was lightly attended. Um no concerns were raised in the meeting. Uh we did have someone on from uh the local
main streets group that was very supportive of the work that the applicant had done um at beautifying uh the the property. Um there was no active civic association in this area. So beyond that, we're unaware of any concerns. Uh with that, defer to the
board. Thank you. Thank you. Any other raised hands? No hands raised. With that, may I have a motion? I'll make a motion to approve. Is there a second? Second. Mr. Stebridge?
Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Miss Baza? Yes. Miss Turner? Yes, Miss Bonado. Yes, Mr. Collins. Yes, chair votes. Yes. The motion carries the book.
Thank you. The next case has been deferred which takes us to two companion cases. Uh these are both article 80
cases. First we have BOA 16934 224 with the address of 20 to 24 Malcolm X Boulevard. Along with that, we have case BO8
1693422 with the address of 70 Den Street. It's the applicant and the representative are present. Yes, this is now Rich. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board, attorney Derek Small, I have a big business address on 51 Doppson
Road, and with me as part of the team today, we have uh Mr. Dartian Brown from Embark Architects, and we have Mike McMina and John Sullivan from the ownership group. Today, we're here seeking relief relief for our development projects at 2024 uh Malcolm
X Boulevard and 70 Delhi Street. The 2024 Mount Boulevard project is to erect a six-story mixeduse building with 111 residential units, retail space on the ground on ground level, and 33
parking spaces with 18 of those units being IDP units. The project at 730 Street is to erect a threestory building with 12 residential units, all of which are home ownership. Um, and that project
will consist of of three IDP units. I will turn it over to Mr. Dartian Brown now to go over the program and go through the deck and then we can open it up for questions and answers. Titanium. Wonderful. Thank you, Derek. Uh, good
morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. Can everyone hear me? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Uh again, so as Derek mentioned, we've gone through a robust process with the community, the city to end up at the proposed project today. Um this is one of two buildings
as part of a uh larger site plan. You'll see in a moment. And this proposal here is for 111 units along the Malcolm X Boulevard. If you don't mind the next sheet, please. Um uh this is really outlining the process
that we've gone through. date started over two years ago. Uh really had a robust uh process, did a lot of community outreach and engagement. Uh next slide, please. And off of Malcolm X, which is page north here, we enter uh offer
garage entry existing curb cut into a parking garage that's fully enclosed. One thing to note, um Malcolm X relative to Dublin, which is page south, is around 20 ft lower in grade. It varies anywhere from 13 to 26 ft. So, we've
used that grade to tuck in the parking and line the street with activated program starting on the west by parking uh meeting the city guidelines and then ending up on the east side with an community-based retail that will spill out onto a public plaza that we've
created. As you move up through the next pages, you'll see um just working through the typical floor plans. This is a mix of unit types within the 111. We have 20 studios, 61 bedrooms, 25
two-bedrooms, and six three-bedroom units. Uh this is architectural elevations just showing the design that we've worked with closely with the city and the butters to come up with really descaling the building, richness of materials as it works its way around the
property. Um, in the next slide we have a a section just showing the sighting of the building off of Malcolm X on the west page side. Um, how we've mitigated the height to tie into the overall neighborhood up on Dudlick Street. Next
page please. And down on this slide, starting in the upper left, that's the uh 4,500 foot public plaza. That on the right side of that image taps into the community retail space on our 20 Malcolm X uh
proposal. On the left side is 10 Malcolm X, which is an existing building that houses um half a dozen localbased uh commercial tenants that are all staying in place. So this is truly development without displacement. This proposal in
the next takes the two existing parking lots to provide much needed housing for the city but again keeping the commercial tenants in place. The upper right image is a public plaza down from grade here. We've worked closely with
the team to expand that plaza off of the public realm off of the street which has the bustop to the right. And then as we move through the balance of images, uh just the luscious of the landscaping that's provided through the site, middle right image is the community space
filling out onto the plaza. The lower left image is further back looking back at the development with the building 10 Malcolm X uh to remain in the proposal. And then the bottom right is further back looking towards Nubian Square. And
I think with that Derek and Madam Chair we are concluding. Thank you. Thank you. Are there questions from the board? Yes. If you can clarify again about the unit count and especially I'm looking at
the affordable housing units. You have some home ownership and some rentals. Correct. Um so in this proposal we're fully rental. In the next application, which is a sister application, we have 12 um home ownership units, which was a
a big feedback from the community. Within this building, we have 18 units, uh four studios that are IDP, nine onebedrooms, and then we have four twobedrooms and a threebedroom. In the home ownership, which you'll hear next,
we have three um home ownership IDP units out of the 12 units there. Okay, got it. Thank you. Yeah, so it's it's a combination of the two which um you'll see in a moment. Are there other questions from the
board? Hearing none. May I have public testimony? Madam Chair, members of the board, Connor Newman with the mayor's office of neighborhood services. This time the mayor is offered to the judgement of this board. Uh some background information the community process as you
heard uh this went through a Boston planning um community process. Um the applicant did meet with the Highly Park neighborhood association which expressed opposition to this proposal uh citing concerns regarding uh the proposed density, the height of the building, the
loss of some mature trees on the property um as well as concerns about noise uh from the proposed roof deck. of that information will defer to the board. Thank you. There's a couple hands raised. Steve Harvey.
Hello. My name is Steve Har Steven Harvey. I am um uh the project manager for the proposal and I work for the uh planning department as a senior project manager and I just want to confirm that the project did go through the article 80 process. It was approved by the U.
Austin Planning Development Board on October 10th, 2024. Black Nubian. Black Market Nubian. Oh, apologies. It's supposed to be Kai Grant. Uh, good morning to the chair and everybody on this board. Um, I am a
neighbor on Dudley Street and I'm enthusiastic about this project. Um, I am a long-term resident of Roxbury who helped to oversee this actual project. Um, as the former co-founder of John
Elliot Square Neighborhood Association, um, the ownership passed hands from the Canton Corporation to this team. This team did a very thorough process and considerate process with our neighbors and with our neighborhood. Um my
personal opinion is that contextually this project works. It is right a step throw from Nubian Square where we need density um and we need the type of activities that this project will bring.
We also need the type of spend that this project will bring to our square uh which is very much uh in a state of constant struggle. And so I want to make sure that this board understands how important projects like this are to our
community. Um and this team has done a great job. So please know that I am in support and there are a lot of other voices that were in support of this project. um and went through a a almost a half a
dozen meetings. So, thank you for your time and um efforts. Thank you, ma'am. No other raised hands. Any other questions from the
board? There it is. Is there a motion? I would like to put forward a motion of approval. Is there a second? Back in Mr. Stbridge, yes. Mr. Valencia, yes. Miss Better
Roza, yes. Miss Turner, yes. Miss Bonado, yes. Mr. Collins, yes. Chair Wils, yes. The motion carries. Thank you. Next we have case BOA169 44
4946 with the address of 49 to 51D street. This is this is an article 8 case. If the applicants and or their representatives are present, would they?
Madam Chair, just for clarification, the prior case uh with regard to 2024 Malcolm X Boulevard, does that approval also take into consideration 70 Dudley Street? Because we we read them both into the record. So, I just want to be
clear. I believe so, but I'm going to refer back to the person who made the motion. Yes, that is correct. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. Have a good day. Thank you.
Okay. Who's here to speak on D Street? Is the applicant on for D Street? Hello. Is that you, Mr. Morancey? We can see you but not hear you. I can't see. Do we know if it's supposed to be Miss
Morancey or is someone else? Madam Chair, this is Mike Del from Ry Architects. Uh George Morancey is here to speak on the project. It looks like he's having uh audio issues at the moment. Okay. I don't know if someone wants to be in
contact with them offline or what what's happening. Madam Chair, this is Ryan Spitz. George is calling. He's just having some mic issues, so he's just trying to reset his mic. So, if you could just bear um bear with him for a few moments, please. Why don't we take a five minute break then?
Great. Thank you. You Heat. Heat. Hello, Lisa. This is George Morance. Can you hear me now? Yep, we can hear you now. All right. This is an ongoing problem. I apologize. It has to do with my camera, which I had activated, but I
had to uh deactivate that and relog. Yeah, maybe just leave it off. Yeah, it's all set. So, just hang in there. Great. Thank you. Thanks. Miss Barazza present. Ms. Turner present. Miss Ponado present.
Mr. Collins present. Is yours Mr. Sbridge? Thank you, Madam Chair. We will we will go back to case BOA 169
4946 with the address of 49 to 51 D Street. If the applicant and their representative are ready, would they please explain the case to the board? Uh, and this is also an article 8. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Spebridge. Good
morning, Madam Chair, members. Um, my name is George Moransy. I'm an attorney with the business address at 350 West Broadway in South Boston. I apologize for that. I had an ongoing software conflict. When my camera works, it seems my mic doesn't, so I killed the camera. Uh, but at least now the board can hear
me. Uh, I represent Singing January property at 4951D Street. The proposed project here is for the construction of a new mixeduse building primarily residential of approximately 73,500 square ft of gross floor area
with 70 residential units and ground floor commercial space. While currently zoned M2 restricted manufacturing with elements of H1 zoning applicability, the project site is more significantly located within the boundaries of and
fully complies with the requirements of plan South Boston Dorchester Avenue. Owing to the nature of the proposal as a rental project, its alignment with the city's development goals and residential parking policy for sites within easy
walking distance of public transit options and soil conditions at the site, specifically a high water table which could make significant excavation prohibitively costly. This is a project that does not include on-site parking. That being said, this carefully designed
project aligns with numerous city planning objectives and represents a significant opportunity to advance Boston's housing, transportation, and sustainability goals. The proposed redevelopment will transform an underutilized
15,542 ft site currently occupied by an aging two-story industrial building with surface parking into a new nstory mixeduse structure. project will deliver 70 much needed rental units along with approximately 1944 square ft of ground
level commercial space that will serve the local community with approximately 73 and 12,000 ft of total gross floor area. This development maximizes the potential of this transit accessible location while maintaining appropriate
urban scale. The proposed development exemplifies the core principles outlined in plans south Austin Dorchester Avenue. This comprehensive planning document emphasizes the transformation of underutilized trans uh industrial parcels into vibrant mixeduse
developments that strengthen neighborhood character and increase housing supply. The plan specifically identifies this corridor for increased density to accommodate Boston's growing population while preserving the existing character of established residential areas. The project's nine-story height
is consistent with the plan's vision for this area, which encourages taller buildings along major corridors while ensuring appropriate transition to surrounding neighborhoods. The inclusion of ground flooror commercial space directly fulfills the plan's goal of creating active pedestrian ground and
streetscapes that enhance neighborhood vitality and provide services to residents. The development's transportation approach precisely follows the recommendations outlined in the South Boston Transportation Access Plan. Rather than adding to the name of
its traffic congestion with excessive parking, this project emphasizes alternative transportation modes by providing 70 resident bicycle parking spaces within the building and 14 visitor bicycle spaces in the public realm. In addition, the project will
fund the creation of a new 15 dot blue bike station in close proximity to the project site. This robust bicycle infrastructure meets all city requirements and encourages sustainable transportation choices. The project sites locations except exceptional
access to public transit with multiple bus routes and both um Andrew and Broadway rapid transit station on the MBTA's red line within easy walking distance. This transit oriented location makes it an ideal candidate for reduced or no vehicular parking projects in line
with the city of Boston residential parking policy that specifically encourages fewer on-site parking spaces in transitrich areas. The city's comprehensive housing plan housing exchanging city Boston 2030 establishes clear targets for housing production to
accommodate Boston's growing population. This development's 70 res um rent rental residential units, excuse me, represent a meaningful contribution to this goal, helping address the housing shortage that continues to drive up housing costs
in the city. The project will exceed the requirements of the city's inclusionary development policy by designating 12 units as income restricted, creating new affordable housing opportunities in a neighborhood experience rapid uh price appreciation.
These affordable units will include studio, 1, 2, or 3bedroom units with AMIs ranging from 50% to 90% satisfying the mayor's office of housing's desire for a mixture of affordability in this project. And it will also include two
units marketed to households holding housing vouchers and earning no more than 60 and 70% of AMI. Beyond transportation related environmental benefits. This development advances several sustainability objectives. Replacing an inefficient industrial
structure with a modern energy efficient building will significantly reduce the site's carbon footprint. The project will incorporate green building practices meeting or exceeding current energy code requirements with sustainable features including high efficiency HVAC systems, enhanced
building envelope, water efficient fixtures, and renewable energy components and will also of course meet all requirements of the applicable coastal flood resilience overlay district. The development's emphasis on reduced automobile dependency directly supports Boston's climate goals by
limiting transportation related emissions. Transportation remains a larger source of greenhouse gas emissions in Boston. And each resident who chooses car-free or carlike living makes a substantial contribution to reducing dangerous pollutants. Beyond
housing and transportation benefits, this project will enhance the public realm through thoughtful streetscape improvements. The development team is committed to significant investments in the pedestrian environment, including wider sidewalks, street trees, a new pocket park, improved street lighting,
and other amenities that will benefit the entire neighborhood. The ground floor commercial space will activate the streetscape and provide immediate services to both residents of the building and the surrounding community. In addition, the project will provide well over $200,000 in payments and other
direct community benefits in the form of public realm improvements in contributions to local 501c3 groups. Finally, with respect to zoning, while the project does require certain zoning variances, these deviations are, I suggest, justified by
the substantial public benefits the developer will deliver. to request variances consistent with the spirit and intent of both the zoning code and planning documents that guides South Boston's development. Specifically with respect to the zoning relief, the project requires a conditional use
permit and four variances only three of which are substantive. The conditional use permit is required for the proposed multif family housing use in an MQ zoning district. There are sideyard setback insufficiencies whereby the
required setbacks are 16 ft and 15 ft on the building's left and right sides respectively while the provided setbacks will be 8.1 ft and 14 1/2 ft. A variance is required of course for instance at off streetet parking as none is to be
provided. Normally the zoning requirement of Austri Park is determined through article 80 large project review and the planning department has of course judged that no Austri parking should be required here but because the underlying zoning here dates back to the 1964 base code there's no large project
review exception and the parking violation was therefore cited by ISD. There's an F violation with the maximum allowed by zoning being 2.0 O in a proposed F being approximately 4.7. Finally, there's an esoteric
violation owing to the setback of the building's parapet, which is really a product of the project's extensive design review process. The zoning relief requested does not represent a substantial departure from the zoning code's intent, but rather would allow
for development more effectively fulfills the city's stated goals than a strictly code compliant project would. By accommodating additional density and allowing for no structured parking in this transit oriented site, the project delivers more housing units in an area
where transportation infrastructure can support increased population without adding significantly to traffic congestion. Project architects are road architects and Mike Delave from ROD is here. I would ask the board uh to
indulge us for a few more minutes so that Mike can walk the board through the project plans and after that we'll of course take any and all questions and comments from board members. Mike thank you very much George. Uh madam chair, members of the board, my
name is Mike Delip. I'm the architect and studio director at Roodie Architects at 535 Albany Street. Um Madame Ambassador, would you please bring us to slide number nine? actually a little bit more. A little bit further. Right. Next one. Right there.
Thank you very much. Um, so I'd like to provide a little bit more context to George's overview. Um, so you can see the site here, uh, located on D Street, uh, sandwiched between Old Colony and Dorchester Avenue. Uh, it's a post-industrial site. Um, just and just
to our north, uh, east is the, uh, Speedway gas station. Uh, next slide, please. Uh so uh we've we've uh worked very closely with the BPDA um the neighborhood groups to uh talk about the context in which this is located. So as
you can see the project is located on D Street within this uh triangle zone we're calling a transitional zone. Uh this has adjacencies to Washington Village. Um and then just to our uh west or plan north here is uh the on the dot
um proposal uh which has been approved. Um this this project uh acts as a sort of transition between the granular residential scale um and the future development on the opposite side of Dorchester Avenue. Uh next slide please.
So, as mentioned, just in terms of location, uh the project is in the center of the slide in that uh lightly shaded triangle uh right along D Street between Old Colony uh and Dorchester Avenue. And uh this slide expresses its adjacencies to the Broadway Tea Station
uh and uh the Andrew T station. Uh next slide, please. Uh these are just a couple of visuals of the project, the architecture. So you'll you'll you'll notice here that there's a wood cladded facade here uh facing us which um pulls the building away in order to provide uh
sun uh light and air uh not only to the units but to a publicly uh accessible open space um on the site. Uh next slide please. Uh and then this uh last slide gives you a sense of the uh approved uh
enriched open space uh widened sidewalks, bike lanes, uh vegetation um and uh bicycle parking. Uh and then if you would please return to slide number eight, which is the uh architectural site plan. This is it. Excellent. Oh, I'm
sorry. um the site plan down a little further. Thank you. There we go. So, just to um further reiterate here, the um uh landscape has been enhanced. Um and in the upper uh left hand corner of the site, we have
that um that approved um uh public open space. Um and you can see how the building sort of pulls away to provide that. Um we have enhanced street trees and then uh landscaping around the perimeter of the of the building. Uh we do provide a ramp that provides access
to the large bike um bike bike parking. Um the retail space is at gray uh as well as the orange colored lobby. Uh and then due to the fact that we're in the flood zone, everything gets elevated from there 4 and 1/2 ft uh to keep everything dry in the in the event of a
of a flood. Um, I will turn this back over to George um for uh comment. Thank you, Mike. I have nothing additional. Um, be happy to take any uh questions that board members may have at this time.
Thank you. Uh, so I just want to start with uh questions around parking. So, I'm sure you're aware we've received uh quite a number of um letters and emails regarding the lack of parking. If you could elaborate upon that, that would be
appreciated. Certainly. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um when the project uh was in its uh beginning stages, we did look at having some parking. Uh there is a limitation to um site limitation to what could be done here in terms of parking
both in terms of site size uh and soil conditions. Um the short version is that a garage here, a below gray garage would be able to accommodate approximately 14 spaces, no more than that. Uh and would
have to utilize slurry wall construction due to the site having a high water table. A reasonable estimate uh that our engineers provided cost of adding uh 14 parking spaces to this project uh would be well over $5 million which would be
adding approximately $75,000 to the cost of each unit. Um but um more than that uh you know this project is uh archetypal for a transit oriented project within easy walking distance of
uh multimmodal public transportation. It's exactly the kind of project I think that the city should be encouraging. Indeed, the planning department did encourage uh in providing 70 rental units where uh people who do not choose to own a motor vehicle uh and do not
want to pay additional cost for structured parking that they don't need uh can have a unit within easy walking distance to u rapid transit and bus lines. addition uh in addition to that uh we also pointed out that because of
the great amount of development activity in this area uh as Mike noted on this contextual plans uh there's going to be a lot of garages coming online uh in the near and not too distant future for um
residential projects but also for commercial projects specifically lab and office space and these are garages for commercial uses that would not be used nights and weekends. Uh providing the availability in the area for overnight
and weekend residential parking um for people who would for whatever reason choose to move to a building this close to public transportation with no parking and yet decide to own a motor vehicle. our uh transportation consultant, Howard Stein Hudson, uh provided and we uh we
provided uh during the public process uh just um a very limited count of projects that are essentially approved that include land and office spaces uh which would have uh almost 1,700 lab and
office spaces. This would be on the dot Washington village at 323 363. projects uh almost 1,700 lab and office spaces that will presumably be available uh for lease for residents in the area on nights and weekends. Not that we're
encouraging that because we fully believe that this is a project that is going to appeal to and be used by um people who want to live in the city in proximity to rapid transit and don't want to uh don't want to own motor vehicles. Uh the fact is that Boston
faces significant changes with traffic congestion and associated environmental impacts. Uh and we paid attention to all of these including recent transportation studies showing that South Austin experiences some of the city's worst traffic congestion during peak hours by
prioritizing alternative transportation modes and declining to build in expensive vehicular parking. Um, this building directly addresses the city's stated goal of reducing traffic gridlockwalk. Every household that chooses a public transit, walking or
cycling option over car ownership represents a significant reduction in vehicle miles traveled. Uh, which would only help alleviate this neighborhood's traffic challenges. So, we believe that this works well as a no parking project. Uh but as I say the format is that there
will be u commercial spaces available in the area in the not too distant future. Questions from the board. Um yes I have a question. Yes. What what about loading people moving in out? What
is the plan um to accommodate for that? Mike, do you want to indicate the the correct slide for that and and address? I believe that if we uh I believe that if we go back to slide uh number number uh number nine
and and while you're addressing that can you talk about Uber and lift kinds of drop off? Yes, that will be occurring in the same area. Miniato. Uh uh we did make accommodations for that with the with BTD and planning department during the
process. I'll turn it back over to Mike. Yeah. Uh thank you, George. Uh I just wanted to point out that directly in front of the building um with with our team members um and the coordination with BTD um and Howard Side Hudson. Uh
next slide, please. Um in directly in front of the building on the upper uh right hand corner uh right where the lobby is um there's dedicated loading spaces uh in front of the building as well as our area um cuz that now there's on street on street parking uh where
there was a a curb cut at one time. So loading loading would would uh partake right in directly in front of the main lobby. And is the is the curb joged in at that space or is it just a loaded zone? Uh it is it is just a load. It's it's not
jogged in. The uh the requirements of the sidewalk uh did not allow us to create uh those sort of those sort of conditions because of a bike pipeline. Just I just want to be um clear what you're saying. So, you're going to have
a decking in a loaded spot, but it's obstructed by a bike lane or it's not. It's on street loading. It's just a dedicated space that you can't park cuz it says loading, right?
How many how many cars can fit there? I believe it's just one at a time. But I think maybe to elaborate on Miss Turner's question. So, where is the proposed bike lane in relation to that? Cuz her question is whether or not they
can actually freely load or whether it's in like sort of in conjunction with the bike lane. They would have to cross the bike lane. Okay. Other questions from the board? Yeah. I mean, I would like to hear from um the
Boston planning project manager um uh on this or from BTD in regards to well actually it's Boston planning because they've been reviewing the article 80 project in regards to you know u the creation of so many
units but they're not necessarily all affordable which you know if it was an all affordable unit affordable project, you would be waved from the parking requirements. Um, and so what is
the what is BPD's kind of position on a project that is not all affordable, but it's it's requesting the zoning board of appeals to wave that requirement. Yes, we know that there is um you know public
transportation and this is a a transit oriented type of development. So why why then just have that requirement on affordable housing projects and and and not have those and and wave that requirement for any type of housing
projects that are put in front of us, you know, regardless of affordability. So I I would like to understand that position from BPD. I don't know if that's a Mr. Hampton question or if that's the project manager question if either of you I mean
regard you know I think the project in terms of I'm just asking if either one of them is on. Yeah. It's it's more to guide the zoning board um members on that. Miss Vas, this is George Morans. Yeah, I think George, I'm
sorry. I've we've heard, you know, the financial the financial difficulties. We we understand that and so and there's a lot of there's a lot of, you know, great aspects of the project. I just would like to hear from the Boston planning
department on that. Uh Miss Benza, the project manager, Tyler Ross, is an attendee. Uh can we have him promoted? He has his hand raised uh as an attendee right now. Oh, can you hear me? Yes, sir. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, good evening. Thank
you. I mean, not good evening, but thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. Um, so the proposal before you um originally filed on May 30th, 2024, um, and was approved by our board November um, 2024. It had it was hosted
and had three IG public meetings. um June 19th, June 24, I mean June 19th, 2024, June 20th, 2024, and August 7th, 2024. They were all well attended and advertised in the local newspapers. Um
and the proponent worked with the impact advisory group um and members of the community could come up with a robust um community benefits and mitigation package. Um, are you still on, Mr. Ross? I'm back as a panelist. Sorry
about that. Just got promoted. Um but to answer one of the chair members questions, I think um our board approved this right and believes that it is in line with the planning um and policy goals um that the city is trying to uh
achieve here and so um yeah believe that's can you elaborate more on the community engagement component community process because I mean again we received a lot of feedback with from constituents who suggested they were not heard in the process. So I just want to understand I
know you mentioned three I ag meetings uh just can you speak a little bit more about how you got to this decision from those feedback? Yeah certainly. Um so we took we incorporated all feedback that we heard from um community members and IG members
um and worked with them kind of diligently through the process. As you heard, we had multiple community and public meetings. Um, and we have had a lot of opposition as well as support for the project. Um, and so we tried to work
and um, you know, move the project towards a um, kind of not a mutual agreement, but we tried to incorporate everyone's concerns and feedbacks on the project. Uh, as you heard from the proponent, it was really hard for them to incorporate parking into the project.
And so they tried to uh other strategies um to u kind of I guess appease to um the community and their concerns about um not having any parking in the the project. Other questions from the board? Yeah,
some of the letters um reference um adjacent parking lots that the proponent has made some sort of arrangement with um on a short-term basis. Can someone elaborate about that? I can speak to that, Miss Pinñata, George Baransy. Um,
I didn't highlight that because as I say, I think we stand on the fact that this works as a no a no parking project as a resident as a a rental building within such close proximity to rapid transit. However, it was at the request
when we we did mention the fact that there would be properties in the area either existing now as they exist now or u future development where there would be parking available. Uh when we made that representation to the elected
officials, they asked us if we could produce something if we could produce a memorandum of understanding with one such property owner showing that there would be some availability. Um we undertook to do that uh and we actually secured two signed memoranda of
understanding with two property owners nearby on both Melture Street and Dorchester Avenue. uh that secured a commitment for 95 parking spaces in their current at their current property sites, including if they do a future development project. Um, and these would
be um parking leases due for uh for an initial three-year term uh renewable annually. And they would be market rate leases. And again, they would be uh buying between the uh any owner in this building who decided to move into a no
parking building but didn't want to bring a vehicle and these other property owners. So essentially we were asked to show that our speculation about there being available parking in the area was in fact true was concrete. We're asked to provide anou but we did secure two of
those. Can you can you just uh clarify are these so are these 95 spaces existing or are they in proposed future projects? Uh one of each. One is a uh is is a
property that has surface parking uh available. Uh the other is a project site that is probably going to go into uh development phase uh perhaps soon. Um this building if this project were to be approved would not be coming online for
approximately another four years. Uh so we are very much looking at future planning in terms of availability of parking in the area. We believe that that is uh that is a sound analysis both in terms of what's currently in the pipeline and what we expect to be coming
forward in terms of future uh development of other projects in this area. Thank you. Other questions from the board? Do do you see any future um conversion from rental to home ownership?
[Music] I would say probably not, Miss Barza. It is not in my my client's business model who tends to uh build um rental units and to hold them. Not only that, but it's impractical. Uh even even with the
emphasis on no you know no parking living is more uh apt for um for rental tenants uh you know not to seek or desire parking whereas condo unit owners are still kind of expecting parking. So there is no plan for that and and we
don't think that would be the case. Certainly not my client's business model. Okay. I mean because there is a um studies that if you do have rental and it's more transitory there's a less need to want um a parking space. So you know
like I said the project is commendable on its own. I'm just giving kind of a critique um that if we are giving you know if we are removing the parking requirement for affordable housing and
and you know what is to say that we go you know we approve this and you're not providing all affordable housing. There's kind of a disconnect within our zoning law in regards to park requirements. But we are looking at this
on a case by case and so um given that it's a rental unit, you know, uh there is a case for not needing that. So, you know, it wasn't to critique you particularly, but just what we might be seeing in the future uh of of more
projects that are asking for density, but no no parking because it's not financially feasible. So, it's something that the Boston planning and the zoning commission we need to review. Thank you. Yeah, that that that's certainly the case. And I just want to say, Madam Chair, sorry, I just got to be more responsive.
I'd like to open it up. Yeah, what I was going to say is that this is very unique uh the circumstances here where we're asking for parking variance because because of the M2 zoning, this is 1964 base code. It was left unchanged because it is within the area of Plan South
Boston Dorchester Avenue. Point being if this were in article 68 or any other of the neighborhood articles which cover 90% of the city um there would be the parking would be determined according to large project review. So we would not have been cited for a variance. So it's
not an issue that I see coming up before the board um very frequently uh because all of the new neighborhood articles provided article 80 determines the amount of off streetet parking is required. Okay, great. Thank you. Thank you. Let's open it up for public testimony.
Uh, Nicholas. Yes. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. Nick, Nicholas Afarakis, Congressman Steven Lynch's office, district director, One Harvest Street, Boston, Mass. I'm also a South Boston resident, and I know the parking constraints that we have here. Congressman had a flight to DC and asked
me if I could read his letter of opposition if that's okay. For the record, please quickly. Yes. Dear Madam Chair, members of the board, I'm writing in strong opposition to the appeal by Sing Mingqing, owner of 4951D Street, Ward 7, who has filed an appeal to wreck
the ninestory mixed unit use building with 70 residential parking units uh residential uh units and ground level retail, 71 spaces for bicycles within the building, and zero parking spaces. After several meetings with the
developer surrounding Butters and Andrew Square Association, the neighborhood spoke loudly in opposition to this proposal and asked the development team to provide much neededed parking and to reduce the building height to no more than eight stories. As all our neighbors are fully aware, a very small percentage
of new residents regularly use bicycles for travel. The vast majority of new residents own cars. For the city and the ZBA to persist in this fantasy that parking is not necessary is disingenuous. The homeowners, voters, and taxpayers feel that we are being
treated with lack of respect by Mayor Woo and administration. You all know there is a great need for parking in the dense neighborhood of South Boston. It appears you are following an abstract ideology fueled by wishful thinking rather than acknowledging what is
actually happening in the city and the challenges that residents face. As of last Friday, Mr. Chan's development team indicated to me that they had negotiated andor executed a three-year temporary parking memorandum of understanding with nearby property owners to use 90 parking
spaces on two nearby lots. These lots have already been targeted for development projects in the near future, making these spaces only temporary, pending the development of these lots. While we have worked with Mr. Chan on numerous projects in the past, and although I do appreciate that these
efforts have been undertaken in good faith by Mr. Chan's team, the temporary nature of these spacious leave be no alternative but to oppose this project unless some reasonable amount of parking is provided. The proposal will will set a dangerous precedent for future
development in this dense neighborhood of South Austin, which has limited street parking. It will lower the quality of life and cause unreasonable hardship to the community. For these reasons, I ask the ZVA to require the developer to add reasonable number of parking spaces to this proposal and I
respectfully request to be recorded as being in strong opposition to this request as currently proposed. Sincerely, Steven F. Lynch, Congressman, 8th district, Massachusetts. Thank you. Yes, sir. Madam Chair, members of the board, Connor Newman with the mayor's office of
neighborhood services. This time, the mayor's office deferred to the judge of this board. As you heard from the project manager, Tyler Ross. This went through a Boston planning community process involving uh multiple IEG meetings and a public meeting as well. Uh our office has received opposition
from the Andrew Square Civic Association and the Cityside Neighborhood Association. Uh these are the two neighboring civic groups uh to this proposal. Uh we've also received over 150 letters in opposition. Uh 320 petition letters in support. Uh those in
opposition um felt that uh they're not opposed to density being added to the corridor of Dorchester A, but are very alarmed uh by the lack of parking um attached to the proposal. Uh there was skepticism expressed by residents regarding uh the long-term feasibility
of various off-site parking agreements as well as uh if blue bikes would be a viable option of transportation uh for seniors, families, and residents. uh those in support of the project uh cited uh the project's uh walking distance to
uh Andrew Square T-station uh and also brought up that it aligned with the city's green goals. Uh with that information we'll defer to the board at this time. Thank you. Sydney. Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Sydney. I'm from Councelor Flynn's office.
Please note Councelor Flynn would like to go on record in opposition and sent a letter to the board yesterday. His opposition is primarily due to the project having zero parking spaces on site for 70 units and exacerbating South Boston's risk existing parking crisis. Councelor Flynn also received feedback
from neighbors and abutters, the nearby civic groups of Andrew Square Civic Association and Cityside Neighborhood Association, and our office received over 150 letters and signatures in opposition primarily due to worsening the existing parking conditions in the neighborhood. Councelor Flynn continues
to stress that although higher parking ratios have been approved for article 80 projects across the city, South Boston is seemingly held to a different standard with parking ratios below zoning for the area and in this case no parking at all. Neighbors continue to express concerns regarding both the
city's inconsistency and authority to restrict parking permits for new article 80 developments and that cars from new residents will invariably wind up on the street and that visitors bring vehicles on the weekends when the vast majority of South Boston lacks any resident parking policy for three nights per week
and enforcement from the city is scaled back. With more out of state plates and cars without a parking sticker on the weekends, we not only worsen the existing parking situation, but there are more public safety and quality of life issues to address with illegal parking and less enforcement. That is
another reason why councelor Flynn continues to advocate for overnight parking, residential parking throughout South Boston. Thank you. Thank you. What are the raised hands? index, you want to mute.
Sorry about that. Um, good morning, madam the chair, members of the board. My name is Indis Johnson from Atlarge City Councelor Henry Santana's office and the councelor has received very strong opposition from neighbors and abutters on this proposal. Council
Santana would like to echo other stakeholders as well as residents concerns and be on record in opposition to this proposal. Thank you. Thank you. All right. We have Maria on mute.
Yes. Uh good morning member of the board. My name is Maria Bermudas. I'm a homeowner at 77 Prebble Street in South Boston. I oppose this proposal as currently proposed due to the lack of parking tight and the tremendous
congestion and traffic impact that will bring to our neighborhood. The project proposes over a 100 bedrooms which will bring conservatively over 125 tenants with no parking. These tenants are not going to
be using the 70 uh parking spaces for their bikes. They're going to be driving around looking for parking spaces. Our neighborhood already has a parking crisis. This uhou that's being proposed
is not a binding agreement and it's only very speculative. Uh I was a member of I the IG for this project and we shared our concerns with the planning department.
However, our concerns were ignored. Um, there was no attempt to incorporate any of the changes we recommended. I can understand if this project was fully an affordable uh project with no parking, but it
isn't. So, I urge the zoning board to please not ignore our comments and our our concerns and deny this application. Thank you. Thank you, B. McCormack. Hi. And I'm following uh I just want to
reiterate what uh echo what Maria just said because I had comments written down but she said everything so eloquently. Can you identify yourself first? Pardon me. Uh just your name and evidence for the record. Oh, sorry. Had the promise,
lifelong South Boston resident, VP of Andrew Square Civics Association, IIA member for this proposal, and in addition, I'm a longtime employee of the South Boston Boys and Girls Club. I don't have a car. I walk every way. But I have seen far too many families displaced, not only due to the price of
housing, but parking. It's a legitimate hardship for the neighborhood. And I also we actually discussed if if these units were all affordable without parking, we would support it. But this is a terrible precedent to set and and and um the lawyer mentioned Meltchure
Street. Melture Street for a parking lot. That's a good mile down the road and do out that that is going to be developed. So this is all temporary band-aids put on this really serious problem we have in the area. So members, just in closing, I I know there's
something in your purview that will allow you to oppose the current project, sending it back to the planning, planning developer, and community to come up with solutions and compromise. And I respectfully ask you to deny this project. Thank you. And I'm here with Linda Nablaki. If you could just
entertain her for a minute. Will that be okay? Uh yes, please. Okay. Briefly. My name is Linda Zalaki, lifelong resident of Andrew Square, president of the Andrew Square Civic Association and I would like to make note of some of the mentions that were
done by Mr. Morancey. On the dot, we were two and a half years of sharets on one side of the street. Never ever was the other side included in that. It is now being mentioned by planning that it's on the dot. There was never any community involvement ever. Not one piece put into that. We had three IAG
meetings. One which was canceled and then it was put back on the day before. I have been doing IAS for over 20 years. Never have we had just three. And for the size of this and the impact that it's going to have. The opening I AG statement when we questioned about the parking was parking is not up for
discussion. This is what the city wants. So in Julia Mahia's words from the city council planning farmers with Elgus. The $200,000 mitigation package really had no input from us whatsoever. We tried to today what we wanted. And by the way,
the first 50,000 of that is going for the blue bike rack because the taxpayers don't pay for it. But in real life, they really do because it takes out the mitigation money. 50% of the mitigation money is being brought put outside. We are all in favor of nonprofits. Without a doubt, we wholeheartedly support them.
However, we have been uh suffering for safety issues. We are looking for safety uh pedestrian cost, reduce old lighting. We have New Market Business who has a team that cleans the square with needles, feces, you name it. And they're also out there getting people into
program, you know, and as far as the outside parking somewhere else, why is it done here? None of this is done in the SE port. So, we have to really realize what we're doing across the city and it should be across the board. We
can do better. The building design I don't agree with either. It looks very institutional. Um, and it's and you've received my letter. I I commented on the height, the density, the design, and the dangerousness of this building. If people are, and this is.5 miles from
each station. There is no bus route coming by here to get anybody anywhere. So, there's going to be Ubers and taxis. Yet, there's nowhere for any of that to pull in with a bike lane outside of a building. We are looking for tragedies, and they will come if we let this go through. I implore the board to please
do not pass this project as it is proposed. Thank you. John morning madam chair and ZBA members John Kowski life lifelong residents of South Boston got to turn them down
small business owner as well. I sent a list of particulars uh yesterday on behalf of four members of the eight member I AG committee. My statement now is I believe this project to be responsible forward thinking and aiding
in moving from the dependency on singular use automotive transportation. I feel this pro project will attract residents, renters who are inclined to use public transportation in means other than singular singular automotive use
transportation development proposals in South Boston need to recognize that a diversity in use of premise and site including parking ratios need to factor in the amount of continued singular use automotive traffic the project will
generate. operate this. I feel this location would be a great fit for transit oriented housing with the realignment of G Street backed into the uh amendments of the JAB study backed in in 2021. The T- street realignment will
now connect the seapport to an extended or new road going through the JAB properties of core investments namely on the dot 323 363 Java National Developments property. The road will be
Allery Street and it will be a direct connect from the seapport. Henceforth there will be new Silver Line bus stops along D Street. That's my comments and and I'm in support of this project.
Okay, there's two more. Uh, iPhone user. We can I unmuting you. Yeah, they're not. I mean, I'm going to go to Mary. Mary Moore on mute. Good morning.
Uh my concerns about the project are for the same reasons as already have been stated. So I won't spend time repeating all of those. But a concern I do want to highlight is the fact, and I know it has been mentioned, but the fact that there's been virtually no compromise or
negotiation during the impact advisory group hearings. I heard Tyler Ross say the suggestions and concerns were incorporated into the project, but I have to say I haven't seen any evidence of this, not even in the design and look of the building, which is something I
personally flagged in a public meeting earlier on, and it still to me looks exactly the same. I think it would be good to know exactly how the project has changed since the beginning and exactly where concerns and suggestions from the community and stakeholders have been
incorporated. That I process is meant to be a give and a take um a chance for folks to come together and hammer out a final proposal that works for everyone even if it isn't 100% what anyone wanted. It's not clear to me why the community members were invited to
participate in a dialogue that wasn't actually a dialogue. So in that regard, this project has not followed the proper public process in my opinion and until that happens, it should not move forward. Thank you.
Thank you. Uh the iPhone's hand is back up. Can you last last speaker? This is the last one. Yes. My name is Dominic. Sorry. I'm an I A member. I'm father this project. I don't see it being any
different from 101 109 Boston Street which was 60 units with no residential parking. Um this is a manufacturing zone. It's not a residential area. I believe this is very important in cleaning up that area. There's there's no residents down there abuting any of
the property. I don't see how how this differs at all from the mayor's plan. If 101 109 Boston Street was passed with 60 60 residential units and no parking, then how are they held this this particular development held to a
different standard? And again, I I'm Dominicar and I support this project. Thank you. Let's turn it back over to the applicant to briefly address some of the concerns that were raised. There was safety, lighting, distance from uh the proposed, you know, temporary parking.
You mentioned building design and I may have missed some missed some. I I'll be I'll be brief. Um Madam Chair, uh first on the issue of proximity to one of the parking locations identified in theou I misspoke. It wasn't Melture Street. Uh
it was actually 38 to 48 Dam Road Street, which is approximately a 4-minute walk away. Um, in terms of accommodations made during community process, the community concerns during that process, at least with the with the IG certainly and on the DBDA sponsored
meetings were with the building's uh, height, massing, and overwhelmingly the lack of parking. Um as far as ability to in in in the design as one of the previous speakers mentioned um design and massing were judged by the planning
department as being consistent with the plan uh and being consistent with the conditions in the neighborhood and ongoing and future development. U the uh design of the building is entirely out I hate to say it but almost entirely out of our control. Uh we have great
architects on this project at road 8. Uh but they were directly responsive to the urban uh design comments and priorities planning department. So like all projects uh what the building looks like is a product of um that conversation between uh the city's urban design
professionals and the project's urban design professionals. uh with respect to this being an affordable all affordable project that is obviously well outside of the ability of my client who is a private developer. Um I understand that people believe that
if this project were entirely affordable that it would be approvable but it kind of defeats the argument that it shouldn't be approved. It's not affordable if the sole issue is that it's going to cause parking chaos. I mean the same issue would be caused whether affordable or not. Uh so I find
it a curious argument. Uh and finally in terms of this sort of going back if it were to be denied and we'll go back and and uh reframe the project and come up with a a a project that allows for parking. We didn't make a callous decision to eliminate parking from this
proposal. We started in fact with a proposal that had a garage uh due to u seaf fraud and and due to complying with the requirements of plans south Austin Dorchester Avenue there's a certain amount of publicly accessible open space
that is required on the site uh bicycle lanes um and there's a limited ability to have a hollow underpinning to the site with a parking garage. So that's the reason why even if we were to do a garage there would be no more than 14
spaces. This would also seriously compromise having a ramp down compromise the ground floor of the building and again further complicated by seafood. But the main reason is the high water table. Uh we did borings and our engineers have told us that it will cost
$5 million to put in a garage which could accommodate no more than 14 vehicles. So, it's not simply a matter of going back and putting in a garage and and and and achieving an acceptable parking ratio. This is really an
extinction level event for any project here if this were to be denied because there is no way that a garage can be affordably built on this such a small site. So, it really just kills the project without providing any ability really for my client to build back and
come back with the project with parking because again, this wasn't just a callous decision. The parking simply doesn't work because of Can I ask you a question? Yes. I'm sorry. Because you've been focusing on underground parking and I mean like I I live in a building with
uh grade level parking all around me is grade level garage. I'm just curious why that's not part of the consideration. It's impossible. The site is not nearly large enough. If the entirety of the site were covered with parking, which it couldn't be uh for uh you know
contravene so many planning and urban design priorities, uh it still would provide again the all you could provide under the site would be 14 spaces. So to be able to provide an entrance to the building, you know, there'd be no commercial space, there would be it it's
just totally infeasible. It's actually a a worse option than um than underground parking. Uh people asked if we could have a couple spaces on site and if you eliminated the commercial unit, you could, but at what cost? And the city was entirely
against your uh utilities down below ground into those 14 parking spots. Correct. I'm sorry, I missed the beginning part of that question. would be able to move your utilities and your fitness room and everything else down into what would be the 14 parking spots below. Correct. And you could have
accurate parking. No, no, it it it just wouldn't work. I mean, I could I mean, Mike can I don't know if you would want that, but Mike Delip can bring up the site plan, show the site, but there's no meaning there's no way to meaningfully introduce uh ser
parking at at grade level to the site. As I said, it was judged as a worse auction even than than below grade parking. The below grade parking at least was potentially feasible until we thought the engineering results uh with the high water table would have to be slurry wall construction uh you know
with uh you know a lot of lot of removal of the uh of the excavate. So the the slurry wall technology and because of that uh the the environmental site assessment identified the presence of verd. So chemical testing of soil
samples uh obtained here at depths down 12 ft detected elevated level levels of chemical constituents such as metals and other compounds. Uh the soils would require special handling and management if excavated resulting in additional significant cost to the project the
construction of the basement. Um, beyond that, we did research the issue. There's also a shortage of landfills available in the state to receive these materials further driving up costs over time. And as I mentioned, plants off Dorchester Avenue currently requires 12.5% of the
site to be publicly accessible open space. Underground parking would create unsuitable subservice conditions for meeting planting soil depths as required by the BB parks department. So, this was nothing that was taken lightly. We did our research on this and it just doesn't
work with subsurface bargaining or service parking. Any other questions from the board? I just want to um respond to Mr. Morenzi regarding um affordable housing units um
being in parallel to uh higher kind of income units to um the parking requirements. There has been research that um lowincome households tend to not
have as much ownership with those with higher income. So I I think there there is no parallel to that. So um you know vehicle ownership rates basically increase based on income and household size. And I think the argument here is
that it is in in a kind of industrial uh neighborhood. It's not necessarily residential. And then the other um argument that supports the project would be that [Music] um uh sorry I just lost my I lost my
train of thought. It's fine. both I understood on both. Oh, that that that you have rentals and and rentals tend to um not have as long routes into a community and neighborhood. They're much more transit. So, I think but I
wanted to correct you because there is no parallel um with home own with vehicle ownership. Okay. So, I think I think I'm good. I think I have enough information. Thank you. Thank you. Last question from the board. Is there a motion?
Um, Madame Chair, I would like to put forward uh a motion of approval with um with the BPD's memorandum as a requirement for its for its provisos. Um, I think that I think I just made a
case for why this um should be looked at on a case by case. Um, and that's why I'm putting forward that motion. Is there a second? Second, Mr. Stebridge.
Um, no. Um, I'll if we get to that point, I'll make another motion, but at this point, no. Mr. Valencia, yes. Miss Renza, yes.
Miss Turner, no. Miss Bonado, no. I think it needs to go back to the community and have some more process around this parking issue. Mr. Collins, no. Chair also votes no. The motion does
not carry. Is there another motion? Motion of denial without um without prejudice. Um thank you for not without prejudice. Okay. Second.
Sorry, Mr. Se. Um, basically to follow up on my no before, I think this is a very valid project. I think it needs to go back hopefully not entirely to the drawing board, but in terms of the input that's further needed from the community
um and hopefully some suggestions for some changes that can that can make it work. Thank you. And I heard a second. So, Mr. Stambridge. Yes. Mr. Valencia, yes. Miss Brazzo,
yes. Miss Turner, yes. Miss Pado, yes. Mr. Collins, yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Thank you. Before we go on, mute whoever's phone is on.
Mr. Sebridge, for both the 11 a.m. and 11:30 a.m. U hearings, are there any requests for withdrawals or deferrals from the stock? Uh, yes, Mr. Stebridge,
please. What's the address? Yes, address. Sorry, wasn't prepared. It's uh in the 11:00 U block of hearings. Uh companion cases 1 A to 1B Mystic Street
and 223 to 225 Bunker Hill Street. So those would be cases case [Music] BOA159 8189, excuse me, and with the address of
1 A to 1B Mystic Street along with case POA 159 8199 with the address of 223 to 225 Hill Street as attorney Morance said
from your other card time frame and would you go ahead and explain please? Certainly. My name is George Morancey. I'm an attorney for the business address 350 West Broadway in South Boston. Madam Chair, it's came it's come to light that there was a uh an error in the
advertising. Uh there is a violation on one of the projects for sideyard insufficiency. It appears on the zone refusal letter. It does not appear in the legal advertising. I'd like to have a deferral so I can coordinate with ISD and get the uh both cases readvertised.
How much time do you think you'll need? Um very short amount of time. It's it's really just a matter of uh getting new advertising and notices sent out. Understood. Stephanie, um June 3rd, June 24th or July 8th? June
3rd would be good. May I have a motion? Motion to defer until June 3rd. You have a second. Second. Mr. Stebridge. Yes. Mr. Valencia. Yes. Miss Brazza.
Yes. Mr. Turner. Miss Turner. Yes. Miss Donado. Yes. Mr. Collins. Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. See. Thank you. [Music] Are there any similar requests from the
11:30 time frame? But then we will return to 9:30 cases. And next we have case BO8 167 38
95 with the address of 809 East 5th Street. I believe that would be case handled by attorney Morenzi. That is correct. Thank you, Mr. Stebridge, Madame Chair, members of the board. My name is George Moransy. I'm an attorney with business address at 350 West
Broadway in South Boston. I represent Kim Diane's wife uh and children who purchased this home some time ago. It's an existing two family dwelling at 809th Street. Uh my clients live elsewhere in South Boston on East Third Street. As
their family is growing, they've been looking for more space. The proposal is uh to renovate this existing two family, convert its legal occupancy to a single family home um with a small rear edition in the back. The rear edition is completely zoning compliant
dimensionally. Uh it adds about 370 square ft uh of living space uh to the rear of the building. As I said, it meets all dimensional setbacks. F is actually a reduction in the occupancy from two family to one. There's a single
citation on the zone refusal letter uh owing to uh the restricted roof structure provisions of article 68 section 29. Uh I have always contended that these restrictions uh should properly be understood or should
properly be construed as uh referring to the main roof of a building. Uh however, ISD uh doesn't necessarily agree. Uh the roof structure in question here is actually a rear deck uh that is off or above I should say the the second story
of the building in the rear and it's a walk out deck from the third floor. So it doesn't actually sit on the main roof of the building. So the single violation is that restricted roof structure violation under article 68 section 29 which is a conditional use and the board
is instructed to look at whether um the architectural integrity of the building is maintained by the structure. As the planning department recommendation notes, uh the uh the deck and in fact the addition in the rear itself are basically almost not visible from any
public way and uh there is no change to the main profile of the roof and that's that's all I have. Thank you. That that clarifies because there there were there were questions about whether it was a roof deck or a rear deck. Uh questions from the
board hearing none. and I have public testimony. Madame chair and members, Sigi Yanso at the Office of Neighborhood Services. This petitioner completed the ONS community process. Our office hosted an abut meeting on December 16th of 2024 at which concerns were raised about the setback and the size of the addition.
Proponents made changes to the plans after this meeting to reduce the size of the addition. Although there is still a concern from a director of butter about the location of the deck, uh the City Point Neighborhood Association is the active civic group in this area and they're in non oppoition to the proposal. With that background, we defer
judgment to the board. Thank you. Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Sydney from Councelor Flynn's office. Councelor Flynn would like to go on record and support based on a good community process, working closely with neighbors in the City Point Neighborhood Association. He respectfully request that the proponent continue to work
closely with the community on inequality of life issues during the construction phase. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, there's um Gail Hi, Gail. Hi. Um, yes, I did put in a letter of opposition concerning and my
concern is the rear deck that's off the second story in the original plans which I was not able to attend the abutters meeting but in the original plans that were presented at the abuters meeting as I understand it that was supposed to be off a bedroom and now they've changed
the plans and it is actually off the family room. So, I'm a director of butter to this building. Um, and that deck off the second story will, you know, look into our entire into our
properties. Okay. Thank you, Lan. Yes. Good morning. Lanna Corner, president of the City Quank Neighborhood Association. uh a very robust process um community process happened with this particular property where there were
several meetings um to discuss how each party could walk away uh somewhat happy. Obviously no vegan gets everything that they want but there was compromise on both uh the dark de butter that is attached to this house as well as the
new property owner. So with that um negotiations were made, agreements um were made and they were able to come to a place where both can live with the project as is. So based on that, City Point did not bring in for a vote. Um so
we will take a stand of an opposite. Thank you. Thank you. No other hands. Okay. With that, may I have a motion? Motion to put. Do I have a second? Second. Mr. Sbridge.
Yes. Mr. Valencia? Yes. Miss Browza? Yes. Miss Turner? Yes. Miss Bonado? Yes. Mr. Collins? Yes. Chair? Motion carries. Good luck. Thank you.
Next we have case BOA 168805 with the address of 605 East 2nd Street is the applicant and the representative of President going through the board.
Yes. Um good afternoon madame chair members of the board. My name is Nick Landry and I'm with DRT the architects for 605 E2. I'm joined today by Tony King of Success Design Build, a general contractor on the project. The property
owners and applicants, Britney and Shawn McNiff, are seeking to expand in their home to accommodate their growing family. They've been residents of this property for nearly four years and have lived in South Boston for over 11. With the recent addition of their second
child, this expansion has become essential to meet their family's needs. The proposed work includes adding a primary bedroom on the third floor along with a bonus room and home on uh home office at the attic level. Um to complete this, we're
seeking relief uh for a sideyard setback um on the attached single family side of the property, the right hand side of the property as the design calls for an extension of the existing party wall. Um, if you is there a presentation that was provided or is this all that we
have? Oh, perfect. Okay, great. Um, so this is uh 605 East Second. So, we're we're the house on the left with the the wood on the bottom and the bowl on the top. East Second is along the front, but our place is to our right. If we can scroll down to the next slide.
So, we've been cited for um a sideyard setback violation. I know that's very small. That's the only violation we have. We're going to be going up to just about 40 ft, which is allowable. And we're under the F. You can keep going down. Get in order to be quick. So, the
um the property here is it's an L-shaped lot. The front is on um East Second Street and then there there's kind of a hook that comes around to Bernard Place. We're we're not going to be expanding the footprint of the building. We're just going straight up. You can go to the next slide, please. I think if you I
can keep going one more. So, today there's um three levels of living, the basement, first and second floor. We're going to be adding a third floor and attic space and kind of reconfiguring the second floor to allow for
egress. Keep going down. Oops. I think if we go if you can go to the second to last slide. I think it's a a good picture of the project. One more right there. Uh back one, please. So you can see here uh um
today it's a um twotory structure matches the the attached single family home on the right. And we're proposing to go up that one and a half floors for the for the um primary suite and additional living space. Um, and I think with that I can turn it back to the
board for any questions. Thank you. Are there questions from the board? Hearing none, you may have on the testimony. Madam chair and board members, Sigy Johnson at the office of neighborhood services. This petitioner completed the ONS community process. Our office hosted in a butters meeting on
February 13th at which the project was supported and no concerns were raised. The gate of heaven neighborhood association is in non opposition to this proposal. With that background, we defer judgment to the board. Thank you. Thank you. Uh thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is S from
Councelor Flynn's office. Councelor Flynn would like to go on record and support to a to a good community process and feedback from neighbors. He respectfully requests that the proponent continue to work closely with the neighborhood on any quality of life issues that may arise during the construction phase. Thank you. Thank you.
[Music] Yes. Good morning, Madam Chair, board members. Uh thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Jennifer Salman. I live at 10 Barnard Place which is the small road uh behind this project. U I'm in full support of the Mittner family to add this third
story. Uh they're wonderful family involved in the commun community with two beautiful children and we have not had young children in this neighborhood for a very long time. So they bring a refreshing energy and are future. So
good people and their children. um I feel are an important part of any neighborhood. Sean and Britney have been a great support to the public by Bar B Barnard Place Park which is a community preservation funded project uh that abuts the back of their property. They provide much neededed electricity during
the winter when the solar power isn't strong enough for security and holiday lighting. And Shawn has volunteered several times to assist us over the years with heavy duty chores in the park. So, I'm thrilled the McNiffs want to build a life here in South Boston and raise their children in this
neighborhood. I attended their abundance meeting uh to review the designs and I have no concern. So, thank you and have a good day everyone. Thank you, ma'am. No other hands. With that, may I have a motion?
Make a motion to approve. Is there a second? Mr. Stbridge? Yeah. Mr. Valencia? Yes, Miss Better Braza. Yes, Miss Turner. Yes, Miss
Ponado. Yes, Mr. Collins. Yes. Chair votes. Yes. The motion carries. Good luck. Very much. Have a great day. Thank you. Next, we have case BOA
1681147 with the address of 821 East 3rd Street. If the applicant representative president, do we have anyone on for 821 East 3rd Street? I just promoted Peter. Peter, are you
presenting? Shall we move on to the next case? Yes, we should. I guess Patrick Hello. Are you presenting on 821 East Third Street? Yes. My name is Peter Lewendowski. I'm from LR Designs. We're
the architects on the project. Okay, let's back up and my apologies. I was in there as a watching the program and I ended as a panelist. So, I appreciate the effort. Um what we have here on this on
at 821 East Third Street is a it's a single family home. I don't know if you can mute whoever is making that background noise. Please proceed. Um it's a single family home. Uh right
now we have um the plan is to expand into the attic space um living area. One of the violations that we have is the roof structure restriction which we'd like to modify the roof to a steeper pitch. We have proposed adding some dormers which actually meet the setback
requirements. So all the work that's being done in the roof would actually meet all the setback and zoning requirements. Um the sideyard setback insufficiency is based on the house is already pre-existing non-conforming. Um and as I said the the work being done is
uh in conform to the bylaws. If you could go down to sheet A2.1, please. Um, you can you'll be able to see where the changes are to the roof. Uh, continue on down. One more, I believe. No, one more
after that. Nope. Sorry. Sneaking up on me. Down. Down. right there. So, as you can see on the uh right hand side and at the
rear, we meet the setback requirements for the roof. Um on the left hand side, the dash line is the property line. And the work that was proposed to expand the space into the attic is um inconformance with the setbacks, height requirements, and there's no relief required for the
work that was done other than article 68, section 29 and article 68, section 8. Other questions from the board? Hearing? None. May I follow the testimony? Madam Chair and board members, C. Johnson with the mayor's
office of neighborhood services. This petitioner completed the ONS community process. Our office hosted an abut's meeting on January 22nd at which a director of butter expressed concerns about the size of the third floor deck and the expansion of the dormers. proponent subsequently made changes to
the plan so that the existing footprint of the building has been substantially preserved. The City Point Neighborhood Association is in non-opposition to this proposal. With that background, we defer judgment to the board. Thank you. Hi. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. This is Sydney from Councelor
Flynn's office. Councelor Flynn would like to go on record and support based on a good community process working with neighbors in the City Point Neighborhood Association. He respectfully requests that the proponent continue to work closely with the community on any quality of life issues during the construction phase. Thank you. Thank
you. Any other raise hands? Hearing none. We have a motion that will good afternoon, president of the equipment neighborhood association. This project was tough uh between the utter and the
homeowner. uh it took a lot of of process, a lot of meetings and they were able to come to an agreement. I do want to confirm that the architect is aware and has submitted the correct plans that that roof deck um or you could call it a
third floor deck at any rate is taken off in a Juliet balcony is replacing it. That was the um concern of the dire. So I do have those plans. I I just want to make sure that the architect is aware of that because it has not been mentioned.
Um so with that one, if those are the plans that we are indeed talking about, then yes, City Point will take nonoposition based to a very long diligent uh community process. Thank you. Thank you. And uh will the applicant confirm that? Yes. Yes, we did
make the adjustments for the Julia balcony in the deck. Excellent. Thank you. And just to confirm, are there any other raised hands? No, no other hands. Okay. May I have a motion? Madam Madam Chair, I also want to confirm that the that was very evident in the elevations
as well that the Juliet balcony was shown. Uh with that, I would like to come forward a motion of approval. Thank you. Is there a second? Second, Mr. Sambridge. Yeah. Mr. Valencia. Yes. Miss Vibbralsa?
Yes. Miss Turner? Yes. Miss Bonado, yes. Mr. Collins, yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck. Thank you. Next, we have case
BO8 167 3348 with the address of 151 to 153 Enter Street. If the applicant and their representative were present, would they please explain explain to the
board? No problem. You're not sir. Is the applicant for 151 Endicott on? Hello. Yes. Can you hear me? Yes, ma'am. Okay. Hi. My name is Vanessa Angelo. I'm
the applicant for 151 to 153 Street Appeal. Um I am a business owner um currently in the state of New Hampshire. link with madam ambassador. Let me just open
their project so we can see [Music] it. Lisa or I don't know who is um working the slides. I don't have the slides. Sorry. I just wanted to see Vanessa for you to be able to share. That's okay.
Share with the with the plans. Thank you. Okay. So, basically, um I I'm looking to open a second location for my business. I'm a permanent makeup artist. So, I tattoo brows and lips primarily.
and I found a location in the north end of Boston um at 155 engine lot. Um I guess the um address that you have on file is 151-153 but 155 is actually the
storefront location on the corner of Endicott and Thatcher Street. So that is what I am talking about um today. Uh, I found out after I started renting the location and getting it ready um to open
that zoning wasn't um it it wasn't approved for a tattoo shop. And although my business is considered a beauty service and in
the beauty industry, I need to hold a tattoo license to do what I to to offer what I do to offer my services. Um, so this put me in a position where I couldn't go forward with my business
licensing until I requested a variance or an exception um to allow 155 Endicott Street to hold a tattoo license. Although I do not do any body tattooing, this is not going to be a traditional
tattoo shop by any means. I have set hours each day, Monday through Friday, that I work. Um, I offer beauty services. Um, since I have started renting the space. I have I I've been
there for about a year now. I've been paying the rent religiously. I've been keeping the corner clean. I have um I I have cameras ready to be operating and I have them already installed. I have
cleaned up the inside of the um property and it's all ready to go. I'm also prepared and have already spent a lot of my own money taking care of the CFO building code issues and also hiring an
architect to provide the city of Boston with blueprints inside of the storefront because there was none on file previously. So, I've already from out of pocket a considerable amount of money
and I'm here requesting either Alvarian or some kind of exception to allow me to continue to obtain my tattoo license and operate my beauty salon um under set
license. And I've gone to three neighborhood meetings. I have had approval from all three meetings and I have approval from various neighbors and business owners on the street and the
surrounding areas. Like I said, this has been a yearong process for me. So, I've gotten to know a lot of people in the area and um I'm really happy that everyone approves of me being there. I'm I'm really hoping that I can continue on
this endeavor at this location because I think I would be a good asset to the community. Thank you. Are there questions from the board? Hearing none, may I have public testimony? Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is My name is Jeremy
Bry representing the mayor's office of neighborhood services regarding 15153 Ender Street. our office or will defer to the board's judgment on this matter. A community process was conducted uh including the distribution of a subcommittee flyer on
January 15th of 2025. We received feedback from no constituents. Additionally, the proposal was discussed with the local civic association which convened on January 28th and February 11th. The associations have expressed support regarding the
proposal. Uh at this time the mayor's office of neighborhood services would like to defer to the board for their judgment. Thank you for your consideration and time. If one hand Sebastian good afternoon madam chair members of the board from councelor Kola Sapata's office at this time the council would
like to go and support this project. Thank you. Thank you. No other hands with that. May I have a motion? Motion to approve. Is there a second? Second. Mr. Seambridge.
Yes. Mr. Valencia. Yes. Miss Brazza. Yes. Miss Turner. Yes. Miss Bonado. Yes. Mr. Collins. Yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Good luck. Thank you.
The next two cases have been deferred. which will take us to the 11:00 a.m. hearing hearings. With that, we have four companion cases. Those are case
BOA 168901 with the address of 84R to 86R Allenale Street. Next we have case BO8168 88899 with the address of 94 R to 96R
Allenville Street. Then we have case BOA 168897 with the address of 80 to 82 Allen Hill and along with those with all BOA
1688 98 with the address of 90 to 92. If the applicant ends with representative or president would please explain to the board. Uh thank you Mr. Stebridge. Uh good afternoon madam chair, members of the board, uh attorney John Bulgini on behalf of the owner of
90 Allenale. With me the afternoon this afternoon is Gary Hendren uh who is the proposals architect together with Stephano Astra Tudakus. I apologize for that. Who is the owner of the property. Um thank you for the opportunity to
present this proposal. Now, this proposal is West Roxbury zoning and is therefore governed by article 56 of the West Roxbury neighborhood district um and it's 1 F8000. This property is 87,162 square ft. Currently has a single
family which the owner and his wife have lived in for the past 6 years. That said, I'm very excited to share this proposal which was been approved by the BPDA board in September and approved by the conservation commission in October. 90 Allenale Streets,
87,162 square ft. The site, as I stated, currently has a single family. The proposal is to raise the existing structure and build four townhouse buildings. Each building will contain two units for a collective eight units. Each unit will contain three beds and two car garages located within the
structure and the sizes are approximately 27 to 3,700 square ft. As I state, this proposal has been approved by both the BPDA as well as the conservation commission. The buildings will be arranged. The two closest to Allenale will face inward and the two that are behind those buildings and they
will be separated by a narrow road which will provide access to the homes. Uh the two uh town houses closest to Allenale identified as 80-82 Allenale and
90-92. Um, as far as the review, um, and conservation commission, we underwent a 2-year review process that included a peer review where the commission contracts with an environmental engineering firm to confirm that we're complying with all the performance
standards of the ordinance. The peer review confirmed that we are compliant with all wetland and environmental standards. The reason for this conservation review is it uh for this proposal is that we have a small intermittent stream that runs across the property and conservation wanted to make
sure that we're not impacting either the riverfront or waterfront areas. As part of the propos proposal, we're providing a conservation restriction to the southern rear side of this lot. This area is approximately an acre and will ensure this area will never be built
upon or disturbed and will enhance the open space and wildlife habitat functions. This will be overseen by the city of Boston's urban wild department. This is important for today's presentation as by developing this proposal we will ensure this property it
will be preserved as open space something that will not doesn't currently exist today. The townhouse design uh provides a much better situation for the environment as five single family homes could be structed uh could be constructed on the lot. However, five single family homes
would require far more imp impervious paved area and it would involve clear cutting to provide access to the individual homes. This would severely impact the open space and the e the BPD8 planners uh thought the townhouse style
was the best way to go. Additionally, um the few variances that we have, uh the dimensional, uh violations, those are only impacted by us. They're not impacting any of the neighbors. It was way the buildings are structured within the lot that we would
have side yard setback um and things like that. So, it's not there's nobody properties were impacted by this proposal at all. And in closing, we have worked with both the BPDA Conservation Commission for the past two years to ensure this proposal is the best proposal for this unique lot. And at
this point, I'd like to turn it over to Gary Hendren, the uh proposals architect, to walk through the plans. But thank you again for the opportunity to present. I believe Gary was a pan panelist. Um, I had sent an email uh our chat uh to
Lisa earlier. Yeah, I added Gary. He did accept. Let's check. Is he on? Mr. Virginia, do you know if he's on I believe he's on. He was on ear. I see
him. I see Gary as a panelist. Gary, can you hear us? I can hear you fine. Okay, great. Project. Okay, there I am. Yes. Can you hear me now? Yes, we can. Please proceed.
Okay. Um, yes. is we designed uh this project. Um if we could go back to the first slide. So uh the whole concept of of doing the the duplex townhouse buildings is kind of a continuation of what's
happening down Allenale Street. Uh you've got the assisted living uh to the left on this diagram. Uh to the left of us is the 120 bed assisted living. The next property is an approved project
that has 16 units um and in three buildings. So those are multi- family buildings. And then as we come through to the right of us is a single family development. So, we elected to do the duplex uh town houses
at this location as kind of again the continuation of the transition of density as you go up Valent Street. So, that's one one issue. We're on the downhill side of Allenale Street. So if you go to the next
slide, you can see um we've tried to focus again the the main windows, the main balconies and everything looking down into the site because the intermittent stream is is to the bottom of the of this rendering. And then behind us, of course, is another full
acre of open space. And that goes into the Allenale Woods property, which is again another 10 acres of open space. Next slide, please. We're very conscious of again the Allensdale Street is right in the
center of this uh cross-section showing how our building step down the hill um so that we don't block views or light or anything from the people on the other side of Allen Street, which is obviously uphill from us. Uh so there's a quite a significant drop in the grade as you
come across the property. Um, and this allows again uh saves u many trees. We've actually have a tree map and we're not taking down any major trees on the site where we place the buildings. Uh, next slide
please. This uh landscape plan again illustrates all the buildings are at the upper part of the of the site. That intermittent stream is the area that's got the red dots around it. That's where the stream runs right through the center of the property and goes down uh towards
the assisted living facility. And all those light green trees are existing trees that are to remain. So there's been a lot of work again to um work with the slopes, work with the grades, work with the conservation um of the uh
groundwater and to place the building sensitively on the site uh where we we don't block any light or air from any of the neighbors. And again, we've conformed to all the setbacks from the property lines. And the the one issue they talk about a
setback is between two buildings that are on the same lot. Um and they they put a pretend property line between the buildings and said we have a setback issue, but the buildings are actually uh 30 ft apart and we left
a big opening in the center so the the the units that are closer to Allenale have again a nice visual break between the buildings that are downhill from them. uh looking towards the green space. Um and you can see we have a very
elaborate uh and very beautiful natural materials landscaping plan to accent the natural looking uh wooded environment that we're building in. Next slide, please. All right. And we just thought
we'd show that uh each each unit again has a twocar garage, but we've customized the garage doors so it doesn't uh they're kind of camouflaged to look like again a natural part of the building. Have outdoor balconies and
lots of glass facing south. So we've responded to a lot of u natural u heating and visual elements for the buildings and all the materials are 100% natural materials u with stone
walkways uh wood sighting and we're really trying to blend into what we consider the natural environment at this location. Next slide please. And we've left that very large open space down through the center so all the
people who are living here can come down and enjoy the u this beautiful lawn area that comes down to the stream. And then once of course you cross the stream, you're into uh the over 10 acres of of wooded area for hiking and for
recreation. And if we have any questions, be glad to answer them. Sorry. Thank you. Are there questions from the board? Just in regards to sustainability measures, what um sustainable performance criteras are you
aiming for? Oh yeah. U this is all passive house design. So we've we've superinsulated the units. Uh we're using uh again uh very
yeah that's great I understand the principles behind it. I just wanted to understand whether you were making this passive house so thank you so much for that. Okay other questions from the board hearing none and public testimony. Yes, madame chair, members of the board,
Connor Newman with the mayor's office of neighborhood services. At this time, the mayor's office to defer to the judge of this board. Uh some background information the community process. As you heard, uh this went through a Boston planning and conservation uh commission community process. I'm sure project manager Dylan Norris can elaborate on
that. Um due to the proximity of this proposal with Jamaica Plane, um Jamaica Plane Civics were involved with the community process. Uh the applicant met with the Jamaica Hills Neighborhood Association, the Jamaica Plane Neighborhood Council. Uh both uh were in opposition ultimately uh with the
proposal. Um during the committee process, I understand there was changes made with reductions to the original density that was proposed. Um we did hear from some residents concerns regarding the loss of tree canopy, uh the height of the proposed building.
There was fears that uh neighbors would be able to see um these new homes. also um some heavy opposition from the civics and some from neighbors regarding the proposed um multif family use on that property. Uh there was also concerns expressed regarding
um cutthrough traffic in Allenale and this increasing the amount of traffic on a road that many residents feel there's not enough existing infrastructure on. Um there was also some concerns regarding affordability. Uh we did receive eight letters in support. Um I
believe one or two of those was from Jamaica Plane or Roslandale. Uh those residents uh felt that the design was aesthetically pleasing uh and that it was um the architectural work was complementing the existing uh natural features and they were pleased with the
preservation of a lot of the tree canopy on the property. Uh with that information, we'll defer to the board. Thank you. Thank you. I have Dylan, Mr. Norris. Madam Chair, members of the board, my name is Dylan Norris and as Connor said, I'm the project assistant with the
development review division for the planning department and the project manager for the article 80 small project before you today. Uh, just to provide a little context on the article 80 process. The proponent team for 90 Allenale filed a small project review application under article 80 of the
zoning code with the planning department on April 22nd, 2024. The public comment period for this filing was open and extended until May 31st, 2024. The planning department hosted a virtual public meeting via Zoom on May 20th,
2024. Meeting was advertised in the local newspapers uh posted on the planning department's calendar. Uh the meeting was well attended. An email notification was also sent out to the subscriber of the planning department's West Roxberry distribution list and Jamaic plane distribution list. Um and
then subsequently the project was brought before and approved by the BPDA board on September 12th of 2024. I would uh be happy to answer any other questions from the members uh that they may have related to the article 80 process. Thank you.
You Tony. Hello. My name is Tony Lass. I live at 102 Fletcher Street in Rosendale. Um uh the first thing I'd like to do is I need to provide a correction. The architect uh has repeatedly referred to the urban wild. It's only 10 acres. It's actually
100 acres. Um this is Allenale Woods is a Boston park. It's considered uh the gem of the urban wilds. And in fact, the urban wilds have really taken off in the last five or six years under the dedication of all the employees there.
and uh hundreds of thousands of dollars have been invested into the space as well as thousands of hours of volunteer labor. Um what this particular um development uh is is a blatant uh
exploitation of both the u neighborhood effort and the city's investment in this space. Um the uh area was zoned uh as single family in the early 1990s in a very deliberate process and the purpose
was to keep uh development from the Faulner hospital from moving down Allenale Road and what's happened now is that uh this this uh investor bought this property with the fully aware that
there was large opposition. The adjacent property which has been approved is still in court. Uh in terms of land court, the significance of this property is that urban wilds are intended for uh largely they're almost like a national park. They're there for wildlife and for
a real uh ability for uh Boston residents to be able to get into a space that is away from any kind of obvious uh development. And in this case, immediately below this site, uh, white tail deer regularly uh, bed down within
probably 75 yards of the proposed location of this site. Um there are coyotes that are in there and also Boston has only two vernal pole sites uh in the entire city and one of those is immediately downstream of this and has been the subject particularly with the
conservation commission uh of a lot of work uh around this and they're still concerned that uh given the amount of construction on such a steep slope that the vernal pool could be impacted or destroyed. In fact, what I would like to
see is I'd like to see a $250,000 bond posted uh by the developer so that if that vernal pool is uh ruined uh during or after construction uh um that uh there'll be there'll be sufficient money to restore it. Also within the woods
there are fisher cats. For people who aren't familiar with fisher cats, fisher cats are a very large weasel that are generally considered almost a wilderness animal. And uh to have them present in this space is pretty remarkable. There are uh uh cooper hawks which are small
woodland hawk. There are great blue heron. There's uh other types of waiting birds that are common to this space. And so in this particular case, this development seeks to be able to have uh and it's going to be with 45 foot uh um
buildings on a steep slope. it will be able to be seen throughout about a third of the entire Allenville Woods area, which is essentially destroying the purpose of the idea of the urban wild. Um, and uh, and it'll affect also the use of the wildlife in that area. Um, if
it were to be approved, I'd ask that the board make contingencies that all lighting uh both from the interior and also in terms of anything on the roads uh be uh sufficiently uh modernized to minimize any kind of light intrusion
into the woods. Um the other thing that actually is also particularly gling on this Yep. is that this is purposefully an 8-unit development to fall below the threshold that would require one unit of affordable housing. These units will
sell for 2 to $2.5 million. That will be from 16 to $20 million um in total and that's going to be going into the pocket of of just the developer to provide ultra wealthy h ultra housing for the
wealthy. U that's going to denigrate a Boston park. I ask the board to protect Boston parks and to say no to this kind of development because it will happen throughout the rest of the city. Thank you. Thank Yes. Hello. Good afternoon. Can you all
hear me? Yes, sir. Yes. Thank you. Uh Frank O'Brien, business address, 35 Har Street High Park. I'm here to recommend that the board deny this application. Uh very simply focusing on the zoning
issues and the zoning code which the board has jurisdiction over. Um it doesn't meet the requirement of the minimal variance required to have reasonable use of the land. We've submitted material showing that the applicant can make reasonable use of the
land without requiring a use variance. Um, we don't agree respectfully with Attorney Keni's characterization that an as of right would be more destructive. In fact, it would be less destructive. We think the evidence shows that. Notwithstanding the BPDA and
Conservation Commission approvals, those bodies do not enforce the zoning code, which this body does. And there's a wellestablished path if the city wants to increase density in less dense neighborhoods like
Allenale. Uh and that's through application for a petition for a zoning change. And the the variances requested are not justified by the code. So we respectfully recommend that it be denied. Thank you. Thank you. Last one's
Christina. Can you all hear me? Yes, ma'am. Oh, great. Um, so I live directly across the street from the proposed development at 103 Allenale Street. And again, I actually share the similar concern as uh the person before me regarding the zoning because we recently just bought
into this. We looked around, everything around us was zoned single family. And now it seems like every time a house is sold, it could turn into anything. It could be a condo or it could be town houses based simply on this variance. And so what I would like is that if they really want projects like this to go
through, then let's reszone the entire neighborhood properly. Let's put it so there's actually a sidewalk on both side of the streets and crosswalk to get across the street. Let's make the bus that accesses the orange line come more than hourly because basically it's this weird thing where we're trying to make
it more dense, but just through every single time the house is sold, it could turn into anything instead of staying single family home. So, as a resident, it's just kind of frustrating and confusing. I wouldn't have a problem to it to it being for single family homes, but I don't like how it keeps changing
into condos or town houses when that goes directly against the zoning code. Thank you. President all the hands. Madam Chair, may I have a minute just to respond quickly? Yes, please. For some reason, my camera went out. I think
whatever somebody else said earlier, it's been ages. Um, I just want to bring up the first issue that was brought up with respect to the vernal pool and any impacts on the uh urban wildlife. As I said, we went through a two-year process. the commissioner of the um
conservation commission stated that for a project this size it was the most in-depth analysis anybody has done. It was an independent peer review which they hire a a company that is un unassociated with us at all and they
came back with their findings and that that company came back and said that we are 100% in compliance with all of this with respect to the two families. Um this is uh the BPDA if you can just I'll just take one minute. The proposed this
is their words not our words. These are the landscape architects and the architects and the planners at the BPDA. The pro proposed project aligns with the preservation goal of the open space and recreation plan with respect to the Allenale woods stewards conservation the forest city area of the possible staff
find the proposed project design reflects a balance of the policy goals of creation of new housing conservation of Boston tree canopy to preserve open space in the rare half of this project proponents will include certain restrictions. The significant setbacks
from the the stream on the project site offered the opportunity to preserve potential wetland and vegetation on site. The open space and recreation plan recognized in this area that Jamaica plane and westberry nonforested wetlands dominated by diverse collection of native species. This is determined by
the zoning relief is warranted due to the unique conditions of the project site. the balance of parcel could be subdivided to approximately 5 8,000 square foot lots and a subdivision such as this would yield a consistent with zoning. Um and
it would be uh as of right a proposed eight uh detached homes, excuse me, will share a common driveway paid with permial pavers and the proposed use and site design have been reviewed and attendance attention to minimizing mature canopy, clear
cutting, maximizing uh permeable surface area and preserving the character of the uh this area Jamaica plant. So we're we're deeding half of this property to the urban wild. This will prevent down the road any company coming in and doing a a larger scale development. We have 16
units permanent to our left that has been adjudicated fully and on the other side we have a 100 units that are associated associated with the spring house. This is um a project that went through extensive review uh not just by
the BPDA parks but also by conservation. Thank you. Thank you. Are there other questions from the board? Hearing none. Is there a motion? I'll make a motion to approve. Um I think that it
it's both to the you know the open areas and the water, but I think they've gone through the right steps and it's been a long time in permitting and planning. I think it's a well thoughtout project between the developer of the city and conservation. Is there a second?
Second. Mr. Sbridge. Yeah. Mr. Valencia. Yes. Miss Better Braza. Yes. Miss Turner.
Sorry, Miss Turner. She's on mute. I apologize. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Uh, Miss Fado, yes. Mr. Collins, yes. Chair votes yes. The motion carries. Thank
you. Enjoy the rest of your day. And let's take a 15-minute break.